« Skin = Sin? | Main | Galactica Season Three »
April 07, 2006
More On The Gospel Of Judas
(Jimmy Akin)
It's nice to see Catholic news sources getting the message out there that all the "Gospel of Judas" hype is, well, hype.
HERE'S A GOOD PIECE FROM ZENIT.
AND ANOTHER FROM CATHOLIC NEWS SERVICE.
One of the refreshing things about these pieces is how utterly contemptuous the experts being interviewed are about hullabaloo over the Gospel of Judas.
When asked whether the document will "shake Christistianity to its foundations," the Zenit expert replies:
Certainly not. The Gnostic gospels, of which there are many besides this one, are not Christian documents per se, since they proceed from a syncretistic sect that incorporated elements from different religions, including Christianity.
From the moment of their appearance, the Christian community rejected these documents because of their incompatibility with the Christian faith.
The CNS expert is even more blunt:
"It was junk then and it is junk now," he said.
Posted by Jimmy Akin in Bible | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/24994/4621986
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference More On The Gospel Of Judas:
Comments
In 3506 C.E., a cyborg in Xi'an sold an ancient plastic disk to a cultural antiquities dealer. It was alleged to have come from a place known as the Holy Wood over 1500 years ago.
After much effort, archeologists were able to decode the text encrypted on one side of the disc, and found it to be an ancient Christian religious text that was rejected by the authroities of the time.
It provides proof in the believe that God is actually an old man from Africa, and that his Son was a reluctant participant in what is called by Ancient Christians the Gospel.
Scholars of ancient religions have confirmed that this disc is genuine, and that the account on the disc was widely disseminated in the early 21st century, with many people paying to view it.
The name of this text, found on one side of the ancient disc, was Bruce Almighty.
Posted by: Old Zhou | Apr 7, 2006 12:17:58 PM
Just posted this over on Amy's blog so I thought I would add my commentary here knowinf full well I will get the normal bashing by Tim J. et al but I love God's gift of free press.
ZENIT asked Legionary Father Thomas D. Williams, dean of theology at the Regina Apostolorum university in Rome, to comment on the relevance of the discovery. "
Father Williams noted:
"The text could not have been written by eyewitnesses, the way at least two of the canonical Gospels were."
There appears to be some dispute about this. What two eyewitnesses is he referring to?
Father Williams also noted:
"Being omniscient, God knows full well what choices we will make and weaves even our bad decisions into his providential plan for the world. "
There also is some dispute about this (as previously noted on this blog). As per Father Edward Schillebeeckx, contemporary Catholic theologian and author noted:
"Christians must give up a perverse, unhealthy and inhuman doctrine of predestination without in so doing making God the great scapegoat of history" . "Nothing is determined in advance: in nature there is chance and determinism; in the world of human activity there is possibility of free choices. Therefore the historical future is not known even to God; otherwise we and our history would be merely a puppet show in which God holds the strings. For God, too, history is an adventure, an open history for and of men and women." Church: The Human Story of God, Crossroad, p.91,1993 (softcover).
In my opinion, Schillebeeckx's statement/ conclusion is one of the most important of the last two millennia as it makes humankind responsible for the history of humankind and voids all Old Testament prophecies.
Posted by: Realist | Apr 7, 2006 12:37:20 PM
Without in any way bothering to contradict anything you say, Realist, I would just like to point out that your quotes from Schillebeeckx (at least up to the "therefore") in no way conflict with or oppose the Fr. Williams quote against which you have putatively pitted them.
Fr. Williams said nothing about predestination or determination in advance. Fr. Schillebeeckx's inadmissible leaps in logic aside, you've basically failed to document your own point. Mind, it's quite true as you say that "There is some dispute about this" (though what that has to do with anything I can't imagine). I'm just saying.
Posted by: SDG | Apr 7, 2006 12:45:00 PM
You're such a good comedian, Realist.
Posted by: | Apr 7, 2006 12:53:48 PM
Realist,
The bashing only occurs because you keep banging your head against a wall and expecting a different result.
Have a prayerful Holy Week.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Posted by: Inocencio | Apr 7, 2006 12:59:01 PM
The only explanation I can think of for why this is getting so much hype is that it's the first big discovery of this sort since The DaVinci Code hit it big. People who became aware of non-canonical/heretical/gnostic writings such as the Gospel of Thomas through that book are jumping on this, not aware that serious historians and theologians have been fully aware that such documents exist since day one of the Church and the heresies that sprung up around it.
The problem is perpetuated by organizations like National Geographic who see this as a great opportunity to jump on the DaVinci bandwagon by hyping it up as they have been. As a result, the average person - who is neither equipped to nor interested in examining the serious scholarship concerning texual criticism of ancient texts, the early history of Christianity, etc, but who has read Dan Brown's book and is convinced that the little "Fact" at the beginning stating that all the talk about secret societies and Vatican cover-ups contained within is true - ends up thinking that a finding like the Gospel of Judas will finally reveal all the dirty little secrets that the Vatican just must be keeping because a fictional work written to make a buck said so.
The best part is that if I try and explain this to someone who doesn't already recognize the absurdity of the popular opinion on this matter, I get ignored. Needless to say, I'm a little bitter.
Posted by: Mike | Apr 7, 2006 1:05:25 PM
"Realist"-
Not sure how you drew your conclusions, but they don't follow from the text.
God certainly KNOWS the future, but human actions are a result of our free will. And despite the bad choices humans may make, that doesn't mean that all hope is gone. We can learn from the past to help us do better in the future.
2 eyewitnesses - John and Matthew, who were 2 of the 12 apostles, vs. Luke and Mark, who were (presumably) not eyewitnesses.
Posted by: Mike | Apr 7, 2006 1:09:24 PM
Oh, and Realist, that a particular theologian denies that divine omniscience extends to knowledge about the future does not mean the matter is settled. Check out Summa Theologiae part I, article 10, questions 2 and 5 for an alternative view.
Posted by: Mike | Apr 7, 2006 1:10:13 PM
Tabloid quality scholarship... sigh.
Posted by: Kevin Jones | Apr 7, 2006 3:14:01 PM
Dissenters never believe anything is settled doctrine unless and until it is settled in a way they like.
Until then, they always claim it is under dispute... because, well, they dispute it!
If tomorrow an encyclical issued forth stating that sexual behavior had no moral content, you would find that suddenly, all the dissenters would become staunch supporters of Papal Authority, and would walk around wearing t-shirts with "Rome has Spoken" printed in big red letters.
Posted by: Tim J. | Apr 7, 2006 3:17:12 PM
I caught some of this on ABC last night. They decided to only interview the guy who whole-heartedly accepted the Gospel of Judas as truth and thought that it fit perfectly with the other gospels.
Posted by: Benedict | Apr 7, 2006 3:40:48 PM
ABC=Always Bashing Christians.
Posted by: bill912 | Apr 7, 2006 3:42:05 PM
Tim J.,
My wife was recently given a letter, written by a "traditionlist" organization, not to long ago about Cardinal Hoyos comments about the SSPX. It kept saying over and over "Rome has spoken".
It was amazing to me that when the pope publicly acknowledged that five named clerics had excommunicated themselves by a schismatic act "Rome had not spoken" was all I heard from this group. Yet a cardinal says what this group wanted to hear and from the rooftops "We win, Rome has spoken".
I guess some groups think that the authority of the hierarcy comes only from the we-know-we-are-right laity when and if they approve of what is being said and not from God.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Posted by: Inocencio | Apr 7, 2006 3:59:38 PM
If tomorrow an encyclical issued forth stating that sexual behavior had no moral content, you would find that suddenly, all the dissenters would become staunch supporters of Papal Authority
There'd then be those who'd dissent insisting that because the Pope was not speaking ex cathedra, that the Pope must have made a mistake, or that his words are not being understood correctly.
Posted by: Long John Silvers | Apr 7, 2006 4:16:03 PM
The CNS expert is even more blunt: "It was junk then and it is junk now," he said.
CNS expert, an authority on junk.
Posted by: Fr. O'Really | Apr 7, 2006 6:39:24 PM
Mike,
You noted: "2 eyewitnesses - John and Matthew, who were 2 of the 12 apostles, vs. Luke and Mark, who were (presumably) not eyewitnesses. "
Raymond Brown, one of the Pope's favorite biblical scholars, notes: "Date of Matthew's Gospel, 80-90 AD, Author by tradition, St. Matthew the Apostle,
Probable Author, A Greek Speaker who know Aramaic or Hebrew and was not an eyewitness of Jesus' ministry." (An Introduction to the New Testament, hardback, Doubleday, NY, 1997, p. 172
For a discussion about the author of John's Gospel see the same book, p. 334 and p. 369. Conclusion, someone named John but not the Apostle but possibly an eyewitness but more likely a redactor of the eyewitness's writings.
And:
"The supposition that the author was one and the same with the beloved disciple is often advanced as a means of insuring that the evangelist did witness Jesus' ministry. Two other passages are advanced as evidence of the same - 19:35 and 21:24. But both falter under close scrutiny. 19:35 does not claim that the author was the one who witnessed the scene but only that the scene is related on the sound basis of eyewitness. 21:24 is part of the appendix of the gospel and should not be assumed to have come from the same hand as that responsible for the body of the gospel. Neither of these passages, therefore, persuades many Johannine scholars that the author claims eyewitness status. "
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/john.html
Posted by: Realist | Apr 7, 2006 6:51:56 PM
Inocencio,
More thoughts that continue "bang in my head":
Schillebeeckx's commentary was made to Dutch Catholics after they started to blame God for the destruction of their North Sea Walls and the great loss of life after the destruction. Sound familiar?
His words, "Therefore the historical future is not known even to God; otherwise we and our history would be merely a puppet show in which God holds the strings. For God, too, history is an adventure, an open history for and of men and women." Church: The Human Story of God, Crossroad, p.91,1993 (softcover) would be quite appropriate for those that blame God for Katrina don't you think?
Strange how people who are significantly stupid to live next to the sea and below sea level blame God when walls and levees fail.
Posted by: Realist | Apr 7, 2006 6:55:32 PM
So, Realist, I assume you agree that the historicity of this new "Gospel of Judas" is bunk as well?
Posted by: Tim J. | Apr 7, 2006 7:17:21 PM
AN STRAIGHTFORWARDLY ORTHODOX JESUIT (who is not Fr. Pacwa) !!!!!!!!!??
It is a sign of the apocalypse!!! Run for your very lives!!!
Seriously, remember the good old days when heresy like this meant that Christians died horrible deaths by the bus-load? You only find that kind of martyrdom in Communist and Muslim countries now.
I think it is a real sign of the failure of the Church and Christians in general that in this country Christ himself bears the brunt of this assault.
I would rather be mauled by lions than to stand idly by while mainstream organizations like National Geographic and Doubleday create a whole cottage industry out of blaspheming Our Lord.
I cannot stand the Christ is suffering without more people stepping up to receive ridicule at His noble side.
Posted by: StubbleSpark | Apr 7, 2006 8:28:25 PM
The gospel of Judas was the big front page story in Canada's largest circulation newspaper today.
http://tinyurl.com/h4wj4
Posted by: BillyHW | Apr 7, 2006 8:49:29 PM
Ok Realist,
One more time real slow.
S c h i l l e b e e c k x h a s n o a u t h o r i t y...n o n e...
You accept him because he says what you want to hear. You quote everyone you give authority to and ignore clear God-given Church authority and teaching. And of course you will accuse me of bashing you because I quote the Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scriptures and Magisterium.
"That all these things should come to pass, I say, our Teacher foretold, He who is both Son and Apostle of God the Father of all and the Ruler, Jesus Christ; from whom also we have the name of Christians. Whence we become more assured of all the things He taught us, since whatever He beforehand foretold should come to pass, is seen in fact coming to pass; and this is the work of God, to tell of a thing before it happens, and as it was foretold so to show it happening." St. Justin Martyr - First Apology 155 A.D.
Deut. 18:18 - He will be raised up as a prophet - Matt. 21:11, Luke 7:16; John 6:14; 7:40 - Jesus is identified as this prophet.
Isaiah 61:1-2 - the Spirit of the Lord is upon Him - Luke 4:21 - Jesus says that He has fulfilled this prophecy.
CCC 2115 God can reveal the future to his prophets or to other saints. Still, a sound Christian attitude consists in putting oneself confidently into the hands of Providence for whatever concerns the future, and giving up all unhealthy curiosity about it. Improvidence, however, can constitute a lack of responsibility.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Posted by: Inocencio | Apr 7, 2006 10:12:05 PM
Hello, Realist!
Unless his context led in a different direction, Schillebeeckx was weirdly wrong. For one thing, the Catechism says (paragraph 600) "To God, all moments of time are present in their immediacy. When therefore he establishes his eternal plan of 'predestination,' he includes in it each person's free response to his grace."
I've always thought that the whole problem of prdestination and free will derives from "If God knows what I'm gonna do next Tuesday, then I'm not free to choose what I'll do next Tuesday." But this implicitly assumes that God experiences time sequentially, as we do -- "now it's 2006, it used to be 2005, soon it'll be 2007 ..."
Actually, God doesn't "remember" or "foresee" anything. It's all happening live, now, from His perspective. God is no more locked into being exclusively in 2006 than He's locked into being excluseively in Chicago. He's in all times and all spaces at once. The moment of me typing is no more "now" to Him than the moment of my birth -- or of my death. He's looking at the whole show at once, and observing each free choice we make as we make it.
It's crazy to imagine, as Schillebeeckx apparently did, that God can be surprised by what happens "next"!
Posted by: Tim Powers | Apr 8, 2006 12:17:34 AM
Realist,
"Raymond Brown, one of the Pope's favorite biblical scholars, notes: "Date of Matthew's Gospel, 80-90 AD, Author by tradition, St. Matthew the Apostle."
Since all studied scholars on the matter consider Matthew's Gospel to be the first written, it may have been written within about 20 years of the events of the crucifixion since it came before Luke's Gospel which was then followed by Luke's Book of Acts, and the Book of Acts was completed before the destruction of the temple in A.D. 70.
John's Gospel was followed by the Revelation which implied that the temple was still standing when it was written. Therefore both it and the Gospel of John were completed before A.D. 70.
'...in the world of human activity there is possibility of free choices. Therefore the historical future is not known even to God; otherwise we and our history would be merely a puppet show in which God holds the strings.'
Do you consider yourself responsible for what happens to people you see on the TV news? Why should God be any more responsible for causing every minute event of the future he has already seen your freewill create?
'For God, too, history is an adventure, an open history for and of men and women.'
That's an interesting way of putting it. Perhaps he misspoke for, in a manner of speaking, one could describe all eternity as already being history to God. Whereas for us, it is the future that holds the adventure.
Posted by: Cary | Apr 8, 2006 12:55:25 AM
Realist,
God is constant.
Time is the measure of change.
Thus God is not in time, He created it and is not held ransom by it.
Think Bayeux Tapestry and one person looking at it.
Posted by: tinman | Apr 8, 2006 4:15:03 AM
The desire to put God in time and say he doesn't know what will happen next comes from the "problem of evil." This is also a relevant topic concerning all the evil surrounding the da Vinci Code and the "Gospel of Judas". Why does a good God allow bad things to happen?
Answer 1: it is a great mystery
Answer 2: God gives men and angels free will and does not prevent them from excersising it, even to their own harm
Answer 3: to bring about a greater good.
Answer 3.5: He takes it into account in His plan for history, and remains totally the Master of history.
If one accepts these truths, all will be made clear. There is even a certain beauty to it, if you have eyes to see (wich is diffucult if you are caught up in the evil and suffering yourself)
Though perhaps not all can grasp the beauty of the genre, or undertand its subtleties, I might recommend Realist read J. R. R. Tolkein's The Silmarillion with an eye to its theological reflections to gain a deep down understanding of this point of view. Often the intelect can not grasp something when the will rebels. A few quotes:
"Then Ilúvatar [God] spoke, and he said: 'Mighty are the Ainur [angels/gods] and mightiest among them is Melkor [Lucifer]; but that he may know, and all the Ainur, that I am Ilúvatar, those things that ye have sung, I will show them forth, that ye may see what ye have done. And thou, Melkor, shalt see that no theme may be played that hath not its uttermost source in me, nor can any alter the music in my despite. For he that attempteth this shall prove but mine instrument in the devising of things more wonderful, which he himself hath not imagined.'"
"And Ilúvatar spoke to Ulmo, and said: 'Seest thou not how here in this little realm in the Deeps of Time Melkor hath made war upon thy province? He hath bethought him of bitter cold immoderate, and yet hath not destroyed the beauty of thy fountains, nor of thy clear pools. Behold the snow, and the cunning work of frost! Melkor hath devised heats and fire without restraint, and hath not dried up thy desire, nor utterly quelled the music of the sea. Behold rather the height and glory of the clouds, and the everchanging mists; and listen to the fall of rain upon the Earth! And in these clouds thou art drawn nearer to Manwë [king of the Ainur and lord of the sky], thy friend, whom thou lovest.'
Then Ulmo answered: 'Truly, Water is become now fairer than my heart imagined, neither had my secret thought conceived the snowflake, nor in all my music was contained the falling of the rain. I will seek Manwë, that he and I may make melodies for ever to thy delight!'"
"But at that last word of Fëanor [a rebellious elf]: that at the least the Noldor [the followers of Fëanor] should do deeds to live in song for ever, he [Manwë] raised his head, as one that hears a voice far off, and he said 'So shall it be! Dear-bought those songs shall be accounted, and yet shall be well-bought. For the price could be no other. Thus even as Eru [God, Ilúvatar] spoke to us shall beauty not before conceived be brought into Eä [the Universe], and evil yet be good to have been.'
But Mandos [guardian of the dead] said: 'And yet remain evil. To me shall Fëanor come soon.'
Posted by: J. R. Stoodley | Apr 8, 2006 6:30:32 AM
Tim J.,
You asked, "So, Realist, I assume you agree that the historicity of this new "Gospel of Judas" is bunk as well?"
As with all Gospels, the later it is written the more unreliable and the more it is embellished.
The Gospel of Judas does have some verifying facts if you want to "Crossanize" it. First it verifies that Jesus was an actual person. Many still don't believe this but see Crossan's list of first and second century historic biblical documents. These plus the publications of Josephus (as noted by Crossan in his The Historical Jesus) , Jesus lived and was crucified. See http://www.faithfutures.org/Jesus/Crossan1.rtf and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus
The Gospel of Judas would be placed apparently in Crossan's FOURTH STRATUM [120-150 CE/AD] along with the Didache etc.
The attestations of the Crucifixion as per Crossan: http://www.faithfutures.org/Jesus/Crossan2.rtf 5+. Crucifixion of Jesus:(1) 1 Cor 15:3b; (2a) Gos. Pet. 4:10-5:16,18-20; 6:22; (2b) Mark 15:22-38 = Matt 27:33-51a = Luke 23:32-46; (2c) John 19:17b-25a,28-36; (3) Barn. 7:3-5; (4a) 1 Clem. 16:3-4 (=Isaiah 53:1-12); (4b) 1 Clem. 16.15-16 (=Psalm 22:6-8); (5a) Ign. Mag. 11; (5b) Ign. Trall. 9:1b; (5c) Ign. Smyrn. 1.2. 6. (the Gospel of Judas?)
Crossan's analysis of the conduct of Judas was already rated as non-historic so the story as told in the Gospel of Judas would definitely be rated the same. Being a single attestation from the Fourth Statum would also result in the same rating.
http://www.faithfutures.org/Jesus/Crossan2.rtf
267-. Judas Promised Money: (1a) Mark 14:10-11 = Matt 26:14-16 = Luke 22:3-6, (1b) John 13:27a
http://www.faithfutures.org/JDB/jdb267.html
269±. Jesus Arrested: (1a) Mark 14:43-50 = Matt 26:47-56 = Luke 22:47-53, (1b) John 18:1-12,20
380-. Suicide of Judas: (1) Matt 27:3-10, (2) Acts1:15-20a;
489-. Matthias Replaces Judas: (1) Acts
1:20b-26 http://www.faithfutures.org/JDB/jdb489.html
Posted by: Realist | Apr 8, 2006 7:35:48 AM
Realist,
Please stop banging you head against the rock, please.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Posted by: Inocencio | Apr 8, 2006 7:50:09 AM
Regarding God being outside of time, the analogy that finally helped me get a grip on it was this: read Slaughterhouse 5 by Kurt Vonnegut (and you should, anyway). Consider Vonnegut's description of how the Tralfamadorians see time. That's how it works for God (to the best of our knowledge).
Posted by: Mike Koenecke | Apr 8, 2006 10:38:43 AM
Inocencio,
I crush my rocks with another one of God's great gifts, i.e. common sense. When you get time, you might want to add some to your current take on our religion. You will be surprised how easy it is to wipe away the embellishments to see the historic truth of it all.
Still waiting for the second coming!!
The Realist
Posted by: Realist | Apr 8, 2006 11:40:24 AM
Realist,
The Catholic Church believes Sacred Scripture is the divinely inspired word of God. Regardless of who the human author may have been, the primary author is the Holy Spirit, which means that all that Scripture proposes as true is true. More profoundly, the entire Bible, being indeed the word of God, can be compressed quite simply into the single Eternal Word of God, Jesus.
We also believe that Sacred Tradition, guarded by and taught by the Church, is the revelation of God, part of which is the cannon of Sacred Scriptures, and doctrines that are totally contrary to the "Gospel of Judas."
The theological virtue of Faith is belief in God, in all that He has said, and in all that His Church proposes as true.
If you do not have this faith, which is a free gift from God, ask for it. If you will not ask for it, I fear I must conclude you have hardend your heart against God.
If you receive and accept this faith, you will not have to worry about what faithless modern scholars may say. Faith is not opposed to reason, but unlike the true Faith those who rely on reason can make mistakes.
"The lamp of the body is the eye. If your eye is sound, your whole body will be filled with light; but if your eye is bad, your whole body will be in darkness. And if the light in you is darkness, how great will the darkness be."
Posted by: J. R. Stoodley | Apr 8, 2006 11:41:51 AM
J. R. Stoodley,
Well stated.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Posted by: Inocencio | Apr 8, 2006 11:57:44 AM
Realist-
Again, you keep saying "our religion" as if we have the same one.
Your views are neither Catholic nor Christian.
Your common sense is uncommon nonsense.
Posted by: Tim J. | Apr 8, 2006 11:59:57 AM
If you receive and accept this faith, you will not have to worry about what faithless modern scholars may say.
Looking at the numerous and lengthy responses to Realist might make one wonder who's received and accepted this faith.
Posted by: Fr. O'Really | Apr 8, 2006 2:17:34 PM
"Looking at the numerous and lengthy responses to Realist might make one wonder who's received and accepted this faith."
Make one wonder? Possibly. Two or more? Not likely. Answers to questions and objections cannot be given by those who do not have answers, and would not be withheld by those who do. If you believe you have the answers then you must have faith. To question the faith of those who answer says more about the one who questions.
Posted by: Cary | Apr 8, 2006 2:47:58 PM
Fr. O'Really,
If you are indead a Catholic priest, your guidance could be quite valuable if you would be more specific about the matter. Your comment is stimulating, though. It is something to meditate on. Might one defend the faith in an attempt to strengthen one's own faith? Perhaps, but let's not discredit all who for one reason or another chose like me to contribute to this discussion with such a simple cutting comment. "Judge not, and you will not be judged."
Posted by: J. R. Stoodley | Apr 8, 2006 3:01:27 PM
INDEED a Catholic priest
Sorry, I should start checking the spelling of these.
Posted by: J. R. Stoodley | Apr 8, 2006 3:07:47 PM
If you believe you have the answers then you must have faith.
Realist offered his answers too.
To question the faith of those who answer says more about the one who questions.
That is what I said.
Posted by: Fr. O'Really | Apr 8, 2006 3:28:11 PM
It looks to me like the No-Name troll is now pretending to be a priest. That strikes me as rudeness.
Posted by: bill912 | Apr 8, 2006 3:33:05 PM
"If I speak in human and angelic tounges, but do not have love, I am an resounding gong or a clashing cymbal. And if I have the gift of prophecy, and comprehend all mysteries and all knowledge; if I have all faith so as to move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing....Love never fails. If there are prohpecies, they will be brought to nothing; if tongues, they will cease; if knowledge, it will be brought to nothing. For we know partially and we prophesy partially, but when the perfect comes, the partial will pass away....At present we see indistinctly, as in a mirror, but then face to face. At present I know partially; then I shall know fully as I am fully known. So faith, hope, love remain, these three; but the greatest of these is love."
I think all of us are Christians, so let's not forget what it is all about.
Posted by: J. R. Stoodley | Apr 8, 2006 3:49:37 PM
Gee, and I thought that the "Gospel of Judas" was the training manual for the USCCB, the Union of Stupendously Cretinous and Corrupt Bishops.... ;)
Posted by: Joseph D'Hippolito | Apr 8, 2006 4:38:52 PM
" 'If you believe you have the answers then you must have faith.'
Realist offered his answers too."
Realist has answers to his own faith, not Christianity. The dissagreements he raises deserve answers from those who do embrace Christianity.
" 'To question the faith of those who answer says more about the one who questions.'
That is what I said."
Not really. It is one thing to question the faith of someone you dissagree with. Who wouldn't do that? It would be quite another for a priest to question the faith of those who defend Christianity with reasoned answers. Any real priest would understand the difference. "If you must judge, judge righteously." No, I guess it's not any more relevant than when you quoted the first part.
Posted by: Cary | Apr 8, 2006 6:24:08 PM
Father O'Really is up there with Ima Butt as a prank name.
Posted by: Eileen R | Apr 8, 2006 7:23:49 PM
This I figured as well, but wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt. A quick Google search revieled that O'Really is apparently a real name. Since he has refused to give up his habit of short biting comments, I suspect you are right, Bill912 and Eileen R. Perhaps Realist in disguise?
Let's not wory about it too much though. See my above post, quoting 2 Corinthians.
Posted by: J. R. Stoodley | Apr 8, 2006 7:39:11 PM
Well Cary, I offered the observation as I posted it, not as some have apparently opted to interpret it. If one of the faith looks upon Realist as a "faithless modern scholar" or some such, then as another poster suggested, "you will not have to worry about what" he says. Yet we see post after post, lengthy ones at that, taking aim at what Realist says, banging heads, if you will. I found in it a moment of reflection on the meaning of faith.
I'm not interested in derogatory questioning or characterization of anyone's faith, nor have I, nor am I interested in head banging with you. If anyone is banging his head, may he get the message.
P.S. I'm quite real. Good day everyone.
Posted by: Fr. O'Really | Apr 8, 2006 8:42:32 PM
Fr. O'Really,
Most of our post to sir Realist our not to "bash" or "bang heads" with him but to answers his silly questions for others who read his comments.
If I had stumbled upon a blog like this 15 years ago and nobody answered him I would assume he had made a valid point because of my ignorance.
Though I continue to pray for his conversion I answer sir Realist questions not to convince him but just in case some anonymous reader had the same question.
God bless you for your vocation Fr. O'Really may I ask what feast day and year you were ordained a Catholic priest?
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Posted by: Inocencio | Apr 9, 2006 12:16:00 AM
In his century, Irenee of Lyon already referred to the Gospel of Judas as a forgery ....
Posted by: Spock | Apr 9, 2006 1:04:38 AM
Fr. O'Really
I apologize about calling into question your reality. I was expecting something like your last post if you were for real. Still, I regreted my last post almost as soon as I posted it.
Perhaps my writing "you will not have to worry about what faithless modern scholars may say" was also a mistake. I did not mean to imply that all modern scholars are faithless, nor that Realist was one of them. Rather, I just meant when a "scholar" or whoever else comes up with a theory that is in fact contrary to the Catholic Faith one need not worry about figuring out whether it is true or not. I wrote this to Realist and any readers who might not have thought about it this way, since no one was bringing up the essential point of the role of faith in the matter of what Scripture is and how reliable it is. Realist certainly seems to have faith of some kind, but exactly what, or whether it is sufficient for salvation, is impossible for me to know. That is why I spoke about his faith or any hardening of heart in a hypothetical manner.
None of us knows the heart or the faith of another, especially on a forum like this. I write this because you keep suggesting that I lack strong faith because I (for the first time in my life I might add) engaged in any kind of debate with someone who advances theories which include an unorthodox approach to Scripture. You are right that one with strong faith will not, as I said, worry too much about these things. At the same time it is warrentless to presume a series of long posts means I or Inocencio or any other has a desire to convince himself he is right by bashing Realist.
I have no such desire, nor do I want to "bash my head" against you, and since you have put me off to this discussion I will cease posting here barring significant new developmnets.
Posted by: J. R. Stoodley | Apr 9, 2006 7:28:54 AM
Those who post long responses to Realist are in fact those with the obedience of faith that comes from and proves strong and true faith. Peter commanded that Christ's people always be ready to defend the hope that is within them, and these posters are doing just that. Indeed, to fail to defend the truth when one is able would be to be guilty of the cooperation in sin with he who speaks falsely by means of silence.
Posted by: Shane | Apr 9, 2006 8:16:41 AM
Hmmm, mistaking me for a Catholic priest!! That has made my week!!! And thank you Father O'Really for the kind words.
And an added comment about the current discussion on the Gospel of Judas. "AARPy" common sense and the common sense woven throughout most of the parchments/fabric of the OT, NT and earlier texts immediately vitiate the suicide claims of this "Gospel".
Posted by: Realist | Apr 9, 2006 8:32:21 AM
"Since all studied scholars on the matter consider Matthew's Gospel to be the first written,..."
Dear Cary,
You need to read more modern RC scripture scholars. Virtually no reasonably current scripture scholars take that position. Mark was first (65-70) and was copied by Matthew and Luke.
Posted by: Patrick | Apr 9, 2006 10:29:44 AM
