Britishy Narrator Voice:
And thus, with his reductionist cynicism having been turned against him, Realist wandered, wounded and reduced, into the primeval wood from whence he came to lick his mortally cynical wounds and wait for a time when he can adopt yet another persona (other than anon or Realist) and once again terrorize the townsfolk.
In the meantime, though, with the troll vanquished, the villagers all gathered around and had a wonderful party. They laughed, they drank, and they played tetherball.
THE END

Realist,
You can't even give a simple statement regarding what you believe? You don't seem to understand that for Christians, the historical Jesus is the divine being who has interacted with and influenced those in the Christian sects throughout history, not some first century Cynic wanderer who may or may not have existed. If I were interested in reading books about ancient philosophers or mystery cults, I would do so. No one is impressed (believer or nonbeliever) with your ability to post a makeshift bibliography as an answer to a direct question. Unless you can articulate a simple sentence regarding the contents of any of these books, I have no reason to believe that you have read any of them. If you have read them and are still unable to make a simple statement of your beliefs regarding the figures of the Christian Trinity and their relationship to the Christian sects throughout history, then I would have to seriously question the point of your having read in the first place.

Realist,
You can recite what I believe, the Nicene creed.

"With respect to what I basically believe, see Crossan and Watts' book, Who Is Jesus?: Answers to Your Questions About the Historical Jesus."
Sir Realist, by his own admission, is a believer of Crossanity or CrossINsanity never sure of the spelling.
As Catholics, Realist, you just have to look to the Catechism of the Catholic Church for what we believe. It is online for free. And I just picked up the Compendium today if you want something concise.
Have prayerful Holy Week.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

Again, we are what we read. If the faith hammered into our heads in childhood is strong, we should not be afraid to read any book to include the books referenced above.
With respect to what I basically believe, see Crossan and Watts' book, Who Is Jesus?: Answers to Your Questions About the Historical Jesus. The book is well written, easy to read, concise (144 pp) and inexpensive (~$7.00) used.

Realist,
Your god is a finite spiritual being. Your "savior" is a 2000 year old dead man. How can you not find that depressing? Is your association with the Catholic church so pathologically imprinted as a result of your childhood that you cannot conceive of an identity outside of the institution? What does your god offer you? What does your Christ offer you? If you were truly a free-thinker and empirical rationalist (as you so desire to be), you would have left this whole argument long ago. As it stands, you appear as superstitious as those you claim rational superiority over, but it in a uniquely pathetic way. No one who truly believes in the Catholic church or the Catholic god cares about your god or your Christ. Neither does anyone outside of the church. It is only the frustrated little Catholic schoolchildren grown up who end up spending their lives obsessing over concepts and beings that they don't believe in but cannot bring themselves to disown. It is profoundly sad. Perhaps you should figure out why you care about the historical Jesus at all before you read any more books about him.

"The answers you seek can be found in books such as Crossan's The Historical Jesus, Excavating Jesus, The Search for Paul and in Armstrong's A History of God: The 4,000-Year Quest of Judaism, Christianity and Islam."
In other words Realist,
"You'll have go see for yourself, I can't really explain why you should read all those books. I can only make vague pronouncements about finding answers."
I now know what bill912 and Tim J think about your motives but I still want to know what you really think. If you post another non-answer, I may have to assume you don't have one or they did it for you and you aren't willing to own it.

Tim J,
The answers you seek can be found in books such as Crossan's The Historical Jesus, Excavating Jesus, The Search for Paul and in Armstrong's A History of God: The 4,000-Year Quest of Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

One thing that would shed a great deal of light on the Jesus of History nonsense would be to spend some time seriously analyzing the analyzers. Maybe on a psychiatrist's couch.
What drives them to WANT to find some Jesus that is different from the Jesus of the Christian faith?
Why are they so desperate to prove that the Gospels are not reliable history?
Why do they desire to ascribe more authority to some modern scholar's after dinner cocktail napkin scribblings than to all the accumulated work of Popes and Councils?
They are running from something. I wonder what they would find if they took a hard look at their own internal motivations?

"What makes this view of the historical Jesus so compelling to you? Where does it take you?"--Realist
Sorry, this quote was from Jim and addressed to Realist.

"What makes this view of the historical Jesus so compelling to you? Where does it take you?"--Realist
"It makes for a small, limited god that a finite human mind can fully comprehend." -bill912
Realist, you never answered the question. Your web links to the evidence don't speak to plausibility. Much of what is presented it a matter of debate. Why should we take this so seriously? I really want to understand where you are coming from.
Did bill912 really answer for you?

NW Clerk,
I assume you have read Father Schillebeeckx's books?

In Philly, The National Geographic Channel had a one hour show on the Gospel of Judas. The authencity was about when it was written not about how true the Gospel is.

Did anyone see the History Channel segment on the Gospel of Judas last night? The "experts" were all talking about it like it was authentic. Tells you something about the History Channel...

"Au Contraire!! The Jesus Seminar has wiped away the embellishments covering the true Jesus."

I have several advanced degrees, including one from Yale Divinity School and have been trained not only in exegesis, theology, new and old testament, church history, etc., but also philosophy, epecially philosophy of language, and logic. I found, as did many other trained scholars, the Jesus Seminar to be far, far, FAR more heat than light. A couple of good thoughts overwhelmed by philsophical and theological howlers, an embarrassment to the writers.
There is NO chance the full body of the magisterium will except this stuff any time soon...or later.
PS 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.
This kind of thing was specifically held up to me in Div school as an embrrassing misunderstanding of what foreknowledge is, and convinced most of us that Schillebeeckx had huge gaps in his knowledge of metaphysics and epistemology. To foreknow, as many have argued eloquently above, is not to be a puppeteer. I'ma parent. Ninety-nine times out of 100 I can foretell how one of my kids would react to an event or statement. If I were God it would be 100 times out of 100. But I do not pull their strings. I also like the Bayeux tapestry inage above. The thought of God trapped inside time, His own creation, is silly.

Ryan,
There was no dropping of the evidence since the evidence was previously presented on this blog. For a rather complete net "citing" see below:
"Guess you might say that there has been too much information hidden from the "peasants in the pew" for the last 2000 years. When one reviews the information now available to us peasants, many questions arise as to authencity of various parts of the OT and NT. And there are too many contemporary scholars who by using very rationale techniques have rightly questioned many aspects of both.
Much of this information is "Internet free". See
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/theories.htm...
http://www.faithfutures.org/JDB/jdb077.html
http://www.faithfutures.org/Jesus/Crossan1.rtf
http://www.faithfutures.org/Jesus/Crossan2.rtf
http://www.faithfutures.org/Jesus/Crossan3.rtf
http://www.mystae.com/restricted/reflections/messi...
http://southerncrossreview.org/14/pagels.htm
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0401torah...
http://www.mtio.com/articles/bissar24.htm
http://www.depts.drew.edu/jhc/jhcbody.html
http://www.religion-online.org/
http://www.mystae.com/restricted/reflections/messi...
http://www.ntgateway.com/
http://www.mystae.com/restricted/reflections/messi...
http://www.equip.org/free/DG040-1.htm "
Have a great Easter!!!

Realist, I think there was a technical error with your last comment, typepad dropped some parts of it.
After "Au Contraire!!," typepad dropped the part where you responded to the points raised in the article to which you declared your contrary-ness.
After "The Jesus Seminar has wiped away the embellishments covering the true Jesus," typepad dropped the part where you provided a link to your evidence.
;-)

"What makes this view of the historical Jesus so compelling to you?" It makes for a small, limited god that a finite human mind can fully comprehend. Arius and Nestorius conceived of such a god. The Gnostics felt themselves to be "insiders" who had hidden knowledge that the rabble didn't have. Nothing new. Just the same old, tired heresies that puff up the pride and ego.

"Au Contraire!! The Jesus Seminar has wiped away the embellishments covering the true Jesus."
Realist, how do you know this? Others, with a view towards the evidence, have read the same things and are not so convinced. We could argue one view or the other back and forth all day without ever getting beyond speculation. What makes this view of the historical Jesus so compelling to you? Where does it take you?

Jesus Seminar:
"Well, Jesus was just zis guy, you know?"

Ryan,
Au Contraire!! The Jesus Seminar has wiped away the embellishments covering the true Jesus.

Realist and others:
If you go here you can read a two-part article by David Marshall entitled "Is the Gospel a myth? A literary Argument for the Historicity and Uniqueness of the Gospels."
He has expanded this article into a book (which I have not read yet) called "Why the Jesus Seminar Can't Find Jesus, and Grandma Marshall Could: A Populist Defense of the Gospels."

"I am sure you agree with the statement, "we are what we read"."
Nope.
That would hardly be fair to the masses of faithful Catholics through the ages who couldn't read.
Some mighty saints, there were, that never read anything.
Catholic Eucharistic theology confirms that we are what we eat.

Tim J.,
The writings/conclusions of Crossan, Armstrong, Borg, Brown et al are hardly foul smelling just because they disagree with the religious principles you and I were taught. They have reviewed documents we did know even existed. I am sure you agree with the statement, "we are what we read".
Your reading list is posted at http://www.faithfutures.org/Jesus/Crossan1.rtf and http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/theories.htm....
I have read and have access to the CC (as drilled into by my Franciscan teachers) and the old Catholic Encyclopedia. Ditto for EWTN's library.
Still waiting for the Vatican judgement on "limbo". Maybe they will address Crossan et al's conclusions about the historic Jesus when they finish

"Hey, I thought this was Jimmy Akin's blog? And Jimmy typically is open to all kinds of new, neat, spicy things"
I'm sure Jimmy is open to all kinds of new things, as am I.
But there are different ways of being "open minded".
Some people are open like a net that will catch some things, and let others go...
And some are open like a sewer, that will let in any foul thing.

BTW, Iranaeus's "Against the Heresies", iii, 1 written in 165 AD could arguably be used to contradict Protestant appologists who argue that Peter was never in Rome, considering the fact that his information would have probably come from St. Polycarp, who was a disciple of St. John himself.

Several points: I just got done reading "The Authenticity of the Gospels" by Maisie Ward. In that book, the author gathered evidence showing that the first three gospels were all written by 62 AD. The author cited to sources such as Papias, Iranaeus, Ignatius and Clement to demonstrate this.
As far as the validity of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John being accepted as the accepted gospels of the early church, St. Justin Martyr wrote as early 133 defending them, and not other versions, against Trypho. The Epistle of Barnabas and the Didache which were written even earlier specifically have references from Matthew, Mark and Luke. Iranaeus and Ignatius wrote defending these four gospels.
It's funny how modern scholars ignore the first scholars in attempting to date the gospels. Papias, Iranaeus and Eusebuis all tell how they came into being. Matthew was written first because he was leaving the Jewish community he was preaching to and wanted leave a written legacy of Jesus' teachings. Mark was Peter's interpreter in Rome and wrote down what Peter preached to them. Luke wrote down what Paul preached. Finally, John wrote down his Gospel at the urging of his disciples and many of the early bishops while he was still Ephesus. It is very different from the others because John wanted to fill in some of the gaps in the other three gospels.
Another interesting point is the fact that the early pagan and Jewish philosophers and critics all attacked the four gospels as the teaching of the Church instead of the other various and Gnostic versions that were extant.
Perhaps the problem with modern biblical scholars
is that they don't approach the Scriptures as the "Word of God" and don't approach them prayerfully. Instead, they want to make a name for themselves in the world by coming up with their own theories of what gospels are authentic and when they were written~most probably to promote sales of a book they are writing or to justify their salary at some university.
By the way, when did Judas find the time to learn Coptic or Greek and write his "gospel" between betraying Jesus to the Pharisees and the Scribes and hanging himself?

As I write, it is a little before two o'clock in the afternoon of Palm Sunday here in San Diego with no clouds in the sky.
By tonight I shall have either presided or assisted at all six of our parish church's Palm Sunday Masses.
I shall have heard several times today the verse from the HOLY Gospel according to MARK in which God the Son Himself says of Judas:
Woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed.
It would be better for that man if he had never been born.

~

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.
May I suggest you read the Catholic encyclopedia then move onto to early Christian writers quoted in the article. Most modern scholars seek merely to be modern and ignore Sacred Tradition and Catholic tradition.
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Gospel of St. Matthew
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10057a.htm
If anyone is interested in reading an article about supposed Markan "primacy" EWTN has a good one.
Kulturkampf and the Gospel
http://www.ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTUR/KULTGOS.TXT
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

Tim J,
Hey, I thought this was Jimmy Akin's blog? And Jimmy typically is open to all kinds of new, neat, spicy things from chili to dancing to strange geological formations. And I find a lot of what is in the books of Crossan, Armstrong, Borg, Brown et al to be quite spicy in terms of a new look at the historic Jesus. Apparently you do too but with a more conservative "take".

"His" means St. Luke. (proofread, proofread, proofread!)

I'm sorry, I am still doubtful about our esteemed "Fr. O'Really".
He said he was "quite real".
That doesn't mean he is a real priest. Not that it matters.
We are all "quite real".
I understand what you were trying to say (assumed-for -the-moment) Father, but I find it strange that you would call into question the necessity of rebutting anti-Christian viewpoints when there are possibly many people reading who may be taken in by such nonsense.
Realist has lurked on the edge of troll-dome here for some time, throwing the occasional bomb. His comments are generally obtuse, giddily contrarian and bolstered only with appeals to fashionably modernistic sophistry.
I think it would be a bloody shame to allow such opinions to remain unchallenged, particularly since he comes here as a visitor, knowing full well that this is a traditional, orthodox Catholic blog.
Are there not enough heterodox, modernist blogs out there to keep such people busy impressing one another with their own cleverness?

Patrick, read Warren Carroll's "History of Christemdom, Part I". Many modern scripture scholars believe that Matthew originally wrote his Gospel in Aramaic, around the year 42, and later translated it into Greek. Beside, Acts was written in the early 60s, and his Gospel must be earlier.

"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.

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".

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.

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.

In his century, Irenee of Lyon already referred to the Gospel of Judas as a forgery ....

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

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.

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.

Father O'Really is up there with Ima Butt as a prank name.

" '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.

Gee, and I thought that the "Gospel of Judas" was the training manual for the USCCB, the Union of Stupendously Cretinous and Corrupt Bishops.... ;)

"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.

It looks to me like the No-Name troll is now pretending to be a priest. That strikes me as rudeness.

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.

INDEED a Catholic priest
Sorry, I should start checking the spelling of these.

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."

"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.