The So-Called ‘Gospel’ of Judas: Unmasking an Ancient Heresy

Breakpoint with Charles Colson ^ | 4/12/2006 | Charles Colson

[George W. Bush]

I have been a Christian all my life. But the more I read about the early and middle Christian eras the more I find that the bible as we know it has been rewritten how many times and how much has been lost in these rewritings??????

How much has been rewritten or lost? None.

You should find a better church if they have taught you so little about the history of the Bible and how thoroughly we know its contents throughout its history.

There simply is no document of antiquity that remotely compares with the authenticity and accuracy of scriptural preservation. There isn't any competition. This is true of the Old Testament as well as many archeologists finally discovered.

Despite the shortcomings of some modern translations that rely on the Alexandrian texts which tend toward awkward and inferior readings and omit a few passages, there really is no controversy about the basic text of the Bible and the events described. We have it as it was written and as it was known by the ancient churches. What we don't have are the gnostic texts which were rejected explicitly from the Christian canon in the same way that the writings of the Essenes (portions of the Dead Sea Scrolls) were rejected from the Hebrew canon. And among those gnostic texts, many of which originated in heresy-infested Egypt, was this gospel of Judas.

[Mad Dawg]

I wonder, who exactly gave these councils the authority to determine what was to be included or excluded from the biblical canon?

Short, smart-ass answer: The Holy Spirit.

It's not like there was an aboriginal "Biblical Canon" which was then edited or generally messed around with by folks. There were documents. Many of them were scrolls (SAL? Sequential access literature?). They couldn't be bound together in a codex. Then Codices (RAL - Random Access Literature!) came into use and the idea of binding books together unsurprisingly arose.

So then you start saying, "Hey, this book seems good, but that one there seems like it's a crock. I sure don't want to bind that nonsense with this other good stuff." And at the same time you have synagogues and Christian gatherings, some of which had probably been reading Paul's letters aloud when they gathered for worship. And they're saying, "Okay. Paul is good, if a tad grouchy and sometimes downright weird. But this Simon Magus guy? Giddouddaheah!"

Then it's naturally going to happen that people start worrying about what books ought to be bound together and what books shouldn't -- and generally, what books are authoritative and what aren't. It all kind of arises in response to a problem. And it takes a few hundred years to level off. It's not like there was an instruction manual on how to set up a world religion. There was a group, consisting largely of folks who at least once put as much distance as they could between themselves and Jesus and one of whom repeatedly denied knowing him. And then, well then something happened. And shortly they are telling the people with weapons, "Okay, YOU do what you have to do, and WE'll do what WE have to do." But they couldn't Google "Church Organization" or buy "Cultic Structures For Dummies". (As far as I'm concerned, the fact that Christianity survived its being entrusted to these dolts and poltroons is a great argument for its truth -- and for the hope it offers the dolt and poltroon who is writing this post.

And the problem hasn't gone away. You should hear the nonsense people who call themselves Christians want to read or to have sung at their weddings!

[Monolight]

Again, much assumption being made...

For instance, you write:

Uhh ... I said the Gospels, the 'Gospel according to John', -- Not the 'The Apocalypse of John' (Revelation).
and
The 'seven kings' are the Roman emperors. Nero Claudius Drusus or Nero was the fifth emperor; and according to text, he has already fallen.

among other quotes from your post.

Actually, Nero was the sixth emperor. Revelation 17:10 says, "And there are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must continue a short space." The five "kings" were not ruling at the same time, for the text stated "five are fallen," meaning that five of those kings had come and gone. Then "one is," meaning the "king" who was ruling at the time Revelation was written. Here, in this verse, we have one of the clearest proofs for Nero being the beast. If we simply examine the list of Roman Emperors, we will be able to determine who the sixth king was. Flavius Josephus clearly points out that Julius Caesar was the first emperor of Rome, followed by Augustus; Tiberius; Caius (Caligula); Claudius; and the sixth emperor was…Nero (Antiquities, books 18 and 19), who assumed imperial power upon the death of the fifth emperor, Claudius, in October, A.D. 54. The matter is confirmed just a little later in the writings of Roman historians: Suetonius (Lives of the Twelve Caesars and Dio Cassius, Roman History 5). Nero reigned from 54AD to June of 68AD. John informs us that the seventh king was "not yet come." That would be Galba, who assumed power upon Nero's death in June, A.D. 68. But he was only to continue a "short space." As a matter of historical fact, his reign lasted but six months until January 15, A.D. 69. So anyway, that my rendering of the text, history, and theology.

[SunkenCiv]

Note: this topic was posted 04/13/2006. Thanks Mr. Silverback.