the release of the Gospel of Judas

[indescribable]

again, I'm confused / interested in what the new "Gospel of Judas" is about. I guess it's not so new, since it's around 2000 years old. It was discovered in the 1970's in Egypt. It portrays Judas not as a sinner, but the as a good guy who was doing his part in God's plan for Jesus' Cruxifiction and Holy Resurrection. Now I know this would change some traditionally held views about the least like of disciples but if it is truly inspired word, how can we deny it? and how do we determine that?
thanks for being with me in my ignorance

[rkwright]

I don't know anything in particular about the gospel of Judas, but I think the following can be applied to it. This Gospel of Judas sounds no different than the earlier problems with the Gospel of Thomas... This is from Catholic.com read [url="http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1996/9601fea1.asp"]here[/url]

[quote]There is no way out of this argument except to appeal to tradition. Only in tradition lies the key to why the Gospel of Thomas isn't placed in hotel rooms. It wasn't suppressed by Church leaders, who didn't have the resources amidst ongoing persecutions to pull off such a large-scale operation. More likely, second-century Church figures simply didn't know about it. The earliest extant post-New Testament document, the late first-century Epistle of Pope Clement I to the Corinthians,  quotes extensively from the canonical Gospels, but shows no trace of Thomas. It seems likewise unknown to Ignatius of Antioch, as well as other second-century writers such as Saints Polycarp and Justin Martyr.

Irenaeus is unsparing of the idea that the apostles-any apostle-had secret teachings at all. For proof he appealed to the bishops of his own day:

&quotIt is within the power of all, therefore, in every church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the churches, and to demonstrate the succession of these men to our own times; those who neither taught nor knew of anything like what these heretics rave about. For if the apostles had known hidden mysteries, which they were in the habit of imparting to 'the perfect' apart and privily from the rest, they would have delivered them especially to those to whom they were also committing the Churches themselves." [Irenaeus, book III, chapter iii.]

Since the Bishops would be taking the places of the apostles, they would be the first to hear the &quotsecret teachings." After all, it would be primarily their duty to guard and impart these precious secrets even more zealously than the open (orthodox) teachings, which for the Gnostics were an inconsequential collection of platitudes designed to pacify the simple and uninitiated: the opium of the masses.

But Irenaeus finds no trace of Gnosticism in anything presented as Gospel teaching by the Bishops of Rome, whom he lists from Peter to Pope Eleutherius, the Pontiff reigning in Irenaeus' time. Nor does he find any other Bishop in the Gnostic camp. Thus Gnostic pretensions about a secret apostolic corpus were exploded, Gospel of Thomas and all. [/quote]

[rkwright]

though hopefully someone much smarter than me will be able to give you a better answer.

[indescribable]

although there's a lot in there that i don't understand, it helps. for me, i doubt. i know that's bad, but who's to say the bishops were inspired? in a couple hundred years they'd be running all of Europe in a not so nice way. i'm sorry i just have problems with infallibility.

[Socrates]

[quote name='indescribable' date='Mar 18 2006, 08:37 PM']although there's a lot in there that i don't understand, it helps. for me, i doubt. i know that's bad, but who's to say the bishops were inspired? in a couple hundred years they'd be running all of Europe in a not so nice way. i'm sorry i just have problems with infallibility.
[right][snapback]914855[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
The Catholic Church determined which books were inspired and which were not. That is how we got the Bible.

This "Gospel of Judas" (which I have never even heard of) was never part of the Canon of Scripture. It is most likely a forgery, or some "gnostic gospel" written much later than the original four gospels by heretical sects.

If you don't believe that the Magisterium of the Catholic Church is infallible when speaking on matters of Faith and Moral, then, quite frankly, you are not Catholic.

If the Church is not infallible in its teaching, then it has no purpose.

If it is up to any individual to decide for himself which books are and are not inspired, then we have absolute chaos, and there would be no way of knowing the truth on anything! Anyone could claim any book he feels like is inspired, or reject any books in the Bible he doesn't like!

Even the protestants agree to a canon of books in the Bible (though they reject some of the books).

[rkwright]

I hate to just pour more articles on you... but [url="http://www.catholic.com/library/Proving_Inspiration.asp"]this one[/url] discusses the Bible and inspiration... I'll post the the important parts and attempt to break it down...

[quote]Next we take a look at what the Bible, considered merely as a history, tells us, focusing particularly on the New Testament, and more specifically the Gospels. We examine the account contained therein of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection.

Using what is in the Gospels themselves and what we find in extra-biblical writings from the early centuries, together with what we know of human nature (and what we can otherwise, from natural reason alone, know of divine nature), we conclude that either Jesus was just what he claimed to be—God—or he was crazy. (The one thing we know he could not have been was merely a good man who was not God, since no merely good man would make the claims he made.)

We are able to eliminate the possibility of his being a madman not just from what he said but from what his followers did after his death. Many critics of the Gospel accounts of the resurrection claim that Christ did not truly rise, that his followers took his body from the tomb and then proclaimed him risen from the dead. According to these critics, the resurrection was nothing more than a hoax. Devising a hoax to glorify a friend and mentor is one thing, but you do not find people dying for a hoax, at least not one from which they derive no benefit. Certainly if Christ had not risen his disciples would not have died horrible deaths affirming the reality and truth of the resurrection. The result of this line of reasoning is that we must conclude that Jesus indeed rose from the dead. Consequently, his claims concerning himself—including his claim to be God—have credibility. He meant what he said and did what he said he would do.

Further, Christ said he would found a Church. Both the Bible (still taken as merely a historical book, not yet as an inspired one) and other ancient works attest to the fact that Christ established a Church with the rudiments of what we see in the Catholic Church today—papacy, hierarchy, priesthood, sacraments, and teaching authority.

We have thus taken the material and purely historically concluded that Jesus founded the Catholic Church. Because of his Resurrection we have reason to take seriously his claims concerning the Church, including its authority to teach in his name.

This Catholic Church tells us the Bible is inspired, and we can take the Church’s word for it precisely because the Church is infallible. Only after having been told by a properly constituted authority—that is, one established by God to assure us of the truth concerning matters of faith—that the Bible is inspired can we reasonably begin to use it as an inspired book.



A Spiral Argument


Note that this is not a circular argument. We are not basing the inspiration of the Bible on the Church’s infallibility and the Church’s infallibility on the word of an inspired Bible. That indeed would be a circular argument! What we have is really a spiral argument. On the first level we argue to the reliability of the Bible insofar as it is history. From that we conclude that an infallible Church was founded. And then we take the word of that infallible Church that the Bible is inspired. This is not a circular argument because the final conclusion (the Bible is inspired) is not simply a restatement of its initial finding (the Bible is historically reliable), and its initial finding (the Bible is historically reliable) is in no way based on the final conclusion (the Bible is inspired). What we have demonstrated is that without the existence of the Church, we could never know whether the Bible is inspired.
[/quote]


It comes down to something like this... Only one book in the Bible claims to be inspired, that is John, and even if others had claiming inspiration doesn't prove inspiration. So to prove inspiration you must look outside the Bible itself, and appeal to tradition. Thats where everything I posted comes in.

If you take the Gospels as purely a historical book, not inspired at all, then it can be proven by other documents that the events really did take place. In this Historic sense, the Bible claims that Jesus set up a Church, and when we look into real life, look what we find, a Church that was set up by Christ. So because the historic Jesus and Gospel can be found we can reasonably conclude the authority He gave the Church, and it is the Church who tells us the Bible is in fact inspired.

[peach_cube]

This is from MSNBC [url="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11655998/"]Gospel of Judas Spat[/url]

Basically they see it coming from a "Cainite" sect.
[quote]Robinson has not seen the text that National Geographic is working on, but assumes it is the same work assailed by Bishop Irenaeus of Lyons around A.D. 180.

Irenaeus said the writings came from a "Cainite" Gnostic sect that jousted with orthodox Christianity. He also accused the Cainites of lauding the biblical murderer Cain, the Sodomites and Judas, whom they regarded as the keeper of secret mysteries.[/quote]

So you can see why it will not be accepted as Scripture.

[indescribable]

thanks. kind of hurts to be called a bad Catholic because i question aspects of my faith, but thanks rkwright. it makes sense

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='indescribable' date='Mar 19 2006, 10:54 AM']thanks. kind of hurts to be called a bad Catholic because i question aspects of my faith, but thanks rkwright. it makes sense
[right][snapback]915051[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Asking questions is not a sin, but rejecting the faith or any part of it is.

[rkwright]

[quote name='indescribable' date='Mar 19 2006, 09:54 AM']thanks. kind of hurts to be called a bad Catholic because i question aspects of my faith, but thanks rkwright. it makes sense
[right][snapback]915051[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

oh I hope I never came off that way!! I have questioned different aspects of my faith constantly. The key is just that though, to question. Don't give up on the Church just because you haven't found the answer yet.

Its also very healthy to question. Once you have a better understanding of the Church you can more fully appreciate her. Don't be afraid, yet don't stop looking for the answers either.