« Kissing Hank’s ass, the essence of religion | Main | Dear devout Christian, thanks for the offer but… »

April 15, 2006


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

The gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are unanimous in their declaration that Jesus came to lay down his life for His sheep and to be raised again for their salvation. These gospels have stood the test of archaeology and historical critisism, and have more historical validity than any secular works from the ancient world. I understand you're a proponant of anything that might reduce the credibility of Christianity, but really, the gospel of Judas is as historically suspect as any of the other gnostic gospels to date.
I beg of you to listen to the true Gospel message. Repent and beleive in Jesus as your Savior so that your sins may be wiped away and that you may have the hope of eternal life.


I know you mean well but Brian may be further along in his spiritual journey than you or I could ever imagine.

Regarding scripture, I'd be hesistant to discount the so-called Gnostic texts. If anything, they shed enormous light on the complexity of the early Christian movement.


I found this post by surfing some blogs, so I'll admit that I don't know much about Brian or what he has studied or been through, but I figured I should add a bit of counter balance to the post.
Regarding the other gospels, they just don't seem to have the credibility as the four accepted gospels. The main issue is that they were written so much later. I would agree with you that they shouldn't be blindly discounted, but some of these gospels have been floating around for a long time and it seems most scholars(outside of the Jesus Seminar) find them of lower credibility value than the accepted four gospels.


Regarding the four gospels, they may be more credible historically than the gnostic texts simply because they were written as "stories" as opposed to "sayings" such as in the Gospel of Thomas.

Nonetheless, the Gnostic texts do provide enormous insight into early branches (Gentile) of Christianity. And, if we want the whole picture regarding Christian roots, we need to acknowledge their relationship or way of relating to the Christ event. You never know, they may have something valueable to teach us.


To Scott:

I disagree with you regarding your assertion that the four established gospels have more validity than the recently discovered gnostic version about Judas. The four gospels only seem more valid because the Church has established that impression for centuries.

I also take some offense at your statement: "Repent and beleive in Jesus as your Savior so that your sins may be wiped away and that you may have the hope of eternal life", even though you wrote it to Brian. It is not any of your business to be telling anyone to "repent", or asserting that someone should accept the historical Jesus as a present-day "savior".

This is what really sucks about some Christians. You go around telling other people what they should believe, that they should "repent", that they have "sins", and that they will only have "eternal life" if they do as you assert.

It is none of your damn business what other people do or don't believe. As a Christian, it is only your business is to follow whatever authentic teachings of Jesus that are available. Jesus did not teach followers to go around and judge others, or to manipulate or condemn others. Therefore, in my view, you are not the true Christian that you think you are, and that you would have others believe that you are.

This is not a criticism of the Way of Christ, but rather a criticism of supposed Christians who go around foisting their dogma and condemnation upon others without any solicitation. It is just such false Christians who give Christianity a bad name.

Oy, you should bury me already, with the nit-picking that is killing me over here!

Let's assume that all powerful means all powerful, (x = x), and that when the universe needs to have a spiritual adjustment, we get Brian, Bob or Scott. How is that different from the story of the Christians walking along who run into someone that seems to be holy and, zowee, that was the risen lord and they didn't recognize him! Just how does one get resurrected anyway? Does it have to be a function of time?

I have a mustard-seed sized point of view, but after all, if one sutra is holy, then what the rocks and stones may write is also holy. My guesses about the universe and what it wants are much more portable than my necessary spirit.

I will accept what I hear with all due scepticism because closed-minded orneriness is dull and lonely. What universal spirit wants to celebrate dull and lonely?

I once had a teacher who had trained as a priest and was going to become one when he quit and became a teacher instead. One of the reasons why he quit was that he didn't like the way religion was organised: the Bible isn't a collection of all the religious texts that have been found, just those selected by the church. To be honest i much preferred his approach to Christianity - being spiritual and philosophical and loving others - to the dogmatic type. I haven't read the gospel of Judas, apart from the excerpt above, but if it all has a positive message like that excerpt, then i don't see why it shouldn't be made part of the Bible. Of course the church probably won't let it in as it contradicts the rest of the story, but i don't care, if it can be used as a way of getting a positive message out to people then it can only be a good thing.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)


  • Welcome to the Church of the Churchless. If this is your first visit, click on "About this site--start here" in the Categories section below.
  • HinesSight
    Visit my other weblog, HinesSight, for a broader view of what's happening in the world of your Church unpastor, his wife, and dog.
  • BrianHines.com
    Take a look at my web site, which contains information about a subject of great interest to me: me.
  • Twitter with me
    Join Twitter and follow my tweets about whatever.
  • I Hate Church of the Churchless
    Can't stand this blog? Believe the guy behind it is an idiot? Rant away on our anti-site.