Cialovesyou

Gospel of Judas?

Hmmm... so, tell me, what does he have to say about hanging himself? Or is that question a bit of a stretch. I'm guessing all the Disciples got book deals. Why should Judas be any different? However, only a few were good enough to make the Final Four. >:) Wahkeenah 08:41, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

No, all the disciples didnt get "book deals". But I confess I smirked when I read your comment. Possibly none of the Gospels were written by the Apostle named. Not the point. The point is, that they represented the faith the Apostles gave the faith communities: the churches. And this was the same faith. As for this text, it simply doesnt cut the mustard because it wasnt the faith the Apostles gave us. Thats it. Dont care if it was written by the wife of St.Peter, if it wasnt the faith of the Apostles, it is nothing but an interesting text representing heretical views. And a view we already knew existed in this case, as Ireaneas tells us there as "those" who argue this. That isnt to say that as a Christian I dont believe it is "Verbum Dei", i most certainly do. But inspiration is an enormous topic, so I wont go into it here.

Cialovesyou 08:48, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I have a co-worker, much more religious than I (obviously) who speculates that these "alternate gospels", such as Thomas (which was all the rage in the 1960s) and now this supposed Judas gospel, might well have been works of fiction, even satires, which some modern interested parties have taken seriously. This all vaguely relates to the upcoming "Da Vinci Code" film. About a year ago, U.S. News and World Report had an interesting writeup about the book. It was clear that Brown borrowed heavily from "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" (the dismissal of the recent suit notwithstanding), and ironically many of the premises in the latter book have already been debunked, so the whole thing is fiction, but that doesn't prevent some from taking it seriously and others from making a movie of it. Much is made of Da Vinci painting the Apostle John to resemble a woman, and the hypothesis is that "John" was a pseudonym for Mary Magdelene. Again, many are taking that notion seriously, and it never occurs to them that Leonardo (who was far cleverer than you and I combined) might well have been making a satire on rumors to that effect. Satire is typically lost on zealots, so this current flurry of interest in this so-called Gospel of Judas is not surprising, and it will also fade with time. As for me, I believe in the Gospel According to Peanuts. :) Wahkeenah 09:15, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

December 2010

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Mark Arbib. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Mkativerata (talk) 19:57, 8 December 2010 (UTC)