A different 'The Gospel According to Judas'

[James Peter]

Nothing to do with the gnostic text of the similar name but rather a new collaboration between Jeffery Archer and Father Moloney and launched today at the Pontifical Biblical Institute... a project involving a Cardinal and a highly regarded Catholic scholar with close ties to the Pope which 'admits' that the 'First Sign' and various other of the higher profile miraces of Jesus 'never happened'. It is having its UK launch at Westminster Cathedral tomorrow...this isn't just some cooky conspiracy theory book, this is practically a confession.

Let the cries of 'Antichrist!' ring out in the direction of the Vatican, for no good deed should go unpunished and uncondemned by the Evangelical Church...

Times Article (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article1542945.ece?token=null&offset=0)

I'm not sure what my opinion on it is, I guess its good that at least one branch of the Church is prepared to admit reality is more important than human tradition. Quite ironic that it is the RCC though....

[Lost]

Nothing to do with the gnostic text of the similar name but rather a new collaboration between Jeffery Archer and Father Moloney and launched today at the Pontifical Biblical Institute... a project involving a Cardinal and a highly regarded Catholic scholar with close ties to the Pope which 'admits' that the 'First Sign' and various other of the higher profile miraces of Jesus 'never happened'. It is having its UK launch at Westminster Cathedral tomorrow...this isn't just some cooky conspiracy theory book, this is practically a confession.

Let the cries of 'Antichrist!' ring out in the direction of the Vatican, for no good deed should go unpunished and uncondemned by the Evangelical Church...

Times Article (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article1542945.ece?token=null&offset=0)

I'm not sure what my opinion on it is, I guess its good that at least one branch of the Church is prepared to admit reality is more important than human tradition. Quite ironic that it is the RCC though....


This does not belong in this forum - it is blatantly anti-christian.
Maybe the RCC backs it or maybe they don't - who knows, but what Archer & co are saying that the new testament is not a reliable source any more - they are handing game set and match to their opponents the athiests.
No miracles = no Christ, just supposedly a nice misguided guy and a liar at that and false prophet.
Please shift this thread.
Take away the new testament believability and the entire christian church collapses - anyone who thinks otherwise is deluded.

[Geoster]

This does not belong in this forum - it is blatantly anti-christian.
Maybe the RCC backs it or maybe they don't - who knows, but what Archer & co are saying that the new testament is not a reliable source any more - they are handing game set and match to their opponents the athiests.
No miracles = no Christ, just supposedly a nice misguided guy and a liar at that and false prophet.
Please shift this thread.
Take away the new testament believability and the entire christian church collapses - anyone who thinks otherwise is deluded.
I agree with Lost

[James Peter]

(1) They aren't saying there were no miracles, just that not every recorded miracle happened.

(2) It is pretty difficult to justify saying that this is anti-Christian when it is being done by a practicing Anglican, a Cardinal and several Priests including a top-tier scholar of the New Testament.

Believe it or not your view of Scripture hasn't been held universally and Inerrancy wasn't part of any of the early creeds. The shift towards viewing Scripture in a more complex light is, in my opinion, very encouraging. Just as Genesis 1 wasn't intended as an 'accurate, hsitorical account' neither were some other parts of Scripture. The miracles are woven into the narratives for a reason, they say specific things about God and Jesus. Considering how the gospels came to be written (oral tradition being drawn together into written documents) it wouldn't be surprising for non-historical events to be included (and pretty much every scholar would agree that all sorts of non-historical events, or events placed into new contexts, are in the gospel accounts).

Of course such things are challenging, but just ignoring them and pretending the world and gospels are as you want them to be is pretty lousy.

[Lost]

(1) They aren't saying there were no miracles, just that not every recorded miracle happened.

(2) It is pretty difficult to justify saying that this is anti-Christian when it is being done by a practicing Anglican, a Cardinal and several Priests including a top-tier scholar of the New Testament.

Believe it or not your view of Scripture hasn't been held universally and Inerrancy wasn't part of any of the early creeds. The shift towards viewing Scripture in a more complex light is, in my opinion, very encouraging. Just as Genesis 1 wasn't intended as an 'accurate, hsitorical account' neither were some other parts of Scripture. The miracles are woven into the narratives for a reason, they say specific things about God and Jesus. Considering how the gospels came to be written (oral tradition being drawn together into written documents) it wouldn't be surprising for non-historical events to be included (and pretty much every scholar would agree that all sorts of non-historical events, or events placed into new contexts, are in the gospel accounts).

Of course such things are challenging, but just ignoring them and pretending the world and gospels are as you want them to be is pretty lousy.

I know where you are coming from JP.
I know where you are heading.
Its a slippery downhill slide from here on.
Enjoy the short ride to the bottom.
Its not real flash at the bottom.

[James Peter]

Maybe not, but its better to have the truth with misery than ignorance and contentment.

Anyway, are there any reactions at a more sophisticated level than "Bad Catholics! Antichrist!"?

[Rusty T]

The only thing I needed to know was that the institute was run by the Jesuits. The next thing I noticed was the poor reporting so common when the subject is religion. "Overt" "Vatican approval" does not ring true upon reading the article. But I'm going to learn more about this.

rusty

[Ryokan]

The only thing I needed to know was that the institute was run by the Jesuits. The next thing I noticed was the poor reporting so common when the subject is religion. "Overt" "Vatican approval" does not ring true upon reading the article. But I'm going to learn more about this.

rusty

More with the Jesuit hate. The soldiers of christ did a good job educating me, I think at least.

[Ryokan]

Nothing to do with the gnostic text of the similar name but rather a new collaboration between Jeffery Archer and Father Moloney and launched today at the Pontifical Biblical Institute... a project involving a Cardinal and a highly regarded Catholic scholar with close ties to the Pope which 'admits' that the 'First Sign' and various other of the higher profile miraces of Jesus 'never happened'. It is having its UK launch at Westminster Cathedral tomorrow...this isn't just some cooky conspiracy theory book, this is practically a confession.

Let the cries of 'Antichrist!' ring out in the direction of the Vatican, for no good deed should go unpunished and uncondemned by the Evangelical Church...

Times Article (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article1542945.ece?token=null&offset=0)

I'm not sure what my opinion on it is, I guess its good that at least one branch of the Church is prepared to admit reality is more important than human tradition. Quite ironic that it is the RCC though....
I don't think this is that controversial.

[James Peter]

The only thing I needed to know was that the institute was run by the Jesuits. The next thing I noticed was the poor reporting so common when the subject is religion. "Overt" "Vatican approval" does not ring true upon reading the article. But I'm going to learn more about this.

rusty

I don't know, launches at the Pontificial Biblical Institute and Westminster Cathedral are both pretty high profile and certainly imply approval, as does the fact that the book was facilitated by a Cardinal and involved Moloney. Certainly there has been no disapproval from the Vatican as far as I'm aware. I was going to go to the launch at Westminster Cathedral today to see who was there but I had an appointment that clashed with it sadly.

I don't think this is that controversial.

It isn't controversial in educated/academic circles abd I guess that catholic scholars like (Raymond) Brown and Maloney have said as much before so in that respect it is nothing new. The involvement of Archer is an interesting choice though (anything he is involved with will have a hint of controversy added to it but his mere presence) and it will bring ideas into the mainstream that have previously been associated (in popular culture at least) more with fringe conspiracy theorists (and less fringe ones like Dan Brown). It is essentially another case of the RCC siding with liberals rather than conservatives (as with their stance on the Creationism issues) and I guess those who will condemn this book mostly loudly are the fundy-creationist types. Less fundy conservatives will probably condemn the ideas in it though - both Catholic and Protestant alike...

I guess I just found the whole idea of the project quite interesting and am encouraged that the largest church on earth is continuing to recognise the value of scholarship. I am continually in the debt of great Catholic minds like Brown, Rahner and Maloney for their contribution both to the academic world and also for their positive impact on the RCC.

[Timothy Leary]

it's stupid.

[Rusty T]

It seems so arbitrary to say that some of the miracles happened, but others were made up. By what standard?

[Rusty T]

Can I go on to point out one important point:

This is a novel. A work of historical fiction.



rusty

[Rusty T]

http://www.cwnews.com/offtherecord/offtherecord.cfm?task=singledisplay&recnum=4148

The Pope did not "bless" the Archer-Moloney novel.

The Pontifical Biblical Institute provided the bottled water at the speaker's rostrum for the Archer-Moloney press conference. Its scholars had nothing whatever to do with the book's content.

The Archer-Moloney novel was not "published with Vatican approval."

No biblical scholar, including my former colleague Fr. Frank Moloney, believes Fr. Frank Moloney to be "the world's greatest living biblical scholar."

Fr. Moloney is not "one of the Pope's top theological advisers."

The International Theological Commission, of which Fr. Moloney was a member, enjoys the same level of teaching authority as the Philatelic Office of the Holy See -- that's to say: zero.

The teaching of the dogmatic constitution Dei Verbum §11 (http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html) has not been abrogated.

[kepha]

The timesonline article is written by anti-Catholic liars.
Thanks for your refreshing post, tizzidale.

[Shadow Phoenix]

This thread is being moved to unorthodox Theology

[Howie]

Hi JP,

You are correct that moving this thread was questionable.

I had written a rather long-winded post and then decided to cut to the chase… here is what I was left with:

Many Jesuit scholars focus more on the words and teachings of Jesus than the story/narrative of Jesus. It was a Jesuit who in a recent documentary stated that it makes little difference with regard to the message of Jesus whether he was married or not. Having been Jesuit educated and a participant in editorial discussions I can tell you that there are scholars who will say that no matter what one thinks of the crucifixion, resurrection, etc., one still must address Jesus’ fundamental words and teachings. Even if one questions His very divinity, one still must confront His words and teachings. Historians may draw parallels between earlier stories of virgin births and miracle healings… but one still must face Jesus’ words and teachings, and those teachings are not and were not contingent upon belief in a virgin birth (which he never preached) or a triune God (which he never preached) or many other precepts we have come to revere.

Discard all doctrine since Jesus departed this earth and in his words and teachings preserved in the Gospels you still have the single most compelling, brilliant and accessible compilation of metaphysical truth (neared only by Moses) in human history.

As far as Father Mankowski, (the author of the words tizzidale cites) his voice represents only one in the Jesuit community. He is the spokesman for a certain faction, not the majority of the Society. He has attacked many members of the Society including well respected scholars and even the editors of various Jesuit journals. This does not mean that he is not a well respected biblical scholar. He is. However, there are equally respected scholars who disagree with him.

All the best.

[Lost]

Hi JP,

You are correct that moving this thread was questionable.

I had written a rather long-winded post and then decided to cut to the chase… here is what I was left with:

Many Jesuit scholars focus more on the words and teachings of Jesus than the story/narrative of Jesus. It was a Jesuit who in a recent documentary stated that it makes little difference with regard to the message of Jesus whether he was married or not. Having been Jesuit educated and a participant in editorial discussions I can tell you that there are scholars who will say that no matter what one thinks of the crucifixion, resurrection, etc., one still must address Jesus’ fundamental words and teachings. Even if one questions His very divinity, one still must confront His words and teachings. Historians may draw parallels between earlier stories of virgin births and miracle healings… but one still must face Jesus’ words and teachings, and those teachings are not and were not contingent upon belief in a virgin birth (which he never preached) or a triune God (which he never preached) or many other precepts we have come to revere.

Discard all doctrine since Jesus departed this earth and in his words and teachings preserved in the Gospels you still have the single most compelling, brilliant and accessible compilation of metaphysical truth (neared only by Moses) in human history.

As far as Father Mankowski, (the author of the words tizzidale cites) his voice represents only one in the Jesuit community. He is the spokesman for a certain faction, not the majority of the Society. He has attacked many members of the Society including well respected scholars and even the editors of various Jesuit journals. This does not mean that he is not a well respected biblical scholar. He is. However, there are equally respected scholars who disagree with him.

All the best.


I hope that you are not suggesting that all would be well with christianity if Christ were merely a great teacher, did no miracles and did not rise from the dead.
Such views as you expressing here, maybe only on the behalf of jesuits, are rubbish and lead only to the total demise of christianity as it can be easily shown - they are a terminal cancer.

[Rusty T]

I still want someone to explain to me by what standard does one accept one miracle of Jesus' and disgard another? It's arbitrary and dangerous.

rusty

[Howie]

Dear Lost,

Will all due respect, address what I said.

There is a Christian school of thought that holds that all would be more than well, it fact all would be better, if more attention were paid to Jesus’ words and teachings than to other aspects of the scriptures.

Why a Christian would label that idea “rubbish” or “cancer” I cannot fathom?

All the best.

[Howie]

Hi tizzidale,

I do not know anyone who can grasp let alone accept as true and believe all the words and meanings of the Bible. It seems to me that for a Christian the question is, “Am I living up to Jesus’ teachings?” Perhaps one cannot believe or accept a triune God or a virgin birth… but one can look at one’s life and beliefs in light of the words and teachings of Jesus.

All the best.

[Lost]

Dear Lost,

Will all due respect, address what I said.

There is a Christian school of thought that holds that all would be more than well, it fact all would be better, if more attention were paid to Jesus’ words and teachings than to other aspects of the scriptures.

Why a Christian would label that idea “rubbish” or “cancer” I cannot fathom?

All the best.

Then you sir are not a christian.
I have met many so-called pastors, preachers and ministers that were similar.
Many admitted that they didn't really believe in God or heaven.
They were living a lie in front of their congregations "for the benefit of those people".
Very sad and makes a coplete fool of a christian.
It is a hollow empty religion at best and you are deluded.

[Rusty T]

And why would one accept the words of Jesus found in a book that makes up miracles of Jesus? Curious as to how that process works out in one's brain.

[Lost]

And why would one accept the words of Jesus found in a book that makes up miracles of Jesus? Curious as to how that process works out in one's brain.

Exactly Tizz.
The entire thing crumbles to dust except for the deluded who manage to kid themselves that something is worth keeping.

[dizzle]

I know where you are coming from JP.
I know where you are heading.
Its a slippery downhill slide from here on.
Enjoy the short ride to the bottom.
Its not real flash at the bottom.

Amen

[dizzle]

it's stupid.

Agreed. The creaturely bellybopping was amusing however.

[Ryokan]

Hi tizzidale,

I do not know anyone who can grasp let alone accept as true and believe all the words and meanings of the Bible. It seems to me that for a Christian the question is, “Am I living up to Jesus’ teachings?” Perhaps one cannot believe or accept a triune God or a virgin birth… but one can look at one’s life and beliefs in light of the words and teachings of Jesus.

All the best.

What does Jesus teach outside the context of his Church, really? The accounts we have of his speech come from the Church, the interpretations we have were formulated by them, and they are not really numerous enough or consistent enough to "live by" as a system of thought. Christianity cannot exist on Jesus's words alone. We don't have enough of them, or from the man himself.

As far as the assertions Jesus never walked on water goes, well, it doesn't really matter to me. I can't know for certain what JEsus did or didn't do. And I doubt the Apostles would have thought twice about using dramatic license in the NT, they were doing theology not history. But I can't really know either way and am not too worried about it. But we can't just shrink Christianity down to Jesus's words either.

[Howie]

Dear Ryokan,

I would gladly discuss this with you because I believe your comments are sincere. However, the tenor of this thread has devolved. I will simply call to your attention that I did not say “Jesus’ words alone” as you imply I said. I was indicating priority not exclusivity.

All the best.

[Solly]

Maybe not, but its better to have the truth with misery than ignorance and contentment.

Anyway, are there any reactions at a more sophisticated level than "Bad Catholics! Antichrist!"?


I have held a copy in my hands. It is a work of fiction by Archer (who is no great shakes as a writer, he gave us kane and Abel after all); he had help from a RC expert to get first century details right. Basically, judas got a bad report. It's written in Gospel format, with chapters and verses, and ncludes the verse, Judas wept, after it is recounted how his name had been smeared by the real Gospel writers.

[Solly]

Then you sir are not a christian.
I have met many so-called pastors, preachers and ministers that were similar.
Many admitted that they didn't really believe in God or heaven.
They were living a lie in front of their congregations "for the benefit of those people".
Very sad and makes a coplete fool of a christian.
It is a hollow empty religion at best and you are deluded.


Oh great, beloved 57 has come back to us.

[Ryokan]

Dear Ryokan,

I would gladly discuss this with you because I believe your comments are sincere. However, the tenor of this thread has devolved. I will simply call to your attention that I did not say “Jesus’ words alone” as you imply I said. I was indicating priority not exclusivity.

All the best.

Well if you wanna start a new thread or a bb ball court thread I am game. I like you Howie, I am just not sure how what you are saying works.

[barnasha]

What does Jesus teach outside the context of his Church, really? The accounts we have of his speech come from the Church, the interpretations we have were formulated by them, and they are not really numerous enough or consistent enough to "live by" as a system of thought. Christianity cannot exist on Jesus's words alone. We don't have enough of them, or from the man himself.

As far as the assertions Jesus never walked on water goes, well, it doesn't really matter to me. I can't know for certain what JEsus did or didn't do. And I doubt the Apostles would have thought twice about using dramatic license in the NT, they were doing theology not history. But I can't really know either way and am not too worried about it. But we can't just shrink Christianity down to Jesus's words either.

when you say [Jesus's] Church, do you mean the Romans' church?

[James Peter]

when you say [Jesus's] Church, do you mean the Romans' church?

I think he means the early proto-Orthodox church that later developed into the Orthodox Church which then split into the Eastern and Roman traditions (from which developed the protestant churches).

I have held a copy in my hands. It is a work of fiction by Archer (who is no great shakes as a writer, he gave us kane and Abel after all); he had help from a RC expert to get first century details right. Basically, judas got a bad report. It's written in Gospel format, with chapters and verses, and ncludes the verse, Judas wept, after it is recounted how his name had been smeared by the real Gospel writers.

Oh yeah, I refuse to spend money on an Archer book. My interest is merely in the support of Maloney and the RCC for the project and their belief that this is a good tool for evangelism.

[Solly]

Oh, you mean like Protestants thinking The Passion was a good tool, or Lion, Witch, Wardrobe was a good tool (or Chick tracts), as opposed to Christians doing the hard thing and being a bit more Christlike instead of trying to be like society. I think it reflects more on the desperation of Churches who have lost the ability to communicate today in the way Christ would want us too, than anything else.

I didn't pay for it either, i browsed it in the shop. Nice cover.

[Ryokan]

I think he means the early proto-Orthodox church that later developed into the Orthodox Church which then split into the Eastern and Roman traditions (from which developed the protestant churches).
Exactly. I am Eastern Orthodox, but we all started from the same place, the early church.

[QUOTE]
Oh yeah, I refuse to spend money on an Archer book. My interest is merely in the support of Maloney and the RCC for the project and their belief that this is a good tool for evangelism.
Libraries exist for a reason.

[Ryokan]

I think he means the early proto-Orthodox church that later developed into the Orthodox Church which then split into the Eastern and Roman traditions (from which developed the protestant churches).
Exactly. I am Eastern Orthodox, but we all started from the same place, the early church.


Oh yeah, I refuse to spend money on an Archer book. My interest is merely in the support of Maloney and the RCC for the project and their belief that this is a good tool for evangelism.
Libraries exist for a reason.

[barnasha]

I think he means the early proto-Orthodox church that later developed into the Orthodox Church which then split into the Eastern and Roman traditions (from which developed the protestant churches).


which then would not be "Jesus's Church", per se.

[James Peter]

which then would not be "Jesus's Church", per se.

Sure. But by that token there is no such thing as 'Jesus's Church', not if you mean the Church which Jesus belonged to at any rate. If you mean the Church though that claimed apostolic sucession and is responsible for giving us Scripture though and which claimed to be Jesus' Church in the sense of 'the Church belonging to Jesus' then it is reasonable to call it 'Jesus' Church'. At any rate Ryokan's point was that without that particular group of individuals we would know very little about Jesus. A brief mention in Tacitus, a few claims made by the so-called heretics and gnostics... Almost all our knowledge of Jesus is mediated by 'the Church' and, excluding Charismatic manifestations which normally are at least partially reliant on the Church anyway, we cannot know Jesus except through the Church - be that directly or indirectly through the Scriptures they chose.

[Howie]

Well if you wanna start a new thread or a bb ball court thread I am game. I like you Howie, I am just not sure how what you are saying works.Hi Ryokan,

Got a good chuckle there… I’m not sure how a lot of things work! I have come to understand that there is a lot I do not know… more than I care to admit even to myself!

I would open another thread, but I fear I am too busy to participate in a way I would find acceptable. Let me simply say that there is a very respectable school of thought which believes that a “Christian” understanding of the scriptures requires that the scriptures be viewed through the lens of the words and teachings of Jesus. In other words, it is Jesus’ words and teachings which shed light on the words and teachings of Moses. Jesus teachings may stand on the shoulders of Moses’, but Jesus is the one who frames them for us.

To paraphrase Thomas a' Kempis (with a touch of Paul), “What good does it do if we believe in the Trinity and participate in the liturgies if we do not love our enemies, turn the other cheek and give our shirt to someone who steals our coat?"

I submit for consideration that we may have relegated Jesus’ words and teachings to a secondary position… perhaps even further back than that… and that may lead to serious error.

All the best.

[barnasha]

Sure. But by that token there is no such thing as 'Jesus's Church', not if you mean the Church which Jesus belonged to at any rate.

seeing as the word translated as 'church' simply means gathering, I suppose his 'church' could rightly be either his disciples who traveled with him, or those to whom he preached.


If you mean the Church though that claimed apostolic sucession and is responsible for giving us Scripture though and which claimed to be Jesus' Church in the sense of 'the Church belonging to Jesus' then it is reasonable to call it 'Jesus' Church'.

That Church is not responsible for "giving" us the scripture, it is responsible for canonizing it.


At any rate Ryokan's point was that without that particular group of individuals we would know very little about Jesus. A brief mention in Tacitus, a few claims made by the so-called heretics and gnostics... Almost all our knowledge of Jesus is mediated by 'the Church' and, excluding Charismatic manifestations which normally are at least partially reliant on the Church anyway, we cannot know Jesus except through the Church - be that directly or indirectly through the Scriptures they chose.

We cannot know Jesus except through that Church? according to whom?