Gospel of Judas? Think again
Here we go again.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,190826,00.html
The linked story above references a manuscript found that some scholars believe to be a Gospel of Judas. I assume they think this find will shake the foundation that Christianity stands on. At least that is what they hope.
By the time of the Muratorian Fragment, we know the 'canon' of scripture was already pretty much put together by the middle of the second century.
We know from Eusebius that the universally accepted books were the four Gospels, Acts, 14 letters of Paul, 1 John, 1 Peter and Revelation. The remainder of the books (James, Jude, 2 Peter, and 2&3 John were disputed, but "recognized by the majority". Disputed not because of different teaching but because of their limited circulation.
This new manuscript doesn't stand up to the same historical standard found in the existing scriptures, and contains teachings contrary to what we find in the inspired Word. Is this one manuscript supposed to supercede all of the others?
Not every manuscript written 50-500 AD should be taken as scripture. There are books mentioned in the early church that were read in the churches, but they were specifically identified as non-inspired.(ie. Wisdom of Solomon & Apocolypse of Peter)
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,190826,00.html
The linked story above references a manuscript found that some scholars believe to be a Gospel of Judas. I assume they think this find will shake the foundation that Christianity stands on. At least that is what they hope.
By the time of the Muratorian Fragment, we know the 'canon' of scripture was already pretty much put together by the middle of the second century.
We know from Eusebius that the universally accepted books were the four Gospels, Acts, 14 letters of Paul, 1 John, 1 Peter and Revelation. The remainder of the books (James, Jude, 2 Peter, and 2&3 John were disputed, but "recognized by the majority". Disputed not because of different teaching but because of their limited circulation.
This new manuscript doesn't stand up to the same historical standard found in the existing scriptures, and contains teachings contrary to what we find in the inspired Word. Is this one manuscript supposed to supercede all of the others?
Not every manuscript written 50-500 AD should be taken as scripture. There are books mentioned in the early church that were read in the churches, but they were specifically identified as non-inspired.(ie. Wisdom of Solomon & Apocolypse of Peter)
6 We are from God. Whoever knows God listens to us; whoever is not from God does not listen to us. By this we know the Spirit of truth and the spirit of error.Another non-story. The inspired word is everlasting. Where are the stories of the re-writes of catholocism, mormanism etc.?
1 John 4:6 (ESV)
posted by Son of Adam @ 6:40 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home