On Mar 21, 1:36 pm, jeb
erehwon.net> wrote:> David
yahoo.com> wrote innews:1f3bf041-0e8c-45f6-950f-3af1e7e3dde9@8g2000hsu.googlegrou
> ps.com:
>
>
>
>
>>> On Mar 21, 6:59 am, jeb
erehwon.net> wrote:>>> David
yahoo.com> wrote
>>> innews:f4637d0c-5fd0-423f-baa7-7933e>> a34a...@8g2000hsu.googlegrou
>
>>>> On Mar 20, 8:46 pm, jeb
erehwon.net> wrote:>>>>>...
>>>>> I've heard that as a story before, but I just chalked
>>>>> it up as a story. Is there really a Gospel of Judas
>>>>> with historical credentials, e.g., like the Gospel of
>>>>> Thomas?
>
>
>>> Perhaps I am prejudiced by what I've read here, but I
>>> discount BT's opinion completely. There always appears to
>>> be such a huge amount of chaff with her stuff; if there is
>>> grain, I'd never find it. I cede the point in advance
>>> that I've not read her work; it is highly unlikely I will.
>>> There is such a volume of clearly worthwhile material to
>>> read in this short lifetime that I don't even consider
>>> material that is both boring and probably worthless to me
>>> as well.
>
>>> I did read the Wikipedia entry on my own. There seems to
>>> be some basis to accept the documents as being
>>> authentically old. There does not seem to be much basis
>>> for it being associated with very early Christian thinking
>>> that seems to comprise the general themes of the New
>>> Testament.
>
>>> The picture of Judas is a bit interesting, though.
>
>> Your prejudice against Dr. Thiering is showing. Her
>> opening sentences clearly answer your question squarely.
>
> My statement was clearly a judgement about BT. I make
> judgements all the time. If they are important, I consider a
> wide variety of sources, and well as my own critical thinking
> faculties. If they are trivial, as this one is, I may listen
> casually for a bit, but I don't waste time with them; right,
> wrong, or inconclusive -- they don't matter.
>
>> Here is the nitty-gitty. The Gospel of Judas was composed
>> before 180 AD. It is CAINITE. Please see the NY Times
>> article:
>
> Wikipedia had enough to more than satisfy my curiosity, and
> it had many credible references to follow as I saw fit. BT
> was not among them, by the way.
I read the Wikipedia article too. The extra dimension that
Dr. Thiering offers is a comprehensive explanation of the
correct historical relationship between Jesus and Judas.
If you find her not a credible reference, that's your loss.
BTW, Happy Easter! As a Christian I feel Christ's
Resurrection has divine significance for us all.
David Christainsen
