Month: October 2017

Introduction

Yes ladies and gents, it is time for the fourth part in our tag team antics matchups.
Round 1 featured Sam Harris and Bertrand Russell.
Round 2 featured Richard Dawkins and Bill Maher.
Round 3 featured Dan Barker and Bertrand Russell.
Round 4 features the scrappy, vociferous and emotive Christopher Hitchens and the wise old owl professor of philosophy Daniel Dennett.

The issue at hand is a very simple one and can be succinctly stated as: are religions, as institutions, and are religious people, as individuals, responsible for the immorality done in religion’s name?

This instantly evokes the question of how, as atheists, Christopher Hitchens and Daniel Dennett define morality and thus, how they then promulgate condemnations. But rather than getting sidetracked, let us grant their condemnations and see what they have to state on the issue at hand.

During his debate with Alister McGrath (entitled “Poison or Cure? Religious Belief in the Modern World,” reviewed here, audio here) Christopher Hitchens stated:

“And he can’t take it a lá cart. If you claim or accept the one version, you have to accept the other. If it’s true in general that religion does one thing and some people do good from it, then you have to accept all the wicked acts that are attributable to it as well. I think you’ll find that those don’t quite equal as at the margin, depressing though that conclusion would be.”

Daniel Dennett made likewise statements:

“Those who maintain religions, and take steps to make them more attractive, must be held similarly responsible for the harms produced by some of those whom they attract and provide with a cloak of respectability. Defenders of religion are quick to point out that terrorists typically have political, not religious agendas, which may well be true in many or most cases, or even in all cases but that is not the end of it. The political agendas of violent fanatics often lead them to adopt a religious guise, and to exploit the organizational infrastructure and tradition of unquestioning loyalty of whichever religion is handy. And it is true these fanatics are rarely if ever inspired by, or guided by, the deepest and best tenets in those religious traditions. So what? Al Queda and Hamas terrorism is still Islam’s responsibility, and the abortion-clinic bombing is still Christianity’s responsibility and the murderous activities of Hindu extremists are still Hinduism’s responsibility.”1

Let us review their statements.
Christopher Hitchens’ statement boils down to this: If you accept the do-gooder version of religion you also have to accept the wicked side. You have to do this because it will lead you to the convenient conclusion that upon balancing good and wicked the wicked far outweighs the good. Thus, viola, religion is to be done away with.

Daniel Dennett’s statement boils down to this: very much as the above, the do-gooders must be held similarly responsible for the wicked. Now follow the “argument” since for one, it is its own defeater and for two, it is coming from a professor of philosophy, mind you. The wicked have non-religious agendas and merely use religion as a façade to carry out their non-religious agenda. In fact, “it is true these fanatics are rarely if ever inspired by, or guided by, the deepest and best tenets in those religious traditions.” Yes indeed. Therefore, a religion that has no theological/doctrinal dog in the wicked’s fight should not be held similarly responsible. No. Wait. The professor of philosophy’s own defeating of his own argument is countered by the erudite elucidation of stating, “So what?”

Sadly, professor of philosophy Daniel Dennett oft abandons his chosen field and jump ship into the waters of New Atheism’s erratic, irrational, emotive, argument form ignoring defeaters. Ergo, faced with an counterargument that so very clearly defeats you argument you can simply state, “So what?”

What does “accept” and “held similarly responsible” mean? Is it “Take responsibility for,” and or “Get stuck with,” and or “Accept fault for,” et al? Does it mean that if a Roman Catholic robs a bank while holding the gun to a consecrated Eucharist-host the Pope should be put into jail?

Ultimately, the reason that the arguments are non sequiturs is that all religions are not created equal. Sadly, it is a tactic of the New Atheists to undiscerninglly lump them all together in a congealed mass of gross generalization. Let us imagine that religion “A” teaches that those who do not convert are to be murdered. Let us imagine that religion “B” teaches that those who do not convert are to be shown love and respect. If adherents of religion “A” murder those who do not convert then the fault is rightly laid directly at that religion’s feet. However, if adherents of religion “B” murder those who do not convert then those who committed the murders are in clear and specific violation of the very tenets to which they are supposed to adhere and that religion itself is not at fault.

This is so self-evident that it should not have to be explained to anyone, much less a professor of philosophy.

Christopher Hitchens and Larry Taunton.

Find Larry Taunton’s book “The Faith of Christopher Hitchens: The Restless Soul of the World’s Most Notorious Atheist” here.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Facebook page.

I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help out. Here is my donate/paypal page.

Twitter: #christopherhitchens, #larrytaunton, #atheism
Facebook: #christopherhitchens, #larrytaunton, #atheism

Following is an interesting trailer from the 2009 AD debate between Christopher Hitchens and William Lane Craig.

Christopher Hitchens asks whether the debate would be a David vs. Goliath situation and he states that it will be a Goliath vs. Goliath. Quite true: a Goliath of substance vs. a Goliath of empty emotive rhetoric (as an aside; you may want to read A Lie About Goliath?).

Christopher Hitchens is seen asserting a ubiquitously promulgated atheist-group-think-talking-point, “Extraordinary claims require truly extraordinary evidence.” I have never read, seen or heard anyone ever justifying this claim.

The fact is that just as any claim extraordinary claims require adequate evidence.

So why demand that certain claims which are labeled as “extraordinary” required “extraordinary evidence”? The video actually gives us the answer as Christopher Hitchens is seen stating, “I find all your arguments in favor to be fallacious and unconvincing.”

See how it works?

1) Assert, without a logical or evidential premise at all, that “Extraordinary claims require truly extraordinary evidence.” 2) Employ this vague and arbitrary pseudo-standard in considering any arguments in favor of God’s existence. 3) Regardless of the arguments, merely retort that since “Extraordinary claims require truly extraordinary evidence…I find all your arguments in favor to be fallacious and unconvincing.”

4) Done.

In fact, this was the debate that took place after the one on this must hear clip when Craig is reviewing all of the arguments to which Hitchens gave no cogent response.

Interestingly, William Lane Craig repeats a characterization of Christopher Hitchens which asserts, or rather, identified him as one who chooses and or prefers to not accept the arguments and thus, not believe in God because, “I wouldn’t like it if it’s true.” To this Hitchens appears to take umbrage as he asks/states, “No such assertion was ever made by me” which is acknowledged by Craig who goes on to state that, “…it sticks” and that it does so due to the absence of argument.

But, keep in mind that the characterization of Christopher Hitchens is accurate as he has placed the label of “anti-theist” upon himself—this, my friends, is God in the hands of an angry sinner.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help. Here is my donate/paypal page.

Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Facebook page and/or on my Google+ page. You can also use the “Share / Save” button below this post.

Which Came First, the Orthodoxy or the Heresy?:

In the second century Irenaeus, the Bishop of Lyones in 180 AD, wrote a work entitled Adversus Haereses – Against Heresies. Chapter XXXI:1-3 of this text is subtitled Doctrines of the Cainites and states:

…They produce a fictitious history of this kind, which they style the Gospel of Judas…They also hold, like Carpocrates, that men cannot be saved until they have gone through all kinds of experience. An angel, they maintain, attends them in every one of their sinful and abominable actions, and urges them to venture on audacity and incur pollution…And they maintain that this is ‘perfect knowledge,’ without shrinking to rush into such actions as it is not lawful even to name…They have now been fully exposed; and simply to exhibit their sentiments, is to obtain a victory over them.

The Cainites claimed to have descended from Cain, made heroes of the Biblical villains, and considered the God of the Bible as an absolutely evil being who was to be defeated by the death of Jesus which would, apparently, bring about the end of the worship of this evil Biblical God.

The title Cainite is such an inflammatory term that it is perhaps only rivaled by Judas Priests (the name of a heavy metal band). Yet, it is understandable why they would refer to themselves as Cainites since they believed that matter, such as physical bodies, is evil while spirit is good. Therefore, Cain’s murder of his brother Abel was a righteous act since Cain liberated Abel from the evil of his physical body and freed him into the spirit realm. Thus, we can likewise understand why Judas is their hero for he also liberated Jesus from the evil of his physical body and freed him into the spirit realm.

The Naassenes or Ophites the word “snake” as derived from Hebrew and Greek paid obeisance to the serpent/satan of the Genesis Garden of Eden. Certain kinds of Gnosticism, as that taught by Marcion, signed their own proverbial death warrants by practicing extreme asceticism. Their revulsion of the material/physical world was such that they gave up marriage and childbearing in order to not perpetuate the creation of the inferior God of the Bible. Moreover, the Gnostics sometimes referred to the supreme spirit realm God as Sophia and to the false god of the Bible as Hystera. They believed that Eve had conceived Cain from Sophia and Abel from Hystera. Thus, Cain was demonstrating the supremacy of Sophia over Hystera by killing Abel.

The National Geographic Society (hereinafter NGS) states that Gnostics:

In this interpretation the Crucifixion, enabled by the betrayal, is necessary not so much for the forgiveness of human sins, but to free Christ’s divine self from its mortal cloak.1

Marvin Meyer of Chapman University states:

He will at last get rid of his material, physical flesh, thereby liberating the real Christ, the divine being inside.”2

The fact that The Gospel of Judas was rejected by the early church proves their care for protecting the original text of scripture, it proves their careful handling of the traditional teachings of Jesus and the Apostles, it shows us why and how the text of the New Testament has been passed on to us with such an astonishing level of reliability. Orthodoxy allows us to identify heresy and heresy strengthens orthodoxy. This is because it is deviance that leads a community to come to terms with what it really believes, why it believes it and the setting up of standards, boundaries or canonicity. Some people seem to think that Christianity has no right to establish and defend its orthodoxy. As if it had no right to maintain its core teachings and respond to and ward off faulty teachings.

It is interesting to note the sorts of things that fascinate some people. On the one hand The New York Times (hereinafter NYT) quotes Elaine Pagels, a professor of religion at Princeton who specializes in studies of the Gnostics, as making a point about how we are just now starting to lean about early Christian diversity:

These discoveries are exploding the myth of a monolithic religion and demonstrating how diverse – and fascinating – the early Christian movement really was.3

Meanwhile, the NGS states:

Irenaeus had plenty of heresies to contend with.4

Which is something that has been known since at least 180 AD when Irenaeus was Bishop of Lyons. Yet, let us not suppose that early Christianity was a shotgun blast that went in a hundred directions at once. Like any other world-view it had its orthodox-majority core as well as its tektites. Also, do note that Prof. Elaine Pagels has been thoroughly discredited in many fronts even though she is known for her erudite insights into the very heart of theology, as seen in one particularly elucidating comment,

The people who loved, circulated and wrote down these gospels did not think they were heretics.5

This seems reasonable enough and is quite accurate-the Gnostic writings are in fact, orthodox. They portray orthodox Gnostic doctrine but not orthodox Christian doctrine. However, we suspect that Pagel had no such lucidity about the matter in mind. In fact, please meet the real Pagel and her methods by reading The Pagels Imposture.

Whatever diversity did exit in early Christianity it was not due to the Gnostic gospels. These were written from 150 to 400 years AD. Furthermore, why were they considered heretical? Due to the very fact that orthodoxy identified them for precisely what they were-late dated forgeries. Also note worthy is the fact that Christians were originally know as the way and not one of the ways. It is also fascinating to note that it seems as if in the view of skeptical/liberals Christians are either blind faithed sheep who mindlessly follow one single set of teachings or else are so varied in their beliefs that they have no unifying doctrines and certainly no right to say who a Christian is and is not.

The NYT referred to Irenaeus as “a hunter of heretics,”6 and the NGS referred to “the outrage of Bishop Irenaeus,” and to “Irenaeus’s hostility,” moreover, referring to him as “the angry bishop,” who “attacked,” Gnosticism and launched “a scathing attack on the mystical Gnosticism,” by means of a “fierce denunciation.”7

As far as I can tell no one is responding to Irenaeus’ arguments nor to his counterarguments against heretics. It seems that he is being besmirched in an ad hominem manner simply for having the audacity to defend his faith and respond to those who were deviating from it. He is being vilified for speaking out against the heroes of liberals and skeptics i.e., anyone and anything that contradicts the Bible and the Judeo-Christian faith as a whole.

In an article entitled, “Gospel of Judas Written – Prior to A.D. 180,” the NGS stated,

The Gospel of Judas predates the A.D. 180 publication of St. Irenaeus’ Against Heresies…Its existence has long been known, primarily because of surviving anti-heretical works that denounce its tenets.8

Please do note that there is no direct proof that the “Gospel of Judas” mentioned by Irenaeus is the same one known to us today by that same name. It very well could be, since he claims that it was written by a sect of Gnostics etc., but the real connection is the title.

Ultimately, it was Gnostics themselves that did themselves in and not the oppression of the mean and nasty orthodox Christians. The message of Christianity is to be openly shared with the world. The message of Gnosticism was a guarded secret reserved for a select few. The secrecy of mystery religions is what brought them to ruin-they literally excluded themselves from growth.

The same can be said for all of the Gnostic writings:

1-They are all virtually devoid of manuscript evidence.

2-They are mostly dated by their quotations in the writings of others.

3-Some do not even exist outside of citations i.e., they are represented by exactly zero manuscripts.

4-The manuscripts we do have are very decrepit fragments peppered with missing text.

Examining the Text of The Gospel of Judas:
We know that The Gospel of Judas1 (hereinafter, The Gospel of Judas) is a pseudo-history that sought to insert late second century ideas into earlier events and dressed fictional characters in the garb, and names, of earlier people.

Let us set out to glean certain categories of information from this text:

1-We must consider what this non-biblical source claims about Jesus, and whether it substantiates anything that the biblical text does say.

2-We must consider the controversial aspects of the text, the pseudo-Judas and his actions.

3-We must consider other claims that contradict the text of the New Testament.

4-We must consider what is either esoteric wisdom that is truly the deep and hidden knowledge of revealed mysteries or else it is incoherent babble.

Substantiation:

The Gospel of Judas affirms that Jesus existed, that He had apostles, that He preformed miraculous works, the He came as savior of humanity, that He had the ability to prophecy, that He was exalted as the son of our god, that He came from an eternal realm, that there is an afterlife, and that Judas received some money.

“When Jesus appeared on earth, he performed miracles and great wonders for the salvation of humanity.”

“He began to speak with them” His disciples “about the mysteries beyond the world and what would
take place at the end.”

“They said, ‘Master, you are […] the son of our god.'”

“Judas [said] to him, “I know who you are and where you have come from. You are from the immortal realm of Barbelo. And I am not worthy to utter the name of the one who has sent you.”

Barbelo, barbeloth or barthenos is an intermediary realm between the pure spirit of God’s realm and the material realm. This realm is often hypostatized as a mother-father figure or the highest Godhead’s female aspect.

“When these people, however, have completed the time of the kingdom and the spirit leaves them, their bodies will die but their souls will be alive, and they will be taken up.”

“Judas answered them as they wished. And he received some money and handed him over to them.”

Pseudo-Judas:

The Gospel of Judas exalts Judas up, above and beyond any of the other apostles.

Jesus said:

“‘[Let] any one of you who is [strong enough] among human beings bring out the perfect human and stand before my face.’ They all said, ‘We have the strength.’ But their spirits did not dare to stand before [him], except for Judas Iscariot. He was able to stand before him, but he could not look him in the eyes, and he turned his face away.'”

Jesus said to Judas:

“you will exceed all of them. For you will sacrifice the man that clothes me.”

I would not think that Jesus is talking about whacking His tailor the man that clothes me, but that this is a metaphor for his physical body, His humanhood.

“Judas [said] to him, ‘I know who you are and where you have come from. You are from the immortal realm of Barbelo.'”

This, apparently, simply demonstrates some of Judas’ gnosis.

“[…] Their high priests murmured because [he] had gone into the guest room for his prayer. But some scribes were there watching carefully in order to arrest him during the prayer, for they were afraid of the people, since he was regarded by all as a prophet. They approached Judas and said to him, ‘What are you doing here? You are Jesus’ disciple.’ Judas answered them as they wished. And he received some money and handed him over to them.”

Other Contradictions:

The Infancy Gospel of Thomas 2:3-5, the writer of which does not even claim to be the Apostle Thomas but identifies himself as a philosopher, is a shameful work that has the child Jesus using His divine power, His miracles, in a capricious and malicious manner. The Arabic Gospel of the Infancy of the Saviour likewise retells many of the same malevolent deeds. The Gospel of Judas seems to play off of this concept in stating that:

“Often he did not appear to his disciples as himself, but he was found among them as a child.”

This actually seems to be nothing more than a faulty Gnostic tradition very, very loosely based on the New Testament witness regarding Jesus’ interactions with, and comments about, children.

New Testament passages such as the following.
Matthew 18:1-6:

“At that hour the disciples came to Jesus, saying, Who is the greater in the kingdom of Heaven? And Jesus called a little child to Him and set him in their midst, and said, Truly I say to you, Unless you are converted and become as little children, you shall not enter into the kingdom of Heaven. Therefore whoever shall humble himself like this little child, this one is the greater in the kingdom of Heaven. And whoever shall receive one such little child in My name receives Me. But whoever shall offend one of these little ones who believes in Me, it would be better for him that an ass’s millstone were hung around his neck, and he be sunk in the depth of the sea.”

Matthew 19:13-15:

“Then little children were brought to Him, that He should put His hands on them and pray. And the disciples rebuked them. But Jesus said, Allow the little children to come to Me, and do not forbid them; for of such is the kingdom of Heaven. And He laid His hands on them, and departed from there.”

Mark 10:13-16:

“And they brought children to Him, so that He should touch them. And His disciples rebuked those bringing them. But when Jesus saw, He was much displeased and said to them, Allow the little children to come to Me and do not hinder them. For of such is the kingdom of God. Truly I say to you, Whoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter into it. And taking them up in His arms, He put His hands on them and blessed them.”

Luke 18:15-17:

“And they also brought infants to Him, that He might touch them. But when the disciples saw, they rebuked them. But Jesus called them and said, Allow the little children to come to Me, and forbid them not. For of such is the kingdom of God. Truly I say to you, Whoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child shall in no way enter into it.”

Now back to the pseudo-Gospel of pseudo-Judas:

“Jesus said to them, ‘How do you know me? Truly [I] say to you, no generation of the people that are among you will know me.'”

Simply stated, many knew Him and followed Him.

“[S]eth, who is called Christ” is one of “the five who ruled over the underworld, and first of all over chaos.”

Be that as it may, this is not the Biblical Christ.

An “angel, Saklas, also came from the cloud. So Nebro created six angels-as well as Saklas-to be assistants, and these produced twelve angels in the heavens, with each onereceiving a portion in the heavens”

“Then Saklas said to his angels, ‘Let us create a human being after the likeness and after the image.'”

Here we have angels that have the prerogative of creation. This also incorporates an old, and faulty, explanation of why the monotheistic God would use terms such as we and us. In the Jewish and Gnostic concept, it is not because the one true God is a triune being but because God was talking to angels. This is something that the Bible does not state and which is an unviable inference, since Biblically, angels cannot create. Therefore, no let us create nor does the Bible state that we are created in the image of God and angels therefore, no in our image.

Wisdom or Babble?:
Now for the moment of truth, where we learn the deep mysteries and receive the light of the gnosis, behold!

“‘that generation does not come from […] which has become […]. The generation of people among [you] is from the generation of humanity […] power, which [… the] other powers […] by [which] you rule.’ When [his] disciples heard this, they each were troubled in spirit. They could not say a word.”

“Jesus said [to them], ‘Stop sac[rificing …] which you have […] over the altar, since they are over your stars and your angels and have already come to their conclusion there. So let them be [ensnared] before you, and let them go [-about 15 lines missing-] generations […]. A baker cannot feed all creation [42] under [heaven]. And […] to them […] and […] to us and […].”

“Adamas was in the first luminous cloud that no angel has ever seen among all those called ‘God.’ He [49] […] that […] the image […] and after the likeness of [this] angel. He made the incorruptible [generation] of Seth appear […] the twelve […] the twentyfour […]. He made seventy-two luminaries appear in the incorruptible generation, in accordance with the will of the Spirit. The seventy-two luminaries themselves made three hundred sixty luminaries appear in the incorruptible generation, in accordance with the will of the Spirit, that their number should be five for each. ‘The twelve aeons of the twelve luminaries constitute their father, with six heavens for each aeon, so that there are seventy-two heavens for the seventy-two luminaries, and for each [50] [of them five] firmaments, [for a total of] three hundred sixty [firmaments …]. They were given authority and a [great] host of angels [without number], for glory and adoration, [and after that also] virgin spirits, for glory and [adoration] of all the aeons and the heavens and their irmaments.”

“The multitude of those immortals is called the cosmos-that is, perdition-by the Father and the seventy-two luminaries who are with the Self-Generated and his seventytwo aeons. In him the first human appeared with his incorruptible powers. And the aeon that appeared with his generation, the aeon in whom are the cloud of knowledge and the angel, is called [51] El. […] aeon […] after that […]”

“Jesus said, ‘Truly I say to you, for all of them the stars bring matters to completion. When Saklas completes the span of time assigned for him, their first star will appear with the generations, and they will finish what they said they would do. Then they will fornicate in my name and slay their children [55] and they will […] and [-about six and a half lines missing-] my name, and he will […] your star over the [thir]teenth aeon.’ After that Jesus [laughed]. [Judas said], ‘Master, [why are you laughing at us]?’ [Jesus] answered [and said], ‘I am not laughing [at you] but at the error of the stars, because these six stars wander about with these five combatants, and they all will be destroyed along with their creatures.'”

They will fornicate in my name and slay their children? I warned you about their debauchery!

“Judas lifted up his eyes and saw the luminous cloud, and he entered it. Those standing on the ground heard a voice coming from the cloud, saying, [58] […] great generation […] … image […] [-about five lines missing-].”

Jesus came to His disciples and found them:

“gathered together and seated and offering a prayer of thanksgiving over the bread, [he] laughed. The disciples said to [him], ‘Master, why are you laughing at [our] prayer of thanksgiving? We have done what is right.’ He answered and said to them, ‘I am not laughing at you. [you] are not doing this because of your own will but because it is through this that your god [will be] praised.'”

The National Geographic Society (hereinafter, NGS) quotes Andrew Cockburn as claiming that in instances such as this Jesus refers to “‘your god,’ meaning the disastrous god who created the world.”2

It appears that skeptics and liberals (we refer to liberal scholars who hold to double standards of evidence) have not noticed that The Gospel of Judas is homophobic (as they would label any such statement in the New Testament) in retelling a vision that the apostle had:

“‘the priests…sacrifice their own children, others their wives, in praise [and] humility with each other; some sleep with men; some are involved in [slaughter]; some commit a multitude of sins and deeds of lawlessness. And the men who stand [before] the altar invoke your [name], [39] and in all the deeds of their deficiency, the sacrifices are brought to completion […].’ After they said this, they were quiet, for they were troubled.”

Amongst such horrendous acts is a mention of priests who sleep with men. Apparently, since this text helps skeptics and liberals besmirch Christianity, this homophobia is a forgivable sin.

The text then has Jesus stating:

“Why are you troubled? Truly I say to you, all the priests who stand before that altar invoke my name.”

Then Jesus refers to them as, they who have:

“planted trees without fruit, in my name, in a shameful manner.”

The NGS quotes Andrew Cockburn as claiming that in instances such as this Jesus refers to “the mainstream church.”3

Now Jesus interprets the vision and applies the priests to the apostles themselves and explains:

“The cattle you have seen brought for sacrifice are the many people you lead astray.”

Jesus then refers to the “minister of error,” and again, the NGS quotes Andrew Cockburn as claiming that in instances such as this Jesus refers to “the mainstream church.”4

Judas had a vision in which:

“the twelve disciples were stoning me and [45] persecuting [me severely]. And I also came to the place where […] after you. I saw [a house …], and my eyes could not [comprehend] its size.”

Jesus interprets the vision for him and appears to explain that Judas’ has a reserved spot in the house. The House turns out to be a place where:

“No person of mortal birth is worthy to enter the house you have seen, for that place is reserved for the holy,” who will “abide there always, in the eternal realm with the holy angels.”

I grant that since I refer to aspects of The Gospel of Judas as babble some may claim that I am merely betraying my own ignorance. But my point in referring to these texts as such is not mere floccinaucity. Rather, the point is that the meaning is largely lost to us, to even the most erudite with regards to Gnosticism.

This is so for at a few reasons:

1-We simply do not have much information about what the Gnostics believed.

2-By keeping their beliefs as secrets they are responsible for our lack of information about them.

3-Many of their writings have been destroyed by time (or their wicked oppressors) and some may be waiting for us to find them.

4-Ironically, a lot of what we do know about Gnosticism is due to the early and orthodox church’s citations of their beliefs. Thus, the very people incorrectly blamed for stamping out Gnosticism are the same people whom we can thank for preserving their teachings.
The apostle Paul stated, “…I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery…” (Romans 11:25). The Gnostics stated, “Mystery it remains (at least to the uninitiated).”

Why do you suppose that the text of The Gospel of Judas is peppered with ellipses points and bracketed editor’s comments to the effect of how ever many lines missing here? Primarily, it is because of the fragile nature of the manuscripts, which lends to the damage of the material upon which it is written. Yet, there is a lot more to be said which is that it is moreover, because of the shocking lack of manuscript evidence. When we compare The Gospel of Judas to the New Testament we have a scale of 1 to 24,000.
In our essay Misconceptions in Reason and History, we discuss that it is this overabundance of manuscripts that allow us to compare manuscripts that may be damaged, have misspelled words, contain different names for locations (since, for instance the names of cities change), or even variant readings and yet be able to produce a very accurate text due to the collaboration and corroboration of these various manuscripts.
In the case of The Gospel of Judas and virtually all and any other Gnostic gospels such as The Gospel of Phillip (see “Their Own Whims and Lusts” Liberal Scholars and Jesus’ Marriage) we have one single manuscript and so if it is damaged and lines are missing they are simply missing until, if ever, more manuscripts are found.

Now you understand why virtually all references to, and discussions of, The Gospel of Judas focus on one thing-namely that the New Testament better watch out because there in a new contender for our allegiance that is just as factual and just as reliable. No one seems to want to tackle the rest of the text because the rest of the text is peppered with missing info and, even worse, contains much info that would quickly discredit any attempt to accredit this cacophonous concoction of conspiratorial confusion.

Let us reverse the popular acceptance of The Gospel of Judas as an alternative to the New Testament and simply make the following statements:

1-Since the New Testament gospels do not claim that Jesus did not conspire with Judas, though Jesus knew what Judas was up to, this poses a powerful challenge to The Gospel of Judas. A challenge by a much, much, much more well attested text.

2-Skeptics must deal with the fact that we now have yet another text that shows just how early Jesus was known to be the Son of God.

3-Skeptics must deal with the fact that we now have yet another text that shows just how early Jesus was known to have performed miracles.

4-Skeptics must deal with the fact that we now have yet another text that shows just how early Jesus was known to have the ability to prophesy.

5- Skeptics must deal with the fact that we now have yet another text that shows just how early Jesus was referred to as the savior of humanity.

6- Skeptics must deal with the fact that we now have yet another text that shows just how early Jesus was said to have come from an eternal realm.

7- Skeptics must deal with the fact that we now have yet another text that shows just how early Christians believed in the afterlife.

8-Since the overwhelming majority of The Gospel of Judas contains incoherent babble (and much of it is simply missing) we must turn to much earlier sources, much more well attested sources, much more clearly written sources, much more well preserved sources. In other words, we must turn to the text of the New Testament.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help. Here is my donate/paypal page.

Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Facebook page and/or on my Google+ page. You can also use the “Share / Save” button below this post.

Canonization Controversy:
Dan Vergano and Cathy Lynn Grossman made the following claim in their USA Today article:

“The canon was largely set at the Synod of Rome in 382 when the dominant Christian leaders of the time established the authority of the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John_Scripture, like history, was codified by the winners, by those who emerged with the greatest numbers at the end of three centuries of Christianity, said Michael White, director of the Institute for the Study of Antiquity and Christian Origins at the University of Texas-Austin_’In the ancient world, Christianity was even more diverse than it was today,’ Ehrman said. Not until later centuries did the standard devotional texts known as the New Testament become the bedrock of the Christian faith. Dozens of alternative gospels and creeds lost out in the process.”1

The National Geographic Society makes the following claim:

“St. Athanasius of Alexandria, Egypt, lived from about 293 to 373_In 367 he decreed to all Egyptian Christians that the only texts they should regard as sacred were 27 Jewish and Christian books specifically listed by him. The works on that list comprise the New Testament as we know it today.”2

We should wonder just what they meant by the term decreed? Was he the top of the hierarchy whose proclamations were imposed upon Christendom? Or was his decree based upon common knowledge and the norm of mainstream Christianity?

From The Da Vinci Code to the The Gospel of Judas, there has been a lot of talk about the issue of canonization. There appears to be certain basic assumptions in the skeptical/liberal views on the issue:

1-The church’s orthodoxy came to be, not due to reliance upon the facts of the events as they occurred, but due to the whims of an oppressive majority of hierarchical authoritarians.

2-Christianity had, and has, no right to establish a canon, no right to decide what was/is orthodox or heretical.

3-The cannon chosen by the church just happened to be all of the wrong texts.

4-It was the persecuted minority that held the truth (even though they came around one to three hundred years later).

In other words, the a priory commitment is that Christianity is a false faith and so anyone who opposed it or augmented it, virtually beyond recognition, must be right. This is true even though orthodox, traditional, early document based Christianity teaches love of one’s neighbors and enemies and forgiveness for friend and foe alike.
On the other hand, Gnosticism teaches many things that modern skeptical/liberal find un-politically correct such as hatred of the flesh and male chauvinism. Gnostic salvation is reserved for the initiates, it is a secretive society that selfishly guards against outsiders gaining salvation. Moreover, as far as I can tell, no skeptical/liberal has charged that the Gnostics were attempting to oppress the rest of Christendom and attempted to manipulate the canon simply in order to advance their own particular, and peculiar, theology.

Now, let us deal specifically with the issue of the canonization in 382 AD:

There is a manuscript known as The Muratorian Fragment that is date to circa 170-200 AD. This fragment is very relevant to the issue of canonization, especially in the light of charges of late dated canonization by the winner.

The very beginning of the Muratorian Fragment is missing but we can draw a very viable inference from the fact that the text states that “the third book of the Gospel is that according to Luke.” It appears that the order of the gospels was as it still is today. This is because while Matthew and Mark are not mentioned, we infer that they were in the missing piece of the text, Luke is referred to as the third and John’s is mentioned as “The fourth of the Gospels is that of John, [one] of the disciples.”

Luke is said to have compiled “the acts of all the apostles,” “For ‘most excellent Theophilus.'”‘
John is said to have written “Epistles,” “Apocalypse,” (aka Revelation) and “Jude.”

There are references to “the Epistles of Paul,” that are listed as being written to the Corinthians (two of them), to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, to the Colossians, to the Galatians, to the Thessalonians (two of them), to the Romans, to Philemon, to Titus, and to Timothy (two of them).

It is also very relevant that at this early date The Muratorian Fragment mentions Gnostic and or apocryphal texts such as:
“[an epistle] to the Laodiceans, [and] another to the Alexandrians, [both] forged in Paul’s name to [further] the heresy of Marcion.” It is thought that Marcion manipulated the text of Ephesians and claimed that it was a letter from Paul to the Laodiceans. But why was Macrion able to choose which New Testament texts to place into his canon? Because those texts where already in existence, known and circulated.

There were also “several others which cannot be received into the catholic Church.” The text states, “Moreover, the epistle of Jude and two of the above-mentioned (or, bearing the name of) John are counted (or, used) in the catholic [Church]; 3 and [the book of] Wisdom, (70) written by the friends 4 of Solomon in his honour..” Some believe that rather than friends the text here originally read Philo (the Alexandrian) since the Greek for Philo is Philonos and the very similar philon means friends and it is thought that Philo is the author of the apocryphal Wisdom of Solomon.

We also learn that at that time the church, “receive only the apocalypses of John and Peter, though some of us are not willing that the latter be read in church. But Hermas wrote the Shepherd very recently,” thus, “it cannot be read publicly to the people in church” and one reason why they may be important but not read in church neither “among the Prophets, whose number is complete, or among the Apostles, for it is after [their] time.”

Lastly, other Gnostic texts are mentioned and rejected, “we accept nothing whatever of Arsinous or Valentinus or Miltiades, who also composed a new book of psalms for Marcion, together with Basilides, the Asian founder of the Cataphrygians.”

Thus, in this fragment that comes from 182-212 years before “the dominant Christian leaders,” “largely set at the Synod of Rome in 382.” The New Testament is made up of 27 books (or books and letters) and the fragment mentions 21. We can safely infer 2 others (Mathew and Mark) which brings us to 23.

Incidentally, we have three letters/epistles of John in the New Testament, the fragment refers to, “two of the above-mentioned (or, bearing the name of) John.” Thus, there were at least two, which means that it is safe to say that there were three. The only New Testament works missing from the fragment are the letter to the Hebrews, the book of James and 1st and 2nd Peter. Yet, the fragment is fragmented at the beginning and end so that it is possible that these were mentioned. Yet, even if we grant that they were not, we still have very little left for the Synod of Rome of 382 AD to do since the church had a very early understanding of what was authentic and what was not.

Clement of Rome (who wrote ca. 96 AD) was very emphatic about apostolic authority, “The apostles received the gospel for us from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus the Christ was sent forth from God. So then Christ is from God, and the apostles from Christ. Both, therefore, came of the will of God in good order.” He clearly cited 1st Corinthians and Hebrews and demonstrates knowledge of other canonical texts.

Ignatius of Antioch (d. c. 117 AD) held that the apostle’s teachings are to be found in their gospels he did “not wish to command you as Peter and Paul; they were apostles.”

The Epistle of Barnabas (ca. 130 AD) also dealt with issue surrounding the unity between the Old Testament and apostolic writings and cites from Matthew’s gospel with the scriptural qualification, “it is written.”

Justin Martyr (ca. 150 AD) refers to the “memoirs of the Apostles” when alluding to Mark, Matthew, Luke (and possibly John and Revelation).

Polycarp (d. 155 AD) furthered the understanding of unity between the Old Testament and the apostles. In his letter to Philipi (ca. 107 AD) he referred to “the apostles who brought us the Gospel, and the prophets who foretold the coming of the Lord (the Messiah).”

Tatian wrote Diatessaron (between 160-175 AD) and only used the four gospels. It seems safe to assume that his teacher St. Justin (1st part of the 2nd c.) also accepted these only.

Irenaeus (130-202 ad) quotes all of our present NT works except Philemon, 2 Peter, 3 John, and Jude. He wrote, “It is not possible that the Gospel be either more or fewer than they are_the Gospel is quadriform” (Adv. Haer., III, xi, 8).

The author of the Gnostic Gospel of Truth, written in Rome ca. 140, used practically the same books as our present New Testament.

Hippolytus (170-235) utilizes the four Gospels, 13 epistles of Paul, Acts, 1st Peter, 1st and 2nd John, and Revelation. He quotes and alludes to Hebrews, 2nd Peter and James in a separate category.

Tertullian (160-220 AD) cited 23 New Testament books except 2nd Peter, James, and 2nd and 3rd John. He also wrote, “Of the apostles, therefore, John and Matthew first instill faith into us; whilst of apostolic men, Luke and Mark renew it afterwards” (Against Marcion).

Origen (185-250 AD) wrote the following in Homilies on Luke, I, “The Church has four Gospels.” This is 149 years before the Synod. Origen accepts the four Gospels, the 13 epistles of Paul, 2nd Timothy, one of Peter’s letters (and states, “possibly a second, but this is disputed”), one of John’s letters (and states, “and, as it may be, a second and third – but not all consider these to be genuine”), James (stating that it may not be authentic), Jude and Revelation. He quotes some apocryphal texts but always qualifying them by stating, “If anyone receives it.”

Clement of Alexandria (180-211 AD) quotes from the four gospels as well as the rest of the New Testament except for Philemon, James, 2nd Peter, and 2nd and 3rd John. (Strom., I, xxi)

Cyprian of Carthage (who converted to Christianity ca. 246 AD) cited 20 New Testament books except Philemon, Hebrews, James, 2nd Peter, 2nd and 3rd John, and Jude.

Eusebius (260-340 AD), “And here, among the first, must be placed the holy quaternion of the Gospels” (Hist. Eccl., III, xxv). He makes reference to all 27 New Testament books but states that 2nd Peter, 2nd and 3rd John, Jude and Hebrews are “disputed, but familiar to the people of the church.”
Four gospels, Acts, Paul’s letters, Hebrews, 1st Peter, 1st John, “perhaps Revelation” believes that the following should be included: James, Jude, 2nd Peter, 2nd and 3rd John.

Athanasius of Alexandria (296-373 AD) lists the New Testament books precisely as we have them today in his 39th Festal Letter of Athanasius (367AD).

In 303 AD the Roman Emperor, Diocletian sought to destroy the Christian scriptures. This means that there was such a thing as Christian scriptures, that they could be sought and found (i.e. they were recognizable).

The Synods at Rome in 382, at Hippo in 393 and Carthage in 397 recognized the 27 books New Testament books.

In 394 AD Jerome listed the Old and New Testament books just as we have them today in a letter to Paulinus the bishop of Nola.

We will wrap up this partial testimony with a succinct statement by Bruce Metzger:

“Although the fringes of the emerging canon remained unsettled for generations, a high degree of unanimity concerning the greater part of the New Testament was attained among the very diverse and scattered congregations of believers not only throughout the Mediterranean world, but also over an area extending from Britain to Mesopotamia.”5

Let us note that the canon is not based on preferred doctrine but on direct and early proof of apostolic teachings and doings. Furthermore, it is safe to say that, at least 200 years prior the 382 AD date claimed above, the texts that were accepted as apostolic and scripture were (at the very least) the gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John), Luke’s book of Acts, Paul’s thirteen letters, 1st Peter and 1st John. There were some doubts about Hebrews, although some accepted it as one of Paul’s letters. James was accepted in the Eastern Church before the West. 2nd Peter was an uncertainty for some time. 2nd and 3rd John may have been attached to 1st John and simply known as John’s epistle (since 2nd and 3rd John are very brief texts). Jude was accepted in the Muratorian Fragment, Clement, Tertullian and Origen but not generally accepted for some time. Finally, Revelation also found some acceptance and some doubts for some time.
All 27 New Testament books were written, circulated, utilized and highly regarded even while very few of them were in dispute. In fact, scripture existed before a canon existed.

The Gnostics had concocted their own religion and their own theology. There is no reason to suppose that the early church, or that of 382, would regard their very late dated forgeries as worthy of canonization. By 382 the New Testament was a collection that was virtually completely collected already. The claim of oppressive authoritarian canonization becomes null and void in light of the facts of history.

We therefore end as we begun-the The Gospel of Judas is authoritative in that it is piece of Gnosticism’s puzzle. It is historically valid in as much as through it we learn something about ca. 200 AD. It is theologically orthodox for certain Gnostic sects. It presents us with nothing that can augment, nor challenge, the New Testament. It tells us nothing about the historical Jesus or Judas. It is an interesting piece of history and is no more nor less than what it is-a text about certain beliefs, held by a certain group, at a certain time.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help. Here is my donate/paypal page.

Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Facebook page and/or on my Google+ page.

Introductory Musings:

This essay will be parsed into the following segments:

Part 1: Introductory Musings Part 2: Substandard Double Standard Part 3: Pop-Cultura Ex-Cathedra Part 4: Which Came First, the Orthodoxy or the Heresy? Part 5: AEON SOTER – Some Gnosis of Gnosticism Part 6: Examining the Text of The Gospel of Judas

Part 7: Canonization Controversy

I have come to believe in the witness of The Gospel of Judas and accept it as authoritative, historically valid and theologically orthodox. That is, in as far as it presents us with a description of some of the beliefs of the Gnostics that lived circa a century and a half after the time that Jesus walked the Earth yet, not as Christian doctrine.

To those of us who keep up with such matters the discovery of a The Gospel of Judas came as no surprise. As soon as we heard about it we knew what is was-a Gnostic writing dated to, at least, a century and a half after the time of Jesus. The The Gospel of Judas is part of the Codex Tchacos (named as such after Frieda Nussberger-Tchacos who purchased it in New York) and is actually a fourth century manuscript. We also anticipated the reaction to it from the realm of secular and liberal scholars/theologians.

This reaction is that the New Testament has been discredited, challenged or augmented. Some liberal scholar/theologians actually claim that the New Testament has just been enhanced by the discovery of this gospel that the manipulative church censored out of its cannon. A panel of scholars/theologians was asked what will be told to children in Sunday school on the weekend after this revelation. They should be told the simple truth: one, two or three centuries after Jesus resurrected a group known as the Gnostics sought to place their, un-Jewish and un-Christian, beliefs into the mouth of Jesus and the apostles. Of course, none of these Gnostics had walked with, nor talked with, nor heard, nor seen Jesus or His apostles.

The National Geographic Society states,

“We all feel comfortable putting this copy in the fourth century,”1 and that the text is, “imbued with the ideas of the Gnostics”2

The New York Times states:

“Scholars say the release of the document will set off years of study and debate. The debate is not over whether the manuscript is genuine – on this the scholars agree. Instead, the controversy is over its relevance.”3

Yes, it is a genuine manuscript, it is a genuine fourth century Coptic copy of an alledged second century Greek text that we do not possess.

The Gnostics engaged in something very common, they attempted to give their beliefs authority by claiming to base them on an authoritative figure. For instance, the pseudopigrapha (Greek and Jewish writing from circa 200 BC to 200 AD) often claim to be writings by Old Testament characters, the unknown authors wrote under various pseudonyms. The Jewish Mishnah is said to have been given to Moses by God to be passed on in oral form (the Mishnah plus its commentary, the Gemara, combine into the Talmud written circa 400-500 AD).
Later, the Kabblahists claimed that their mystical teachings were actually given to Moses to be passed on orally. Roman Catholicism claims that their traditions come from the apostles. Islam claims that its traditions, the Hadith, were passed on from people who saw or heard Muhammad do or say something.
These claims are generally devoid of historical proof but are claims based on accentuating authority-long ago in a far, faraway place. The Gnostics likewise practiced such devices, their very name Gnostics comes from the Greek word gnosis-knowledge, they claimed secret knowledge that could only be acquired by initiations into their group-typical mystery religion.

Another predictable reaction is that of the exiting nature of anything that is perceived to come anywhere close to challenging the New Testament’s authority. Not just its authority as the Word of God but its authenticity as a historical document that accurately tells the events of the times and has been passed on accurately.
The Bible has had a long history of being besmirched due to its statements of historical events that were found nowhere else in our knowledge of history. Yet, time and time again subsequent research, history and archaeology have uncovered that the Bible was correct all along. It appears that any document that contradicts the Bible is given cart blanch and is given the status of absolute authority.
This text does not call into question the account of the New Testament anymore than someone who woke up this morning and said, “Hey, I know! Judas was the real Messiah and he was betrayed by Jesus!” Anything goes in the realm of cynical-pseudo-skepticism. The apostle Thomas was a real skeptic (not a mere doubter), he waited for proof while pseudo-skeptics are really cynics who defend their point of view against all evidence to the contrary.

Pop-Cultura Ex-Cathedra:
As a metaphor let us mention that Roman Catholicism is a particular culture that is centered around the temporal, human, leadership of the Pope. It is a Pope-Culture, if you will. Yet, there are competing cultures that claim equal status and authority, one such faith is Pop-Culture. Both, Pope-Culture and Pop-Culture claim infallibility when speaking out officially on matters of faith and morals (or lack thereof).

Granted that Pop-Culture is what it is-entertainment and trends. One very sad aspect of a pop-culture world-view is when people base their beliefs on pop-culture’s latest dogma. Some people see a movie or read a fictional book, such as The Da Vinci Code and think that they have accomplished a scholar’s task and have discerned the truth (see our essay Thank God for The Da Vinci Code!!!). In fact, Dan Brown made the following statement about The Gospel of Judas:

“But maybe, just maybe, that missing piece does belong here_and the picture of the puzzle will turn out differently than we originally thought.”1

Regarding the release date of the The Gospel of Judas:

“James M. Robinson, America’s leading expert on such ancient religious texts from Egypt” and “an emeritus professor at Claremont (Calif.) Graduate University, chief editor of religious documents found in 1945 at Nag Hammadi, Egypt, and an international leader among scholars of Coptic manuscripts_speculated the timing of the release is aimed at capitalizing on interest in the film version of The Da Vinci Code.”2

I can only imagine that he laments that fact that this text was published after The Da Vinci Code and too late for him to add this stinger to his novel.

A case in point appears to be that of David R. Hoffman who has enlightened us with regards to The True Judas. In seeking the true historical Judas Mr. Hoffman uncovers some long lost primary sources. He Writes:

“Questions about the motives of Judas are not new. They have been explored in many different forms and venues: Martin Scorsese’s movie The Last Temptation of Christ (based on the book by Nikos Kazantzakis); Andrew Lloyd Webber and Tim Rice’s theatrical musical Jesus Christ Superstar; and Taylor Caldwell and Jess Stearn’s novel I, Judas all provide alternative explanations for Judas’ action.”3

You may have thought that consulting writings from one, two or three hundred years AD was too far from the events of Jesus’ life to be considered in the least bit reliable history. Apparently, we are now going to two thousand years AD to seek reliable eyewitness accounts!?!? Two twentieth century novels and a musical!!!

Worst still, Mr. Hoffman does not even do a thorough job of seeking truth in fiction. Thus, we will play his game and point out that he overlooked the movie Jesus of Nazareth that while it is beloved by many Christians does portray Judas in a very different light than the writings of two thousand years earlier.

In this movie Judas agrees to turn Jesus over to the Sanhedrin so that they will see that He is the Messiah. The Sanhedrin agree to give Jesus a hearing but then they disclose to Judas that in reality they agreed to have Jesus turned over to them so that they can arrest Him. In this movie Judas does not betray Jesus but it is the Sanhedrin that betrayed Judas!

But let us give Mr. Hoffman some credit, he does make reference to the The Gospel of Judas that is about two thousand years before his other scholarly sources. Yet, this gospel, which is no gospel at all, comes to us from circa a century and a half later after the eyewitnesses are gone. This does not matter to the skeptic that will choose novels and musicals over the text of the Bible.

He then reads the story of the pseudo-Judas and the pseudo-Jesus back into the New Testament by making a connection between the claim of the The Gospel of Judas that, “has Jesus actually assigning Judas the responsibility of handing Him over to the authorities,”4 and the New Testament that he claims gives, “Some evidence of this prearrangement may have appeared during the Last Supper. Jesus dips His bread, hands it to Judas, then tells him, ‘What you do, do quickly.’ Yet none of the others at the table understand the significance of this exchange.”5

This is precisely the reason why people come along long after a text is written and attempt to add their two cents. They generally do this after the eyewitnesses are long dead and often assume the names, and authority, of the dead, in order to pass of their forgeries as authentic.

Many of these kinds of writings are based on attempt to fill in the gaps such as-what might Jesus have told the disciples when He taught them in private? What, precisely where the scrolls that Paul requested be brought to him? And in this case, why didn’t the apostles understand what Jesus told to Judas.

Mr. Hoffman continues his conspiratorial concoction of connections in stating:

“Also, upon returning with the authorities, Judas greets Jesus ‘with a kiss.’ While some have argued that this gesture was symptomatic of Judas’ evil nature, Professor Elaine Pagels of Princeton University, in the documentary Da Vinci’s Lost Code, provides another perspective: Greeting another with a kiss during the time of Christ symbolized spiritual rebirth_”6

If the good Professor provides one single citation to ancient history in order to back his assertion I would be tremendously shocked. This is because it has been, and is still, a custom in many cultures to greet people (male or female, family or friend) with a kiss-this kiss is described as phileo or philema descriptive of friend, fond of, having affection for. Jesus Himself interprets Judas’ kiss when Judas, “drew near Jesus to kiss Him. Jesus said to him, Judas, do you betray the Son of Man with a kiss?” (Luke 22:47-48 also see Matthew 26:48 and Mark 14:44).

He was betrayed in the midst of a sign of friendship. Furthermore, the church was urged to greet one another with a holy kiss (Rom 16:16; 1st Corinthians 16:20; 2nd Corinthians 13:12; 1st Thessalonians 5:26 and 1st Peter 5:14). This was the typical kiss of community, of familial affection, of brotherly love.

But Mr. Hoffman went further, and I suspect without realizing it, gleaned some truth as he states:

“_thus Judas, by kissing Jesus, may actually have been affirming his belief that the arrest of Jesus would somehow result in the rebirth of Jesus.”7

According to the New Testament this is simply erroneous but according to the late dated beliefs of the late dated Gnostic texts this is plausible. According to the Gnostics Jesus’ death would release Him from the evil of His material body and rebirth Him into the spirit world.

Now, back to the novel ideas as put forth in twentieth century novels as, Mr. Hoffman writes:

“_the tragedy that saddened Mary Magdalene in the closing paragraph of I, Judas. Having seen the resurrected Jesus, Mary now realizes that ‘she sorely misjudged the one who kissed Him in the garden. For [Judas] had more faith than the rest, since he believed in [Jesus] unto the death. Would that he had waited but a few more days.'”8

Judas is no longer a betrayer but had more faith than the rest, he is no villain he is a hero and the ultimate martyr. This is not only the opinion of Caldwell and Stearn (authors of I, Judas) but is even more strongly stated by Mr. Hoffman himself:

“Today’s world has produced an inordinate number of people who exploit religion to promote their hatreds, abuse their power, justify their wars, and exploit and slaughter their fellow human beings. It is they, not Judas, who are selling their souls. It is they, not Judas, who are the most contemptible betrayers of all.”9

The National Geographic Society states:

“In this version, he is a hero. Unlike the other disciples, he truly understands Christ’s message.”10

They also quote Bart Ehrman as stating:

“Judas is singled out by Jesus as the best of the disciples. The others didn’t get it.”11

Judas has thus been retrieved from the lowly place of ultimate betrayer in which the church put him. Now the truth is finally out, it was the other eleven apostles that were corrupt and this is something to celebrate!?!

Of course, Judas is not always seen in a more favorable light in these pseudo-gospels. For instance, in v. 35 of the 6th century The Arabic Gospel of the Infancy of the Saviour he is said to have been tormented and seized by satan from childhood.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help. Here is my donate/paypal page.

Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Facebook page and/or on my Google+ page.

Under consideration is an article posted to the Gnostic Warrior site by Moe which is titled, “The Symbol of the Nephilim is the Caduceus of Hermes,” September 16, 2016 AD.

Of course, Moe’s interest is ultimately deciphering the symbol the Caduceus yet, I will focus upon the portion which is of greater interest to me: the identification of the Nephilim.
Sadly, I found his article to be very much along the lines of a tactic known as “elephant hurling” which refers to when a person asserts lots and lots of info which comes across as impressive but which is not necessarily accurate, well sourced, contextually correlated, etc.—he mostly provided a lot of references to Wikipedia.

Moe notes:

Hermes is also known as Cadmus or Cadman (Kadmos or Kad-man) amongst the Phoenicians, Spartans, Sidonians, Arcadians, Boetians, and Cadimians (all the same people)…Cadmus’ Soldiers were known as the Hivites, a name meaning serpents, and they are said to be changed into Serpents. They are also known by many as the Nephilim…

Well, I am already lost and the only references to these statements are the generic Wikipedia article about the Greeks in general. So, at this point, as in very many other points in the article, you either decide to dedicate a significant portion of your time towards tracking down his every rabbit hole, you simply go with it, you simply dismiss it or well, you chose. I just keep seeing where he is going with it.

You can see the caduceus proceeding forth from Baphomet’s nether regions

Note that Moe, writes, “the Phoenician Nephilim who also went by many other names are part of the Catholic Church, and more specifically, they were its original priests, bishops and Popes.” Sorry, but the only reference is a generic one to Wikipedia’s entry on the Catholic Church in general.

He also writes that “the planet Jupiter, and is known biblically as the morning star.” Now, he does not cite it, I know that he is referring to but with a twist. Isaiah 14:12 reads “How art thou fallen from heaven” and then the term helel which has been variously translated finishing with “son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!”
This has generally be thought to be a reference to Satan (sometimes helel is translated as Lucifer as in light bringer or bearer) symbolically as Venus when it precedes the Sunrise thus, it is the morning star.
As per Moe, “Not many people are aware of the fact that the planet Jupiter (Latin: Iuppiter, Iūpiter) is also called the morning star, and it is this morning star that is spoken of in the bible.”1 Well, whether the Isaiah reference is to Venus or Jupiter is not determined by Moe’s mere assertion. Also, note that he informs us that “Not many people are aware of the fact that…” and if that is the case then he is not helping matters as within the statement he offers a generic Wikipedia link to “Jupiter” and that page says nothing about it being aka morning star and also a generic link to the Latin language.

Moe concludes, “the etymology of the word caduceus indicates the meaning to be ‘the fall of Jupiter,’ or more appropriately the symbol of those who are known biblically as the fallen Sons of God (Jupiter).” He states this because the Latin is cadent and Moe tells us that the “Latin word ceus which is the equivalent of the Greek zeus.” Well, that depends on what equivalent means. Frankly, it seems that he just made that up and/or it is very common for New Age, occultists, astrotheology sorts to simply change a few letters around and claim equivalence: I would imagine that it is only in very late dating English that Moe can imagine that ceus is the equivalent of zeus simply because they look alike in English. It is like the Zeitgeist Jesus mythicists who claim that Sun is like Son—because it looks that way in English.

In another bout of elephant hurling, Moe asserts:

They are also known in Hebrew as the Bene Elohim and Nephilim described in Genesis 6:4; that the offspring of the Nephilim were “mighty men of old, men of renown”. They are sometimes known in literature by many names such as the Anunnaki, Boetians, Cadamians, Hivites, Ophites, Levites, Phoenicians, Judeans (Tribe of Judah), mighty men of renown, and simply as giants who became Gods on earth to name a few. Men who were renown for the super human mental power, strength, and length in years which they had lived.

By the way no, he provided no citations. Well, within many circles the term Anunnaki is sexy and could easily be made to force fit the bill but wait, the Levites and Tribe of Judah were Nephilim? There is simply no indication of this beyond Moe’s authoritative assertion. For example, we have no indication whatsoever that Levits and those of the Tribe of Juda possessed “super human mental power, strength, and length in years which they had lived.”

Yet, keep in mind what I noted that my goal is about where Moe is going with all of this.

Meo tells us something commonly believed which is that “The meaning of Nephilim in Hebrew is the verbal root n-ph-l ‘fall.’” This is the case on presuming the term to derive from the Hebrew naphal and yet, it may derive from the Aramaic root naphiyla which means giant (whatever that means).
In any case, Moe attempts to tie a bow in his goal by reiterating that since “cad is ‘to fall,’ and ceus is ‘Jupiter or the bright morning star’” then “This is why in the bible; ‘I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you this testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star.’ Rev 22:16 (NIV).” Again he asserts that “Jupiter…is the planet they speak of.”

So, we are just about at the rock bottom of Moe’s goal: Jesus is Jupiter and is fallen—or Jesus is Zeus or whatever: hey look, Jesus looks like Zeus in English: Je-Zeus!!! Oh, I know: Hermes is Jupiter is Zeus is Jesus the Lorax ’cause—why not?

Moe next references the Isaiah text by asserting that “This event of the fall of the Sons of God” the plural Nephilim “is further spoken of in scriptures where it is said; ‘How you have fallen from heaven, O morning star, son of the dawn!…” I may imagine where he is getting such an idea but the grammar would be all wrong.

Job 38:7 refers to the “sons of God” bene Elohim rejoicing at witnessing, at least, part of God’s creative act. The Genesis 6 affair’s “sons of God” is the same plural “bene.” Yet, Isaiah 14 refers to the singular “ben.”

Moe refers to “The French Occultist, Eliphas Levi” who illustrated the Baphomet above, “had written; ‘The fallen angels gathered around their chief, Samiaxas, on a high mountain, which has been called ever since ‘the mountain of the Oath’, for the Eggregores pledged themselves there one to the other with a sacrilegious vow.’”
Now, Samiaxas is one of the very many transliterations of the name of the main fallen Watcher Angel within the apocryphal Book of Enoch specifically 1 Enoch aka Ethiopic Enoch—see my entries for Semjase.
By mountain of the Oath he is referring to the Enoch claim, not found in the Bible, which is the specific location where the Watcher Angels touched down when they came to Earth and that was Mount Hermon.

From these further unfounded assertions Moe further digs into the bottomless pit of his end goal, “Jesus was the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star, and he is also of the Tribe of Judah which would indicate he is from the same Mount Ida (Herm-On) where the Nephilim had made the sacrilegious vow.”
But why would Jesus being of David and the Tribe of Judah “indicate” Mount Hermon? Firstly, during Jesus’ time the Jews were not necessarily living within their traditional tribal lands. Secondly, the traditional land of the Tribe of Judah is very much far and away to the South of Mount Hermon. Thirdly, Jesus was born in Bethlehem which is also very much far and away to the South of Mount Hermon. Lastly, even if you, for some reason, want to pin point Jesus to where he grew up, Nazareth, that is still very much far and away to the South of Mount Hermon.

In other words, Moe cannot simply dismiss these points just so that he can manufacture his very own Gnostic Jesus mythicism.

Moe then writes, “The big difference with Jesus, is that he was the only Judean who did not make once of these vows, or deals with Satan to mislead mankind.” This is indicative of Moe’s utter confusion and lack of knowledge of the issue he seeks to elucidate. Firstly, what?! All Judeans except Jesus made sacrilegious vows, or deals with Satan to mislead mankind?! How does he come to such as conclusion? Well, he was playing off of Eliphas Levi’s and the Book of Enoch’s statement to the effect that “The fallen angels…pledged themselves there one to the other with a sacrilegious vow” but Moe tells us that it was where “the Nephilim had made the sacrilegious vow.”
Fallen Angels and Nephilim are not the same beings? The Fallen Angles are parents of the Nephilim. Also, even if the fallen Angels did touch down on Hermon that as pre-flood and Jesus was born millennias later.

Moe also asserts that “In fact” mind you “he was crucified for not taking this vow” no, he offers no quotation, no citation, no not even a generic link to Wikipedia for this one.

Yet, he argues his point thusly, “In the Passion of Christ, when he was reluctantly placed on the cross next to a thief named Barabbas…the crowd chose Barabbas to be released…The meaning of the name Barabbas in Aramaic is Bar-abbâ (בר-אבא), ‘son of the father.’” Thus far, this is accurate, “Jesus was also a son of the father. Hence, they were from the same tribe of Judah, but Barabbas is part of sect known as the Nephilim, or those that fell, and Jesus the messiah who refused to take that vow was sacrificed.”
Firstly, Jesus certainly is that “son of the father” even if not specifically referred to as such: He is called Son of God and more so that not prefers the term Son of Man. Secondly, why conclude that one man’s name Barabbas and that which Jesus “was also” have to do with their Tribal identification?

Overall, Moe’s article is very confused and consists of a lot of disjointed bit and pieces which he failed to connect.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help. Here is my donate/paypal page.

Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Facebook page and/or on my Google+ page. You can also use the “Share / Save” button below this post.

• VIDEO: Genesis 6, Nephilim, Angels, Demons, Giants – discussion with Douglas Hamp
• VIDEO: Confederate statue issue: morality vs. ethics in Atheism & Christianity interfaith dialogue
• Interview on Atheism and “Pop-Atheist Bible Expositors” book
• On the Nashville Statement LGBTQIAP+ protest signs
• On the neo LGBTQIAP+ religion & Oscar Wilde temple
• Atheism, Communism, Christianity, Nazism, Dawkins, Harris & “From Zeitgeist to Poltergeist” book
• G.K. Chesterton “modern world is insane…it cannot recover the normal”
• VIDEO: May Pang on John Lennon, UFOs, Yoko Ono & hypnotism
• New book “The Antichrist Cookbook”
• New book “Cain as Serpent Seed of Satan, vol. I”