<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The Stupids Do New Testament 101</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/the-stupids-do-new-testament-101/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/the-stupids-do-new-testament-101</link>
	<description>...dispatches from the post-evangelical wilderness</description>
	<pubDate>Sat, 11 Oct 2008 07:10:52 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Michael Spencer</title>
		<link>http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/the-stupids-do-new-testament-101#comment-5812</link>
		<dc:creator>Michael Spencer</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 09 Apr 2006 19:51:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/the-stupids-do-new-testament-101#comment-5812</guid>
		<description>I would suggest you do a survey of the current scholarly concensus regarding the dating of the four canonical Gospels. The original forms of the four canonical Gospels were written within the lifetime of the Apostles, 60-90 a.d.

The Gospel of Judas expounds the same message as other gnostic tracts: salvation = secret knowledge available to only a few privileged mystics.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I would suggest you do a survey of the current scholarly concensus regarding the dating of the four canonical Gospels. The original forms of the four canonical Gospels were written within the lifetime of the Apostles, 60-90 a.d.</p>
<p>The Gospel of Judas expounds the same message as other gnostic tracts: salvation = secret knowledge available to only a few privileged mystics.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: newbie</title>
		<link>http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/the-stupids-do-new-testament-101#comment-5811</link>
		<dc:creator>newbie</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 09 Apr 2006 18:10:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/the-stupids-do-new-testament-101#comment-5811</guid>
		<description>The Gospel of Judas is rather new and unread.  It is my understanding that the majority of the testaments in the bible were not written by the disipiles and were not written during their lives.  They too were written over 100 years later.  The testaments are even compilations of different authors works.
I am looking forward to reading the Gospel of Judas, especially if it expounds the ideas of love and truth.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The Gospel of Judas is rather new and unread.  It is my understanding that the majority of the testaments in the bible were not written by the disipiles and were not written during their lives.  They too were written over 100 years later.  The testaments are even compilations of different authors works.<br />
I am looking forward to reading the Gospel of Judas, especially if it expounds the ideas of love and truth.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Michael Spencer</title>
		<link>http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/the-stupids-do-new-testament-101#comment-5810</link>
		<dc:creator>Michael Spencer</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 09 Apr 2006 14:16:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/the-stupids-do-new-testament-101#comment-5810</guid>
		<description>Well, comedy is a bit of a broad brush. I'm sure you've swiped a few "evangelicals" with yours.

Yeah, Crossan is brilliant. Brilliantly wrong, and Brilliantly paddling his own boat, but brilliant. Wright hauls Crossan in on a couple of points in JVG, but every clock is right twice a day.

The fact is that no matter what pitches these guys occasionally hit, their scholarly METHOD is dumbfounding cavalier. What Crossan does to the study of historical sources ought to be illegal. He believes the insights of a sociologist on brigands in first century Judaism tell us far more about Jesus than the New Testament. Huh?

All these people, at the end of the day, have two axes to grind: Jesus is really a _________________________ (insert their latest politically correct interest) and evangelicals are the devil incarnate: Jew haters, etc.

Giving them some credit is appropriate. Looking past their blatant agendas and bias is not possible, however.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Well, comedy is a bit of a broad brush. I&#8217;m sure you&#8217;ve swiped a few &#8220;evangelicals&#8221; with yours.</p>
<p>Yeah, Crossan is brilliant. Brilliantly wrong, and Brilliantly paddling his own boat, but brilliant. Wright hauls Crossan in on a couple of points in JVG, but every clock is right twice a day.</p>
<p>The fact is that no matter what pitches these guys occasionally hit, their scholarly METHOD is dumbfounding cavalier. What Crossan does to the study of historical sources ought to be illegal. He believes the insights of a sociologist on brigands in first century Judaism tell us far more about Jesus than the New Testament. Huh?</p>
<p>All these people, at the end of the day, have two axes to grind: Jesus is really a _________________________ (insert their latest politically correct interest) and evangelicals are the devil incarnate: Jew haters, etc.</p>
<p>Giving them some credit is appropriate. Looking past their blatant agendas and bias is not possible, however.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dave Rattigan</title>
		<link>http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/the-stupids-do-new-testament-101#comment-5809</link>
		<dc:creator>Dave Rattigan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 09 Apr 2006 12:31:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/the-stupids-do-new-testament-101#comment-5809</guid>
		<description>: Bart Ehrman, Dominac Crossan, Robert Funk and the
: Jesus Seminar crowd are selling a lot of books to
: the general public because they are good marketers
: and know what the audience is craving. Scholars,
: on the other hand, consider these people to be
: like the third semester freshman guys in the chem
: lab who just announced they made a fusion time
: travel device out of plastic pipe, cold cuts, a
: dead rat and six gallons of Corona.

Hmm. This is a common evangelical stereotype, but I'm not convinced it's really true. I'm no fan of the Jesus Seminar generally, but it's not true that the individual scholars involved are regarded by other scholars as mavericks. Even Wright treats their work seriously and extensively.

It's just a little too easy to write them off as loonies on the fringes of "real" scholarship, but many of them are not. That's not to deny the Jesus Seminar was a piece of slick marketing, but these scholars and their work go beyond just the Seminar.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>: Bart Ehrman, Dominac Crossan, Robert Funk and the<br />
: Jesus Seminar crowd are selling a lot of books to<br />
: the general public because they are good marketers<br />
: and know what the audience is craving. Scholars,<br />
: on the other hand, consider these people to be<br />
: like the third semester freshman guys in the chem<br />
: lab who just announced they made a fusion time<br />
: travel device out of plastic pipe, cold cuts, a<br />
: dead rat and six gallons of Corona.</p>
<p>Hmm. This is a common evangelical stereotype, but I&#8217;m not convinced it&#8217;s really true. I&#8217;m no fan of the Jesus Seminar generally, but it&#8217;s not true that the individual scholars involved are regarded by other scholars as mavericks. Even Wright treats their work seriously and extensively.</p>
<p>It&#8217;s just a little too easy to write them off as loonies on the fringes of &#8220;real&#8221; scholarship, but many of them are not. That&#8217;s not to deny the Jesus Seminar was a piece of slick marketing, but these scholars and their work go beyond just the Seminar.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: oreomankelly</title>
		<link>http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/the-stupids-do-new-testament-101#comment-5798</link>
		<dc:creator>oreomankelly</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 07 Apr 2006 16:33:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/the-stupids-do-new-testament-101#comment-5798</guid>
		<description>Thank you for this article! I had a guy at work mention it to me today and was all excited (not "happy" excited, more like energetically talking) about it and asking what I thought. Since I had not really heard anything I reserved commenting. After some quick research, I stumbled onto the wikipedia article about it and somebody had linked back to iMonk about it. 

The sad thing is that "discoveries" like this and The DaVinci Code often get Christians confused and caught up in it. It is really sad that we do not search out truth better than we do. Too many people take CNN's word for stuff and move on...

It brings to mind the Bereans... We need to search out the truth and help others do the same. Thanks again for iMonk and the thought provoking articles you bring us!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thank you for this article! I had a guy at work mention it to me today and was all excited (not &#8220;happy&#8221; excited, more like energetically talking) about it and asking what I thought. Since I had not really heard anything I reserved commenting. After some quick research, I stumbled onto the wikipedia article about it and somebody had linked back to iMonk about it. </p>
<p>The sad thing is that &#8220;discoveries&#8221; like this and The DaVinci Code often get Christians confused and caught up in it. It is really sad that we do not search out truth better than we do. Too many people take CNN&#8217;s word for stuff and move on&#8230;</p>
<p>It brings to mind the Bereans&#8230; We need to search out the truth and help others do the same. Thanks again for iMonk and the thought provoking articles you bring us!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: gramesy</title>
		<link>http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/the-stupids-do-new-testament-101#comment-5797</link>
		<dc:creator>gramesy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 07 Apr 2006 15:56:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/the-stupids-do-new-testament-101#comment-5797</guid>
		<description>Thanks for this post.  People will believe anything so long as it's not the truth.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks for this post.  People will believe anything so long as it&#8217;s not the truth.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dave.A</title>
		<link>http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/the-stupids-do-new-testament-101#comment-5790</link>
		<dc:creator>Dave.A</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 07 Apr 2006 12:50:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/the-stupids-do-new-testament-101#comment-5790</guid>
		<description>I found a link to parts of the text of the "Gospel" of Judas.
http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/manuscripts/gospel_of_judas/index.htm

It is quite a hilarious read.  It seems to randomly jump to various bits of "secret knowledge" that Jesus was sharing only with Judas.  Surprise surprise the Gnostics are behind all this.

My favorite part was the fact that apparently Jesus would appear as a child to his disciples randomly.  I wonder if there is some link here between modern Hollywood's fascination with children as a source of great wisdom and the ancient Gnostics.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I found a link to parts of the text of the &#8220;Gospel&#8221; of Judas.<br />
<a href="http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/manuscripts/gospel_of_judas/index.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/manuscripts/gospel_of_judas/index.htm</a></p>
<p>It is quite a hilarious read.  It seems to randomly jump to various bits of &#8220;secret knowledge&#8221; that Jesus was sharing only with Judas.  Surprise surprise the Gnostics are behind all this.</p>
<p>My favorite part was the fact that apparently Jesus would appear as a child to his disciples randomly.  I wonder if there is some link here between modern Hollywood&#8217;s fascination with children as a source of great wisdom and the ancient Gnostics.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: notarev</title>
		<link>http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/the-stupids-do-new-testament-101#comment-5789</link>
		<dc:creator>notarev</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 07 Apr 2006 12:37:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/the-stupids-do-new-testament-101#comment-5789</guid>
		<description>I just read the translation at the Nat'l Geo site. I'm no bible scholar by a loooong stretch, but it reads more like the Book of Mormon than the Bible to me.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I just read the translation at the Nat&#8217;l Geo site. I&#8217;m no bible scholar by a loooong stretch, but it reads more like the Book of Mormon than the Bible to me.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: bookdragon01</title>
		<link>http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/the-stupids-do-new-testament-101#comment-5788</link>
		<dc:creator>bookdragon01</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 07 Apr 2006 12:35:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/the-stupids-do-new-testament-101#comment-5788</guid>
		<description>Hi,

I've only seen one actual news article on the Gospel of Judas (and I avoid Faux News, so I don't know how badly they reported this), and it didn't present it as anything that would turn Christianity on its head.  It was discussed for what it is: a Gnostic document that sheds light on some of the beliefs that were part of the milleau of the first couple centuries of the early church.   It presents a different take on who Judas was and how he's understood.  And that take is not in itself heretical (Judas as a trusted friend doing what was necessary is an idea that's been around long before the discovery of this parchment).  In fact, one scholar was quoted as saying that there is very little in this parchment that presents any real conflict with the accepted Gospels (only with ideas about Judas that developed later in Christian history).

So, basically, it isn't going to change or even challenge anyone's understanding of basic Christian theology.  For scholars it's an exciting discovery, but for the average guy in th pews it has little meaning.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi,</p>
<p>I&#8217;ve only seen one actual news article on the Gospel of Judas (and I avoid Faux News, so I don&#8217;t know how badly they reported this), and it didn&#8217;t present it as anything that would turn Christianity on its head.  It was discussed for what it is: a Gnostic document that sheds light on some of the beliefs that were part of the milleau of the first couple centuries of the early church.   It presents a different take on who Judas was and how he&#8217;s understood.  And that take is not in itself heretical (Judas as a trusted friend doing what was necessary is an idea that&#8217;s been around long before the discovery of this parchment).  In fact, one scholar was quoted as saying that there is very little in this parchment that presents any real conflict with the accepted Gospels (only with ideas about Judas that developed later in Christian history).</p>
<p>So, basically, it isn&#8217;t going to change or even challenge anyone&#8217;s understanding of basic Christian theology.  For scholars it&#8217;s an exciting discovery, but for the average guy in th pews it has little meaning.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: K.W. Leslie</title>
		<link>http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/the-stupids-do-new-testament-101#comment-5784</link>
		<dc:creator>K.W. Leslie</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 07 Apr 2006 07:58:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/the-stupids-do-new-testament-101#comment-5784</guid>
		<description>Fair and balanced? The article is a Fox News report about a book that's being published by one of its sister companies. I agree with James Robinson's conclusions, but just because I agree with something doesn't make it balanced. It just makes it slanted in &lt;i&gt;my&lt;/i&gt; direction.

Rants about Fox News aside, I love the post.

I've been dealing with a lot of idiots lately who have been conditioned, thanks to an American educational system that doesn't teach critical thinking, to believe anything they find in print. Unfortunately, this now also extends to fiction. So if &lt;i&gt;The DaVinci Code&lt;/i&gt; says it, they reason there &lt;i&gt;must&lt;/i&gt; be some truth behind it, otherwise it wouldn't be convincing fiction.

And following that logic, Martians are real and they landed in and attacked Britain in the late 1890s. H.G. Wells said so. Convincingly. After all, at the time, most people actually believed there was life on Mars. Reputable scientists like Percival Lowell said so and even drew maps of the canals. The radio version &lt;i&gt;War of the Worlds&lt;/i&gt; even caused panics in New York 40 years later. The only reason people don't take it seriously anymore is that the idea of life on Mars has been completely debunked by our space probes.

If only we had something analogous for spurious gnostic documents... but for now we have to use reason, which is seriously lacking because few are trained to use it.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Fair and balanced? The article is a Fox News report about a book that&#8217;s being published by one of its sister companies. I agree with James Robinson&#8217;s conclusions, but just because I agree with something doesn&#8217;t make it balanced. It just makes it slanted in <i>my</i> direction.</p>
<p>Rants about Fox News aside, I love the post.</p>
<p>I&#8217;ve been dealing with a lot of idiots lately who have been conditioned, thanks to an American educational system that doesn&#8217;t teach critical thinking, to believe anything they find in print. Unfortunately, this now also extends to fiction. So if <i>The DaVinci Code</i> says it, they reason there <i>must</i> be some truth behind it, otherwise it wouldn&#8217;t be convincing fiction.</p>
<p>And following that logic, Martians are real and they landed in and attacked Britain in the late 1890s. H.G. Wells said so. Convincingly. After all, at the time, most people actually believed there was life on Mars. Reputable scientists like Percival Lowell said so and even drew maps of the canals. The radio version <i>War of the Worlds</i> even caused panics in New York 40 years later. The only reason people don&#8217;t take it seriously anymore is that the idea of life on Mars has been completely debunked by our space probes.</p>
<p>If only we had something analogous for spurious gnostic documents&#8230; but for now we have to use reason, which is seriously lacking because few are trained to use it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
