New Episcopal Head Says Homosexuality Not a Sin
The newly elected leader of the Episcopal Church U.S.A. said Monday that she believes homosexuality is not a sin and that homosexuals were created by God “with affections ordered toward other people of the same gender.” Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori of Nevada, who on Sunday was chosen as the first female presiding bishop for the Episcopal Church, was asked if it was a sin to be homosexual. “I don’t believe so,” she said following her election, according to Reuters. When asked how she reconciled her position with specific biblical passages, Jefferts Schori said the Bible was written in a very different historical context. Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Rowan Williams, released a statement Monday “greeting” the new Episcopal head, and noted that her election “will undoubtedly… bring into focus some continuing issues in several of our ecumenical dialogues.” Jefferts Schori’s election has already seen the Fort Worth (TX) diocese - which does not ordain women - appeal to the Archbishop for alternative oversight. Regarding her position on homosexuality, while conservatives are a minority within the American denomination, the majority of overseas Anglican leaders believe the Bible bars gay sex. As such, the Washington Times reports Episcopalians are nowhere close to resolving the sexuality issues that have alienated them from much of the worldwide Anglican Communion.
JOSH’S COMMENTS:
Now, this is classic liberal theological nonsense. Notice the most important part of her statement- when asked how she reconciles her statement with the Biblical passages that clearly say homosexuality IS a sin, she says that the Bible was written in a very different time and it was in a different historical context. What on earth does that mean? I assume she means that she doesn’t believe the Bible is truly the word of God, because the Bible says that God has always been the same and will always remain the same. It doesn’t matter when the text was written- it’s the Word of God or it’s fiction written my mere men trying to fool the world.
If it’s fiction- why is she a Christian at all? Why the head of a church? Why practice half-heartedly a role that demands you uphold the Word of God, yet deny it’s really the Word of God at all?
I cannot read her mind- but that’s the only logical conclusion I can think of.
Next, I expect her to say that all sorts of sin are okay because the times were different when the laws were written! Heck- the ENTIRE text was written in a very different time with a very different attitude in general. So, if we conclude that the sinful nature of homosexuality is bogus on this basis, we must also conclude ALL the Biblical laws must be nonsense as well. How can you possibly single out homosexuality is being okay, and then just wave your hand and say, ‘oh, it was a different time back then when they wrote that law!’ You must, logically, take that opinion to its conclusion- you must wave your hand and say, ALL laws written at the time are nonsense, because it was a different era with different values, etc.
When any church denies the word of God- it’s in trouble. This is a denomination that has, in recent years, gone further and further away from the Word of God, replacing it with a non-Christian theology they have constructed out of thin air. This church is dead in Christ…I’m not sure how the hierarchy works within the denomination, but I would urge all churches affiliated with the denomination to get back to the Word of God and stay as far away from this woman as possible.
FIND ANOTHER ARTICLE ON THIS BELOW THE FOLD
(more…)
Posted By:Joshua Bozeman at 2:05 pm on Wednesday, June 21, 2006
I often times watch EWTN, as it’s hard to find good programs that do much teaching on TBN, Daystar, etc. EWTN has many shows that are rooted in teaching the Word and that sort of thing…answers to questions and all. But they also bug me when they have shows and the priest ends with a prayer to Mary.
The Bible is clear in that JESUS is the ONLY way to God…he is the ONLY route to God thru prayer. When someone tells me to pray to Mary, I have to ask them why on earth I’d pray to a sinner, as the Bible also makes it clear that ALL are sinful but one. And that one is Jesus, NOT Mary, not a “saint,” not a church father, etc. I won’t dare pray to a false God, as many Catholics do when they pray to her. She answers no prayers, I assure you of that, as there’s no text in the Bible that says she does any such thing.
Oddly, here is EWTN’s defense of praying to Mary (at least their honest enough to admit Catholics actually “pray” to her):
A Catholic Answers Tract
Fundamentalists challenge the Catholic practice of asking saints and angels to pray for us. But the Bible directs us to invoke those in heaven and ask them to pray with us.
Thus in Psalm 103, we pray, “Bless the Lord, O you his angels, you mighty ones who do his word, hearkening to the voice of his word! Bless the Lord, all his hosts, his ministers that do his will!” (Ps. 103:20-21). And in Psalm 148 we pray, “Praise the Lord! Praise the Lord from the heavens, praise him in the heights! Praise him, all his angels, praise him, all his host!” (Ps. 148:1-2)
Not only do those in heaven pray with us, they also pray for us. In Revelation, John sees that “the twenty-four elders [the leaders of the people of God in heaven] fell down before the Lamb, each holding a harp, and with golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints” (Rev. 5:8). Thus the saints in heaven offer to God the prayers of the saints on earth.
Angels do the same thing: “[An] angel came and stood at the altar [in heaven] with a golden censer; and he was given much incense to mingle with the prayers of all the saints upon the golden altar before the throne; and the smoke of the incense rose with the prayers of the saints from the hand of the angel before God” (Rev. 8:3-4).
Jesus himself warned us not to mess with small children because their guardian angels have guaranteed intercessory access to the Father: “See that you do not despise one of these little ones; for I tell you that in heaven their angels always see the face of my Father who is in heaven.” (Matt. 18:10).
Because he is the only God-man, Jesus is the only Mediator between man and God (1 Tim. 2:5), but this in no way means we cannot or should not ask our fellow Christians to pray with us and for us (1 Tim. 2:1-4), including those Christians in heaven, who have already had their sanctification completed, for “[t]he prayer of a righteous man has great power in its effects” (Jas. 5:16).
As the following passages show, the early Church Fathers clearly recognized the Biblical teaching that those in heaven can and do intercede for us, and they applied this teaching in their practice. [SOURCE]
It’s an odd argument that gives us absolutely no Biblical reason to pray to Mary. The argument boils down to: ‘here are a few verses that praise angels, thus we should pray to them and Mary, even tho the Bible says the only single way to God is through Jesus and no other.’
Psalm 103:20-21 merely gives praise to those with the Lord. How does anyone get from that verse that we should pray to them? Giving praise isn’t the same as praying to God. Respecting the figures of the Book isn’t the same as praying…it’s nowhere near the same ballpark.
The argument, from the site, seems to say, in essence, the saints give praise to God, thus they are praying with us in a way, thus we should pray to them or ask for prayer from them on our behalf. That is, of course, a very LONG stretch to get that meaning from Psalm 103! It sure as heck isn’t God invoking us to pray to anyone else but his Son.
Rev speaks of the saints praying. The link above makes turns this into a claim that they are praying for us, which you can debate whether it means that or not. It doesn’t matter…even if it does say the saints are praying for those saints on earth, that doesn’t equal God invoking us to pray to them or to Mary.
Next, they speak of angels praying for those on earth and to God. This also says nothing of praying TO them.
They reference 1Timothy 1-4 as proof that God allows us to pray to others than Jesus. But do the verses say that at all? These verses tell us merely to pray for EVERYONE, including our leaders, kings, laypersons, etc. They tell us that God wants ALL to be saved, and that we shoud pray that all be saved, for this is a good thing. It never says we should pray to any person outside of Jesus. In fact, as they point out, 1Tim 2:5 says that there is ONLY ONE MEDIATOR between man and God, and it’s Jesus. But why worry about what the Bible says, they wave it off and basically say, ‘heck, if we can ask other Christians to pray for us, why not pray to those in heaven as well…heck, why not even pray to Mary while we’re at it? I’m sure we can stretch the verses far enough to get people to pray to Mary, tho the Bible specifically demands we do no such thing!’
Even the final verse they give in defense (James 5:16) doesn’t invoke us to pray to Mary or the saints or any other figure than Jesus. It merely says that we should pray for one another TO GOD, and that the prayers of a righteous man (I’d assume this simply means a Christian) is a good thing that actually changes your life or the life of another around you. I cannot see how they can get out of this verse that we should pray to people in heaven or Mary.
If this is the best argument one has to defend the practice of praying to Mary, I’m afraid I don’t get why so many Catholics have been so easily hoodwinked into taking part in the practice. It boggles the mind how people can so easily stretch a Bible verse to defend the most perverted forms of Christianity.
Posted By:Joshua Bozeman at 10:37 pm on Friday, June 16, 2006
I could write a big post about the issues in regards to the Catholic church and their near worship of Mary, but I won’t get into a long rant right now.
I just wanted to comment on the fact that every church I see on EWTN (the Catholic cable network), Mary is almost always a large statue, bigger than Christ and often times above him. In my mind, this is complete blasphemy, and it shows that, despite what many Catholics say, they do, indeed, worship Mary.
Even scarier, to me, was the whole ritual of praying to Mary in saying the same verse over and over and over and over (I saw a show on EWTN where they did this for 20 mins straight.)
I have a number of documented quoted from various Popes saying that prayer to Mary is required, which is completely unbiblical, of course, and the constant mention of “Holy Mother” is also troubling, as no where in the Bible does it say that Mary is in any way holier than any other human. The OT and NT are clear that the only sinless person ever to be born into the flesh was Jesus Christ, God in human form, not Mary or anyone else…
This Mary obsession has to stop, and we need to come back to the roots of The Word, not manmade, extra-biblical, traditions.
Posted By:Joshua Bozeman at 1:06 pm on Sunday, June 11, 2006
Christians need to stand firm against organizations that try to destroy our religious freedoms. The biggest culprit in this arena is the ACLU and to a lesser degree, but no less dangerous is Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, headed by “Reverend” Barry Lynn- who has made it his life work to fight any tiny mention of religion anywhere near related to government. Lynn was originally an attorney with the ACLU- so that tells you a lot about the man itself.
Here are two articles- one on Lynn and the other on the ACLU Check them out, or do a google search to learn more about Barry’s controversial views, and his twisted “Christian” theology. I’m not sure many Christians would even recognize his views as a Christian, and after hearing even a small number of his positions- even fewer people would even realize he actually claims to be a Christian, let alone the fact that he was ordained by the miserable United Church of Christ.
Reverend Barry, Quite Contrary (Citizen Magazine)
Trial And Error: The ACLU and Religious Expression
I should note- when I say miserable, I mean the larger body itself…there are many fine UCC churches out there that actually adhere to what the Word says, but the main body that holds the name UCC is, indeed, a group that has turned its back on the Bible. For example- they are the ones leading the way to support homosexual marriage and claiming that God loves gay couples just as he does straight couples. Of course, that’s in clear contradiction to what the Bible teaches, and God surely does not approve of these couples, nor does he approve of their sinful lifestyles. He is disgusted by ALL sin, and homosexuality is no exception.
Don’t think Lynn and those like him pose a threat to our way of life in general? Well, here’s a snippet of the article from The Citizen (linked above):
As legislative counsel for the ACLU in 1985, Lynn told the U.S. Attorney General’s Commission on Pornography (of which Focus on the Family President Dr. James C. Dobson was a member) that child pornography was protected by the First Amendment. While production of child porn could be prevented by law, he argued, its distribution could not be. A few years later (1988), Lynn told the Senate Judiciary Committee that even requiring porn producers to maintain records of their performers’ ages was impermissible.
“If there is no federal record-keeping requirement for the people portrayed in Road and Track or Star Wars,” he said, “there can be no such requirement for Hustler or Debbie Does Dallas.”
Lynn told Citizen that he urged his superiors at the ACLU to modify their position, and that he believes that there are “mechanisms by which child pornography can be controlled at every stage, from production to distribution,” so long as those mechanisms are not overly “broad.”
Attorney Len Munsil, who has specialized in fighting obscenity and child porn, finds it hard to accept the reverend’s long service at the ACLU (from 1984-91), given the group’s questionable policies.
“It’s hard for me to understand how a person of conscience can do that,” Munsil said. “If you really disagree, you tell your employer to find another mouthpiece.”
Anyhow- as any Constitutional worth his salt will tell you- the founders never intended a government or a society without religion. They never intended schools to ban religion, to ban the Bible, to ban pastors at commencement speeches, to ban the Ten Commandments, and all the rest of the stuff the ACLU and AU fight against. We need to stand together, a united front, against the assault on religion in this nation, especially Christianity. Christians are, indeed, warring with these groups and Americans who support their causes. We are fighting a battle we cannot lose…a battle this nation cannot lose. We cannot allow a minority to work its way through activist courts to get their will pushed forward, caring not at all what we have to say about it, the way our country is being pushed into a direction we don’t want to see it go.
When you hear of lawsuits or threats of lawsuits, sign petitions to fight the ACLU, AU, and others…contact your reps in Congress, write a letter to the editor. Hold a rally against these groups and their sneaky tactics. If you’re an attorney, take the case for those being attacked, and do it pro bono if possible. Find any way to fight these organizations and do so in the best manner you know how. Let’s not allow these groups to try to overhaul the very moral fabric this nation was and is still built upon.
Posted By:Joshua Bozeman at 2:51 am on Monday, June 5, 2006
I saw a segment on ABC News where an evangelical Christian woman was leading a group to go out into the Arizona desert to give aid to illegals crossing into our country from Mexico. They carry packages of food and water with them and give them to illegals they come across. They also sometimes carry illegals to medical aid, they bandage their wounds, etc.
The woman says this is precisely what Jesus would do. She says she understands the need to obey the law and even Christ’s command to obey governmental laws…but, more than that- there’s grace.
I disagree with her outlook. I don’t think Jesus would be approving of people coming into our country without any right to do so, disrespecting our nation and our laws and saying to heck with all of us by coming here and breaking the law by doing so.
Jesus said we should do unto others as we would have them do unto us. I wouldn’t think it fair for me to cross into Mexico, disrespecting their laws, cutting in line in front of millions who want to come here legally and have been waiting patiently in line, sometimes for many years.
I’m all about fairness, obeying the law, and respect for the nation and the people. The people have shown they don’t approve of illegals coming here. In regards to fairness- it’s just not fair period for many reasons. You’re cutting in line in front of many others who are waiting in line and doing things in a legal manner to get here. You’re disrespecting those who are following the rules. Do you think illegals would want these people cutting in line in front of them? Now, we’re back to doing to others as you would want them to do to you. Certainly, we’re not following Christ’s command by being unfair to those who follow the rules.
Christ said to love your neighbor, but he was also fair and just. Breaking the law and cutting in front of others is neither fair not just.
On top of that- illegals pose a security threat. The Bible makes it clear that security should be a concern for a nation and that protecting your family and your nation in various ways is a good thing. It’s what you have to do, or else be overrun by outsiders who eventually destroy the nation. Think of the illegals coming in- who’s to say that some of them haven’t been paid to carry in explosives? Chemical weapons? Biological weapons? Even nuclear weapons?
Who’s to say that some of those crossing illegally are from rogue nations? Who’s to say some of these men and women aren’t terrorists coming here to attack us? Anyone with common sense takes these things into consideration when pondering this issue.
Like I said- Christ said to love our neighbors, but he was all about justice, fairness, and he surely wouldn’t tell a people to forgo security in order to let one group of people disrespect another in the manner illegals disrespect Americans, American law, and legal immigrants who have been waiting in line and playing by the rules.
Posted By:Joshua Bozeman at 4:43 pm on Sunday, May 14, 2006
This is probably the holiest day of all of Christianity. The day we celebrate the resurrection of the Son of God…the day that man, in human form, suffered along side all of us, but suffering far greater than most of us will ever experience ourselves. The day that the final and greatest enemy of all mankind was defeated- death.
It’s also a day when the National Geographic Channel has devoted its entire day of programming to try to belittle the religion and the events surrounding it. As I write this, the TV network is airing a marathon of Science of the Bible, a horribly inept venture into trying to disprove the Bible. They don’t put it in such blunt terms, but EVERY single episode is filled with neverending narration asking- what REALLY happened? Or proclamations of- this is what REALLY happened…
The episode now on Exodus premeried the other night. The start of the program shows how ridiculous it is. The narration talks about how scientists will try to uncover natural causes for the supernatural events to see if the miracles really happened!
Did you get the problem there? A miracle is, by definition, a supernatural event that defies the very laws of nature. How would attempting to show a natural cause for a non-natural event prove it? Wouldn’t such an attempt be aimed at DISPROVING the events? Of course, that’s their whole goal…if you’ve seen any episodes of the series, you will know this much already.
The Exodus episode was one of the worst. The best theory they could come up with i regards to the parting of the Red Sea? An 80 mph wind that blew the water out of the way.
MAJOR problems with this theory.
1. No man would be able to walk safely through an 80 mph hour wind. Worse- all the children who crossed who have been doubly screwed when trying to walk in a cnstant 80 mph wind.
2. The Bible says the event cause them to walk on DRY ground, where they were able to drive their camel lead carts through. An 80 mph wind MIGHT possibly blow away some water and expose some land, but it would be mud that was 2-3 feet thick! No carts could be pulled thru this, nor could people walk thru it safely.
3. An 80 mph wind would not cause a mountain of water on both sides of the path as the Bible describes.
4. How on earth would a rare nonstop 80 mph wind blow RIGHT AS Moses raised his hands? Even the man who proposes this particular theory in the episode admits that it basically fails because of this simple problem to begin with. No amount of perfect timing could be imagined here.
5. Again to the timing- there’s no way the timing would be perfect enough to allow all the children of Israel through safely and kill all of pharaoh’s army! How could a natural wind just suddenly stop at this exact time?
Of course, the theory is absurd to begin with, and it’s bad showing just to even attempt to theorize natural causes to miracles. So absurd that even those proposing them admit they’re basically ludicrous and fall on their faces from the start.
Other shows today deal with the nonsense espoused in the Davinci Code NOVEL (many forget this is TOTALLY fictional and buy into Brown’s nonsense that any of it is backed by history!) They will end the night with the episode they premiered on Palm Sunday, The Gospel of Judas. The program about the gnostic text that contradicts all of history, was written far after the Gospels themselves, and was a known heresy back to the 2nd century when the Church Fathers condemned it for it’s bogus “history” and heretical aspects.
National Geographic Channel- choosing the holiest of all Christian holidays to insult close to 85% of the US population and over 2 billion people worldwide.
Bashing Christianity is chic these days- I personally will have no part of it, which is one reason I won’t give a penny to Natl Geographic, buy their magazine, watch their network, etc. I think most Christians (which means most Americans- Pew research shows that 84% of us self identify as Christian) should boycott this nonsense. They purposefully choose holy days to attack believers, and it’s about time we demand an end to it. Sure, you can switch the channel if you don’t like it, but these attacks go much further than that and we need to let them know we don’t appreciate it.
You can contact National Geographic to let them know you’re tired of them taking advantage of Holy Days to attack Christianity and that you want it to stop or else you will boycott the advertisers who pay for ads for these shows.
Their contact page is here, and there TV contact E-Mail address is- ngt@nationalgeographic.com.
You can also call them or write them a letter:
National Geographic Channel/Information or Inquiries
(202) 857 7000
General Information National Geographic Society
P.O. Box 98199
Washington, D.C. 20090-8199
Posted By:Joshua Bozeman at 2:27 pm on Sunday, April 16, 2006
More Gnostic nonsense being reported as history…it’s a shame most of the stories I saw had quotes from the radical fringe (such as Ehrman) who are in their own little world, away from the vast majority of biblical scholars.
Marvin Meyer is one of the editors of the book form of this “gospel.” He’s part of the radical fringe too. He’s the one who said that Jesus and Mary had sexual relations and lived together after his supposed death (which wasn’t really his death, according to this absurd theory.)
Mohler rebuts the nonsense with some real scholarship….
From Traitor to Hero? Responding to “The Gospel of Judas”
Headlines around the world are announcing the publication of a “long lost” and “suppressed” ancient document, known as The Gospel of Judas. The National Geographic Society announced the publication at a major media event on Thursday, just in time to boost publicity for its Sunday night special on the National Geographic Channel.
The announcement led to a frenzy of media coverage, ranging from responsible reports to outrageous sensationalism. According to some commentators, the publication of this new document will force a complete reformulation of Christianity and our understanding of both Judas and Jesus. In reality, nothing of the sort is in view. The document is highly interesting, however, offering an ancient and authoritative source into the thinking of heretical groups who offered alternative understandings of Christianity.
The document purports to be written by Judas, even though it certainly was written long after Judas’s death. Nevertheless, the very existence of this document, rooted in the third century after Christ, indicates something of the struggle Christian leaders confronted in defining and defending the authentic Gospel against heretical groups such as the Gnostics.
A quick look at The Gospel of Judas reveals the contrast between this document and the four canonical Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. The English version, edited by Rudolphe Kasser, Marvin Meyer, and Gregor Wurst, presents an accessible and readable version of the portions of the Codex Tchacos now available. The most remarkable feature of this text is its thoroughly Gnostic character. The substance of this gospel bears virtually no resemblance to orthodox Christianity–a fact which explains why the early church recognized this writing for what it is, and rejected it as neither authoritative nor authentic.
In The Lost Gospel: The Quest for the Gospel of Judas Iscariot, Herbert Krosney explains how the codex was discovered and traces the events that led to its publication in English this week:
“In the mid- to late 1970s, hidden for more than fifteen hundred years, an ancient text emerged from the sands of Egypt. Near the banks of the Nile River, some Egyptian peasants, fellahin, stumbled upon a cavern. In biblical times, such chambers had been used to bury the dead. The peasants entered the cave, seeking ancient gold or jewelry, anything of value that they could sell. Instead, among a pile of human bones, they discovered a crumbling limestone box. Inside it, they came upon an unexpected find–a mysterious leather-bound book, a codex.”
The portion of the text that is now translated is taken from thirteen pages of papyrus, with the text written in Coptic, a language of ancient Egypt. Most scholars agree that The Gospel of Judas was originally written in Greek, and later translated into Coptic. This was the common history of many Gnostic texts, especially those associated with groups common to the area in which the manuscript was found.
The Lost Gospel reads like a suspense thriller at times, tracing the odd and admittedly remarkable story of how the codex was preserved and eventually published. Those familiar with the story of the Dead Sea scrolls and the documents of the Nag Hammadi library will recognize significant parallels in the saga of how the texts and manuscripts were found and eventually made available for scholarly review and publication.
The Gnostic character of the text is immediately evident. In his supposed conversations with Judas, Jesus speaks in Gnostic categories such as “aeons” and an “eternal realm.” Judas is identified as the “thirteenth spirit” who was appointed by God to be the agent of releasing Jesus from the physical body in which He was trapped in the incarnation.
When Judas speaks of a vision and asks for its interpretation, Jesus answers: “Judas, your star has led you astray.” Jesus continues: “No person of mortal birth is worthy to enter the house you have seen, for that place is reserved for the holy. Neither the sun nor the moon will rule there, nor the day, but the holy will abide there always, in the eternal realm with the holy angels. Look, I have explained to you the mysteries of the kingdom and I have taught you about the error of the stars; and . . . sent it . . . on the twelve aeons.”
The concept of secret and mysterious knowledge was central to Gnostic sects. The Gospel of Judas purports to reveal conversations between Jesus and Judas that had been kept secret from the rest of humanity. The Gnostics prized their secret knowledge, and taught a profound dualism between the material and spiritual worlds. They understood the material world, including the entire cosmos, to be a trap for the spiritual world. In essence, the Gnostics sought to escape the material world and to enter the world of spirit.
Accordingly, the most revealing statement in the entire text of The Gospel of Judas records Jesus saying to Judas, “But you will exceed all of them. For you will sacrifice the man that clothes me.”
In other words, Judas would perform a service to Jesus by betraying Him to those who would then crucify Him, liberating Jesus from the physical body and freeing Him as spirit. As the editors of The Gospel of Judas indicate in a footnote, “The death of Jesus, with the assistance of Judas, is taken to be the liberation of the spiritual person within.”
Needless to say, this is in direct conflict with the Christian gospel and the New Testament. The consistent witness of the New Testament is that Jesus came in order to die for sinners–willingly accepting the cross and dying as the substitutionary sacrifice for sin.
This redemptive action is completely missing from The Gospel of Judas. For that reason, the text was rejected by early Christian leaders. Writing about the year 180, Irenaeus, a major figure among the early church fathers, identified the text now known as The Gospel of Judas as heretical. In his foreword to The Lost Gospel, Bart Ehrman, a professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, explains, “This gospel was about the relationship between Jesus and Judas, and indicated that Judas didn’t actually betray Jesus, but did what Jesus wanted him to do, because Judas was the one who really knew the truth, as Jesus wanted it communicated.”
Ehrman, no friend to orthodox Christianity, has correctly explained the problem. Irenaeus rejected the text precisely because it was in direct conflict with the canonical gospels and with the teaching of the Apostles. Accordingly, it was his responsibility to warn the church about the heretical nature of this document. Still, the very fact that Irenaeus mentions the document with such a specific reference gives considerable credence to the claim that The Gospel of Judas is as old in its origin as its patrons now claim.
We now know a great deal about the Gnostic sects common to the first centuries of Christianity. The particular sect thought to be associated with the origin of The Gospel of Judas was known as the Cainites. The peculiar teachings of this sect included the rehabilitation of many characters presented negatively in the Bible–starting with Cain. In essence, the Cainites attempted to take the negative figures of the Bible and present them in a heroic light. In order to do this, of course, they had to create alternative texts and an alternative rendering of the story of Jesus.
What are Christians to make of all this? The publication of The Gospel of Judas is a matter of genuine interest. After all, it is important for Christians to understand the context of early Christianity–a context in which the church was required to exercise tremendous discernment in confronting heretical teachings and rejecting spurious texts.
The scholarly research behind the publication of The Gospel of Judas appears to be sound and responsible. The codex manuscript was submitted to the most rigorous historical process in terms of dating, chemical composition, and similar questions. In the end, it appears that the document is most likely authentic, in terms of its origin from within a heretical sect in the third century.
Nevertheless, extravagant claims about the theological significance of The Gospel of Judas are unwarranted, ridiculous, and driven by those who themselves call for a reformulation of Christianity.
The resurgence of interest in Gnostic texts such as The Gospel of Thomas and The Gospel of Judas is driven by an effort, at least on the part of some figures, to argue that early Christianity had no essential theological core. Instead, scholars such as Elaine Pagels of Princeton University want to argue that, “These discoveries are exploding the myth of a monolithic religion, and demonstrating how diverse–and fascinating–the early Christian movement really was.” What Pagels and many other figures argue is that early Christianity was a cauldron of competing theologies, and that ideological and political factors explain why an “orthodox” tradition eventually won, suppressing all competing theologies. Accordingly, these same figures argue that today’s Christians should be open to these variant teachings that had long been suppressed and hidden from view.
Metropolitan Bishoy, leader of the Coptic Orthodox Church, dismissed The Gospel of Judas as “non-Christian babbling resulting from a group of people trying to create a false ‘amalgam’ between the Greek mythology and Far East religions with Christianity . . . They were written by a group of people who were aliens to the main Christian stream of the early Christianity. These texts are neither reliable nor accurate Christian texts, as they are historically and logically alien to the main Christian thinking and philosophy of the early and present Christians.” The Metropolitan is right, but we are better armed to face the heresies of our own day if we face with honesty the heresies of times past.
Simon Gathercole, a New Testament professor at Aberdeen University, defended the text as authentic, but relatively unimportant. “It is certainly an ancient text, but not ancient enough to tell us anything new,” Gathercole explains. “It contains themes which are alien to the first-century world of Jesus and Judas, but which became popular later.”
Indeed, those Gnostic ideas did become popular later, and they are becoming increasingly popular now. The truth of the Gospel stands, and Christians will retain firm confidence in the authenticity of the New Testament and, in particular, of the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Nevertheless, old Gnosticisms are continually repackaged and “rediscovered” even as new forms of Gnostic thought emerge in our postmodern culture.
Informed Christians will be watchful and aware when confronting churches or institutions that present spurious writings, rejected as heretical by the early church, on the same plane as the New Testament.
The verdict of Athanasius, one of the greatest leaders of the early church, still stands: “Let no man add to these, neither let him take ought from these, for concerning these the Lord put to shame the Sadducees, and said, ‘Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures.’ And He reproved the Jews, saying, ‘Search the Scriptures, for these are they that testify of Me.’”
_________________________________________________
R. Albert Mohler, Jr. is president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky. For more articles and resources by Dr. Mohler, and for information on The Albert Mohler Program, a daily national radio program broadcast on the Salem Radio Network, go to www.albertmohler.com. For information on The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, go to www.sbts.edu. Send feedback to mail@albertmohler.com.
Posted By:Joshua Bozeman at 11:58 pm on Saturday, April 8, 2006
I think Daniel Dennett coined the term “bright” to describe anyone who is a ‘freethinker’- an atheist…a rational thinker. Because, Lord knows that the religious are foolish morons who have no brains.
Well, Dennett’s new book is called Breaking the Spell- which you would assume is an attack on religion and a desire to rid the world of it. He says that it’s no such thing and his goal isn’t to destroy religion. Well, that’s what he said on Charlie Rose tonight with guest host left winger and nontraditional Christian Bill Moyers.
I’ve read many quotes from Dennett, and it seems to me that the destruction of religion is, indeed, his desire.
On the show tonight, of which I saw the last half hour- Dennett said many things including:
-Thinking Christians are the ones who go against their churches teaches. The THINKING Catholics are the ones who disagree with the church’s teaching on birth control. The vast majority of Catholics are therefore, in Dennett’s mind irrational and non-thinking.
-Religion is a way of indoctrinating your children in ignorance.
-Religion is basically a way of turning off your brain. You blindly accept it without backing up the claims and you claim ‘it’s faith.’
-Religion demands you not question or reason.
-Religion is a “precious delusion”
-Religion is mandatory ignorance
Now, Dennett’s attacks are aimed at Christianity. He admits that this is the case because he’s only had time to study Christianity and not Hinduim or other religions. This, it’s clear, is bologna with a capital B. There are many famous Christian philosophers throughout history who have written volumes on Christianity, the Bible, Jesus, doctrines, etc. These men and women have studied long and hard and questioned and debated the issues. This alone disproves Dennett’s oft repeated claims that religion (Christianity) is mandatory ignorance and that it’s a way of non-reason, it’s irrational, and it’s like turning off your brain. Sir Isaac Newton, the most famous scientist in history was also a Christian theologian/philosopher…he wrote more on Christianity than he did science. In Dennett’s world- Newton is a non-thinking fool.
Christianity, as it is often said but bears repeating is NOT based on blind faith. It does NOT demand that you not think. In fact, the Bible says we SHOULD think…in fact, the Bible tells us to think. It DEMANDS we do so-
Thes 5:21 “Test everything. Hold onto the good.”
In writing the Gospels, the writers often take the time to make it clear that they are writing their accounts so that people can know the truth. That they’re not just telling fairytales, but rather relaying the accounts of eyewitnesses and of the facts related to the events being described.
This is just common sense from anyone familiar with the Bible that it’s not telling us to close our minds, shut off your brains, and refuse to think or reason. Thousands of Dennett’s fellow philosophers are Christians- does he suppose they don’t think or reason or rationalize their religion? Is he so arrogant that he thinks the minority of atheists who see the world his way are the only “bright’ ones among us?
It’s obvious that Dennett hasn’t studied Christianity much at all…and if he has, he’s just being dishonest. Both of those things, ignorance or dishonesty, are not so bright. You’d expect more from a self described “bright.” This just scratches the surface of his irrational statements made on the show and in his book (I haven’t read it, but I have read many reviews and summaries of it. I don’t personally care to read it, I’m merely commenting on what I’ve seen quoted of him, his interview on Charlie Rose, and many quotes attributed to him.)
Posted By:Joshua Bozeman at 11:08 pm on Monday, April 3, 2006
You’d be hard pressed to deny that Christianity is constantly singled out in the United States for attack…especially when it comes to our schools and our government.
Falwell has a nice article that shows this very well.
CHRISTIANITY, THE EASTER BUNNY AND ‘DIVERSITY DAYS’
Date: March 23, 2006
From: Jerry Falwell
I read with interest a news story this week in which a St. Paul, Minn., official decided to outlaw the Easter Bunny because the furry creature might offend “non-Christians.”
I don’t know what’s more disturbing — that this guy believes the Easter Bunny actually has something to do with the Christian celebration of Easter or that he is part of a larger problem in which pompous officials jump on the politically-correct bandwagon to eradicate all mention of religion (specifically Christianity) in public squares across our nation.
In this example, a toy rabbit, pastel-colored eggs and a sign with the words “Happy Easter” were removed from city council offices, the Associated Press reported.
Yeah, we sure wouldn’t want that artificial green grass and those colorful little eggs to alarm some innocent bystander who happens along.
Why, they might mistake those decorations as an endorsement of religion!
Don’t laugh — that’s about how ridiculous the modern anti-religious freedom movement has become. Groups like Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, American Atheists and the American Civil Liberties Union are working to fashion a sanitized, religion-free public square; these groups habitually deny and rewrite our nation’s history in order to enact their reprehensible agenda.
City leaders and education officials across this country have been so duped by this effort that even the most negligible reference to religion — or something as non-religious as the Easter Bunny that is perceived as religious — is outlawed.
In an unrelated event, earlier this week, in Wisconsin, a high school official cancelled a so-called “diversity day” when it was learned that a group of Christians, including former homosexuals, wanted to present Bible-based perspectives on homosexuality.
Viroqua High School officials had planned to present the viewpoints of several religions — including Hmong (an Asian ethnic group), Jews, Muslims, Native Americans, African-Americans, homosexuals, Latinos, Buddhists, the physically disadvantaged and the economically disadvantaged — but not the views of Christians.
Diversity day?
Right.
When a school official reported that the viewpoints of Christians and former homosexuals would be excluded, a resident contacted the Orlando, Fla.-based Liberty Counsel on behalf of several concerned Viroqua residents.
Liberty Counsel attorneys then sent a letter to the district administrator, explaining that the censorship of Christians and former homosexuals violated the Establishment Clause and the Fourteenth Amendment equal protection guarantee. After receiving no response, Liberty Counsel sent another letter a few days letter to the same official and the board of education.
Two days later, the diversity day event was cancelled.
This is a clear example of how anti-Christian many local officials have become.
There are untold thousands of former homosexuals (or ex-gays) in our nation who are flourishing in their new lives. But they are shunned as if they have the plague because they don’t fit into the “diversity” of the so-called mainstream.
Mathew D. Staver, president and general counsel of Liberty Counsel, said of the case, “This is yet another attempt to indoctrinate our youth with the harmful message that homosexuals cannot change. While touting the message of tolerance, homosexual activists refuse to be tolerant of opposing viewpoints. Our youth deserve to know the truth about homosexuality — that people can choose to overcome same-sex attractions and that acting on those attractions results in devastating physical, mental, and spiritual consequences.”
I have no doubt that the same officials who want to disallow all Christian expression on campuses or in public squares would at the same time have no problem with promoting “The Da Vinci Code,” or some other book or movie that disparages Jesus Christ.
There is no level playing field when it comes to the religious freedoms of conservative people of faith. We are literally viewed as second-class citizens by many in leadership in this nation.
Posted By:Joshua Bozeman at 1:16 am on Friday, March 24, 2006
The Perfect Stranger on DVD
I caught about ten minutes of this movie the other night on TBN. A stranger is having dinner with a young woman who seems to be at a sort of crossroads in her life. They’re in a very nice restaurant, and the stranger is in a suit- at point, she tells him he looks sort of like a CEO.
The guy tells the young woman that he’s Jesus…and she’s shocked- this guy must be crazy. He tells her things that no stranger should know, and she begins to ask him all sorts of questions.
If you sit down and have dinner with The Son, what would you ask him? What would tell him? What questions or comments would totally leave your mind before you got a chance to ask? Wouldn’t we all love to have dinner with Christ- and be able to ask him anything he wants.
I only saw about 10 mins, as I said, so I’m not sure all of what happened. I found out that the film will soon be available on DVD.
From what I read- this film is based on a novel. The official site (linked above under the DVD box cover) probably has more information. I haven’t looked thru it all yet.
I plan on picking this up and maybe the novel it’s based on as well and will try to review it here.
From the small part I saw- I’d say, check it out. Looks like a good film.
Posted By:Joshua Bozeman at 6:16 am on Friday, February 24, 2006
Previous Posts