Does the Gospel of Judas Conflict with Christian Theology?

Argument: The Gospel of Judas should not concern us because it does not implicate any Christian beliefs.

Answer: I believe there are some inherent tensions between the Gospel of Judas and Christian theology. First, I think under the account in the Gospel of Judas, Jesus commits suicide, which would be immoral under Christian ethics. In the Gospels, Jesus was aware of his impending death throughout his ministry, but he took no active steps to cause his own death. In the Gospel of Judas, Jesus would essentially have hired a hit man to kill himself. This would probably destroy the ability of the death on the cross to provide forgivenss for the sins of the world because Jesus himself would have been a sinner through his act of suicide.

Second, the theology in the Gospel of Judas is Gnostic heresy, which is contrary to the Christian view of salvation. Gnostics believed that the material world was evil (i.e. sin), and it is necessary to gain the secret knowledge to escape the repressive effects of the material world. This is contrary to Christian theology. Christianity says that sin is caused through immoral behavior of people who choose not to love God and choose not to love their neighbor as their self. The point of the death of Jesus on the cross in Christian theology was to bring forgiveness for sin by taking the punishment of the world upon himself.

The whole account of the Gospel of Judas is based around achieving the secret knowledge that would bring salvation from the material world. Jesus tells Judas "You will sacrafice the man that clothes me." This indicates that the purpose of the death of Jesus Christ was to bring about an escape from the repressive effects of the material world and not to bring salvation for the sinful actions of human beings. This is just two problems. There are many others. But the point is that there are inherent and fundamental tensions between Christian Theology and the Gospel of Judas.

(Posted by Trask)

Would It Matter if the Bible Was Not Historically Accurate?

Argument: Since Christianity is based on faith, it does not matter if any of the facts recorded in the Bible actually happened. 

Answer: I believe that the Bible is the inspired revelation of God, and I believe that is completely reliable. However, there are certain facts in the Bible that are more essential to the Christian faith than others. In Genesis 5:15 it says, "When Mahalalel had lived 65 years, he became the father of Jared." I believe that this verse is accurate, but if it turned out that Mahalalel actually became the father of Jimmy, that would probably not have a devastating effect on the Christian faith.

However, there are certain facts in the Bible that are essential to the Christian faith, which means that the Christian faith probably cannot exist without them. In Genesis 1:1, it says "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." This verse is essential to the Christian faith. If there were either many gods or no gods that created the heavens and the earth, an essential assumption of the Christian faith would be undermined.

In Gensis 1:27 it says, "So God created human beings in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them." If this verse actually did not happen, then an essential element of the Christian faith would be undermined. The fact that humans were created in the image of God is the foundation for human dignity, and as a result, it is the foundation for all of the moral precepts in the Bible that require human beings to love their neighbor as their self.

The Book of Genesis also records the fall of human beings into the sin condition. If human beings actually never fell into a sin condition, then an essential element of the Christian faith, which says that human beings have a sin nature would be undermined.

The Bible says that Jesus Christ came into the world as both God and man, he lived a perfect life without sinning, he died and unjust death on the cross, and he rose again from the dead. All of these facts are essential to the Christian faith. If Jesus Christ had sinned, then his punishment would have been just and his death could not have produced forgiveness for the sins of the world. If Jesus did not die on the cross, he could not have taken the punishment of the world upon himself. All of these historical facts directly implicate Christian doctrine.

This is best demonstrated by what Paul had to say in 1 Corinthians 15:13-19. "If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins."

Unlike some other religions, Christianity is not just about spirituality. The historical decisions of human beings have direct implications on their faith. The decision of God to become historical through becoming a human being also directly implicates the Christian faith. The Christian faith cannot be separated from certain historical truths.

(Posted by Trask)

Is Religious Belief Rational?

Argument: Religious beliefs are not factual or true because they cannot be proven through reason.

Answer: You are confusing epistemology with ontology. An epistemological question refers to how we know something. An ontological question is a question about existence. You presuppose that Christians do not care about facts and truth because faith is a means that is used by Christians to understand reality. In reality, Christians are just as concerned about the truth as anybody else. Christians just do not believe that reason is the exclusive means of coming to an understanding about truth. Christians believe that it is also possible to understand reality through non-rational experiential forms of knowledge.

A good argument can be made that faith must necessarily precede reason. How do you know that all truth must be proved through the use of reason? You cannot use reason to prove this because doing so would violate the very principles of rational inquiry because you would be relying on circular reasoning. A second possibility is that some intuitive knowlege (faith) revealed this principle to you. But if you rely on faith to understand that all truth must be demonstrated through reason, you have just denied your own principle because you have relied on a non-rational form of knowledge, which disproves the very precept at issue, that all true knowledge must be rationally verifiable.

A good argument can also be made that God must precede reason. A fundamental assumption of rational proof is that using this method of proof will tell us something about the nature of reality. However, this is an undemonstrated presupposition. Michel Foucault asked in Truth and Juridicial Forms:

What is it, really, in Western philosophy that certifies that things to be known and knowledge itself are in a relation of continuity? What assurance is there that knowledge has the ability to truly know the things of the world instead of being indefinite, error, illusion, and arbitrariness? What in Western philosophy guarantees that, if not God? Of course, from Descarte, to go back no further than that, and still even in Kant, God is the principle that ensures a harmony between knowledge and the things to be known. To demonstrate that knowledge was really based in the things of the world, Descartes had to affirm the existence of God.

Therefore, you have two options. You can accept as your first principle that there is a God, and as a result you can legitimately assume that reason corresponds to reality, or you can become an epistemological nihilist like Foucault and dangerously reject any possibility of objective truth or meaning.

So in conclusion, Christians do not reject the importance of reason. In fact, as I have argued, one may need to rely on both faith and God before one can even engage in rational inquiry. Christians just believe that reason is not the exclusive means of understanding reality because there are also experiential forms of understanding.

(Posted by Trask)

The Testimony of Apostle Paul

Acts 21-22

When the seven days were nearly over, some Jews from the province of Asia saw Paul at the temple. They stirred up the whole crowd and seized him, shouting, “People of Israel, help us! This is the man who teaches everyone everywhere against our people and our law and this place. And besides, he has brought Greeks into the temple and defiled this holy place.” (They had previously seen Trophimus the Ephesian in the city with Paul and assumed that Paul had brought him into the temple.)

The whole city was aroused, and the people came running from all directions. Seizing Paul, they dragged him from the temple, and immediately the gates were shut. While they were trying to kill him, news reached the commander of the Roman troops that the whole city of Jerusalem was in an uproar. He at once took some officers and soldiers and ran down to the crowd. When the rioters saw the commander and his soldiers, they stopped beating Paul.

The commander came up and arrested him and ordered him to be bound with two chains. Then he asked who he was and what he had done. Some in the crowd shouted one thing and some another, and since the commander could not get at the truth because of the uproar, he ordered that Paul be taken into the barracks. When Paul reached the steps, the violence of the mob was so great he had to be carried by the soldiers. The crowd that followed kept shouting, “Get rid of him!”

As the soldiers were about to take Paul into the barracks, he asked the commander, “May I say something to you?”

“Do you speak Greek?” he replied. “Aren’t you the Egyptian who started a revolt and led four thousand terrorists out into the wilderness some time ago?”

Paul answered, “I am a Jew, from Tarsus in Cilicia, a citizen of no ordinary city. Please let me speak to the people.”

Having received the commander’s permission, Paul stood on the steps and motioned to the crowd. When they were all silent, he said to them in Aramaic:

“Brothers and fathers, listen now to my defense.”

When they heard him speak to them in Aramaic, they became very quiet.

Then Paul said: “I am a Jew, born in Tarsus of Cilicia, but brought up in this city. I studied under Gamaliel and was thoroughly trained in the law of our ancestors. I was just as zealous for God as any of you are today. I persecuted the followers of this Way to their death, arresting both men and women and throwing them into prison, as the high priest and all the Council can themselves testify. I even obtained letters from them to their associates in Damascus, and went there to bring these people as prisoners to Jerusalem to be punished.

“About noon as I came near Damascus, suddenly a bright light from heaven flashed around me. I fell to the ground and heard a voice say to me, ‘Saul! Saul! Why do you persecute me?’

” ‘Who are you, Lord?’ I asked.

” ‘I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom you are persecuting,’ he replied. My companions saw the light, but they did not understand the voice of him who was speaking to me.

” ‘What shall I do, Lord?’ I asked.

” ‘Get up,’ the Lord said, ‘and go into Damascus. There you will be told all that you have been assigned to do.’ My companions led me by the hand into Damascus, because the brilliance of the light had blinded me.

“A man named Ananias came to see me. He was a devout observer of the law and highly respected by all the Jews living there. He stood beside me and said, ‘Brother Saul, receive your sight!’ And at that very moment I was able to see him.

“Then he said: ‘The God of our ancestors has chosen you to know his will and to see the Righteous One and to hear words from his mouth. You will be his witness to all people of what you have seen and heard. And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name.’

“When I returned to Jerusalem and was praying at the temple, I fell into a trance and saw the Lord speaking to me. ‘Quick!’ he said. ‘Leave Jerusalem immediately, because the people here will not accept your testimony about me.’

” ‘Lord,’ I replied, ‘these people know that I went from one synagogue to another to imprison and beat those who believe in you. And when the blood of your martyr Stephen was shed, I stood there giving my approval and guarding the clothes of those who were killing him.’

Argument: There is nothing significant about Paul’s conversion to Christianity. Passionate believers convert between religions all of the time. This does not prove anything.

Answer: Name one other historical person, who was the central oppressor of a religion, that instantaneously converted to the religion that s/he was oppressing after literally seeing the resurrected figurehead of that religion while s/he was on his/her way to go and oppress some believers of that religion. Also, it is not enough for this person to convert to this religion, this person must become the greatest missionary of this religion who travels to all corners of the world preaching this religion to people while in the process being imprisoned, beaten by mobs, stoned to the brink of death, and then eventually martyred. And because of this person’s missionary work, this person also has to lay the seeds through their missionary work for the conversion of the greatest empire that the world had ever seen. Oh ya, and this religion that this person spreads all over the world needs to eventually grow from an unheard of religious sect into the world’s largest religion.

(Posted by Trask)

What Do Extra-Biblical Sources Say About Jesus?

Argument: There are no sources other than the New Testament writers that tell us much about the life of Jesus.

Answer: Prof. Gary Habermas discusses extra-Biblical sources that provide historical information about Jesus.

Extra-biblical sources are another avenue worth pursuing when determining whether the New Testament texts speak reliably concerning historical issues. While less frequently used by scholars, a number of ancient secular sources mention various aspects of Jesus' life, corroborating the picture presented by the Gospels. The writers of these sources include ancient historians such as Tacitus, Suetonius, and Thallus. Jewish sources such as Josephus and the Talmud add to our knowledge. Government officials such as Pliny the Younger and even Roman Caesars Trajan and Hadrian describe early Christian beliefs and practices. Greek historian and satirist Lucian and Syrian Mara Bar-Serapion provide other details. Several nonorthodox, Gnostic writings speak about Jesus in a more theological manner.

Overall, at least seventeen non-Christian writings record more than fifty details concerning the life, teachings, death, and resurrection of Jesus, plus details concerning the earliest church. Most frequently reported is Jesus' death, mentioned by twelve sources. Dated approximately 20 to 150 years after Jesus' death, these secular sources are quite early by the standards of ancient historiography.

Altogether, these non-Christian sources mention that Jesus fulfilled Old Testament prophecy, performed miracles, led disciples, and that many thought he was deity. These sources call him a good teacher or a philosopher and state that his message included conversion, denial of the gods, fellowship, and immortality. Further, they claim he was crucified for blasphemy but rose from the dead and appeared to his disciples, who were themselves transformed into bold preachers.

The best extra-Biblical source may be Josephus (37-100 A.D.) who was an ancient Jewish Historian near the time of Jesus. This passage from Josephus is almost universally accepted as authentic:

But the younger Ananus who, as we said, received the high priesthood, was of a bold disposition and exceptionally daring; he followed the party of the Sadducees, who are severe in judgment above all the Jews, as we have already shown. As therefore Ananus was of such a disposition, he thought he had now a good opportunity, as Festus was now dead, and Albinus was still on the road; so he assembled a council of judges, and brought before it the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ, whose name was James, together with some others, and having accused them as lawbreakers, he delivered them over to be stoned. [Jewish Antiquities 20.9.1]

This passage from Josephus is more controversial.

Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ, and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians so named from him are not extinct at this day. [Jewish Antiquities 18.3.3]

Among academic scholars in the twentieth century, there has been a growing consensus that this passage from Josephus may be authentic. Alice Wheatley says:

In general, the attitudes of Protestant, Roman Catholic, Jewish and secular scholars towards the text have drawn closer together, with a greater tendency among scholars of all religious backgrounds to see the text as largely authentic. On the one hand this can be interpreted as the result of an increasing trend towards secularism, which is usually seen as product of modernity. On the other hand it can be interpreted as a sort of post-modern disillusionment with the verities of modern skepticism, and an attempt to recapture the sensibility of the ancient world, when it apparently was still possible for a first-century Jew to have written a text as favorable towards Jesus of Nazareth as the Testimonium Flavianum.

(Posted by Trask)

Are the New Testament Gospels Reliable?

I have been debating some apologetic issues over at Volokh Conspiracy relating to Christianity. I decided that it would be a good idea to post some of those posts here at AgapeRevolution in a dialogue format. The first issue is below. 

Argument: The accounts in the Gospels are unreliable because they were passed down by oral tradition, which was probably corrupted along the way. There is also no reason to believe that what they record about the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ is accurate.

Answer: Oral tradition was unnecessary. Eyewitnesses to the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ were around at the time when the New Testament was written. The people who authored the four gospels were either apostles (Matthew and John) or people who had direct access to an apostle (Mark and Luke). The shooting of John F. Kennedy demonstrates this point. There have been tons of accurate documentaries put together on that event with eyewitness testimony within 35-65 years after the event. There maybe some disagreement over details, but with all of the accounts of the people that were there, one can paint a very accurate picture of what happened.

In 1 Corinthians 15:3-8, Paul made the following statement. “For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.”

Paul makes a very brazen statement here. Paul stated that more than 500 people, many who were alive when he wrote this, saw Jesus at the same time. This is an amazing statement because this statement is easily falsifiable. A liar would never say this. He would say that many people witnessed the risen Christ, but unfortunately none of them are available now because they are dead.

Furthermore, hostile people converted to Christianity. James, the brother of Jesus Christ, did not become a follower of Jesus until after he witnessed Jesus alive. How many people on this planet would believe that one of their siblings is God? Even James would not believe it, until the evidence was too impossible to deny. Paul actively persecuted and killed Christians. His goal was to eliminate them until he saw the risen Christ appear to him on the road to Damascus, and he converted. This is all eyewitness testimony from people who are still alive when Paul made this statement, and some of the people converted from a hostile position because of what they witnessed.

(Posted by Trask)

Irenaeus Responded to the Gospel of Judas in 180 A.D.

Irenaeus (130-202 A.D.) was the Bishop of Lyons, and he was one of the most important church fathers. He refuted the heresies of the Gnostics. The excerpt below is from his treatise Against Heresies in 180 A.D., and he refutes the Gospel of Judas as lies produced by the Cainite Gnostic Sect.

Chapter XXXI.-Doctrines of the Cainites.

1. Others again declare that Cain derived his being from the Power above, and acknowledge that Esau, Korah, the Sodomites, and all such persons, are related to themselves. On this account, they add, they have been assailed by the Creator, yet no one of them has suffered injury. For Sophia was in the habit of carrying off that which belonged to her from them to herself. They declare that Judas the traitor was thoroughly acquainted with these things, and that he alone, knowing the truth as no others did, accomplished the mystery of the betrayal; by him all things, both earthly and heavenly, were thus thrown into confusion. They produce a fictitious history of this kind, which they style the Gospel of Judas.

2. I have also made a collection of their writings in which they advocate the abolition of the doings of Hystera. Moreover, they call this Hystera the creator of heaven and earth. 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. Whatever may be the nature of the action, they declare that they do it in the name of the angel, saying, "O thou angel, I use thy work; O thou power, I accomplish thy operation!" And they maintain that this is "perfect knowledge," without shrinking to rush into such actions as it is not lawful even to name.

3. It was necessary clearly to prove, that, as their very opinions and regulations exhibit them, those who are of the school of Valentinus derive their origin from such mothers, fathers, and ancestors, and also to bring forward their doctrines, with the hope that perchance some of them, exercising repentance and returning to the only Creator, and God the Former of the universe, may obtain salvation, and that others may not henceforth be drown away by their wicked, although plausible, persuasions, imagining that they will obtain from them the knowledge of some greater and more sublime mysteries. But let them rather, learning to good effect from us the wicked tenets of these men, look with contempt upon their doctrines, while at the same time they pity those who, still cleaving to these miserable and baseless fables, have reached such a pitch of arrogance as to reckon themselves superior to all others on account of such knowledge, or, as it should rather be called, ignorance. They have now been fully exposed; and simply to exhibit their sentiments, is to obtain a victory over them.

4. Wherefore I have laboured to bring forward, and make clearly manifest, the utterly ill-conditioned carcase of this miserable little fox. For there will not now be need of many words to overturn their system of doctrine, when it has been made manifest to all. It is as when, on a beast hiding itself in a wood, and by rushing forth from it is in the habit of destroying multitudes, one who beats round the wood and thoroughly explores it, so as to compel the animal to break cover, does not strive to capture it, seeing that it is truly a ferocious beast; but those present can then watch and avoid its assaults, and can cast darts at it from all sides, and wound it, and finally slay that destructive brute. So, in our case, since we have brought their hidden mysteries, which they keep in silence among themselves, to the light, it will not now be necessary to use many words in destroying their system of opinions. For it is now in thy power, and in the power of all thy associates, to familiarize yourselves with what has been said, to overthrow their wicked and undigested doctrines, and to set forth doctrines agreeable to the truth. Since then the case is so, I shall, according to promise, and as my ability serves, labour to overthrow them, by refuting them all in the following book. Even to give an account of them is a tedious affair, as thou seest.331 But I shall furnish means for overthrowing them, by meeting all their opinions in the order in which they have been described, that I may not only expose the wild beast to view, but may inflict wounds upon it from every side.

(Posted by Trask)

The Gospel of Judas Is Not Real History

David Kopel at Volokh Conspiracy has an excellent posting on the Gospel of Judas. You can see an excerpt below.

Suppose that sometime around the year 3,800 A.D., someone wrote a newspaper that began: "According to a recently-discovered document, which appears to have been written sometime before 1926, Benedict Arnold did not attempt to betray George Washington and the American cause, as is commonly believed. Rather, Benedict Arnold was acting at the request of George Washington, because Washington wanted Arnold to help him create a dictatorship of the proletariat and the abolition of private property."

A reader who knew her ancient history would recognize that the newly-discovered "Arnold document" was almost certainly not a historically accurate account of the relationship between George Washington and Benedict Arnold. The reader would know that the terms "dictatorship of the proletariat" and "abolition of private property" come from a political philosophy, Marxism, which was created long after Washington and Arnold were dead. The reader would also know that the most reliable records from the 18th century provided no support for the theory that Washington or Arnold favored a dictatorship of the proletariat or the abolition of private property.

This Friday's coverage of the so-called "Gospel of Judas" in much of the U.S. media was appallingly stupid. The Judas gospel is interesting in its own right, but the notion that it disproves, or casts into doubt, the traditional orthodox understanding of the betrayal of Jesus is preposterous.

(Posted by Trask)