The Lost Gospel of Judas

I first read about this earlier this year in an issue of the excellent National Geographic magazine. Now, having seen an audio-visual presentation of pretty much the same information by Channel Four, as a Bible-believing Christian, I feel compelled to comment as follows:

The Gospel of Judas is indeed a very revealing insight into the early development of Christianity. However, I do not see any justification for claiming that within 30 years of the death and resurrection of Jesus, the early Christians had become anti-Jewish to such an extent that they would deliberately set out to demonise Judas. Nevertheless, I am willing to accept that, many centuries later, the character of Judas has been used by those wanting to pursue an anti-Semitic agenda.

In the long run, however, I am certain that the emergence of documents such as the Gospel of Judas, the Gospel of Thomas, and other ancient manuscripts will be of great benefit to believer and skeptic alike. This is because, no matter what the message, they help to cement the foundations of Christianity in the remarkable and historical person of Jesus Christ.

Both National Geographic and Channel Four make far too much of the existence of the Gnostics. You do not have to be a post-doctoral research fellow in theology to know about Gnostics (a cursory glance at the NIV Study Bible will suffice). Yes the Gnostics were one of many groups that existed in the 1st and 2nd Century AD, but it is ludicrous to paint Irenaeus, an early Bishop of Lyon, as some kind of anti-Semitic conspirator. All he was doing was trying to ensure the clarity of the message of the Church. Gnostics were mystics who believed that salvation lay in "the divine spark within each one of us", but St Paul said that we should see our physical bodies as the Temple of the Holy Spirit. So, clearly, there must have been more to it than that.

I suspect that the Irenaeus (i.e. the Early Church) took objection to Gnosticism because, a bit like the modern-day Jehovah's Witnesses, they replaced the the all-inclusive "gospel" (i.e. good news) with a "only-those-in-the-know" message. Whereas, the latter does not fit easily with Jesus' commanding his followers to "go unto all nations..." (see Matthew 28:18-20).

However, there is a world of difference between the mysticism of the Gnostics; and their rejection of the notion of the Trinity - and those that peddle the myth that Jesus did not die on the Cross and that Mary Magdalene had his love child. (I must admit though, the Vicar of Dibley, yesterday, was extremely funny!).

Radioactive Poisoning is a Messy Business!

Given that short-lived (alpha particle) radiation from polonium-210 cannot even find its way out of a paper bag, the supposedly hi-tech assassins of Mr Litvinenko seem to have been very untidy. Unless, of course, they intended to leave trails of polonium everywhere, to throw people off their scent. The scientists amongst you will of course be quick to point out that the police are not finding polonium (Po-210), but the product of the decay process, which is lead (Pb-206).

But that does not make any difference. It still implies that the polonium was sprinkled all over the place, because - whether it was inside someone's body, or a metal box, or even a paper bag - it should not be there to be found.

I think the Metropolitan Police should "come clean", and tell us the whole story - stable and unstable isotopes; atomic numbers; the works.

This "dumbing-down" of news items has got to stop!

Apologies for the Slave Trade?

Thanks to Tony Blair deciding to express regret for the UK's part in the Slave Trade, this has been Big News here this week.

However, actions speak louder than words and, today, the ongoing slavery we should be apologising for (and abolishing) is the burden of debt that we refuse to remove from developing economies that cannot help themselves because of unfair trade rules, etc., etc..

Furthermore, given the content of the Stern Report, we had better start saving now in order to fund the claims for reparations that will likely be made in the future by the millions that will be affected by our failure to mitigate the effects of global warming. Nevertheless, President Bush, an apology would be most welcome...

Thank God for James Lovelock

It is just as well that James Lovelock is a patient man; undeterred by any amount of criticism and/or ridicule. Personally, I was very sceptical of his Gaia hypothesis up until only a few years ago, when the BBC first broadcast their excellent "Earth Story" series presented by Sir Aubrey Manning. I suspect that I was not the only one to watch it that said to themselves, "Wow, so there is solid evidence for the Earth being a self-regulating entity after all!"

Prior to this, as a Christian and a geologist who rejects tortological arguments based on the anthropic principle (i.e. "the universe is the way it is because we are here to observe it"), I had regarded James Lovelock's ideas merely as another clever atheistic attempt to explain the contingent nature of our existence (i.e. "it needn't have been this way at all"). However, now it would seem that the Gaia hypothesis is an idea whose time has finally come.

Having developed an interest in the fundamental influence that geology has on landscape at an early age, my main motivation for having pursued a career in hydrogeology was and is the belief that we have been entrusted with the job of looking after our planet. So, I for one should like to apologise to James Lovelock for having regarded his ideas with suspicion for so long and, I suspect, along with many others, hope that the global village community has finally woken-up to the reality of our culpability in the phenomenon of climate change, and our responsibility for doing something about it.

Therefore, the publication - and general acceptance - of the Stern Report has come not a moment too soon. The only remaining question now is, "How long will James Lovelock have to wait for his Knighthood?"

Martin C. Lack Bsc(Hons) MSc CGeol FGS
www.geosus.org.uk

Rape is Wrong, but am I too ?

When it comes to sexual self-gratification, can someone please tell me where is the flaw in my logic? We all know the Biblical story of Mary and Joseph, but how many of us find it hard to accept that Mary may well have been a young teenager at the time of her betrothal to Joseph?

So, if a man is attracted to little children we call him a paedophile. If a man is attracted to retired people we call him a gerontophile. Therefore, surely, if a man is attracted to another man we should call him a homophile? You see, although I agree that consenting adults should be free to do as they please, I do not agree that young people should be taught that homophilia (a.k.a homosexuality) is normal.

Charles Darwin identified a mechanism that he believed explained how plants and animals have progressively developed over geological time. He was struck by the fact that we live in a world where organisms are demonstrably in competition with each other for scarce resources, and where those best-suited to their environment are most likely to survive (i.e. “the survival of the fittest”). Darwin went on to call this process “natural selection”.

Therefore, leaving aside the argument as to whether evolutionary thinking is compatible with faith in God (dealt with on my website), in terms of natural selection alone, the future does not look good for homophiles. They are infertile and incapable of sexual reproduction and, therefore, without human intervention they should lose out in this fight for survival.

However, on the contrary, it seems that the “gay rights” movement is destined to make homophilia a socially acceptable form of dysfunctional behaviour and, with the help of equal adoption rights, make it possible for such people to “have children”. If so, what chance do their adopted children have of seeing their parents behaviour for what it is?

P.S. I am not homophobic (i.e. I do not feel threatened by homosexuals). On the contrary, I feel great compassion for them. (Please see the relevant chapter in Why Men Don't Iron", by Anne and Bill Moir).

Well what a Summer that was!

Hi folks,

Long time no blog, eh? Well what with being made redundant, being unemployed, re-landscaping the back garden, and having no access to the Internet at home (until Tiscali sort out what is wrong with the Broadband Connection that we are supposed to have)... but enough of the excuses already... After a very strange summer (in more ways than one), I am now back in employment (working for the UK's Environment Agency)...

Martin.

What's in a Name?

I have decided to re-name this blog to reflect my overall philosophy about life, rather than as an advertisement for my Christian Apologetics website (i.e. "Geoscience and Jesus etc...").

It was St Paul that first described the global Christian movement (recognisable disciples of Jesus through the ages) as the body of Christ. ("...one body with many parts..."), in which case none of us is the head (that is Jesus), but neither is any of us an appendix (i.e. an organ without any apparent function).

The trick is, however, not to spend your whole life trying to find out what your function actually is...!

Successful Information Exchange?

Simon said...
Why should science worry about gods, Martin? If scientists started trying to squeeze gods into things, we'd be going back about 1000 years.

In the long and winding road of scientific progress, not one step has been taken by religion.

From talking to various Christians, Christianity seems to be about general self-loathing and mistrust of humanity. Being brought up in a Christian society, we're given a sense of guilt about natural body functions and insticts and so we grow up feeling bad about ourselves and with a desire to "repent".

Isn't it all about feeling bad because you fancied your mate's wife, or pigged-out on a meal, or lay on the sofa watching TV all day, or wished your bullying boss would drop dead? - all things which are relatively harmless.

The picture came from a google image search. Horrible, isn't it?


Martin Lack said...
"In the long and winding road of scientific progress, not one step has been taken by religion.".... If it was not for the Christian concept of a rational God, western civilisation/science would not have developed the way it has.

"From talking to various Christians, Christianity seems to be about general self-loathing... all things which are relatively harmless.".... Most of the world's belief systems acknowledge that no-one is perfect; most conceive God as perfect and/or just. Religions are imperfect man's ideas about how to make himself acceptable to such a perfect God.

Therefore Christianity is not a religion, since its central point is that we cannot make ourselves perfect and so should not make ourselves miserable trying; just be grateful that God has solved the problem.


Simon said...
Martin, what gives you the idea the Christian god is any more rational than the others?

"Therefore Christianity is not a religion, since its central point is that we cannot make ourselves perfect and so should not make ourselves miserable trying; just be grateful that God has solved the problem."

So Christianity isn't a religion. Well, I learn something new every day.

Football and Fosters

I must come clean and admit I did not send you a postcard from our recent 3112-mile round trip to Venice (but don't feel miffed; we only sent them to close family this year). This was really fantastic; a drive through - or rather over - the Alps comes highly recommended; it is "ahhhssohm", as our American friends would say.

Anyway, although we came back with over 100 bottles of wine and about 6 litres of spirits (that's us sorted for another year), I did not get any beer!

What a dreadful omission, I hear you say... Well, I have just been checking beer prices in Morrisons this lunchtime, and 24x440ml cans of Fosters for £12 was the best I could find; which is just a little over £1.10/litre (about the same as you'd pay in Calais I think.

So, while it lasts; enjoy the football and the Fosters (I will),

Martin.

Everyone says I'm mad but...

Later today I am setting off on a 2400-mile, 18-day, round trip to Caorle (near Venice), with me doing all of the driving. However, I am not a good passenger, but I like to navigate too! Having Driven to Normandy two years ago, and Bordeaux last year, the children are psychologically prepared; as well as physically (they both recently bought Gameboys). Nevertheless, I hope they will take time to enjoy some of the scenery. I certainly will... Although I have been to Switzerland before (literally decades ago), I have never been driven - let alone driven myself - all the way through it and out the other side. Anyway, the main point of this post is to warn any visitors/commentators not to expect an instant response, as I am not going to be replying this side of the 6th of June.

It's Headline News in the UK

If, as reported, "4 out of 10 police officers have been threatened by a member of the public"...
Why don't they arrest him? He's obviously dangerous!

Steven Carr is Exposed!

Despite Steven Carr's persistent refusal to answer questions such as that which I put to him recently, as in; "what is your motivation for wanting to highlight supposed evidence of the lies and deception of the Early Church?", I now have it on good authority that he is an atheist (obviously) that is well known to the likes of "Christians in Science" for picking arguments with Christians: Presumably, his motives are similar to those of some Christians for engaging Jehovah's Witnesses in conversation, namely; to steal from them the time they would otherwise use to infect more-susceptible people with their lies...

That being the case, despite his obviously detailed knowledge of Biblical (and other historical) texts, starting from the premise that the Resurrection of Jesus was not the same as ours will be; just as it was not the same as that of Jesus' dear friend Lazarus (see John 11), my question is...

According to the likes of Steven Carr, who think religious people of any persuasion are sadly deluded, what exactly was this Gospel (i.e. "Good News") that Paul went about preaching (and which his letters were designed to reinforce)?

For example, see Philippians 1:12-28, especially the last two verses:
"Whatever happens, conduct yourselves in a manner worthy of the gospel of Christ. Then, whether I come and see you or only hear about you in my absence, I will know that you stand firm in one spirit, contending as one man for the faith of the gospel without being frightened in any way by those who oppose you. This is a sign to them that they will be destroyed, but that you will be saved - and that by God". Philippians 1:27-28).

No, Steven, that just will not do!

It warms my heart to know that Steven Carr thinks "...Paul's beliefs are pretty coherent" but, as for the fact that "...some very early converts to Christianity did not believe in resurrection of corpses; does anybody?

It may seem to some that we are at risk of arguing about semantics here but, I think we all accept that Paul and the Corinthians, and the whole of the Roman Empire - including the inhabitants of Palestine - accepted that dead bodies rot.

I therefore find it very hard to believe that, on the basis of one phrase in one verse (1 Cor 15:45b), Steven tries to deconstruct one of the fundamental – if not the fundamental – historical tenants of Christianity... and I am bound, therefore, to question his motives. Perhaps Jesus had Steven in mind when he inspired Paul to write “The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds… [and with them we] …demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ”. (2 Cor 10:4-5)!

Both Paul and his audience (in the widest possible sense) believed in an afterlife, (or a spirit world - call it what you will) but, even to them, it was not normal to see spirits wandering around, and certainly not normal for them to be “seen” by more than one person (1 Cor 15:5-9). However, if we take Paul’s writings as a whole, it is just not tenable to conclude anything other than that, in the case of the body of Jesus, Paul believed something special had happened. This is not negated by his acceptance that “What is sown is perishable, what is raised is imperishable”. (1 Cor 15:42).

When Paul said “But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised” (1 Cor 15:12-13), he was not questioning his own faith – he knew Jesus had been bodily raised from death because – as far as he was concerned – it was impossible that God could be defeated by death (i.e. stay dead).

The point Paul was making, to those Corinthians (like the wise Men of Athens in Acts 17) who questioned how Christians could believe in the bodily resurrection of a man when “everybody knew that” that was impossible, was that there would have been no point in Jesus’ victory over death if there was no afterlife at all. Having established that point; Paul then goes on to (try to) explain his understanding of the nature of the “spiritual body"...

Of course, Steven will not accept this because, although he likes to make it sound like he empathises with Paul’s “world view”, his intention is to try and prove that “...if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile [and]... If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men”. (1 Cor 15:17-19).

However, I'm afraid Steven, that just will not do!

Introduction

Dear fellow cyberspace travellers,

My name is Martin Lack and, although I do not promise to be a frequent or regular blogger, I would welcome any comment or feedback, preferably constructive and/or polite, on the content of my website (see "Links" in the right-hand column).

By the way, in case you were not aware, I am also in ongoing on-line debate with Steven Carr - who recently featured in a debate on Premier Christian Radio, here in the UK, and who is the author of a Blogger.com weblog and something that claims to be "the UK's Leading Atheist Page" - see "Links" in the right-hand column.

Kind regards,

Martin.