If I may be like Spliffe again / so come-on

Reading The Lost Gospel of Judas Iscariot (2006) by Bart Ehrman. Ehrman is one of the top Gnostic scholars - he is the guy lecturing on Gnostic religions on the DVD I'm making my way through. Great author and scholar and lecturer.

So - I think I have a take on the Gnostics finally.

The Gnostics were Christians in the early days of the church- the first, say, 300 y - that had alternate views on what eventually became the Christian -and Catholic -Church that we know today.

Pagels' Gnostic Gospels (1979) has the idea that it was prosecutions in the early days of the church that forced christians into a more structured church. When Christianity spread after Jesus's death, it took on many forms whereever it went. The early church - like Christianity today- took on a variety of forms and beliefs. The Gnostics were less about structure and priests and ceremonies and more about "Look inside yourselves for the True Answer".

However, to keep Christianity going, the early leaders came up with structure (bishops, priests), doctrine (this is what we believe in), and ... I forgot. These things convalesced into a common faith that Pagels says let Christianity to survive. If it had kept to it's disparate branches it probably would have petered out like many other religions (Zoastraism??) back then. By forming a church w/ rules and discipline and simple doctrine, the church was allowed to grow and eventually become a powerhouse.

So, there was a vast amount of fighting between the Gnostics and the "orthodox" church, with the orthodox side eventually winning. It's funny how completely they won - the most famous find of Gnostic stuff was in Egypt in 1945. Several peasants came upon a buried jar near an old historical monk site. Inside it was many of the gnostic writings that had been thought lost for 1600 years. 1600 years these documents were buried- presumably they mite never have been found unless someone had taken the effort to bury them and then 1600y later someone luckily found them. Otherwise, we would have only known about many of the gnostic texts from catholic writers early on who wrote about how evil these texts were. Gospel of Judas is a little different. It was not found in 1945 w/ the rest of the Nag Hammadi Library. It also has that title = Gospel of Judas.

I have talked of ther Gnostics plenty before w/ frenz. Two times come to mind. First. Me - a total neopyhte way back then on Gnostics - had a take on them. I'm pretty sure I've written this before, but Vito and I had a Gnostic discussion way back. I was dismissive of the gnostics back then= how more perfect could you craft Jesus message to out the idea that to love oneself and to love ones enemies is the key to life? Vito was like "No, no, there may be more.... etc etc etc that the four gospels don't cover" Both points valid. Both points still valid, after all my reading.

Second time it comes up was that time w/ Rocky and Pulpiteer. They were all agog @ the name, certainlyizing that since it was "Judas's Gospel" take it carried that massive weight to it. Now? Still no idea from me, although I am of the camp that it is pretty simple Gnostic, despite the title. But i'm just 30p into the latest book on it, so I will get back to you.

Now? Anxious for Gf to get off work so we can listen to some Madonna. Anxious? Have you read what I've been writing about these last few days??