在耶穌之後的新約聖經裡,有一非常重要的關鍵角色,叫做聖靈,照著聖經,聖靈是耶穌死後復活,升天說「see you later」後所產生的。聖靈看不到,聞不到,聽不到,但可以經歷的到(使徒行傳記載了非常多醫病趕鬼的事情,一直到現在基督徒聚會中還是常發生的,但這些是不信的人很不想看到的)。聖靈是基督徒所主觀經歷的「內住的基督」,那是愛的力量,經歷患難的倚靠,以及安息喜樂的保證。所以,去問基督徒,他們都對聖靈有或多或少的主觀經歷,這也是他們能堅信的重要憑藉。
Mr. Mansfield has responded to my message and I shall post it here again. Thanks.
Mr. Mansfiled 寫:John, thanks for your reply--and for not calling me "extreme" this time
The reason that the Gospel of Judas does not warrant inclusion into the New Testament is because the New Testament canon is closed. This is a matter of theology and history. Even if it were determined that the Gospel of Judas was written in the first century, it still would not qualify for inclusion into the NT. The early church had certain litmus tests for what was chosen to stand alongside the Hebrew Scriptures as sacred canon. This included whether or not a document was written by an apostle or at least had access to apostolic witness. Also there was the issue of whether or not the early church viewed a writing as authoritative and bearing the marks of being inspired by the Holy Spirit.
There are NT references to other writings that aren't in our New Testament. There's at least one other letter written by Paul to the Corinthians. There is a letter he wrote to the Laodiceans. But even if we found these letters, they wouldn't warrant inclusion into the New Testament because they were rejected by the early church as being authoritative and inspired. And there are dozens of other writings by Christians, even much earlier than the Gospel of Judas that did not make it into the New Testament. Consider the Shepherd of Hermas, the Didache, the Epistle of Barnabas. Although these are edifying reading, they are not considered inspired or authoritative.
But I'll agree with you that the gospel of Judas is interesting. I've probably downplayed that fact in reaction to all the unnecessary hype that the document is receiving.
And I agree with you that it should be studied further. But I believe it should be studied for what it is--a representative of 3rd/4th century Gnostic writings, not a contender for a fifth gospel in the New Testament.
Thanks for posting my reply. Feel free to post this if you want, or if you feel it's unnecessary don't worry about it.
And as of this writing, it's a little past midday here
fuigo 寫:Mr. Mansfield has responded to my message and I shall post it here again. Thanks.
Mr. Mansfiled 寫:John, thanks for your reply--and for not calling me "extreme" this time
The reason that the Gospel of Judas does not warrant inclusion into the New Testament is because the New Testament canon is closed. This is a matter of theology and history. Even if it were determined that the Gospel of Judas was written in the first century, it still would not qualify for inclusion into the NT. The early church had certain litmus tests for what was chosen to stand alongside the Hebrew Scriptures as sacred canon. This included whether or not a document was written by an apostle or at least had access to apostolic witness. Also there was the issue of whether or not the early church viewed a writing as authoritative and bearing the marks of being inspired by the Holy Spirit.
There are NT references to other writings that aren't in our New Testament. There's at least one other letter written by Paul to the Corinthians. There is a letter he wrote to the Laodiceans. But even if we found these letters, they wouldn't warrant inclusion into the New Testament because they were rejected by the early church as being authoritative and inspired. And there are dozens of other writings by Christians, even much earlier than the Gospel of Judas that did not make it into the New Testament. Consider the Shepherd of Hermas, the Didache, the Epistle of Barnabas. Although these are edifying reading, they are not considered inspired or authoritative.
But I'll agree with you that the gospel of Judas is interesting. I've probably downplayed that fact in reaction to all the unnecessary hype that the document is receiving.
And I agree with you that it should be studied further. But I believe it should be studied for what it is--a representative of 3rd/4th century Gnostic writings, not a contender for a fifth gospel in the New Testament.
Thanks for posting my reply. Feel free to post this if you want, or if you feel it's unnecessary don't worry about it.
And as of this writing, it's a little past midday here