Anon isn't a fan of Judas - eviltoast
  • Ð Greıt Þu̇mpkin@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    3 months ago

    That’s the gospel of Judas, and it’s considered part of Gnostic doctrine, which is basically the one thing all Christians agree on, in that they all agree it is absolute heresy.

    Like basically considered pagan in terms of how “Christian” it’s seen as.

    I actually have an idea for an althist based on if the core gospels were instead replaced with the Gospels of Thomas, Mary, Phillip, and Judas, leading to Christianity developing as a wildly more mystical sort of religion, and possibly even less tolerant of old faiths since Gnostic doctrines, of which all four of those gospels are apparently heavily steeped in, believes everything material and old testament related is literally made by satan, would need to actually research that one lol.

    • TrousersMcPants@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      3 months ago

      Gnosticism, to me, honestly feels like the true story of Christianity. Like, in the gospel of Mary I believe it’s basically stated that Mary was the favorite apostle of Jesus and that Peter was jealous. So while all the other apostles seem to have encountered Jesus after his death in a more spiritual fashion rather than a literal resurrection, Peter was the only one to have explicitly met Jesus and seen him physically resurrect after his death. Convenient that Jesus would also tell him, and only him, that he would carry on as the head of the faith.

      I just love how much the whole thing feels like the church covering up what really happened, even if it’s basically impossible to know for sure.

      • Ð Greıt Þu̇mpkin@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        3 months ago

        St. Peter’s account of being labelled head of the faith is mostly just Catholic doctrine. Whichever of the apostles ended up in Constantinople, then Byzantion, Jerusalem, Bethlehem, and Alexandria could theoretically have claimed similar visions and been taken just as seriously because before power was consolidated Christianity was “run” by a Pentarchy of Patriarchs, one in each of the five holy cities of the faith, and each of whom technically equalled the pope in rome in rank, just in the sense that pope’s descend from St. Peter while other patriarchs descended from different apostles or early converts.

        Had Christianity spread in India you’d probably hear about a Christian Hexarchy with one of the patriarchates based in Chennai.

      • s_s@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        Gnosticism, to me, honestly feels like the true story of Christianity.

        There are lots of unrelated ideas and beliefs grouped together as “Gnosticism”. The truth was that early Christianity was incredibly diverse, varied and local.

        Only when the Emperor(s) got involved (around the third century) does there–like everything the Emperor’s did–need to be a uniformity and consistency so that Christianity reflects the Emperor’s fasces–his imperium and potestas.

        You are no longer some rudderless Christian, you are a Roman Catholic Christian who worships the Jesus sponsored by the Emperor!

    • Hellinabucket@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      3 months ago

      This is the first I’m hearing of those 4 gospels, I’m gonna do some digging cause now I’m interested, but if you had any springboards to jump off of id happily take them.

      • bizarroland@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        3 months ago

        The easiest starting point into those things is the Apocrypha.

        It tells a lot of interesting stories that are temporally relevant to the New testament, but we’re chosen to not be a part of it by the King James commission for one reason or another.

        They should also be available somewhere online to read for free.

    • Rekorse@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      It sorta seems hypocritical for one religion to criticize another in the first place, but obviously those in the religion dont see it as fantasy like those outside do. It would be sorta like if the DnD hobbyists were really aggressive about converting people to DnD.

      But that aside, how do Christians reconcile all of the different sects? If only one sect gets it right, doesn’t that mean they accept that the majority of Christians won’t?

      Why do we even put the sects under the umbrella of Christianity? It seems like that lends a lot of credence to what would otherwise be very small religions if they had to stand on their own.

      • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        It would be sorta like if the DnD hobbyists were really aggressive about converting people to DnD.

        Laughs nervously

        how do Christians reconcile all of the different sects? If only one sect gets it right, doesn’t that mean they accept that the majority of Christians won’t?

        YMMV. It can range from “If you got baptized and worship Jesus that’s close enough” to the Emo Phillips joke.