The Forbidden Gospel

[Ben Masada]

THE FORBIDDEN GOSPEL

Ladies and Gentlemen, listen to this conversation and tell me, at the end, if it makes any sense to you. It's about the forbidden Gospel.

One day, Jesus summoned his disciples, the Twelve, and asked them to sit down for he had a very impotant message to convey to them. Some thing new they needed to learn.

Colloquially, the conversation went thus:

Jesus: Beloved, the time has come to send you on a mission with the gospel about the Kingdom of God. I am giving you authority to expell evil spirits, and to cure sickness, and disease of every kind. (Mat. 10:1)

Thomas: Wow! That will be cool! We will actually be able to cure people of their diseases as well as to exorcize evil spirits? That will be the day!

Jesus: Don't be too excited Thomas, there is a catch to it. You cannot take this gospel to the Gentiles, and I forbid you even to enter a Samaritan town; to the Jews only, if you understand what I mean. (Mat. 10:5)

Thomas: I knew it! No wonder I was smelling the rat here somewhere. How can we do this among people who don't even believe in demons?

Jesus: I know it. That's why I am sending you out as sheep among wolves. Just be clever. (Mat. 10:16)

Peter: Master, there is something I do not understand here. What's the reason for the prohibition to take the gospel of the Kingdom of God to the Gentiles if we have all been assigned as light unto the Gentiles, according to Isaiah 42:6?

Jesus: Peter, you are still too stuck to the old Law. That was in the old dispensation. With the change of the Priesthood, it has become necessary a change also of the Law. (Heb. 7:12)

Matthew: But Master, didn't you confirm the Law even down to the letter? (Mat. 5:19)

Jesus: Well, I'll send Saul, aka Paul, and he will explain how it all happened with my soon-to-come crucifixion. (Ephe. 2:15; Heb. 7:12)

Matthew: Whatever, but really, why forbid the Gentiles a share of your gospel? I still do not understand!

Jesus: Just let it be for now, Matthew. When the church of Paul is well established, hordes of evangelists will be sent by the Church to spread the gospel throughout the world. (This started in the 4th Century soon after Christianity was adopted as the official religion of the Roman Empire by Constantine in 310 ACE.)

The bottom line, ladies and gentlemen, is that the gospel of Jesus was, originally, forbidden to be taken to the Gentiles, and, unbelievably, by Jesus himself. Even Paul, albeit a self-proclaimed apostle to the Gentiles, never, actually, stood by his own claim. His whole life was to take the gospel to the Jews, as he would preach only in the synagogues of the Jews.

Believe it or not, were not for the Catholic Church, Christianity would still be no more than a simple hellenistic cult.

Now, if this does not make sense to you, let us talk about it.

Ben

 

[Etu Malku]

Yeah, let's hear it for the Catholic Church!!
What should have been nothing more than another stupid Judaic offshoot has become a money grubbing, evil, pedophile coveting, hypocritical, murdering, delusional, woman hating, megalomaniac, empire.

 

[Ahanu]

Now, if this does not make sense to you, let us talk about it.

Ben

Look, I'm no biblical expert, but I noticed most of your quotes come from Matthew. Couldn't we simply argue Matthew paints Jesus that way?

In other words, maybe the Matthew Jesus is in conflict with Pauline Christianity, not Jesus himself.

 

[BrotherMichaelSky]

THE FORBIDDEN GOSPEL

Ladies and Gentlemen, listen to this conversation and tell me, at the end, if it makes any sense to you. It's about the forbidden Gospel.

One day, Jesus summoned his disciples, the Twelve, and asked them to sit down for he had a very impotant message to convey to them. Some thing new they needed to learn.

Colloquially, the conversation went thus:

Jesus: Beloved, the time has come to send you on a mission with the gospel about the Kingdom of God. I am giving you authority to expell evil spirits, and to cure sickness, and disease of every kind. (Mat. 10:1)

Thomas: Wow! That will be cool! We will actually be able to cure people of their diseases as well as to exorcize evil spirits? That will be the day!

Jesus: Don't be too excited Thomas, there is a catch to it. You cannot take this gospel to the Gentiles, and I forbid you even to enter a Samaritan town; to the Jews only, if you understand what I mean. (Mat. 10:5)

Thomas: I knew it! No wonder I was smelling the rat here somewhere. How can we do this among people who don't even believe in demons?

Jesus: I know it. That's why I am sending you out as sheep among wolves. Just be clever. (Mat. 10:16)

Peter: Master, there is something I do not understand here. What's the reason for the prohibition to take the gospel of the Kingdom of God to the Gentiles if we have all been assigned as light unto the Gentiles, according to Isaiah 42:6?

Jesus: Peter, you are still too stuck to the old Law. That was in the old dispensation. With the change of the Priesthood, it has become necessary a change also of the Law. (Heb. 7:12)

Matthew: But Master, didn't you confirm the Law even down to the letter? (Mat. 5:19)

Jesus: Well, I'll send Saul, aka Paul, and he will explain how it all happened with my soon-to-come crucifixion. (Ephe. 2:15; Heb. 7:12)

Matthew: Whatever, but really, why forbid the Gentiles a share of your gospel? I still do not understand!

Jesus: Just let it be for now, Matthew. When the church of Paul is well established, hordes of evangelists will be sent by the Church to spread the gospel throughout the world. (This started in the 4th Century soon after Christianity was adopted as the official religion of the Roman Empire by Constantine in 310 ACE.)

The bottom line, ladies and gentlemen, is that the gospel of Jesus was, originally, forbidden to be taken to the Gentiles, and, unbelievably, by Jesus himself. Even Paul, albeit a self-proclaimed apostle to the Gentiles, never, actually, stood by his own claim. His whole life was to take the gospel to the Jews, as he would preach only in the synagogues of the Jews.

Believe it or not, were not for the Catholic Church, Christianity would still be no more than a simple hellenistic cult.

Now, if this does not make sense to you, let us talk about it.

Ben

Would it be a Hellenistic cult, or would it be a sect of Judaism?

I think the examples of "who is a Jew" in the texts should be examined to see how that might relate....

 

[radarmark]

Not bad, Ben. There is a problem. The Eastern and Oriental Orthodox (including Armenian, Indian, and Ethiopean) Christians would not fall under your perview. Yes, they are all in communion with the Roman Catholics; however they exist as separate entities.

 

[Princely]

He also said this at a later time.

Matt 28:18 Jesus came and said to them, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teach them to carry out everything that I have commanded you. And remember, I am with you always, even to the end of the age."

 

[Thomas]

Now, if this does not make sense to you, let us talk about it.

John 12:20-23
"Now there were certain Gentiles among them, who came up to adore on the festival day. These therefore came to Philip, who was of Bethsaida of Galilee, and desired him, saying: Sir, we would see Jesus. Philip cometh, and telleth Andrew. Again Andrew and Philip told Jesus. But Jesus answered them, saying: The hour is come, that the Son of man should be glorified."

Consider the Parable of the Prodigal Son (the elder brother) ... I think Jesus was waiting for a sign, that the Word was reading to pass beyond its Judaic confine, to the whole world. As Jesus said "And unto all nations the gospel must first be preached" (Mark 13:10) and even at the kerfuffle at the Temple "My house shall be called the house of prayer to all nations? But you have made it a den of thieves." (Mark 11:17)

Acts 10 details the conversion of the Roman centurion Cornelius, and Peter's realisation that the Gospel is not for the Jews alone, as much as there were those in Jerusalem who might have insisted it was.

As for Paul, he preached to the Athenians on the Areopagus, so I think you're mistaken there. It was Paul who tried to take a Gentile into the Temple, and started a riot ... it seems to me Paul would preach to anyone who would listen.

So ... I think your thesis is highly unlikely, and Scripture does not support it.

Believe it or not, were not for the Catholic Church, Christianity would still be no more than a simple hellenistic cult.

When you say Catholic, d'you mean Catholic as used from the beginning, or Catholic as the Latin Tradition that emerged as East and West drifted apart, and into schism?

If the former, then the idea of a 'universal' church would hardly be applicable to an entity to which only the Jews were allowed membership. If the latter, then you're really labouring under a huge anachronism ...

And if the gospel was preached only to the Jews, as you suppose, how does Christianity end up 'a hellenistic cult'?

And what aspects of the cultus do you see as Hellenistic?

Far more likely, as more than a few have argued, that Christianity should have remained an esoteric school within and under the mantle of Exoteric Judaism.

The evidence is that by the time Constantine saw which way the wind was blowing, there were estimated up to some five million Christians in the world, across the empire. Nothing changed with Constantine's edict, other than it became easier for Christians to move around.

 

[radarmark]

Dang Thomas, you are so much more precise and to the point than I.

 

[Servetus]

... One day, Jesus summoned his disciples, the Twelve, and asked them to sit down for he had a very impotant message ...

This, your "Forbidden Gospel," is a very impotent message indeed.


Serv

 

[BrotherMichaelSky]

John 12:20-23
Nothing changed with Constantine's edict, other than it became easier for Christians to move around.

SOME Christians.... the rest were strung up at every turn.....
those who believed hellenistic concepts were eagerly sought out as lighting for festivals....

 

[Thomas]

SOME Christians.... the rest were strung up at every turn.....
those who believed hellenistic concepts were eagerly sought out as lighting for festivals....

I think you'll find you're confusing your emperors. That was Nero, in Rome.

God bless,

Thomas

 

[Ben Masada]

Yeah, let's hear it for the Catholic Church!!
What should have been nothing more than another stupid Judaic offshoot has become a money grubbing, evil, pedophile coveting, hypocritical, murdering, delusional, woman hating, megalomaniac, empire.

The Catholic Church is not and never was a Judaic offshoot. Judaism never had anything to do with the Catholic Church. BTW, Christianity is an offshoot of Hellenism and not of Judaism. Christianity was founded by Paul, a former hellenistic Jew, (Acts 11:26) and it has been since its outset, the result of the hellenistic doctrine of the Greek myth of the demigod, which is the son of a god with an earthly woman.
Ben

 

[Ben Masada]

Look, I'm no biblical expert, but I noticed most of your quotes come from Matthew. Couldn't we simply argue Matthew paints Jesus that way?

In other words, maybe the Matthew Jesus is in conflict with Pauline Christianity, not Jesus himself.

No problem, Ahanu. Let us discurss how Matthew paints his Jesus. Ups! I said "his Jesus." Yes, because his Jesus seems not to be the same as the Jesus of Luke. Take a look at this:

WERE THERE TWO DIFFERENT JESUSES?

When Luke wrote Acts of the Apostles to Theophilus, he guaranteed him that he had dealt with ALL that Jesus did and taught until the end of his life on earth.(Acts 1:1,2) If Luke is someone worthy believing, there must be something wrong with Matthew.

1. I am not talking about the huge difference in the genealogy of Jesus.(Mat. 1:1-17)
2. I am not talking about the anxiety of Mary to explain her pregnancy without having yet slept with Joseph.(Mat. 1:18-25)
3. I am not talking about the Astrologers from the East who came to worship the newborn "King of the Jews." (Mat. 2:1,2)
4. I am not talking about the star that stood still over the place where the child was.(Mat. 2:9-11)
5. I am not talking about the flight with the child to Egypt.(Mat. 2:13-15)
6. I am not talking about the slaughering of the innocent under the age of two with the Herodian intent to catch Jesus.(Mat. 2:16-18)
7. And I am not talking about a lot of other things that Luke ignores in his accurate account of EVERYTHING about Jesus to Theophilus.

Here's what I am talking about: While the Jesus of Matthew was still in Egypt waiting for Herod to die, the Jesus of Luke was born, after 8 days, circumcised, and on the 40th day he was presented in the Temple; and immediately after these requirements of the Law, the family headed back to Galilee, and their own town of Nazareth.(Luke 2:21,22,39)

Now, bear in mind , that Jesus was only 40 days old when they headed back home to Nazareth. In the meantime, the Jesus of Matthew was still trapped in Egypt waiting for the word of the "angel" with the news that Herod had finally died. Perhaps in order to spare the embarrassment, the age of this Jesus is omitted.

Therefore, how many Jesuses were there? If there was but one, either gospel writer is lying or neither ever met each other. But how about the spirit that inspired the revelation?

I think Christianity will be better off if we don't remove that stone. The smell will be too strong.

Ben

 

[Ben Masada]

Would it be a Hellenistic cult, or would it be a sect of Judaism?

I think the examples of "who is a Jew" in the texts should be examined to see how that might relate....

A hellenistic cult in the beginning, and up to the beginning of the 4th Century ACE, when it became a major religion to compete with any other on earth.

As a sect of Judaism, Christianity never was and it still has nothing to do with Judaism. It started already as a result of the imaginations of a former hellenistic Jew called Paul in the city of Antioch about 35 years after Jesus had been gone. (Acts 11:26)

The most recent sect of Judaism at the time was the Sect of the Nazarenes, whose gospel was not the same as the gospel of Paul. (Gal. 1:6-9)
Ben

 

[Ben Masada]

Not bad, Ben. There is a problem. The Eastern and Oriental Orthodox (including Armenian, Indian, and Ethiopean) Christians would not fall under your perview. Yes, they are all in communion with the Roman Catholics; however they exist as separate entities.

But not separated from Christianity in general. They were and still are also called Christians. And Christians started with Paul about 35 years after Jesus had been gone. That's when Christians were called Christians for the first time. Why? Because Paul had spent a whole year in the synagogue of Antioch preaching about Jesus as Christ. (Acts 11:26)
Ben

 

[Ben Masada]

He also said this at a later time.

Matt 28:18 Jesus came and said to them, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teach them to carry out everything that I have commanded you. And remember, I am with you always, even to the end of the age."

He who, Jesus or the hellenistic guy who wrote the gospel attributed to Matthew? And for two reasons Jesus could not have been the author of Mat.28:18,19. First, because he would be contradicting himself after Mat. 10:5, when he forbade to take the gospel to the Gentiles.

And second, because he was a Jewish man, and a Jewish man, would never baptize another in the name of the Trinity when he believes that God is absolutely One.

Besides, he would have to be insane to make himself the second person of that Trinity as supposing to be a god himself. This would be adopting the Greek trinity of Zeus, Posseidon and Hades, which forms the triune heads of Greek Mythology. That's in the Iliad of Homer.
Ben

 

[radarmark]

Well, that is not what you said. "Were it not for the Catholic Church" (which from your use and as indicted by my caveat) indicates the Roman or Latin Chruch. If you changed that to "Christian Church" it would be more precise. However, then the counter-claim would be that the early (Jerusalem or Antioch) Church was not part of this "Christian Church". I do not agree with this interpretation but it is one made by Protestant sects all the time.

A possible solution would be ", were it not for the Greater Christian Chruch (that which became the Oriental and Eastern Orthodox and the Roman Catholic Church) Christianity would still be no more than a simple hellenistic cult".

Not that I agree with that conclusion. The "heresies" of Marcion, the Gnostics, and the Ebionites might have triumphed (my bet would be on Marcionites) by becoming one with the Empire.

 

[Ben Masada]

John 12:20-23

"Now there were certain Gentiles among them, who came up to adore on the festival day. These therefore came to Philip, who was of Bethsaida of Galilee, and desired him, saying: Sir, we would see Jesus. Philip cometh, and telleth Andrew. Again Andrew and Philip told Jesus. But Jesus answered them, saying: The hour is come, that the Son of man should be glorified."

This does not answer the question why Jesus would forbid his disciples to take the gospel to the Gentiles.

Consider the Parable of the Prodigal Son (the elder brother) ... I think Jesus was waiting for a sign, that the Word was reading to pass beyond its Judaic confine, to the whole world. As Jesus said "And unto all nations the gospel must first be preached" (Mark 13:10) and even at the kerfuffle at the Temple "My house shall be called the house of prayer to all nations? But you have made it a den of thieves." (Mark 11:17)

Every thing is possible in a parable; even for someone in hell to speak to Abraham in heaven. (Luke 16:29-31)

Acts 10 details the conversion of the Roman centurion Cornelius, and Peter's realisation that the Gospel is not for the Jews alone, as much as there were those in Jerusalem who might have insisted it was.

Indeed, as soon as Jesus had been gone, the Nazarenes organized themselves and elected Peter - and not Paul - as the apostle to the Gentiles. (Acts 15:7)

As for Paul, he preached to the Athenians on the Areopagus, so I think you're mistaken there. It was Paul who tried to take a Gentile into the Temple, and started a riot ... it seems to me Paul would preach to anyone who would listen.

To preach to the Athenians on the Areopagus, justifies 2% of Paul's works among the Gentiles. However, that's hardly enough to classify him as the apostle to the Gentiles when 80% was in the synagogues of the Jews.

When you say Catholic, d'you mean Catholic as used from the beginning, or Catholic as the Latin Tradition that emerged as East and West drifted apart, and into schism?

I mean the Catholic Church in its onset as the immediate offshoot of the Hellenistic Christianity of Paul. (Acts 11:26)

If the former, then the idea of a 'universal' church would hardly be applicable to an entity to which only the Jews were allowed membership. If the latter, then you're really labouring under a huge anachronism.

Jews never became members of Christianity either in the beginning or today. A Jew would cease being Jewish as he or she became a Christian. The Gentiles converted by the Nazarenes would become fully Jewish. Those who got persuaded by Paul into becoming Christians would lose their Jewish identity. (Acts 15:28,29)

And if the gospel was preached only to the Jews, as you suppose, how does Christianity end up 'a hellenistic cult'?

A Jew who became a Christian at that time would be embracing a hellenistic cult. Today, he or she, embraces a hellenistic religion.

And what aspects of the cultus do you see as Hellenistic?

There are many, but offhand, here is one: The Greek myth of the demigod which is the son of a god with an earthly woman. That's Hellenism.

Far more likely, as more than a few have argued, that Christianity should have remained an esoteric school within and under the mantle of Exoteric Judaism.

It would have been entirely impossible. Judaism does not go hand-in-hand with Hellenism, even esoterically.

The evidence is that by the time Constantine saw which way the wind was blowing, there were estimated up to some five million Christians in the world, across the empire. Nothing changed with Constantine's edict, other than it became easier for Christians to move around.

Are you sure that nothing changed? One of the first edicts of the Catholic Church, as soon as it became the official religion of the Empire, was to forbid, under penalty of death, that Jews should continue with their activities as proselytizers among the Gentiles. They did not believe, at first, when some of them started being sentenced to death, our authorities forbade, on a permanent basis, to continue with the work. That prohibition has stuck to the Jews up to this very day. Conversions to Judaism still occur, but they have to be saught by the proselytes.

Ben

 

[Ben Masada]

This, your "Forbidden Gospel," is a very impotent message indeed.


Serv

The forbidden gospel, aka, Judaism, was the gospel of Jesus. (Mat. 5:17-19) What you have is the gospel of Paul.
Ben

 

[Ben Masada]

Well, that is not what you said. "Were it not for the Catholic Church" (which from your use and as indicted by my caveat) indicates the Roman or Latin Chruch. If you changed that to "Christian Church" it would be more precise. However, then the counter-claim would be that the early (Jerusalem or Antioch) Church was not part of this "Christian Church". I do not agree with this interpretation but it is one made by Protestant sects all the time.

A possible solution would be ", were it not for the Greater Christian Chruch (that which became the Oriental and Eastern Orthodox and the Roman Catholic Church) Christianity would still be no more than a simple hellenistic cult".

Not that I agree with that conclusion. The "heresies" of Marcion, the Gnostics, and the Ebionites might have triumphed (my bet would be on Marcionites) by becoming one with the Empire.

Right, "Were not for the Christian Church..." I take that as a better way to put it. The Ebionites, you have mentioned above, IMHO, they were the same as the Nazarenes, the most recent Jewish sect of the time.

BTW, Radarmark, I owe you something about the Mishneh Torah of the Rambam. If I am not mistaken, it is something about the 13 Principles of Faith. I am posting a thread about my opinion of them. Enjoy it.
Ben