This seems like quite the accusation

I'm still a bit unsure of what the Da Vinci Code is

This can definately be a weird way of looking at this but its almost funny to think of how much DeConick was impacted by the Gospel of Judas. Like while yes it posses Judas as a friend rather than a foe, or say more like a close confidant to Jesus we have a very well known book called the Bible, a book that is far more accepted than the Gospel of Judas, that contradicts the acceptance of Judas by Jesus as a highly regarded friend. It seems like she is really fighting for the defamation of Judas at that moment. Did people really believe and put lots of emphasis on the Gospel of Judas when it published? even with the gaps in the writing? Through DeConick's passion for fighting this view, it seems so.

Its crazy how little preservation societies or how late Nat Geo stepped in to attain The Gospel of Judas. I remember talking about the ethicality of it in class but still...its an ancient artifact relating to the authenticity of Jesus. That feels important enough to keep track of

I know the 1970s didn't have the most savy ways of recording things and documenting information but I feel like there should be more information as to how this gospel was "stumbled" upon...sus

I am a little bit confused as to the exact attitudes they are referring to and how they mean by them?

What exactly do they mean by "under" the Temple?

Like I said...it does sound interesting.

So can you just buy these books or thrillers at Barnes and Noble? These descriptions and quotes look like what you would see on the back of a book there

Oxford Languages describes this as: "according to the teaching of the gospel or the Christian religion."

Secular: primarily used to distinguish something (such as an attitude, belief, or position) that is not specifically religious or sectarian in nature - Merriam Webster

With this definition in mind,I feel like its hard to call these Gospel Thrillers secular with their heavy religious influence.

This taken out of context to me doesn't sound bad. It sounds true in a sense. I suppose it depends on how literal or spiritual the idea of Light and Darkness is. And its capitalized so I take it plays a larger role than simply good or evil.

As described by study.com: "However, unlike other monotheistic religions like Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, the Manichaeans held that God was finite."

This idea is interesting. Does it mean that they believe that God was physical and on earth? Do they believe in the trinity?

"Arianism maintained that the Son of God was created by the Father and was therefore neither coeternal with the Father" according to oxford langauges

sounds interesting...maybe i should pick it up. But in all seriousness it actually sounds like a book. Like a normal read as opposed to a gospel or educational religious lit

"an assumed name" according to oxford dictionaries

Brings up the question of "what is a gospel?" again. Because we had deduced that it is conveying information about the life of Jesus as its focus. Is the Gospel of Judas a gospel and are there other lost gospels that aren't exactly gospels in regards to them not writing about Jesus and instead something else,

Just an interesting immediate thought is that of the authenticity conversation we discussed in class. While it was in regard to the critera of authenticity we also discussed what each of us interpreted thte word authentic to mean. Some of us said truth, others said historical (like Keith) but we ultimately discovered that many of the interpretations of the Bible and its gospels have different "truths" or contradict eachother even. So the use of the word "truth" here is interesting. What sort of truth are they looking for? An answer or simply more information that peels back the layers to this onion that is Jesus?