Talk:Cainites

Apocrypha
"One of their apocryphal texts was the Gospel of Judas." - Isn't the text considered apcrypha from the viewpoint of mainstream Christianity, but the Cainites themselves would not have viewed it that way as this sentence implies? Шизомби 20:50, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Totally agreed. Besides, it seems to be that scientific evidence supports the idea of this text not being actually apocryphal and that it should be considered as "cannon" for the history of catholicism.--Job 00:45, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I would doubt that there is scientific or theological support for that.... Шизомби 01:13, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

In keeping with this, I altered the line ""One of their purported apocryphal texts was the Gospel of Judas" to read as "One of their purported religious texts was the Gospel of Judas," to reflect the fact that a) they would not have regarded said Gospel as apocryphal and b) we don't really seem to have irrefutable proof that they did use such a text (let alone that the sect existed one way or another). -- 18 November 2007

Actual Existence of Cainites?
Apart from Irenaeus though, is there any independent verification that a Gnostic group such as this ever existed? Irenaeus could have devised this 'sect' to demonise Gnostics through incorporating references to Cain, Judas and the Sodomites. User:Calibanu13.20, 29 July 2006

Judas
The last paragraph of this section really throws me, especially the last sentence:

There is no doubt [Kind of risky statement - it is hard to prove a negative about what people might doubt. Perhaps this is meant to say there is no disagreement in the known sources...] that they applauded the action of Judas in the betrayal, but our[?] authorities differ as to the motive which prompted him. The view that Judas through his more perfect Gnosis penetrated the wish[?] of Jesus more successfully than the others, and accomplished it by bringing him to the Cross through which he effected redemption, is intrinsically the more probable. [Really, why? Does Wikipedia know all the intrinsically probable answers to questions of ancient esoteric dogma?] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.189.45.103 (talk) 04:41, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * This article is copied verbatim from the PD sources listed at the bottom of the page, which seemed preferable to the mangled paragraph that was there before. Feel free to change this into NPOV as you see fit; you will not hurt anyone's feelings. Kramden (talk) 05:07, 4 April 2013 (UTC)