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. 10:5,6)

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 salvation 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. 5:17-19)

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.

My opinion: Christianity is Christianity precisely because our Christ is at the helm - not because of the works of man.


@ Shibolet: I think you read into the passage something that wasn’t there.
At one point, yes, Christ sent the disciples out to the Jewish communities and forbade them to enter Samaritan or Gentile towns. But that was only for the moment. Later they did go to the Gentiles.
Christ Himself granted the appeal of a Roman official to heal his dying servant, and that of the Syrio-Phoenician woman to drive the evil spirits out of her daughter.

My opinion, Christ wasn’t saying it shouldn’t be taught to the gentiles ever, but rather not at that exact time. He wanted them to bring back those who had fallen away and those Jews who would understand the teaching better first so that there were more to evangelize the gentiles. That is what I gather from this.

While Paul did much preaching among the Jews, he also preached among the Gentiles. He even had a fight with Peter (which he won) in which he argued that gentile believes should not be subject to the laws of the Jews.

I’m also not sure you understand what “Hellenistic” means, it means Greek - Many of the Jews were Hellenized, but they were not Hellenic.


Suppose you put together another version of this but begin with a different assignment from Jesus…
18…Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 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, 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age.” (Mt 28:18-20)
Begin with this passage and THEN see if you conclusion holds up.

The reason that the first mission was specifically to the Jewish community was because they, as the “chosen” people, were to be given the first chance at receiving the Good News of the coming of the Messiah. After this was accomplished, and after the passion and Resurrection, the mission was expanded to all the world.

As for Paul only speaking in Synagogues…This is not true. Yes he did go to the synagogues first - again to share the good news of the Messiah with his fellow Jews. But in at least two places the NT speaks of Him preaching away from the synagogue.
One is when he spoke to the Greeks…Read Acts 17: 16-34 - He preached in the marketplace and later at the “Are-op’agus”…Also - (I can’t recall the location) he was rejected by the Jews in the synagogue and he simply went to the gentiles and began preaching.

So it seems that your speculation, based on a number of verses plucked out of context, is wrong on more than one point.


“From there he set out and went away to the region of Tyre. He entered a house and did not want anyone to know he was there. Yet he could not escape notice, but a woman whose little daughter had an unclean spirit immediately heard about him, and she came and bowed down at his feet. Now the woman was a Gentile, of Syrophoenician origin. She begged him to cast the demon out of her daughter. He said to her, “Let the children be fed first, for it is not fair to take the children’s food and throw it to the dogs.” But she answered him, “Sir, even the dogs under the table eat the children’s crumbs.” Then he said to her, “For saying that, you may go- the demon has left your daughter.”” Mark 7.24-29 (This is also found in Matthew.)

Yes, the Gospel was for the Jews first. As God’s chosen people and the first among His children, they got the first chance at the good news. After it had been presented to those who accepted it, the Gospel was brought to the Gentiles.

After the resurrection, in an account included in ALL FOUR gospels (plus Acts), Jesus commissions His disciples with their mission:
"And he said to them, “Go into all the world and proclaim the good news to the whole creation.” Mark 16.14

ALL the world. The WHOLE creation. Pretty sure that Gentiles were created and are part of the world.

:thumbsup: :thumbsup:

You’re exactly right.

You’re about 280 years off. And what’s with this “Church of Paul” bit anyway? Paul himself would have read you the riot act if you’d said that in front of him. Paul was quite adamant that there is one church only, and it is the church of Jesus Christ.

Amen - Glad somebody caught that…


Um you do realise this is not the original poster Shibolet’s opinion or belief. He is asking for our opinion on the piece The Forbidden Gospel which contains that statement "Church of Paul.

Weren’t Ephesians and Hebrews written by Peter? Also, Saul didn’t convert until after the Ascension, even

Wait now I’m confused. Is “The Forbidden Gospel” some book or something? If so, is it a misinterpretation of Scripture or one of those conspiracy theories based on Gnostic texts? (sorry for the bias, but seriously)

Also, general rule of thumb: most interpretations of the Bible have existed for centuries, or are extensions of existing interpretation. Do you think that all these people REALLY went this long without noticing those events in scripture? Don’t you think SOME of them would be loudly saying “the gospel is only for Jewish people! Stop reading it!” and gone off to start their own church? TO the best of my knowledge, that hasn’t happened. Which, while not a rock solid foundation for rejecting the claim, is enough that we should logically take pause upon hearing it.

Not sure if the OP is referring to the Forbidden Gospel of Thomas/Hammadi Collection.

I’m pretty sure it is a hypothetical “gospel” being used to make a point. Re-read it and take note of the NT citations as well as the modern language used by the disciples.

The OP can correct me if I am wrong.

JK :slight_smile:

The OP perhaps would have received a more appropriate response had he clarified his source from where the conversation piece comes from. Now it has been 15 posts and we are still guessing. Probably some of us thrive in suspense. :rolleyes:

[quote=Shibolet]Now, if this does not make sense to you, let us talk about it.

I don’t know where to start. It does not make sense because everything there is based on wrong premises so there is nothing to talk about other than saying that what is laid there is wrong. Perhaps you should have revealed your source to see the context.

IMHO, men are the tools in the “hands” of God to make God known to the rest of Mankind.
For a more at-home example, we have in Ezekiel 20:41 that, “By means of Israel, the Jewish People, the Lord manifests His holiness in the sight of the nations.” That’s one of the reasons for exiles, when they are scattered throughout the nations.

Yes Reepicheep, I am well aware of those individual occasions when Jesus would open an exepction to cure a Gentile or two. But his official agenda was to avoid them and stick to the “lost sheep of Israel.” It is true that later, they did go to the Gentiles. So much so that they assigned Peter to be the Apostle to the Gentiles. That’s in Acts 15:7. But that was after Jesus had been gone. I still do not understand why Jesus would hold on that policy to avoid the Gentiles.

About the Syrio-Phoenician woman, you mention above, there is something that makes me go berserk to try to understand. When she was crying after Jesus to cure her daughter who was possessed, Jesus said that it was not right to take the food from the table of the children and throw it unto the dogs. (Mat. 15:26) Only after the woman humbled herself by saying that it was proper for the dogs to share in the leavings that fall from the masters’ table, Jesus got persuaded that she was faithful enough. But why “to the dogs?” That was enough of a remark to hurt deep in the soul. Do you think there was a
reason for Jesus to have been that cruel?

Well, I don’t know how we can make that easier, considering the person Jesus was. If you read Matthew 15:24, he did make it clear enough that his mission was ONLY (but not first)
to the lost sheep of the House of Israel. As you can see, there is no possibility in his words to think that for the Gentiles it would come another day. And to make things worst,
he would refer to the Gentiles as dogs, if you read Mat. 15:26. I even get embarrassed for
reproducing the words as I read them, but hey! They are written.

Paul preaching to the Gentiles is another hard point to understand because, all his life since his first station in the synagogues of Damascus and until his last in Rome, he would
preach to the Jews only. (Acts 9:1,2; 28:17) He does entitle himself “Apostle to the Gentiles” at the top of his letters but he never ceased preaching to the Jews in their synagogues. Once, in Antioch, due to Jewish hostility, he did decide to turn to the Gentiles but, for some reason, he changed his mind and went to the synagogues of Iconium. (Acts 13:46,51; 14:1)

Now, I read about that “fight” between Paul and Peter. The problem is that Peter’s converts
from among the Gentiles would become Jews just like him. Therefore, subject to the Jewish laws. It happens that those converted from among the Gentiles, as a result of Peter’s work, Paul would overturn them back to the condition of Gentiles and exonerate them from the all Jewish obligations. Hence the reason why the whole Nazarene synagogue of Antioch turned into a Christian church after Paul spent a year there preaching about Jesus as Christ at the invitation of Banabas. That’s where and then, that the disciples were called Christians for the first time. (Acts 11:19-26)

Yes, I do understand what Hellenism means. And yes, Paul was a Hellenist. I have here
“The Oxford Illustrated History of Christianity” by John McManners, a Catholic scholar who
says in page 23 that, “Saul or Paul of Tarsus was indeed a Hellenized Jew with Roman citizenship.” Then, by just reading his letters, one can come to the same conclusion because of the hellenistic tone of his doctrines.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit