'Gospel of Judas' to be revealed

[Matt W]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4882420.stm

Judas Iscariot's reputation as one of the most notorious villains in history could be thrown into doubt with the release of an ancient text on Thursday. The Gospel of Judas, a papyrus document from the 3rd or 4th Century AD, tells the story of Jesus' death from the fallen disciple's point of view. Alleged to be a copy of an even older text, it casts Judas as a benevolent figure, helping Jesus to save mankind. The early Christian Church denounced such teachings as heretical. The 31-page fragile document, written in the Coptic language, was discovered in Egypt in the 1970s. The National Geographic Society in the US is to publish the first English translation of the text on Thursday and show some of the papyrus pages for the first time.

Interesting...

[phoenix_fire]

A.) There was more than one Judas. Are we sure it's the same one?

B.) Judas Iscariot must have been writing like a maniac in the time between his betrayal of Jesus and his suicide. Dang. Wish I was that fast with a pen.

[Rave7pt0]

It was written 1700 years ago, which leaves a 300 year gap. Let's pretend we knew a story that was said to have taken place in the 1700s. We write it down. Is it unequivocal truth, at that point?

I think not.

[gallo]

Quote by: phoenix_fire B.) Judas Iscariot must have been writing like a maniac in the time between his betrayal of Jesus and his suicide. Dang. Wish I was that fast with a pen.

I don't think that anyone in his right mind would believe that this was written by Judas, just like no one who knows anything believes that the 4 gospels were actually written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

[Athena]

Quote by: gallo I don't think that anyone in his right mind would believe that this was written by Judas, just like no one who knows anything believes that the 4 gospels were actually written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

Prehaps then, I am in my left mind, but I have always believed Judas was doing what Jesus wanted him to do, and I am delighted by the find that will add credence to this understanding of what happened. Jesus deliberately made in a scene in the market place at a vital time, sure to get Roman attention. It was all planned out and went exactly as planned.

Here is the part of the article I thought some would like to discuss:

The gospel of Judas is broadly representative of "gnostic" beliefs prevalent in the two or three centuries after the death of Jesus, said the Rev. Donald Senior of the Catholic Theological Union in Chicago, who was an adviser to the restoration team. Gnostic beliefs hold that secret and personal insights are the key to redemption, rather than faith in Jesus' resurrection, for example. Rather than shedding a new light on Judas' relationship to Jesus, Senior suggested, the gospel illuminates the diversity of thought among early Christians. And as for Judas' supposed betrayal? Craig Hill, professor of New Testament at Wesley Theological Seminary in Washington, D.C., would let the villain off history's hook, papyrus or not. "What Jesus did — raising crowds and civic unrest — would have gotten him killed anywhere in the Roman Empire," Hill said. National Geographic is banking on the new gospel to capture the modern imagination. It plans to feature the gospel in its magazine, books and TV special this Sunday (National Geographic Channel, 8 p.m. ET/9 PT). The Maecenas Foundation will give the manuscript to Egypt's Coptic Museum after the restoration is complete, Garcia said.

Understandably those wanting to make the church powerful would not want to include in the bible the Judas gospel and that Jesus was gnostic, but this would make his words even more powerful. Not the religion the church has given us, but gnostic faith could renew and invigorate us. It at long last gets the church off our backs, and reconnects us directly with God. The Quakers are already there with the direct connection with God.
All these years they followed the teachings of Jesus and ignored the old testament. I think the potential of this finding is great.

[tman_ndsu08]

Quote by: Rave7pt0 We write it down. Is it unequivocal truth, at that point?

Psssh.

Obviously.

[phoenix_fire]

Athena...*shakes head*.

I wouldn't get excited if I were you. Every once in a while some "great new discovery that will completely discredit how the churches see things" comes along, gets a warm reception from people too naive to know any better and then gets discredited. Frauds are numerous.

And Jesus wasn't gnostic. Gnosticism didn't exist in Jesus' time.

And, in case you were wondering, the pyramids weren't built by little gray men, astral projection doesn't really work, Elvis is dead (get over it), and there is no such thing as reincarnation.

[Boetie]

The debate between the Gnostic and Christians was not exclusively religious and philosophical arguments. The debates involved social and political issues as well. One such debate between the Gnostics and Christians was the issue of spiritual authority.

The Christians argued that God rules. But how is God's rule actually administered?

God, the Christians says, delegates his "authority of reign" to "rulers and leaders on earth: Who are these designated rulers? The Pope, bishops, priests and deacons. Whoever refuses to bow the neck and obey the church leaders is guilty of insubordination against God himself. The Christians got carried away going so far as to say whoever disobeys the divinely ordained authorities receives the death penalty.

The above is an argument for dividing the Christian community between the "clergy" and the "laitey." The Church is to be organized in terms of a strict order of superiors and subordinates.

The Gnostics on the other hand has this to say: If anyone yields himself to them like a little sheep, and follows out their practice and their redemption, such a person becomes so puffed up that he walks with a strutting gait and a supercilious countenance, possessing all the pompous air of a cock!

[dthmstr254]

Is the account of the Gnostic gospels credible? I can name three reasons why not off the top of my head:

1. fraudulent authorship. the gospel of Philip was written in 250 AD in Syria. the Gnostics simply tagged a popular name on it to make the text seem credible so they could inject false teaching into the church. someone sent a false document to the Thesallonians between the books of 1st and 2nd Thessalonians, posing as Paul in the writing of it, telling them that Jesus had already come and they had missed the rapture. that is why Paul wrote 2 Thes so quickly.

2. late dates. Who would you trust? someone who knew and spoke to Him? or someone who wasn't alive until long, long after.

3. their content. they contradict the synoptic gospels and the Old Testament in several key areas. if you would like, I could post a few of the stupid quotes that include that animals can be saved by being eaten, but humans are damned by being eaten by a lion from the book of Thomas.

[dthmstr254]

Quote by: Boetie The debate between the Gnostic and Christians was not exclusively religious and philosophical arguments. The debates involved social and political issues as well. One such debate between the Gnostics and Christians was the issue of spiritual authority. The Christians argued that God rules. But how is God's rule actually administered? God, the Christians says, delegates his "authority of reign" to "rulers and leaders on earth: Who are these designated rulers? The Pope, bishops, priests and deacons. Whoever refuses to bow the neck and obey the church leaders is guilty of insubordination against God himself. The Christians got carried away going so far as to say whoever disobeys the divinely ordained authorities receives the death penalty. The above is an argument for dividing the Christian community between the "clergy" and the "laitey." The Church is to be organized in terms of a strict order of superiors and subordinates. The Gnostics on the other hand has this to say: If anyone yields himself to them like a little sheep, and follows out their practice and their redemption, such a person becomes so puffed up that he walks with a strutting gait and a supercilious countenance, possessing all the pompous air of a cock!

I am sorry, but if the church leaders are going against the Bible, then they need to be dropkicked out of their position and back into the pew. we are to submit to God's authority first and foremost, and THEN, if they are following God, are we to follow our clergy. Paul told the people in Thessalonica to "test" each doctrine that comes by, including the ones that proceed from the man behind the pulpit.

[dthmstr254]

Quote by: gallo I don't think that anyone in his right mind would believe that this was written by Judas, just like no one who knows anything believes that the 4 gospels were actually written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

well, among the people who have studied the Bible and the archaeological findings surrounding the Bible's story, there is no one with any doubt about the authorship of these books. if you would like a good source for many of the important archaeological finds about the Bible, the Thompson Chain Study Bible has a 30-40 page long archaeological supplement.

[Amuse]

[quote=dthmstr254]Is the account of the Gnostic gospels credible? I can name three reasons why not off the top of my head:

1. fraudulent authorship. the gospel of Philip was written in 250 AD in Syria. the Gnostics simply tagged a popular name on it to make the text seem credible so they could inject false teaching into the church. someone sent a false document to the Thesallonians between the books of 1st and 2nd Thessalonians, posing as Paul in the writing of it, telling them that Jesus had already come and they had missed the rapture. that is why Paul wrote 2 Thes so quickly.

2. late dates. Who would you trust? someone who knew and spoke to Him? or someone who wasn't alive until long, long after.

3. their content. they contradict the synoptic gospels and the Old Testament in several key areas. if you would like, I could post a few of the stupid quotes that include that animals can be saved by being eaten, but humans are damned by being eaten by a lion from the book of Thomas.[/QUOTE

What makes you think the gospels in the bible are true then. They too were written after the fact and by ghost writers. Jesus knew He was going to die so whats the difference if Judas betrayed Him or followed His orders? If your going to say God has a plan, that implies no matter how, it will be done. The result IS Jesus died. Could it be that "betrayal" better suits the agenda than planned martyrdom?

[Athena]

Quote by: phoenix_fire Athena...*shakes head*. I wouldn't get excited if I were you. Every once in a while some "great new discovery that will completely discredit how the churches see things" comes along, gets a warm reception from people too naive to know any better and then gets discredited. Frauds are numerous. And Jesus wasn't gnostic. Gnosticism didn't exist in Jesus' time. And, in case you were wondering, the pyramids weren't built by little gray men, astral projection doesn't really work, Elvis is dead (get over it), and there is no such thing as reincarnation.

Actually, I have been doing some reach and gnosticism exist at the same time, with the concepts predating Christianity. It is seriously tied up with duelism and the belief that

"the world of evil is full of active energy and hostile powers. It is an Oriental (Iranian-Persian) duelism which here finds expression, though in one point, it is true, the mark of Greek influence is quite clear. When Gnosticism recognizes in this corporeal and material world the true seat of evil, consistently treating the bodily of mankind as essentially evil and the separation of spirit from the corporeal being as the object of salvation, this is the outcome of the contrast in Greek duelism of spirit and matter, soul and body. ...."

I have long known what separated Christianity from Judaism is this concept of evil coming from the East, but didn't pay attention to the details. It is all involved with magic, and beliefs in evil.

"the ultimate object is individual salvation, the assurance of a fortunate destiny for the soul after death. As in others, so in this, the central object of worship is a redeemer-deity who has already trodden the difficult way which the faithful have to follow. And finally, as in all mystical religions, so here too, holy rites and formulas, acts of intiation and consecration, all those things which we call sacraments, play a very important part".

At last I understand why oil is mentioned so many times in the bible. Water and oil used for rituals are important to mystical religions.

There is extremely little original writings because of the deliberate destruction done by opposing ecclesiasticals. However,

"Generally also much Gnostic matter is contained in the apocryphal histories of the Apostles."

I have excellent resources in books, and get more from the U of O library. The 1910 Encyclopedia of Britannica I have quoted, has extremely small print and assumes a person is literate in Latin, another book might be more pleasant to read. This would make a wonderful research project if others are interested. :)

[Athena]

[quote=Amuse]

Quote by: dthmstr254 Is the account of the Gnostic gospels credible? I can name three reasons why not off the top of my head: 1. fraudulent authorship. the gospel of Philip was written in 250 AD in Syria. the Gnostics simply tagged a popular name on it to make the text seem credible so they could inject false teaching into the church. someone sent a false document to the Thesallonians between the books of 1st and 2nd Thessalonians, posing as Paul in the writing of it, telling them that Jesus had already come and they had missed the rapture. that is why Paul wrote 2 Thes so quickly. 2. late dates. Who would you trust? someone who knew and spoke to Him? or someone who wasn't alive until long, long after. 3. their content. they contradict the synoptic gospels and the Old Testament in several key areas. if you would like, I could post a few of the stupid quotes that include that animals can be saved by being eaten, but humans are damned by being eaten by a lion from the book of Thomas.[/QUOTE What makes you think the gospels in the bible are true then. They too were written after the fact and by ghost writers. Jesus knew He was going to die so whats the difference if Judas betrayed Him or followed His orders? If your going to say God has a plan, that implies no matter how, it will be done. The result IS Jesus died. Could it be that "betrayal" better suits the agenda than planned martyrdom?

Obviously Christians so controlled information, and destroyed so much of it, we can hardly consider anything coming from the church as unbaised information. Equally obvious is how little of the ancient times and beliefs Christians know. Like they think they are the people concerned with life after death and morality, and this is mistaken.

[gallo]

Quote by: dthmstr254 well, among the people who have studied the Bible and the archaeological findings surrounding the Bible's story, there is no one with any doubt about the authorship of these books.

That's just not true. No one has any idea who wrote the 4 gospels. They were written (probably) some time between 70 & 100 AD, maybe later. Of course, the oldest texts that we still have are dated much later than that. Analysis of the style even shows that the Gospel of John had more than one author - probably two.

[dthmstr254]

Quote by: gallo That's just not true. No one has any idea who wrote the 4 gospels. They were written (probably) some time between 70 & 100 AD, maybe later. Of course, the oldest texts that we still have are dated much later than that. Analysis of the style even shows that the Gospel of John had more than one author - probably two.

the oldest text of John that we have dates to 120-125 AD, and it was found in Egypt. Matthew Mark and Luke, if you look at the writing in depth, can be dated to before 70 AD because they mention the prophecy that the temple would be destroyed, but never oncde mention that prophecy being fulfilled. matter of fact, the Bible only mentions the destruction in the future tense, not mentioning it in John enhances the credibility of John because it sould seem like he was glossing over the facts by writing that Jesus had prophecied the destruction of the temple. Dr David Kemp, Head of the Bible Department a Tennessee Temple University, Dr Danny Lovett, President of TTU, and Dr David E Bouler will tell you that without a doubt the bible authors traditionally ascribed to the writing of the gospels is truthful, and can present a good case that cannot currently be disproven. Dr Kemp even mentioned the fact that a lot of writers back then would use a secretary. John could quite possibly have been switching back and forth from writing it himself and dictating it to a secretary. this could explain the subtle changes in writing style, or he could have been changing the mood, like I do, to fit the scene. you can describe one room in a plethora of ways, what John could have done is change the way he wrote, like I do at times when in the process of writing my book (go ahead and click the link to read what I have posted, just understand that all of it is liable to change to my whim), to fit the situation that he was describing. another theory is that both John the elder and John the disciple wrote the book of John in tandem, like Lahaye and Jenkins did with Left Behind. either way on that one, the name given it is still accurate.
for the gospel of Luke, Luke put his name on the book of Acts and mentioned that it was not the first one he had written to this church. the same church is mentioned at the end of the gospel of Luke, which, with a very small leap of logic, we can then deduce was written by Luke. I never said that the books of the Bible all had a name pinned onto them, but we are sure of most of them. remember that you can ask most educated Christians and they will tell you that the writer of Hebrews is unknown.

[dthmstr254]

Quote by: Amuse Quote by: dthmstr254 Is the account of the Gnostic gospels credible? I can name three reasons why not off the top of my head: 1. fraudulent authorship. the gospel of Philip was written in 250 AD in Syria. the Gnostics simply tagged a popular name on it to make the text seem credible so they could inject false teaching into the church. someone sent a false document to the Thesallonians between the books of 1st and 2nd Thessalonians, posing as Paul in the writing of it, telling them that Jesus had already come and they had missed the rapture. that is why Paul wrote 2 Thes so quickly. 2. late dates. Who would you trust? someone who knew and spoke to Him? or someone who wasn't alive until long, long after. 3. their content. they contradict the synoptic gospels and the Old Testament in several key areas. if you would like, I could post a few of the stupid quotes that include that animals can be saved by being eaten, but humans are damned by being eaten by a lion from the book of Thomas. What makes you think the gospels in the bible are true then. They too were written after the fact and by ghost writers. Jesus knew He was going to die so whats the difference if Judas betrayed Him or followed His orders? If your going to say God has a plan, that implies no matter how, it will be done. The result IS Jesus died. Could it be that "betrayal" better suits the agenda than planned martyrdom?

they were written by people or with people who knew Jesus himself. they were his contemporaries. Judas betraying Him was prophecied in the Old Testament. if you read Romans, and the books of first and second Peter, you will hear plenty enough that Jesus's death was part of God's plan, while God allowed the devil to fulfill a prophecy in letting him control Judas. I bet the gospel of Judas says he didn't betray Jesus, but how many murderers claim not guilty when they have actually murdered? the testimony is not held even by his gnostic "contemporaries" (if they can be called that).

[dthmstr254]

Quote by: Athena Obviously Christians so controlled information, and destroyed so much of it, we can hardly consider anything coming from the church as unbaised information. Equally obvious is how little of the ancient times and beliefs Christians know. Like they think they are the people concerned with life after death and morality, and this is mistaken.

there ARE 20000 catologued copies of the Bible from before the printing press. they date as far back as 105 AD on some of the gospels and the epistles are even older. there is a grand total of 3-4 copies of any one of the gnostic gospels if we are lucky. what does this evidence say? that the copying of the canon was out of control while the copying of the gnostic books was extremely controlled. tell me again how you can say that a single church can control the copying of 20000 Bibles throughout the known world?

[Athena]

Quote by: dthmstr254 there ARE 20000 catologued copies of the Bible from before the printing press. they date as far back as 105 AD on some of the gospels and the epistles are even older. there is a grand total of 3-4 copies of any one of the gnostic gospels if we are lucky. what does this evidence say? that the copying of the canon was out of control while the copying of the gnostic books was extremely controlled. tell me again how you can say that a single church can control the copying of 20000 Bibles throughout the known world?

The Christians destroyed libraries and all writing they did not approve of. If it hadn't been for Arabs perserving Plato, Aristotle, etc. that would be lost to us too. It was not a matter of others writing less, but of Christians effectively destroying so much, including the Eygptian library and Aztec library. Now shall we go on to discussion of the Inquistion and the matter of heresay and why Galileo didn't dare publish anything the church would not allow him to publish?

Christians believe as they do, because the early Christians were so effective in assimulating or destroying other points of view. Such as the Eygptian Easter bunny and egg, given a Christian interpretation, and Christianity asborbing the mystical religions of Persia. Did you miss gnosticism influenced the gospels? They didn't have special prilege to God's truth, but when they blended with the Roman Empire, they gained the power to make it appear so.

[Technosoul]

Concerning the debate about the texts being written too late, perhaps by other people then the ones who lived during the days of Jesus.

(1) dating the document might place it as late, but it could be a copy of a older document that did not survive and could not be dated scientifically.

(2) many of the gopels, especially those that claim to be written by Moses, were recorded by people who were writing "in the name" of that person. If you did something "in the name" of Jesus or anyone else, such as in the name of King George, it was thought to be the same as if the person who you acted on behalf of, did it. For example, if Pope John said "I heal you in the name of Jesus, it would be Jesus healing you through the Pope, not the Pope doing the healing." So if you write a manuscript "in the name" of Tomas (etc) it is the same thing as if Tomas wrote it - having wrote through you. Therefore not a fake.

I have come to bring fire (debate) upon the earth, and I wish it was already kindled - Luke. This new text has kindled more heated debates about the life of Jesus, as Luke mentioned it would.

To give you a better illustration of such events concerning who wrote real or who wrote fake texts, allow me to re-print here something from a Native American books - called "Black Elk Speaks". He was having a vision caused by an illness and in that vision he saw the Grandfathers of the earth who spoke to him, they were older then men, as old as the sun, and the stars.

The oldest Grandfather spoke to Black Elk.

He pointed to his self and said "Look close at he who is your spirit now, for you are his body and his name is Eagle Wing Streatches".

Then Black Elk wrote in the name of his "walk in" spirit.

He drank from a wooden cup of water that the spirit gave him, "this water is the sky, it is the power to make life"

Then Black Elk was standing with a bow and arrow in his hands "take this" he said "it is the power to bring death and it is yours".

"and as he spoke with understanding I looked up and saw the rainbow of flames leap over me with many colors".