The Gospel of Judas

Philosophy Forums Religion and Spirituality
1

According to the controversial, partially restored, Gospel of Judas, Judas Iscariot was Jesus’ best pal and only betrayed him to the Roman authorities to fulfil Jesus’ own wishes – Jesus wanted him to do it.

The view presented here coincides with that of an early Christian sect, the Gnostics, who believed that secret knowledge shared by Jesus with his closest followers.

The text begins by stating that is a “secret account of the revelation that Jesus spoke in conversation with Judas Iscariot during a week, three days before he celebrated Passover.” Later in the text, Jesus tells Judas, “‘you will exceed all of them. For you will sacrifice the man that clothes me.’”

More info:
centredaily.com/mld/centredaily/14284925.htm

thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Conten … 8793972154

thestandard.com.hk/news_deta … con_type=1

National Geographic has a program on The Gospel of Judas this April 9th (see below)
www9.nationalgeographic.com/chan … index.html

2

Judas Priest?

[clears throat]

This…

Is…

Tha…

PAINNNNKILLA!!

3

If that’s true, then Jesus was crazey.
He wasn’t a self preservationist? Suicide is against the main meaning of life on earth! Anti-survival, self-sacrifice, god damn…

I’ll read the links tomarrow to see if its fake or not.

4

My understanding, too, is this find only infers an event in the same manner as existing biblical text… and does so approximately three hundreds years after Jesus’ time. Possibly… confirming only a successful ‘telling’ over the course of three centuries.

My biblical reading is and has been limited, but what I have read indicates to me that Jesus did as we all are capable of doing… bringing life events to us through our own thought and actions.

His teachings I find, similar to those of Buddha, are innately given to all mankind, yet not all grow to practice them for the good of every being.

Leads me to ask, ‘Did Judas do it for Jesus or did he do it for all mankind’ and ‘Could the answer to this determine whether Judas’ actions were in fact a betrayal… and not necessarily a betrayal of Jesus’?

5

Eh, it’s a heresy. You can say all kinds of crazy crap in a heresy.

6

Well, there’s a couple of things with this to bear in mind.
First, the expected date of authorship was early to mid second century.
Second, the idea isn’t new and has been in vogue even before The Da Vinci Crap came out. Zizek mentions in The Puppet and the Dwarf that, for Christianity to “work,” Jesus had to die. Therefore Judas’s betrayal would have been the ultimate act of love from a human by sacrificing his own eternal life so that the whole Christianity thing would happen.
Third, we should be aware that this is an incomplete account and possibly corrupted, as with most ancient texts. It won’t be until after we are able to have multiple copies and compare variant manuscripts will we have a better idea as to how plausibly accurate it is.
Lastly, Christians generally believe that what the early church decided as “canonical” (even before the various councils on the matter) was somehow led/directed/inspired by God. Everything outside of that canon was denied for good reason.

Please be aware that i am not advocating any of these positions by writing them; i am only summarizing a couple of responses. Personally, i want to read it first before making a comment on it.

7

I never understood why this is such a shock. Jesus helped Judas to do what was necessary. Of course the real interesting concern is why it was necessary but that is something else. Anyhow:

Obviously Jesus knew and helped him.

It had to be and was previously known. But again, the real question is why and I’m curious as to how the National Geographic Special will present it. Not to appear ultra cynical but these specials usually follow Murphy’s Law meaning whatever can go wrong, will. But who knows? What else to do but pour a tall glass of Merlot and hope for the best. :slight_smile:

8

I have not read it yet, but have suspected for some time.

I think it may go a little deeper too. Did Satan betray God? And face eternal damnation, from the very one who asked him to betray Him?

was there a bigger plan, that made this nessesary?

You have 2 spirit creatures transformed to play the act as humans.

Remember Satan entered Judas.

I could be wrong.

I am just tickled it came to light, and people are waking up and asking alot of questions, and the liars who are trying to mislead them are going to face their ignorances and be exposed. =D>

I am currently wondering if the Old test is a guide for people who want to self destruct their individualality to be God again. And the new Testament a guide for us to be like Son’s of God?

Perhaps the that is why we could never live up to the old?

Could we live up to the new?

If Jesus knew He had to leave, He could not betray himself could He?

could you imagine, that if it is true the sacrifice, Judas had to make?

He gets comdemned from everyone, and blamed. (Like Satan?) for everyones problems, and even gets condemned by His friend who asked Him to do it. would you face eternal destruction for $200?

If it really was for money, He had to be incredibaly stupid, after seeing the miriacles and such. It had to be done, and a selfless, loyal person had to do it.

Name one person on this planet today who would do something like that for millions of dollars. Who would dare? Nobody is THAT greedy. IMO

9

They, [especially Jesus,] by choice, fulfilled a wide list of prophecies, instead of the prophecies autocratically fulfilling themselves by means of God’s direct action.

The same has been done to day – as respects other prophecies. Some religious organizations or leaders have chosen to “fulfill” prophecies, or “fulfill” their version of the meaning of those symbolic and strange prophecies, which could have been taken in more then a thousand ways…

It’s a mind trick. It is not God’s action, nor is it divine; it is the actions of men, based upon an interporatation of an old book. That is all.

10

According to the Biblical scholars who worked on the restoration project for this manuscript, everything you have said is incorrect.

Bear in mind that these are the top of their field, in the world, so it is suggested that they have a greater knowledge.

They were clear that this manuscript was written around 280 BCE, but they were also clear that it being scribed in Coptic means it is not the original. This is a copy, so date of first authorship is still unclear. This is also based off of the fact that it is an obviously Gnostic gospel, and they were in the habit of oral transmission in small groups, not advocating “church” style teachings.

Another thing to be aware of is none of the gospels were written by the named individuals, and according to the Bible scholars, they were all written sixty to one hundred years after the death of Y’Shua.

A large part of what the scholars did also, within the context of not only this manuscript, but all canonical texts is to bury the idea that they are inferior, as decided by early church leadership. The Gospel of Thomas, Phillip, and now Judas all show an early movement based on the principle that the God within is the only one that need to be addressed, and that the “church” did nothing to unveil this, so obviously, as a defense mechanism, the church leaders decided they were “heretical”.

The primary point of this Gospel, as well as the other ones termed Gnostic, is that they made no requirement to follow the teachings of other humans, which stands in direct opposition to the church and it’s self-purported “authority”.

11

i have read some of their other works, a chahara. Two of them are close friends with one of my professors, who so happens to part of that “top of their field, in the world.”

i did not contradict this at all. i wrote the following under the assumption that we are talking of originals, not copies. i don’t care when the copy was written.

In fact, you can check Scot McKnight’s first post (link) about it. After all, he is also one of the “top of their field, in the world.” And, if i remember correctly, he is on the committee that decides which Greek letter/word should be considered the original Greek for each version of the Greek NT released.

i said nothing about who wrote it. But, since you bring up the topic, i’ll say that most scholars agree that the gospels were written by their namesakes. Their main point of difference is as to who those people were. Of course, they are relying on the early Church fathers for their information, but those fathers are at least as acceptable as deuterocanonical NT writings.

Again, i didn’t suggest Judas to be inferior based on its evidence. These texts bmay be good evidence as to what other sects within Christianity believed, but “everything outside of that canon was denied for good reason.” The early Church had reasons for rejecting these books as being part of a NT canon.

That’s fine except that the “self-purported ‘authority’” was what created Christianity. They are, by default, the ones we should look to for defining what is and isn’t “good Christianity.”
This occurs in other faiths as well. The Qu’ran and the Sunnas were canonized in the 10th century, and nobody today argues that other sayings should be included or whatnot. The early Church, much like early Islam, defined their religion. We have to take them on that.

12

I was at one point under this same presumption, but now am uncertain the more I read. The field is not as uniformly decided as it once was, so there is room for skepticism, as there should be.

As I stated to another, Vae victus illa historia. Accepting the rejection based upon the early church fathers opinions is an egregious error, especially at face value. If you study the pertinent history, you find that their determinations were based solely on defensive reasoning, to maintain their hold against the government and authorities in the world of their time, and to maintain their offensives against the masses, and for heavily anti-semitic reasons, (separating themselves from the scourge of the Jews rejection of Y’Shua and Judas’ “betrayal”). I question those as being “good reasons”.

Christianity that you speak of was born of war, torture, racism, gender disparity, slavery and power struggles. I reject, in part and in entirety, that as being the definition of “good” religion. Their definitions are what have set the stage for the ultimate failure, in either instance, Christianity or Islam. Judeaism may survive, because of it’s remoteness, but there is room for skepticism there, as well.

13

You question these reasons because you have created them in order to question them. Typical straw man argument.

The church fathers made their determination because the Gospel of Judas and many other such books were heretical in nature. Acceptance means a complete revision of the character and person of Jesus and is in conflict with the accepted gospels. You can call this defensive reasoning if you like but I would call it offensive reasoning, attacking what is against the very root of the Christian faith. If anyone cares…here is the quote from Irenaeus (dated 180AD by the way, which means the gospel of Judas is at least that old). At the bootom, you’ll also find Irenaeus’s opinion of those who accept these kind of heretical books.

Chapter XXXI.—Doctrines of the Cainites.

  1. Others again declare that Cain derived his being from the Power above, and acknowledge that Esau, Korah, the Sodomites, and all such persons, are related to themselves. On this account, they add, they have been assailed by the Creator, yet no one of them has suffered injury. For Sophia was in the habit of carrying off that which belonged to her from them to herself. They declare that Judas the traitor was thoroughly acquainted with these things, and that he alone, knowing the truth as no others did, accomplished the mystery of the betrayal; by him all things, both earthly and heavenly, were thus thrown into confusion. They produce a fictitious history of this kind, which they style the Gospel of Judas.

  2. I have also made a collection of their writings in which they advocate the abolition of the doings of Hystera.2982 Moreover, they call this Hystera the creator of heaven and earth. They also hold, like Carpocrates, that men cannot be saved until they have gone through all kinds of experience. An angel, they maintain, attends them in every one of their sinful and abominable actions, and urges them to venture on audacity and incur pollution. Whatever may be the nature2983 of the action, they declare that they do it in the name of the angel, saying, “O thou angel, I use thy work; O thou power, I accomplish thy operation!” And they maintain that this is “perfect knowledge,” without shrinking to rush into such actions as it is not lawful even to name.

  3. It was necessary clearly to prove, that, as their very opinions and regulations exhibit them, those who are of the school of Valentinus derive their origin from such mothers, fathers, and ancestors, and also to bring forward their doctrines, with the hope that perchance some of them, exercising repentance and returning to the only Creator, and God the Former of the universe, may obtain salvation, and that others may not henceforth be drawn away by their wicked, although plausible, persuasions, imagining that they will obtain from them the knowledge of some greater and more sublime mysteries. But let them rather, learning to good effect from us the wicked tenets of these men, look with contempt upon their doctrines, while at the same time they pity those who, still cleaving to these miserable and baseless fables, have reached such a pitch of arrogance as to reckon themselves superior to all others on account of such knowledge, or, as it should rather be called, ignorance. They have now been fully exposed; and simply to exhibit their sentiments, is to obtain a victory over them.

  4. Wherefore I have laboured to bring forward, and make clearly manifest, the utterly ill-conditioned carcase of this miserable little fox. For there will not now be need of many words to overturn their system of doctrine, when it has been made manifest to all. It is as when, on a beast hiding itself in a wood, and by rushing forth from it is in the habit of destroying multitudes, one who beats round the wood and thoroughly explores it, so as to compel the animal to break cover, does not strive to capture it, seeing that it is truly a ferocious beast; but those present can then watch and avoid its assaults, and can cast darts at it from all sides, and wound it, and finally slay that destructive brute. So, in our case, since we have brought their hidden mysteries, which they keep in silence among themselves, to the light, it will not now be necessary to use many words in destroying their system of opinions. For it is now in thy power, and in the power of all thy associates, to familiarize yourselves with what has been said, to overthrow their wicked and undigested doctrines, and to set forth doctrines agreeable to the truth. Since then the case is so, I shall, according to promise, and as my ability serves, labour to overthrow them, by refuting them all in the following book. Even to give an account of them is a tedious affair, as thou seest. But I shall furnish means for overthrowing them, by meeting all their opinions in the order in which they have been described, that I may not only expose the wild beast to view, but may inflict wounds upon it from every side.

14

What ad hominem crap. LMAO.

No, it is reasonable to skeptically question these supposed “good reasons” as based upon historical fact of the era itself.

“Heresy” is something that is defined by the church, in typical modus operandi, thus, dismissable.

So it is that the Gospel of Judas, like Thomas, Phillip, Magdalene … stand as authentic works with no more or less authenticity or usability than any other Gospel.

15

Accepting your opinion on the vality of gospels is an egregious error, especially at face value. If you study the pertinent history you will find that your determination in this matter is based soley on defensive reasoning, so that you can maintain your ugly racist and facist viewpoints, and justify your desire to torture and mutilate small furry animals to your heart’s desire. I question those as being “good reasons”. Although I must also thank you for helping me see that this is not a straw man argument.

Dismissable to some but not to others.

I don’t really care about their “authenticity”, and I’m not sure that many people do. The most important question is whether they have any value. I may be in the minority here, but I don’t think they do. I have read most of them and they are pretty shallow and vapid when compared to the canonical NT. There are a few exceptions like the Shepherd of Hermas, but by and large these books are a big fuss about nothing.

16

That is exactly the point. The church defines its own orthodoxy. The definition of orthodoxy at the earliest we can tell, excluded these works. They defined their world. If we are to talk about their world, then we must assume their definitions. If you don’t like, make your own religion. i am not affirming that Christianity is right (or even that it is wrong). i am say, though, that if we want to talk about how something is seen by Christians, then we have to assume the Christian viewpoint before making a judgement.
If you want to know how cutting off my right arm would affect me, you can’t think of it on the lines of how it makes you feel. You have to assume my viewpoint before making a judgement, or else it runs the risk of being inapplicalbe or wrong.

17

But why should the Bible be a closed canon if other (authentic) books come to light?

Are we to accept the Church as defined by the early church fathers or the Church as defined by the desciples of Jesus?

There can be multiple schools within one, unified religion. I would say that Christianity comes from the teachings of Jesus rather than the descisions made by early church fathers.

18

This orthodoxy is based upon the primary suppositions of a pagan king, Constantine.

The church has no more authority than you or I, they are the same fallible beings, with obvious and overt agendas, and are just as easily dismissed.

I had long ago “assumed the Christian viewpoint” and was blinded as well. Then I learned that Christians were humans, who put their pants on one leg at a time, just as I, and sought deeper meaning and more knowledge, and stopped accepting the church’s authority for the greater authority of divinity itself.

19

Depends what you mean by schools. In the early days of the church if someone did not accept the early church creed, and later on, the canon, then they were not identified as “Christians”. I would say that this definition has not changed. Can Christians disagree? Sure. Can they disagree on canon or creed? No. Since by challenging them you lose the basic definition of what it means to be a Christian. That may seem harsh, but I don’t hold with the view that thinking that Jesus was a nice chap makes you a Christian any more than eating Taco Bell makes you a Mexican. Sorry if that offends anyone but that’s the way I see it.

20

Mr. Flanders, no disrespect intended, but equally as many Biblical scholars, Biblical historians, Biblical archaeologists, Biblical anthropologists agree with what I am stating, as those that agree with what you are saying.

The final Word is that of divinity itself, and it is for that answering voice that I seek.

As far as shallow and vacuous, the church itself is unrivaled, especially in light of it’s own consistent behavior, recorded throughout history. I summarily reject the church, and it’s self-aggrandizing portends of absolute authority, they are no greater people than you or I.

As far as your statements of racism and fascism against my person, that is just your anger speaking at being unable to refute historicity and scholarly study.

I leave those rudiments to the church itself, it has proven it’s ability to maintain them well, unchecked, through the ages.