The Gospel of Judas

[CrazyAce86]

Seemed like no one else had the balls to do it, so I will.

As of Thursday, April 6, 2006, the Gospel of Judas has been translated and published. You can read it here (http://www9.nationalgeographic.com/lostgospel/_pdf/GospelofJudas.pdf) in .pdf format.

If you're fully informed about the story of Judas or want a refresher, I recommend visiting Wikipedia's article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judas_Iscariot) on it.

This Sunday at 8PM EST on National Geographic Channel there will be a program on entitled "The Gospel of Judas" that is in regards to this.

And so, let the discussion begin.

[SDSUMarcus01]

The problem with the gospel of Judas is that it doesn't really follow the prophecies in the old testament.

It isn't betrayal if Judas was told to do it.

[CrazyAce86]

True, but by committing the act is he still responsible for the death of Jesus, or was he "just following orders"?

I find it ironic that there are those that wish to discount it based on its attributed date of writing at a hundred years or so after Jesus's death; yet the Gospel of John is from the same time period and accepted as canon. I can understand how it can be that way, however-- John has been known since it was written and parallels the other three books of Matthew, Mark, and Luke rather faithfully. This Gospel of Judas is recently discovered and does not parallel any other.

It makes one wonder; however, there isn't one answer than can be fully agreed upon by everyone and I honestly doubt there ever will be. Even so, it does cast a new light on some things.

[Jay]

No comment. :bang:

[SDSUMarcus01]

True, but by committing the act is he still responsible for the death of Jesus, or was he "just following orders"?

I find it ironic that there are those that wish to discount it based on its attributed date of writing at a hundred years or so after Jesus's death; yet the Gospel of John is from the same time period and accepted as canon. I can understand how it can be that way, however-- John has been known since it was written and parallels the other three books of Matthew, Mark, and Luke rather faithfully. This Gospel of Judas is recently discovered and does not parallel any other.

It makes one wonder; however, there isn't one answer than can be fully agreed upon by everyone and I honestly doubt there ever will be. Even so, it does cast a new light on some things.

You're right, it doesn't parallel any other, but like I said... from what I've read and my limited knowledge of the old testament, it contradicts the old testament... that in itself should invalidate it if you believe in Bible.

[Pierrot le Fou]

What does this have to do with balls pray tell? Have you watched Stigmata one too many times? It's interesting to see from an academic standpoint since most gnostic literature was gotten rid of by the early church, but it isn't like this will suddenly turn the world on its head.

[ZaichikArky]

Interesting! I have always been an atheist(though my dad still claims I'm a Jew by blood so I guess I'm half Jewish :|) but I fhave always found Biblical stories fascinating. I'm going to try to watch the program! I'm a bit more well-veresed in the old testemant, however. I think I might have heard about this Judas fellow a long time ago. I'd like to learn more ^_^.

[SDSUMarcus01]

What does this have to do with balls pray tell? Have you watched Stigmata one too many times? It's interesting to see from an academic standpoint since most gnostic literature was gotten rid of by the early church, but it isn't like this will suddenly turn the world on its head.

Yah... it's not quite something like the Gospel of Jesus authenticated.

It's an "account" that tries to tell the story from the viewpoint of Judas... obviously not written by Judas.

[CrazyAce86]

What does this have to do with balls pray tell? Have you watched Stigmata one too many times? It's interesting to see from an academic standpoint since most gnostic literature was gotten rid of by the early church, but it isn't like this will suddenly turn the world on its head.

Or so I thought. I waited, but nobody else put a thread up. It's ridiculous, there's threads on stupid news (though, granted, there a few good ones out there), but nothing like this.

I'm not saying it's going to change Christianity or whatever. I'm simply saying that from a historical point-of-view, this is very intersesting. It is also, I believe, the first gnostic account there is of Jesus.

I honestly thought people had more thoughts on this, whether they believe it's real or not and so on.

[Jay]

I want to believe it. Don't get me wrong, I want to believe this, the only reason I don't is because I don't have the ability to put faith in something so... fanciful. But... it was written so long after the fact that I can't help thinking it was a tale handed down from father to son during a stormy night around the fire, or to lull the kid to sleep.

Fuck, it might even have been a dream.

[CrazyAce86]

Very true.

However, none of the accounts that we have-- the books of the New Testament-- were written during Jesus's time. The earliest was about thirty years after his death. Yet those books are accepted as canon and not fanciful.

This book would also differ in text simply because it was not written by Christians (though I believe at the time they were still called Jews), but rather Gnostics. However, the fact that it was written by the Gnostics also strikes it, since they have a variant point-of-view from the Christians.

Two groups saw the same thing, yet have different accounts. Like how the Romans thought that the Christians actually drank blood and ate flesh, not realizing that it was purely symbolical.

[TrendSeven]

Read it days ago.

[Jay]

Good for you. :clap:

Spot the sarcasm and win a prize.

[Joe]

Interesting! I have always been an atheist(though my dad still claims I'm a Jew by blood so I guess I'm half Jewish :|) but I fhave always found Biblical stories fascinating. I'm going to try to watch the program! I'm a bit more well-veresed in the old testemant, however. I think I might have heard about this Judas fellow a long time ago. I'd like to learn more ^_^.

*sigh* My mother does the same thing. Only, I'm more quarter Jew, or a third jew. Or just part Jewish... we'll keep it at that.

My opinion is similar to Jays, just... instead of the inability to believe it's more... bullshit. I mean, sniff a bible, you'll smell it! Historically it's thought none of the accounts of Jesus were written around the time, and some might even have been written by other people. It's just fairy tales.

[Artful_Dodger]

You're right, it doesn't parallel any other, but like I said... from what I've read and my limited knowledge of the old testament, it contradicts the old testament... that in itself should invalidate it if you believe in Bible.
Which is why no one cares what Christians think about anything when they cite the Bible - they have no idea what it says.

[Mysticalmelody]

Judas was told to betray Jesus maybe because it was necessary for the sacrifice or something to that effect.

[Vic_Rattlehead]

NP - Judas Priest - Painkiller \m/:D \m/

[Neon Pink Shoehorn]

well, the bible as it is contradicts itself, eg matt 1:1-16, luke 2:23-38
so why would this be new, eh?

[Komachi Angel]

I've yet to read the link yet, but I heard about several other books that were cut from the bible some time ago because they contained passages that generally didn't 'sit well' with what people wanted to believe. I'm sorry I can't post more exact examples of these, but maybe someone knows a bit more about the situation.

[Daie]

Komachi, there's hundreds of them. There are something like 400 gospels in the Vatican, and only 4 were approved for inclusion in the Bible

[ZaichikArky]

*sigh* My mother does the same thing. Only, I'm more quarter Jew, or a third jew. Or just part Jewish... we'll keep it at that.


Heh. So if it's your mother's side, then that should mean that you're the right part Jewish, since matrilineal lineage only seems to matter :p. Omg you're more Jewish than me! XD

When I was little, I went to Jewish camp. There was a rather big community of Jews in the Denver area. Or at least, so it appeared. Apparently I used to be a little hardcore Torah-thumper when I went to that camp. My mom used to find it very strange how I used to pray with the Torah at home. Man, I don't even remember that.

In the USSR, there were generally two things you could be. A Jew or an Atheist. My dad was a Jew, so he was Fu-cked, my mom was a rarity in USSR culture where she was actually not an anti-semite. Lucky me. hehe.

[NERD]

The composition of Bible itself was an arbitrary event... Gospel of Judas was not the only book that was bumped out of the New Testament- I figure whoever read the Da Vinci Code may be interested in Gospel of Mary Magdalane as well.

Like PLF said, it's interesting these books are being discovered, but other than historical interest, its discovery doesn't mean a lot. And if there are people who are trying to discount the existance of the Gospel, well, perhaps they are afraid that the authenticity of the Bible, in particular the New Testament, is being challenged, and their faith in Christianity as well? If so they never had strong faith to start with.

The book exists. It's somewhat interesting.

[CrazyAce86]

I've yet to read the link yet, but I heard about several other books that were cut from the bible some time ago because they contained passages that generally didn't 'sit well' with what people wanted to believe. I'm sorry I can't post more exact examples of these, but maybe someone knows a bit more about the situation.

There's a lot, collectively known as the Apocrypha, or "hidden books". I have a copy of some of them. Here's the ones I have:

The First Book of Esdras
The Second Book of Esdras
The Book of Tobit
The Book of Judith
The Rest of the Chapters of the Book of Esther
The Wisdom of Solomon
The Wisdom of Jesus the Son of Sirach
The Book of Baruch
The Epistle of Jeremy
The Prayer of Asariah
The History of Susanna
The History of the Destruction of Bel and the Dragon
The Prayer of Manasses
The First Book of Maccabees
The Second Book of Maccabes

And I agree about the historical aspect. I'm not particularly religious, so it is the historical aspect that interests me. However, I am also wondering how Christians are taking this-- I am sure that a few are up in arms. I doubt most care either way, but it still must interest them.

And I'll be the first to admit that I don't believe in the accuracy of the Bible. Sure, these events-- or at least some of them-- probably happened, but it's like any story passed down through the generations with each one's spin on it.

I just find it interesting. Makes one wonder just how much of the Christian history isn't allowed to be known.

I am also waiting for Dan Brown to get his hands on this. Robert Langdon is going to have another adventure, that's for sure.

[NERD]

I am also waiting for Dan Brown to get his hands on this. Robert Langdon is going to have another adventure, that's for sure.

I hope not. He's not a great writer in my opinion.

[eyez0nme]

Throw up your arms to the heaven brother: we have something in common. It's not an opinion; it's a fact.
I burned my copy.

[Pierrot le Fou]

Uh, the Apocrypha (or parts of it) are considered canonical by certain Christian sects (namely Catholicism). And they will be included (generally along with the Pseudepigrapha) in any decent study Bible.

And I'm rather certain that the Dead Sea Scrolls are a much bigger and more important find than these are.

[CrazyAce86]

I believe they are, too.

I'm not saying that this is some great find or that the world will forever be changed, I'm simply saying it's interesting and that it gives a different perspective on things. That's it, nothing more, nothing less.

And in relation the Apocrypha, it's weird. On one hand, it's canon; on the other, it's not considered to be part of the true holy scriptures. I don't get it, personally, but like I said, I'm not particularly religious, or rather, I'm not particular to any religion. I like to study them all.

[Pierrot le Fou]

It's really quite simple. The Jews had their own canon: the Torah (5 books of Moses, the Pentateuch), the histories (Joshua, Judges, Kings, Chronicles, etc.), the Prophets (Hosea, Amos, Jeremiah, etc.), and the Writings (generally written after the prophetic works, but determined to be important anyway, also known as Wisdom literature methinks). The inter-testamental writings weren't included in the Jewish canon because they didn't quite fit the criteria.

Christianity came along and started anew, and using non-Canonical Hebrew Bible works didn't fit with the whole starting anew thing. But some of the books were useful in explaining the Messiah and all that, so were included as being important, but they weren't accepted as holy by either the Jews or the Christians, which made them a bit separate.

[otro34]

I'm not saying that this is some great find or that the world will forever be changed, I'm simply saying it's interesting and that it gives a different perspective on things. That's it, nothing more, nothing less.


I think it gives that for those who are interested... hundreds of books have been found/published before and they didn't even touch the foundations of any christian religion/cult. Not that it should.... but at least people should try and understand that the Bible: inspired by God, May Be. Written by Him: OMG, No! As one said before, the Catholic Church put the books together the way they seem to fit the new "ideas"...

[TrendSeven]

Uh, the Apocrypha (or parts of it) are considered canonical by certain Christian sects (namely Catholicism). And they will be included (generally along with the Pseudepigrapha) in any decent study Bible.

And I'm rather certain that the Dead Sea Scrolls are a much bigger and more important find than these are.
Yes, I believe the Gnostic Bible is the best collection/translation (so far) of the scrolls. At least, that's the one I received a copy of a couple years ago.

[Roxie]

I think it's all very interesting.

However, I don't think it really matters so much. I mean, it doesn't change the message of Jesus, which is what should be most important.

I'm strictly referring to the topic there.^

I'm more interested in things like

Quotations: There are several variations of words mimicking the historical Gospel of Thomas (unrelated to the Infancy Gospel of Thomas), including:

The Kingdom of God is within you, not in buildings of wood and stone. Split a piece of wood and I am there. Lift the stone and you will find me.

The Kingdom of God is inside you and all about you, not in mansions of wood and stone. Split a piece of wood and I am there; lift a stone and you will find me.

The Kingdom of God is within you and all about you, not in buildings of wood and stone. When I am gone, split a piece of wood and I am there; lift a stone and you will find me.

which is from the prieviously mentioned movie, Stigmata

[NERD]

Eh, quotation from Bible and related text is a dodgy thing, as they are all different depending on the translation, and their sources. A friend of mine, who is a graduate at Emory studying bibliological archaeology, had to learn Hebrew because of that, as there can be more than one interpretation of a Bible passage, and that's from ancient Hebrew version.

[Roxie]

Eh, quotation from Bible and related text is a dodgy thing, as they are all different depending on the translation, and their sources. A friend of mine, who is a graduate at Emory studying bibliological archaeology, had to learn Hebrew because of that, as there can be more than one interpretation of a Bible passage, and that's from ancient Hebrew version.
Oh yeah, there's that too. I hear there are quite a few things that are mistranlated, such as the comandment aganist killing is actually "thou shall not murder."

[TrendSeven]

Oh yeah, there's that too. I hear there are quite a few things that are mistranlated, such as the comandment aganist killing is actually "thou shall not murder."
Actually, the way it was originally written meant "Thou shalt not kill" but in a way that only referred to other members of the same group (other Jews). So, it would have been fine to kill someone that was not of the chosen people.

[Roxie]

Actually, the way it was originally written meant "Thou shalt not kill" but in a way that only referred to other members of the same group (other Jews). So, it would have been fine to kill someone that was not of the chosen people.I meant more in terms of self-defense.