Posted on 04/07/2006 3:56:27 PM PDT by rhema
The Gospel of Judas debuted Thursday in Washington, D.C. What's the Gospel of Judas, you ask? Well, it's not a gospel. And it's not written by Judas. But it's still important, if not the most important nonbiblical text discovered during the last 60 years, as a National Geographic Society executive told The New York Times.
The text, a copy of the document written during the second century, reveals some big news. Turns out Judas wasn't the renegade disciple who betrayed Jesus and committed suicide after remorse overwhelmed him. No, this Judas was just doing what Jesus told him to do. Jesus explained to Judas that he would "exceed all of [the disciples]" by getting Jesus crucified.
Well, that sure would change things. If it were true. This "news" isn't what makes the Gospel of Judas significant. Rather, thanks to this text, we can further confirm what we already know about Gnostics—those pesky heretics condemned by early-church leaders like Irenaeus. Don't get confused by mentions of Jesus and Judas. This is no Christian text. The Gospel of Judas did not circulate until about 150 years after Jesus died. Let's put it this way: This new text tells us nothing more about Jesus' relationship with Judas than does Jesus Christ Superstar.
Until the release of the Gospel of Judas and other Gnostic texts discovered decades ago near Nag Hammadi in Egypt, we learned about Gnosticism mostly through the polemics of Christian apologists. Now thanks to the Gospel of Judas, we can further verify two major Gnostic teachings.
(Excerpt) Read more at christianitytoday.com ...
John was the only apostle to die of old age. It is possible he completed his own gospel - even if it was 70 yrs after the resurrection as he was very likely the youngest apostle.
It is possible that the apostles had written various things during their lives that may have been compiled by their own disciples into a cohesive gospel.
**But the two accounts are surely describing the same couple of events and they vary widely on the details.**
Maybe they compliment each other.
The priests used Judas' money (they weren't about to take it back) to by the parcel of land, as though that is what Judas would have or could have done. Thereby washing their hands of it and considering themselves as his puchasing agent, yet innocent of any wrongdoing.
Now, if you are munching on something, read the following when your stomach is settled:
Maybe Judas' body wasn't found right away.
When a body has a week in the sun to swell up, and rot; the head can separate from the weight of the body, which would pop like a pimple when dropped several feet onto a hard surface.
You wanted an explanation. I gave you one.
**First off, none of the Gospels were written by apostles. The earliest of Mathew Mark Luke and John was written at least 70 years after Christs death. None of them knew Christ.**
Matthew and John were disciples/apostles of Jesus Christ.
I took a Biblical Literature course last semester, I loved it so much I kept (and will never throw out) my binder. I didn't resell my textbooks either.
Just checked, Johns Gospel was actually the last one written.
Mark actually knew an apostle but wasn't one himself. That's the closest direct connection to Christ of the Gospels.
The Gospels of Mathew and John were not written by the apostles Mathew and John.
You still can't make it happen HEADFIRST.
And you can't explain why Acts forgot to mention that he was hanging for a week before describing his guts.
You really have to imagine some pretty bizarro events to make the two accounts non-contradictory. Can't fault you for trying, but it's more than a stretch.
"Historic revisionism to destroy the Truth has been going on for centuries."
Did they include the part where he was Gay?
The problem with alot of those classes is it is based on theory - not quantifiable fact. Especially the people who adhere to the "Q" theory.
So...there are many theories out there put forth by many experts. And still, it is highly likely that any canonical gospels were included in scripture because they were recognized as having direct relationship to the apostles.
The apostles had their own disciples who preserved the teachings, and the gospels emerged from this setting.
So I don't think it is entirely accurate to say the writers didn't know Christ, as it is possible they were acting as "compilers" and not as authors.
"" The apostles had their own disciples who preserved the teachings, and the gospels emerged from this setting. ""
I would say with the exception of Mark, the apostles had disciples who had disciples ect. More degrees of seperation. Also, some of the Gospels were based on one and other.
It's just a common misconception, kind of like Mary Magdeline being a whore. I wouldn't adhere to the school of thought that she was Jesus' wife, but she wasn't a whore.
""The problem with alot of those classes is it is based on theory - not quantifiable fact. Especially the people who adhere to the "Q" theory.""
I agree.
Let's say I want to preserve memories of my great grandmother.
Sometimes I manage to write them in a journal. Sometimes I tell my children a story about her - and then THEY write down the story I told them - or they pass it on orally to their children.
Someday my grandchild or great grandchild compiles these writings and oral stories into an organized portrait of granny.
Who is the author? Where did the memories come from?
I'm apologizing immediately for my ignorance, but this news interests me today. I have been ambivalent in my bible studies since Sunday School in the sixties. This news today, at least in the MSM, actually has treated the concept of Jesus Christ as a holy being as being a well, sort of given, acknowledged, holy being for the first time in my memory. I suppose that that fact is only in the interest of gaining ratings. I think that the commonly held view of most newsmen is that the religion of Cristianity is hooey.
I, however, am taking interest in the historical aspect. What was actually going on, that there was such interest, and texts written, about this person, Jesus Christ.
I actually never realized that the "gospels" were written by Mathew, Luke, And John. Perhaps that is the ignorance of childhood.
But, to read this in the paper today, that scientists have translated an ancient text that may be a missing part of the bible. I am intrigued.
**And you can't explain why Acts forgot to mention that he was hanging for a week before describing his guts.**
Acts 'forgot'? If you want a detailed decription, it's not there. The book of the Acts of the apostles is about 30 years of church founding and history, that an average reader can read through in a couple of hours.
By the way, the head would fall out of the noose upon separation from the body.
Maybe you should also complain that there is no EXACT timetable for how fast the field was puchased.
Maybe, just maybe, the priests chose to buy the field where Judas' body was found.
Yes, many things are left out. The Bible is about Jesus, everyone else is secondary. The exact location is not given. We assume Judas' body was buried there. CSI was still a long ways in the future.
There were many accounts written by Jesus. Some written sooner than others, and some which had more direct connection to the apostles than others.
One of the first problems facing the christian community was how to define the divine/human nature of Jesus Christ.
The christians believed he was fully God, and fully human, and that both of these natures were "good" or "perfect."
Gnosticism was one of the earliest heresies that posed as semi-christian belief but also held beliefs contrary to christianity.
The early christians did not consider gnostics to be christians because of their erroneous beliefs considering the nature of God's creation, and the human/divine nature of Christ.
An early bishop, Ireneaus, was aware of this gospel of Judas, and described it as heretical - incompatible with christian faith.
I would compare it to how mainstream jews feel about Kabbalah.
Anyways, the gospel of Judas is a gnostic gospel, just as the gospel of Thomas and Mary are also. They share the same themes that the early christians considered to be heresy. They are not christian writings.
A sinner who never "got the message" about Jesus. He wanted to be top dog in a worldly sense, and when the results of his bid were underwhelming, he was crushed and did away with himself. With help from the devil, of course.
Here's a good article on gnosticism..
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06592a.htm
Early christian writings
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers
LIkely he did it on the rocky terrain around Calvary. If somebody (prolly a Roman soldier) cut him down, and his feet landed on an elevated rock then his body tumbled forward onto another rock, the results described in the bible would ensue. An ignominious end to be sure.
Oh, my. Please complete for me the following line of argument:
"We know for a fact that Matthew was not written before AD 70 and that he never knew Jesus because.................?????
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.