Skip to comments.The Gospel of Judas is not revolutionary
Posted on 04/09/2006 3:45:01 PM PDT by jude24
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.
(Excerpt) Read more at ccel.org ...
The Gospel of Judas is suprising only to those who are unaware of the process by which the New Testament canon was crystallized. This comes as a shock to those who assume the New Testament was always an integrated whole, unaware of the Church's role in identifying and collating authoritative, authentic, inspired Scripture from among the hundreds if not thousands of Christian writings with varying degrees of orthodoxy.
Excellent find. That online library of the Fathers is a great tool though there is no really good search engine. By the way, I have spent the past few days trying to explain just what you've said in post #1.
Thanks for the link. I do have a very nice searchable edition of the Ante & Post Nicene Fathers on CD...and it was a bit on the pricey side! :)
Was Irenaeus alive during Jesus' lifetime? Of course not.
His views of the facts regarding the relationship of Judas and Jesus are thus unimportant.
It is true that the earliest Gospel (Mark) was the least anti- Judas story. As each successsor Gospel was written 20-30 years later, Judas was transformed into an evil figure, tansformed into a figure that was intended to defame Jews in general. This was to serve Rome's interests.
I saw the documentary on the National Geographic Channel, and was quie impressed. There is even talk of declaring Judas a saint. Food for thought.
How many untruths have we been taught all these years?
Judas was no saint. He deliberately betrayed Jesus Christ primarily because of his keen interest in destruction of the Romans.
It is documented that Judas was a member of the Zealot party, and probably expected Jesus to use his miraculous powers to zap the Romans. The etymology of "Iscariot" is in fact related to Sicarii, a sect of the Zealots committed to the violent overthrow of Rome. If Judas was a Sicarius (which may or may not be historically possible), then it's possible that he saw Jesus as the Messiah in the fashion expected by the Zealots: a military leader who would zap the Romans into oblivion. If this scenario was the case, then Judas may well have been trying to force Jesus into a position where he had to reveal himself as the divinely appointed warrior-king who would destroy his enemies.
However, as Jesus' message of peace and forgiveness became more clear to Judas, he probably began to doubt Jesus as the Christ. The Jewish elders, whose egocentric anger was stirred by Christ's selfless teachings, sought His removal from the public forum.
Jesus was arrested, beaten and executed as the result of a conspiracy financed by the Jewish Sanhedrin. The Sanhedrin paid Judas to find and arrest Jesus, and thus began Christ's unfortunate persecution.
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.
Who cares what Craig Hill says.
Zealots sought the complete destruction of the Romans, which was an action Jesus did not come here to do.
When Judas realized that Jesus came to offer peace and salvation to all people, he believed that Jesus was not the Christ and thus betrayed Him for 30 pieces of silver.
If Judas was carrying out the will of God as this so-called "Gospel" says, then why did he commit suicide shortly thereafter?
This "Gospel" is in complete contradiction with Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. John's Gospel indicates that Judas was overcome by Satan at the Last Supper. So who are you going to believe? The Beloved Apostle, or Judas?
What you say may very well be true. And many parts of the Gospel of Judas may also be true. There is not that much contradiction.
John appears to be the least reliable of the four accepted Gospels, and had an agenda of marginalizing and insulting the existing Jewish community. Mark was completely neutral about Judas, and it is believed that that Gospel is the most authoritative and earliest version of what really transpired.
Judas was and is under the O.T. judgment of the Jews. And how does one know if Judas did not repent for his actions before his death, such as the thief on the cross that believed, and would see Christ in paradises which some would argue is the non burning side of hell the side that Christ took captive and lead to heaven upon His resurrection. How does one know if Judas was one of them?
People like to vilify Judas and the Jews for the crucifixion of Christ, but my bible says that He laid down His life and that no man no demon no angel and certainly no devil had the power to take it!
Well, I simply refuse to believe that Jesus knowingly asked Judas to betray him as suggested by this National Geographic program.
It just doesn't make any sense at all.
I believe the word of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John over Judas any day of the week.
Given that Easter is here, I suspect that this program is yet another attempt by the MSM to distort Christianity and thus dishearten its believers.
If anything, the Gospel of Judas makes you have even more respect and love for Jesus, not less.
I always thought that Judas was a cartoon figure in the Gospel of John anyway. After all, what betrayal is Judas performing? He points out Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane. This is hardly an action worthy of payment because Jesus wasnt exactly in hiding.
George Washington penned a secret biography that I have in my possession, and I am willing to sell it to you. No need to worry that it is 200+ years after the fact. In in, he proclaims that he was actually in league with Benedict Arnold, and never really had tried to win that war with the British.
Are you interested? Perhaps National Geographic would be.
I'm certain that the Dan Rather Documents section at CBS news would give big money....
Is that the one where he confessed to wearing womens clothing just like dear of dad?
What an outstanding find. I've heard the document reveals George Washington and Benedict Arnold were also actually French and consequently if we are all true patriots, we must now accept our French heritage...
(I agree with you, ... IMHO, the most telling sign of the GOJ' s insignificance is the commentary performed by its advocates reveals an almost complete dearth of spiritual knowledge as taught in the 66 books of our canon. If the GOJ had any significance it would at least be consistent with the rest of Scripture.)
This also indicates this battle is for the unbeliever and religious institutions as opposed to the believer and the Church.
Well, gee. That settles it then.
I believe your take is as close to the truth as we can get, given the gospel accounts. And as I believe that Judas may have began to doubt the Savior once he realized that Jesus did not come to bring "peace" (hence, destroying his enemies), but a "sword" (hence, furthering the division among the Jews which would certainly thwart the Zealots plans), it was not until after he witnessed the Lord's atoning sacrifice that he realized he actually was the Christ. Once that realization manifested, he could not bear the weight of guilt and pain, resulting in his subsequent suicide.
There were plenty heretical documents from the period Im sure - particularly with the gnostics..
Luke 1:1 Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled[a] among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3 Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.
Luke 6:16 Judas son of James, and Judas Iscariot, who became a traitor.
Luke 22:1 [ Judas Agrees to Betray Jesus ] Now the Feast of Unleavened Bread, called the Passover, was approaching, Then Satan entered Judas, called Iscariot, one of the Twelve.
Luke 22:4 And Judas went to the chief priests and the officers of the temple guard and discussed with them how he might betray Jesus.
Luke 22:47 [ Jesus Arrested ] While he was still speaking a crowd came up, and the man who was called Judas, one of the Twelve, was leading them. He approached Jesus to kiss him,
Luke 22:48 but Jesus asked him, "Judas, are you betraying the Son of Man with a kiss?"
No. He was from the second generation of church leadership after the apostles. His viewpoint is important becuase it teaches what the early church thought.
It is true that the earliest Gospel (Mark) was the least anti- Judas story.
Uhh... Mark has Judas betraying Christ too.
I saw the documentary on the National Geographic Channel, and was quie impressed.
The National Geographic Channel is, as demonstrated here, sensationalistic and not exactly historically sound.
There is even talk of declaring Judas a saint.
By whom? There are two churches which declare saints - the Catholics, and the Orthodox. Neither will be swayed by a Gnostic gospel.
Judas was turning Jesus over to the Sanhedrin, hopefully to resolve the issue and abate all the controversy that Jesus' Ministry was causing for the Temple and Roman Power Elite. The Romans had taken notice and had said if the Jewish community didn't quiet this Prophet down and neutralize him, then they would.
Judas was okay with this. But when he was turned over to the custody of the Romans, he killed himself.
Isn't it interesting that one Gospel says he hanged himself and the other one says he jumped in an abyss??
This proves that there are many questions that are not answered in the original Gospels and a few contradictions as well.
No gospel says he jumped into an abyss. All say he hung himself; one (Acts I think) says he fell to the ground and eviscerated himself.
Clement & Polycarp of the 90's and low 100's AD, respectively, included huge numbers of scriptural quotations between them. The presence of those scripture citations indicate that the gospels and letters were circulating among the churches at very early times in Church history -- proof that these books were ALREADY in existence.
That puts their origin at some point significantly earlier than the lives of these men, given the nature of the reproduction of texts (scribing) in that era. The failure of any Christian text to proclaim the destruction of the Temple as a done deed argues for an early writing for all historical type documents (Gospel & Acts....also the letters to some degree.)
One might note that the early fathers did not use the so-called gospel of Judas.
One might also note that one observer commented that the entire New Testament except for 11 verses could be reconstructed just from the citations of the various books by the ante-Nicean fathers.
It is thought by many the "apparent contradiction" about Judas' death as recorded in the two Gospel accounts is easily cleared up with the theory that Judas, in hanging himself, suspended himself over the edge of a cliff of some sort, using a limb that could not support the full weight of his body. He, therefore, hanged himself and also plunged into an abyss (as you say)when the limb gave way. Far-fetched? I don't believe so. Judas expressed a deep remorse over what he had done and, in seeking to end his own life may well have wanted to be certain that nothing could go wrong (how could he ever face the other disciples--they saw him come and betray Christ with a kiss--after hearing Jesus talk repeatedly about being betrayed by one who sat down to bread with Him--No, neither the Lord, nor Judas were going to be spared that night.)
Convenient, shallow explanation? Belief says, "No." Unbelief concludes, "Absolutely!" The believer is always accused of acting on some simplistic (simple-minded?) faith in accepting the scriputes, while the skeptic is often attributed with some vastly superior intellect for doubting. The Scriptures themselves explain this, though, "No man can come to the Father except the Father draw him." The very faith that is at work in the believer involves a mind divinely opened to receive the things of the Scriptures (Paul would say, "We have the mind of Christ."--not to boast, but to explain how a believer sees things through a spiritual lens that the world would see through a material one.)
The problem with the new Judas manuscripts is that they do not line up with the Scriptures (at least not the parts of the Judas gospel I have read, anyway. Now, I must admit I have not read it through its entirety. There's a lot of supposed holy works that I have not read through--doesn't make me right, and it doesn't make me wrong, either--maybe just not as widely read as the next person.) But when I read excerpts that state things that clearly go against the consistent, prophetic, accurate Scriptures with such a clear untruth--it doesn't take much for faith to conclude where such thougths and words came from (see John 8: 43-47)
If you think the Gospel of Judas is genuine, then I've got a genuine autographed picture of Jesus I'd like to sell you. Freep mail me for the details.
Thanks, PM. I treasure the autographed Jesus picture I got from you. I know it's authentic because it's written in Hebrew. And the monogrammed fish symbol is really cool!
If nothing else, it is a good testament to the state of photography and theology in our day. :>)
The National Geographic documentary is quite objective and well produced. Urge all to check it out, or at least look at the website, where they go into greater details.
Another interesting part of the Gospels of Judas was that Jesus is portrayed laughing , sometimes at his own disciples foibles.
This seemed to make Jesus more sympathetic to me. Why don't the orgiinal gospels show Jesus ever laughing? Did he not tell jokes or humorous stories?
Actually, the gospels portray a very human Jesus.
That has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that the so-called 'gospel' of Judas showed up 200 years after the fact.
That means it was written by a liar pretending to be Judas.
I think I'm going to write a memo from President Bush to the Joint Chiefs of Staff. It'll be fun watching them jump to do anything I tell them to do. :>)
Jesus is portrayed throughout the Gospels expressing all the fruit of the Spirit (love, joy, peace, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance). He does so to perfection. These are what so endear Him to those that follow Him. The fact that the Scriptures nowhere record His laughing with His disciples is something that, quite frankly, disappears from the radar when you consider His purpose for coming. In the end, His followers rejoice that "The Son of God loved me and gave Himself for me," and care very little that He failed to demonstrate a divine sense of humor or laughed at one of Peter's jokes.
Objective only in they give equal weight to the opinion of a small, non Christian sect with that of the catholic church. Do understand that there is now a cottage industry of scholars like Pagel who are making a fine living in rehashing the contest between Christianity and gnosticism.
I think you miss the point. St. Irenaeus was a Second Century apologist who was instrumental in vindicating the four gospels we venerate as scripture from the original Gnostic challenges.
He based his arguments in favor of the apostolic Gospels on account of their apostolic succession. That is they were written by the apostles themselves and transmitted immediately to their successors who were out in the open, unlike the Gnostics who believed Jesus handed down secret teachings.
In the absence of the doctrine of apostolic succession, there is no objective, extrinsic way to distinguish the canonical gospels from the forgeries. Because, otherwise, how do you know the canonical gospels ought to be Mary, Peter, Philip and Judas, not Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.
This is where Protestantism is at its weakest. It rejects Holy Tradition, yet it accepts the Tradition of which books are inspired. Who made the decision to declare the canonical books authentic and apostolic and the Gnostic books inauthentic and spurious?
When I realized this I decided to convert to Catholicism from the Lutheranism of my youth.
But actually it was the jews that brought him not the Romans.
They had many gods so what was one more to them?
The killed Jesus to quiet the jews and keep the peace.
Which one of you guys borrowed my copy of the original "Diaries of Mary and Martha" with the hand written preface by Lazarus in which he revealed his near death experience? As I remember it has been authenticated as an original pre-Gnostic fabrication found in an Essene cave circa 100 B.C.. Please return it.
It might have been me, but the one I have is titled "The Red Light Diary of Mary....thoughts of an early feminist."
Is that the one you mean?
"It might have been me, but the one I have is titled "The Red Light Diary of Mary....thoughts of an early feminist."
No, I think that was one of the popular "Magdalene" series. This one had seven seals which were not to be opened until the anointed fat lady sang.
You'll have to get with Marlowe on that one. He knows her 'cause he plays the guitar for her when she does her hollerin'.
She's more into the "roll" than the rock, so I 'spose she'll fit in most non-Saddleback churches.
BTW, Pentecost was the founding of the first Mega-Church.
Oops, what that yours? I found it laying around on my coffee table collecting dust and termites, so I traded it for the original geniune John Chapter 8 Sand-Scribble. Perhaps you can let me know who absconded with the stones that were dropped at the scene. I'd be willing to trade my genuine King Solomon Equidistant-Letter-Sequencing Decoder-Ring (that I miraculously found in a 2000 year old box of Kosher Cracker Jacks) for the John Chapter 8 stones so that I can complete my John Chapter 8 collection.
BTW I accidentally broke open one of the seals when packing it. I put some scotch tape over it really quick, but I think it was the same day as the big Tsunami.
My original thought was to reply that the reason Christ is not portrayed as laughing or enjoying a light-hearted moment is because there is nothing funny about sin. If Christ is who He claims to be (God come in the flesh) and with the work of redeeming fallen, hopelessly lost man staring Him squarely in the face, a work that inevitably pointed the Savior to the cross, what would there have been to laugh about?
"Perhaps you can let me know who absconded with the stones that were dropped at the scene"
Aha, had you done your homework and reached the 11th circle of Zobah you would know that the answer to your question is in the mystical secrets of the 32nd verse. I am surprized that someone who is the keeper of the sacred tag line numbers would not know this. May the Schwartz be with you!
I guess I'm getting senile. How could I, of all people, fail to see that? Now, according to that verse, the John 8 rocks were used to seed the legendary Great Gravel Pit of Zubah Nubah.
I am puzzled however as to how I can pick the original stones out from their clones. Any suggestions?
Two problems with that assertion. First, Mark was written to CHRISTIAN Gentile communities who were undergoing persecution from ROME. The Letter was not written to serve Rome's interest, but the Christian community to persevere in their time of suffering, just as Christ did. And secondly, one who reads that John is defaming Jews in general has little understanding of the Gospel. John is writing against ANYONE who refuses to believe in Jesus Christ! Since the narrative is set during the life of Christ, many such people are Jews. But many believers are ALSO Jews. It becomes clear throughout that John is attacking non-believers of God's Messenger, not Jews.
Do most Christians believe that Jesus didn't laugh now and then?
I have no doubt that He experienced everything that makes up the human experience (except for sin). I'm sure most Christians believe that He laughed and enjoyed humorous exchanges. Indeed, in the story of the prodigal son (Luke 15) we read the father explaining to the older son why a party was thrown for his wayward brother, "It was meet that we should make merry and be glad; for this thy brother was dead, and is alive again; and was lost and is found." Christ's story if full of merriment and laughter--over the return of a lost, disobedient child. I think, though, what most Christians do with the Biblical accounts of the life of Christ is to dwell on what is emphasized and not what is de-emphasized. Far more time and space is given in Scripture to the Lord's service to the Father, His ministry to His disciples and His mission to seek and to save the lost than there is dedicated to His wit, His sense of humor, His willingness to chuckle at life's little inanities. I imagine as He is the very source of life and creation, He must have, on occasion just shaken His head in utter disbelief (like an incredulous father at a child who just doesn't get it) at the naivete of men and women in their ignoranat attempts to demonstrate righteousness and personal holiness.