Toxick
Splat
Submitted without comment:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/06/s...f990ac468000df&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/06/s...f990ac468000df&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
The Gospel of Judas
- Thread starter Toxick
- Start date
Bustem' Down
Give Peas a Chance
But again like the other gospel texts, it was written until well after the events of Jesus.
Midnightrider
Well-Known Member
and it speaks to how the "political" climate of christianity at that time was what determined if the "gospels" were included. If it didn't fit the version they were trying to portray, it didn't get in....Bustem' Down said:
Very interesting, Toxick. I appreciate the linkToxick said:
huntr1
.
What thread are you talking about? Link?Toxick said:
I just read the article in today's Washington (Com)Post, and would like to hear 2A's opinion on this.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/06/AR2006040600921.html
Toxick
Splat
Tonio
Asperger's Poster Child
It's true that there were some Gospels that were included in the New Testament. The Gnostic Gospels were among them.
Now, if you're asking which of the Gospels are the true or accurate ones, or if they might all be true or all be false, I think that's a matter of personal belief.
Now, if you're asking which of the Gospels are the true or accurate ones, or if they might all be true or all be false, I think that's a matter of personal belief.
Last edited:
Bustem' Down
Give Peas a Chance
It doesn't matter, the philosophy of Christianity is beyond whether they are true or false. They could have been completely made up, but the morals and priciples of the religion are still there.Tonio said:
Those that don't believe the Bible won't appreciate these, but the Bible predicts that this will happen. It was happening even in the early church; Paul wrote of it.
When I saw this on the tube, my gut reaction was "oh please". They try to pass it off as if some document has just been unearthed, has been completely verified as "true" and will shock the Christian world when unleashed.
It's an old and known text. Christians have been aware of this text for about 18 centuries. It's nothing new. There are HUNDREDS of New Testament apocryphal writings, most of them still available. The same thing holds true now as was true then - paper don't refuse print; just because somebody "wrote" the Gospel of Thomas, or Judas, or Peter, or Marcion, or the Hebrews - doesn't mean it's inspired or belongs in the Bible any more than the spam you get every day is legit.
'Other' gospels were common in the early days of the church. You know, it's not as though the Bible was like Harry Potter, and the buzz all around was, hey, a *new* chapter of the Bible comes out today! It didn't work like that. Usage, observation, analysis of content and so on went into tons of early writings - what we have now as canon is what was filtered out as having passed the scrutiny of knowledgable men. It actually took a few HUNDRED years to at last establish what we know regard as the New Testament. Scholars examined them and decided - *these* 27 books are the real thing; these other 300 are not.
The process through which we got the New Testament makes good reading. People can argue "they're in there because they were inspired" but the simple truth is, SOMEWHERE in its history, someone had to decide what belongs there, and what doesn't.
Personally, I like some of the ones that didn't make it - for example, the Didache (also known as "The Teachings of the Twelve Apostles") largely because, while not canonical - they are OLD and clearly draw a picture of the practices of the early church.
However, the Gospel of Judas, from the little bit I've read of it, appears to support a Gnostic view of Jesus, and for this, it's heretical.
_____________________________________________________________
On the other hand, I'm fairly skeptical about its veracity on the basis of something else, entirely.
The Gospel of Judas covers the last days of Christ, and sympathetically portrays Judas as doing Christ's will - Jesus ASKS Judas to betray him, so that he will be crucified.
Judas also hangs himself BEFORE Jesus is taken to Pilate.
When exactly did he have the time to write down this account - or dictate it to someone else - since that's what he would have HAD to do, to support the idea that he was under 'secret' orders from Jesus?
It's an old and known text. Christians have been aware of this text for about 18 centuries. It's nothing new. There are HUNDREDS of New Testament apocryphal writings, most of them still available. The same thing holds true now as was true then - paper don't refuse print; just because somebody "wrote" the Gospel of Thomas, or Judas, or Peter, or Marcion, or the Hebrews - doesn't mean it's inspired or belongs in the Bible any more than the spam you get every day is legit.
'Other' gospels were common in the early days of the church. You know, it's not as though the Bible was like Harry Potter, and the buzz all around was, hey, a *new* chapter of the Bible comes out today! It didn't work like that. Usage, observation, analysis of content and so on went into tons of early writings - what we have now as canon is what was filtered out as having passed the scrutiny of knowledgable men. It actually took a few HUNDRED years to at last establish what we know regard as the New Testament. Scholars examined them and decided - *these* 27 books are the real thing; these other 300 are not.
The process through which we got the New Testament makes good reading. People can argue "they're in there because they were inspired" but the simple truth is, SOMEWHERE in its history, someone had to decide what belongs there, and what doesn't.
Personally, I like some of the ones that didn't make it - for example, the Didache (also known as "The Teachings of the Twelve Apostles") largely because, while not canonical - they are OLD and clearly draw a picture of the practices of the early church.
However, the Gospel of Judas, from the little bit I've read of it, appears to support a Gnostic view of Jesus, and for this, it's heretical.
_____________________________________________________________
On the other hand, I'm fairly skeptical about its veracity on the basis of something else, entirely.
The Gospel of Judas covers the last days of Christ, and sympathetically portrays Judas as doing Christ's will - Jesus ASKS Judas to betray him, so that he will be crucified.
Judas also hangs himself BEFORE Jesus is taken to Pilate.
When exactly did he have the time to write down this account - or dictate it to someone else - since that's what he would have HAD to do, to support the idea that he was under 'secret' orders from Jesus?
Tonio
Asperger's Poster Child
I agree that the media played it up that way. Not because the media might be anti-religion, but because they wanted to attract readers and viewers with sensational headlines. Scholarly debates about Gnosticism are of little interest except to professional theologians and scholars.SamSpade said:
From my reading about the issue, the selection of Gospels for the New Testament wasn't necessarily about authenticity, but about what the majority of early Christians wanted the Church to be about. For whatever reason, Gnosticism was deemed heretical. I'm skeptical of the claim that Jesus really preached proto-Gnosticism and that the church fathers hijacked the religion to push their own agenda. Still, I don't believe in the concept of heresy, because I believe that faith and spirituality are personal.
I guess I kind of DO, because some of what the Gnostics taught went counter to what others taught. You can't exactly preach that Jesus died on the cross for your sins - and ALSO believe that he never actually died there - that you need his grace to cover your sins - but that it IS actually possible to be sinless (basically, Pelagianism). That Jesus never came in the Flesh but was without physical form; that the God of the Old Testament was actually EVIL, and not the same God as the Father; that sin has no effect on salvation, so that you're free to "sin it up"; that Jesus was, in fact, TWO people; that if you sin EVEN ONCE after being saved, you're hopelessly damned - and so on.Tonio said:
I guess I see some heresy as in need of correction, because some of it is in complete opposition to orthodoxy.
Tonio
Asperger's Poster Child
I see it this way: why is the orthodox view right and the heretical view wrong? Or, why is the orthodox view wrong and the heretical view right? I think worshippers belong to an organized religion because they believe, as opposed to believing because the religion requires them to believe. The belief has to come first, otherwise why be a member of the religion at all?SamSpade said:
Because when one says black, and the other says white - at least one of them is false.Tonio said:
For example, a lot of heresies had different versions of THIS one - it's ok to sin as much as possible, because Jesus died for you. A common one was that all sexual sin was completely permissible, because it is sin against the physical body, but now that you are spiritual, it's irrelevant. In fact, you should CELEBRATE this new-found freedom by screwing everything that *moves* - so we should have *orgies* in Jesus' name. Pretty sickening - so, orthodoxy should just let stuff like that - slide?
Tonio
Asperger's Poster Child
I'm not familiar with that type of heresy. But you're talking about behavior, while I'm talking about faith versus doctrine. Some people have orgies without trying to justify them using their personal faith or their organized religion's doctrine. And some people twist faith or doctrine to justify the most vile inhumanities imaginable. But that's not necessarily the fault of either the faith or the doctrine.SamSpade said:
In my view, a person's own religious faith can't be "true" or "false," because there is no such thing as objective truth in matters of faith. Faith can't be quantified or measured. Each of us experiences the divine and the spiritual in a different way. Your experience is different from mine.
I see that as an entirely separate issue from the person's actions and behavior. Actions are right or wrong because they help or hurt other people, which is a principle that transcends religious doctrine. If one person believes in the divinity of Jesus while the other person believes in the divinity of Buddha, but the two people act in the same way, why should one or both be wrong for holding those beliefs?
Qurious
Im On 1.
Is it safe to say that if you even entertain this your losing your faith in God?
Not everything about his word is to be questioned and as foretold in the scriptures you'll have those who continue to find ways to discredit his truth (the holy bible). Wasn't his holy spirit upon those who wrote every single book in the bible? I find it hard to beleive that Judas was one of those people and was actually able to get his own gospel. One article about the Gospel of Judas even went as far to say that Jesus directed Judas to betray him which led to his death - thats absurd!!! What is the benefit of all these "absent gospels" that are now coming to light in this day in age? Does it really matter?
Not everything about his word is to be questioned and as foretold in the scriptures you'll have those who continue to find ways to discredit his truth (the holy bible). Wasn't his holy spirit upon those who wrote every single book in the bible? I find it hard to beleive that Judas was one of those people and was actually able to get his own gospel. One article about the Gospel of Judas even went as far to say that Jesus directed Judas to betray him which led to his death - thats absurd!!! What is the benefit of all these "absent gospels" that are now coming to light in this day in age? Does it really matter?
The telling part of these "absent gospels" is they were not preserved by the early Christians. The early Christian scribes copied the letters and gospels and passed them around. There are more than 24,000 partial and complete manuscript copies of the New Testament.Qurious said:
I don't know why this board does this. Look way down for the table.
<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="660"><tbody>
<tr>
<td width="220"><strong>Author</strong>
</td>
<td width="110"><strong>Date Written</strong>
</td>
<td width="110"><strong>Earliest Copy</strong>
</td>
<td width="110"><strong>Time Span</strong>
</td>
<td width="110"><strong>Copies (extent)</strong>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan="5">
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan="5" bgcolor="#dddddd"><strong>Secular Manuscripts:</strong>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Herodotus (History)
</td>
<td>480 - 425 BC
</td>
<td>900 AD
</td>
<td>1,300 years
</td>
<td>8
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Thucydides (History)
</td>
<td>460 - 400 BC
</td>
<td>900 AD
</td>
<td>1,300 years
</td>
<td>?
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Aristotle (Philosopher)
</td>
<td>384 - 322 BC
</td>
<td>1,100 AD
</td>
<td>1,400 years
</td>
<td>5
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Caesar (History)
</td>
<td>100 - 44 BC
</td>
<td>900 AD
</td>
<td>1,000 years
</td>
<td>10
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Pliny (History)
</td>
<td>61 - 113 AD
</td>
<td>850 AD
</td>
<td>750 years
</td>
<td>7
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Suetonius (Roman History)
</td>
<td>70 - 140 AD
</td>
<td>950 AD
</td>
<td>800 years
</td>
<td>?
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Tacitus (Greek History)
</td>
<td>100 AD
</td>
<td>1,100 AD
</td>
<td>1,000 years
</td>
<td>20
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan="5">
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan="5" bgcolor="#dddddd"><strong>Biblical Manuscripts:</strong> (note: these are individual manuscripts)
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Magdalene Ms (Matthew 26)
</td>
<td>1st century
</td>
<td>50-60 AD
</td>
<td>co-existant (?)
</td>
<td>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>John Rylands (John)
</td>
<td>90 AD
</td>
<td>130 AD
</td>
<td>40 years
</td>
<td>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Bodmer Papyrus II (John)
</td>
<td>90 AD
</td>
<td>150-200 AD
</td>
<td>60-110 years
</td>
<td>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Chester Beatty Papyri (N.T.)
</td>
<td>1st century
</td>
<td>200 AD
</td>
<td>150 years
</td>
<td>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Diatessaron by Tatian (Gospels)
</td>
<td>1st century
</td>
<td>200 AD
</td>
<td>150 years
</td>
<td>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Codex Vaticanus (Bible)
</td>
<td>1st century
</td>
<td>325-350 AD
</td>
<td>275-300 years
</td>
<td>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Codex Sinaiticus (Bible)
</td>
<td>1st century
</td>
<td>350 AD
</td>
<td>300 years
</td>
<td>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Codex Alexandrinus (Bible)
</td>
<td>1st century
</td>
<td>400 AD
</td>
<td>350 years
</td>
<td>
</td>
</tr> </tbody>
</table>
<p>(Total New Testament manuscripts = 5,300 Greek MSS, 10,000 Latin Vulgates, 9,300 others = 24,000 copies)
<br /> (Total MSS compiled prior to 600 AD = 230)
</p> ref: http://debate.org.uk/topics/history/bib-qur/bibmanu.htm
There is a reason these newly found works are newly found; there were no or very few copies of them because they were not regarded by the early Christians as part of the word of God.
Last edited:
DD214
Member
The first known mention of the Gospel of Judas was by St. Irenaeus in AD 180:
“[The Gnostics] 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” (Adversus haereses 1:31:1)
“[The Gnostics] 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” (Adversus haereses 1:31:1)