What the Gospel of Judas really says

[nhboy]

Essay by April D. DeConick
Published: December 2, 2007

Amid much publicity last year, the National Geographic Society announced that a lost 3rd-century religious text had been found, the Gospel of Judas Iscariot. The shocker: Judas didn't betray Jesus.

Instead, Jesus asked Judas, his most trusted and beloved disciple, to hand him over to be killed. Judas' reward? Ascent to heaven and exaltation above the other disciples.

It was a great story. Unfortunately, after re-translating the society's transcription of the Coptic text, I have found that the actual meaning is vastly different. While National Geographic's translation supported the provocative interpretation of Judas as a hero, a more careful reading makes clear that Judas is not only no hero, he is a demon."

What the Gospel of Judas really says - International Herald Tribune

Lost Gospel Revealed; Says Jesus Asked Judas to Betray Him

 

[ItalianScallion]

That's why the "gospel" isn't in the Bible today. It's not only not true but Judas didn't write it either. No one today can change the written truth but satan's children will keep trying and, sadly, some will think it's true.

 

[This_person]

But the entire Bible was a collaboration of Gospels, based on the Decision by a group of men, to portray Jesus as God or Gods Son, any Gospels that supported this decision were included those that didnt were conveniently left out.

Read the rest of the "lost" Gospels they tell a totally different story than the one currently portrayed by the "Bible by Committee"

Is it your contention that all of religion is wrong (ie, there is no God, it's all a fairy tale, et al), or that the bulk of religion is right, just the stuff about Jesus is portrayed differently than it happened?

 

[This_person]

My belief is that Christians are just as mistaken as (you feel) Deists (belief of our Founding Fathers), Jews, Muslims, Pagans, Buddhists, Confucianism, Shinto, Taoists, Hindus, Wiccans, Greeks, Romans, Norse, Vodun (Voodoo), Rock Worshippers, Egyptians, Satanists, Unitarians, Rastafarians, Scientologists, Sikhs.

The only difference is I believe one more religion is wrong and or confused than you do

But then a majority of the World DOESNT believe in Christianity, so who's to say who is correct?

My point about the "Lost" Gospels, they were only "lost" because they didnt agree with the Comitee at the Council of Nicea. If the Gospels that are currently included in the Bible, are the Words of God, then you should be outraged that your only getting part of the story. The "lost" Gospels were written at the same time, in the same style, they just dont give the same story the council didnt want to portray.

I just wanted to make sure that I understood you were coming from an anti-religion standpoint, not just an anti-Christian standpoint.

Though I was not there, my suspicion is that the "lost gospels" were deemed inaccurate, especially if they conveyed something significantly different than the included gospels. They were weeded out for being inaccurate, not for being true. Like a group of investigators reads hundreds of people's testimony on a plane crash, and weeds out those things that don't match the evidence, or the bulk of people's other stories. 8 people say A, 2 say B, and the rest say C, D, E, and F. A is most likely right. See what I mean?

 

[tommyjones]

I just wanted to make sure that I understood you were coming from an anti-religion standpoint, not just an anti-Christian standpoint.

Though I was not there, my suspicion is that the "lost gospels" were deemed inaccurate, especially if they conveyed something significantly different than the included gospels. They were weeded out for being inaccurate, not for being true. Like a group of investigators reads hundreds of people's testimony on a plane crash, and weeds out those things that don't match the evidence, or the bulk of people's other stories. 8 people say A, 2 say B, and the rest say C, D, E, and F. A is most likely right. See what I mean?

actually, they were weeded out because they didn't support the 'christianity' the counsel was trying to portray.

if you read the gospels you will see that there are many inaccuracies. just look at the story of jesus' trial and you will see an evolving story, not one that is consistant at all.

 

[terbear1225]

I just wanted to make sure that I understood you were coming from an anti-religion standpoint, not just an anti-Christian standpoint.

Though I was not there, my suspicion is that the "lost gospels" were deemed inaccurate, especially if they conveyed something significantly different than the included gospels. They were weeded out for being inaccurate, not for being true. Like a group of investigators reads hundreds of people's testimony on a plane crash, and weeds out those things that don't match the evidence, or the bulk of people's other stories. 8 people say A, 2 say B, and the rest say C, D, E, and F. A is most likely right. See what I mean?

first to clarify, I am neither anti-religion nor anti-christian.

now, i think your example would be more accurate if it was "8 people say A, 10 people say B, 6 say C, 4 say D, etc." My understanding is that there are several "lost gospels" that have been found, plus however many more are still "lost" The nicean council decided what messagethey wanted to convey and chose the gospels that they felt best represented that ideal.

 

[mAlice]

But thats where you need to understand the History of the Bible, Constantine ruled during a period of strife between factions of Christianity. He commissioned the Council of Nicea to come up with a Theme (i'm paraphrasing) about Jesus and whether he was God/A God/Gods son. They then constructed the Bible to fit this belief, removing deleting and "Losing" Gospels that didnt support it.

You dont have to be a believer to understand the history behind the Bible, nor appreciate the Story (but then i like the LOTR trilogy too ). But when someone posts that the Gospel of Judas isnt true, its become silly (in my eyes none of its true). When in reality the only reason Judas, Mary or any of the other "Lost" Gospels werent included was because they didnt fit the wishes of the Committee (hence the reason i called it "Bible by Committee")

Read about the Council, and how they added Gospels. there wasnt any Hand of God involved, they VOTED. Using the Contemporary belief (Word/Hand of God) they Voted on the Hand/Word of Godliness, some who voted to keep the Judas, Mary "Lost" Gospels then voted in agreement with other sections. Did their Hand of Godliness come and go? (not meaning to pick fun, but if you understand how they voted to keep sections in or not, it belies the whole belief that the Bible was constructed with the Voice of God)

Read about the Gnostic Gospels they tell a totally different story of Jesus, and represent one of the factions that caused the strife in Constantines time. As such they were equally as Holy as the approved Gospels, they just werent voted on

This is the sort of stuff I think would be appropriate study material at an atheists Sunday go to meetin' event.

 

[mAlice]

Yeah but being atheists we dont need Sunday, we can do it any time. Plus we could gamble, drink and make lewd comments during and afterwards

I used Sunday for the sake of conversation, but if I were doing this, children would be involved. So, I wouldn't want to incorporate bad habits into the lessons.

 

[ItalianScallion]

The shocker: Judas didn't betray Jesus.
Instead, Jesus asked Judas, his most trusted and beloved disciple, to hand him over to be killed. Judas' reward? Ascent to heaven and exaltation above the other disciples. A more careful reading makes clear that Judas is not only no hero, he is a demon."

Yes. Judas was NO hero. Jesus Himself said that He chose the 12 and one was a devil. Making Judas a hero for what he did is like saying that a bank robber is a good guy after he robbed a bank because it made the bank realize they need to improve their security system. Judas was chosen long before the creation, by Jesus, to do the "dirty work". Jesus was sinless & innocent, so the betrayal & trial had to be a railroad. Only in today's courtrooms do innocent people lose.

 

[ItalianScallion]

He commissioned the Council of Nicea to come up with a Theme (i'm paraphrasing) about Jesus and whether he was God/A God/Gods son. They then constructed the Bible to fit this belief, removing deleting and "Losing" Gospels that didnt support it.

You're close but no cigar here. God/Jesus told these people who He is and anything that contradicted it was not included in the Canon of the Bible. This is why many Apocryphal books weren't included.

You dont have to be a believer to understand the history behind the Bible, nor appreciate the Story (but then i like the LOTR trilogy too ). But when someone posts that the Gospel of Judas isnt true, its become silly (in my eyes none of its true). When in reality the only reason Judas, Mary or any of the other "Lost" Gospels werent included was because they didnt fit the wishes of the Committee (hence the reason i called it "Bible by Committee"). Read about the Council, and how they added Gospels. there wasnt any Hand of God involved, they VOTED. Using the Contemporary belief (Word/Hand of God) they Voted on the Hand/Word of Godliness, some who voted to keep the Judas, Mary "Lost" Gospels then voted in agreement with other sections. Did their Hand of Godliness come and go? (not meaning to pick fun, but if you understand how they voted to keep sections in or not, it belies the whole belief that the Bible was constructed with the Voice of God)

You just won't accept or understand "Divine intervention" will you?

Read about the Gnostic Gospels they tell a totally different story of Jesus, and represent one of the factions that caused the strife in Constantines time. As such they were equally as Holy as the approved Gospels, they just werent voted on

Wikipedia? NOW you're disappointing me Nucklesack! GEEZZZ
Gnosticism is spoken against in the books of 1 John near the end of the Bible and in other places.

 

[fredcaudle]

My belief is that Christians are just as mistaken as (you feel) Deists (belief of our Founding Fathers), Jews, Muslims, Pagans, Buddhists, Confucianism, Shinto, Taoists, Hindus, Wiccans, Greeks, Romans, Norse, Vodun (Voodoo), Rock Worshippers, Egyptians, Satanists, Unitarians, Rastafarians, Scientologists, Sikhs.

The only difference is I believe one more religion is wrong and or confused than you do

But then a majority of the World DOESNT believe in Christianity, so who's to say who is correct?

My point about the "Lost" Gospels, they were only "lost" because they didnt agree with the Comitee at the Council of Nicea. If the Gospels that are currently included in the Bible, are the Words of God, then you should be outraged that your only getting part of the story. The "lost" Gospels were written at the same time, in the same style, they just dont give the same story the council didnt want to portray.

You write: The "lost" Gospels were written at the same time, in the same style, they just dont give the same story the council didnt want to portray.

I don't mind people choosing to believe or not to believe the Bible is the Word of God or choosing it as a history book or fraud book. That is between them and God (or whoever they worship or follow etc) But when people say things like when the writing took place, I do want to know the source of their info.

I know when the New Testament books were approximately written AND THEY ALL were written before the end of of first century (<98AD). This is verified by history and context of words and cities used in the writing. I also have read the lost gospels and have them all on my computer. NONE of them were written before the close of the first century and none of them could be verified as to knowing an apostle or working with an apostle or having eye witness to Jesus Himself.

If people want to believe these books more than the canon - again, their choice. But to re-write history (like the council argument of yours) and to misquote dates is not a choice. The Canon went by criteria... the councils did meet and this was discussed - the canon however, was already recognized within the church except for possibly Jude, Revelation, and questions on Peter's letters. (Noted their were possibly two others in question) BUT THEY (even those in question) WERE BEING READ IN THE CHURCHES THROUGHOUT THE KNOWN WORLD, which was part of the canon criteria. None of the "lost gospels" were being read at all.

People will believe in lost gospels without any factual data because it brings into question the Bible and then authority is questioned (God's authority, not man's) but information of evidence with the Bible, man won't believe because that would then give authority back to God.

 

[This_person]

No mine is an equal oppurtunity anti religious belief. its just there are more Christians on here than other faiths, with lots of misinformation from Christians about other faiths (read the threads about Mormonism from Christians).

But thats where you need to understand the History of the Bible, Constantine ruled during a period of strife between factions of Christianity. He commissioned the Council of Nicea to come up with a Theme (i'm paraphrasing) about Jesus and whether he was God/A God/Gods son. They then constructed the Bible to fit this belief, removing deleting and "Losing" Gospels that didnt support it.

You dont have to be a believer to understand the history behind the Bible, nor appreciate the Story (but then i like the LOTR trilogy too ). But when someone posts that the Gospel of Judas isnt true, its become silly (in my eyes none of its true). When in reality the only reason Judas, Mary or any of the other "Lost" Gospels werent included was because they didnt fit the wishes of the Committee (hence the reason i called it "Bible by Committee")

Read about the Council, and how they added Gospels. there wasnt any Hand of God involved, they VOTED. Using the Contemporary belief (Word/Hand of God) they Voted on the Hand/Word of Godliness, some who voted to keep the Judas, Mary "Lost" Gospels then voted in agreement with other sections. Did their Hand of Godliness come and go? (not meaning to pick fun, but if you understand how they voted to keep sections in or not, it belies the whole belief that the Bible was constructed with the Voice of God)

Read about the Gnostic Gospels they tell a totally different story of Jesus, and represent one of the factions that caused the strife in Constantines time. As such they were equally as Holy as the approved Gospels, they just werent voted on

Is it possible (just possible mind you) that the votes were based upon the evidence of accuracy of the included Gospels, and that the gospels deemed inaccurate were removed?

Did the council take meeting notes that show the intent, or is the stated above intent presumed, based upon someone else's leanings as they conveyed the information?

 

[Lugnut]

Judas was chosen long before the creation, by Jesus, to do the "dirty work".

Wouldn't that directly contradict the "free will" aspect of christianity?

 

[fredcaudle]

The Gospel of Judas says, "Jesus said to them, “How do you know me? Truly say to you, no generation of the people that are among you will know me.”

That would eliminate all Jews and Gentiles of Jesus' day and so therefore Jesus' coming was of no use - waste of time. Accordlingly, this quote means that only one book could be the "Bible" - 'The Lost Gospel of Judas'.

This book has been carbon dated to the 5th Century... after the Council of Nicea. It would not have even been discussed! (Council of Nicea - 4th Century) The subsequent councils after the 5th Century could have I supppose...

As to the New Testament Scriptures: Eusibeus (300's AD) the first church historian, documented the "known" canon in his history - you can find this easily translated into English and read. The Old Testament was already established during Jesus' ministry (possible exception would be the book of Daniel). So, the "canon" was discussed to New Testament only... but Eusibeus documents the earliest belief to canon.

Finally, the NT Scriptures were all written well before the 5th Century (the work of Judas). Consider:

The idea of late authorship for the NT had become entrenched over time and intolerance, even arrogant dismissal, of the straightforward belief that St. Luke wrote the Gospel of Luke, Matthew wrote the Gospel of Matthew, and St. Paul actually wrote the Pauline epistles, has become widespread even at nominally Christian seminaries and universities. However, for more than a century archaeologists and papyrologists have been recovering ancient manuscripts of the NT that contradict the assumptions of mainstream academia. The belief that large gaps of time passed between the time of Christ and the writing of the NT is no longer tenable, and all conclusions based on such speculation (no matter how dogmatic or clever) must now be rejected.
"We can already say emphatically that there is no longer any solid basis for dating any book of the New Testament after about A.D. 80, two full generations before the date between 130 and 150 given by the more radical New Testament critics of today." -Dr. William Foxwell Albright, the distinguished archaeologist, 1955 (McDowell, pp. 62-63).
Ancient NT Manuscripts

 

[fredcaudle]

The "Lost" Gospels were around during the Council of Nicea (which was 325 AD), and the Versions found in Nag Hammadi are dated to at least 300 AD.

One of the Gnostic Gospels, the Gospel of Thomas (one of the "Lost" Gospels) is believed to be written around 80AD, but there is dispute about it, the same time as the "Approved" and not "Lost" Gospels. The other Gnostic Gospels (that were "Lost") are written in the same style, this is not in dispute (read the above links).

None of the Gospels are written by the Gospels attributed to them, they are all written second hand (some are even farther removed). So where is the contention because the Gnostic Gospels may or may not have been written by the Gospels (that were not voted on)?

Talk about re-writing history. The entire reason for the Council of Nicea was because there was Dispute and conflict about the belief in Jesus. There was friction in Chritianity due to this.

The Council was commissioned to come up with an overlaying theme of Jesus and the stories in the Bible.

They may have had some criteria, but then your arguing my point for me. Which is There were different beliefs about Jesus, the Gospels that didnt fit the "criteria" of the Council were not included.

Your cannon argument is simplifying the issue they were facing at the time. One version of the Church of Jesus may not have been teaching the Gnostic Gospels, but that version of the Church had a different belief of Jesus. Different versions of Christianity were teaching the Gnostic Gospels, because they believed differently about Jesus. They just didnt win the majority vote when it came down.

The Catholic church now admits that Christianity evolved (haha) from the beliefs of Gnosticsm (which was around before Jesus) and not the other way as was previously taught.

Your preaching from the approved upon Bible by committee. Which is just the Bible that won the majority vote, kinda like Bill Clinton won the Vote here in the United States. doesnt make it right, doesnt make it a good thing, it just means that the Majority ruled.

See my next comment...

This conversation is like the others... we choose to believe what we will believe (including me). There are scholarly works (both historical and then Christian based) that agree on datings of the different works. We have choose what to conclude.

But the point on these "lost gospels" to be included is ironic. The lost gospels do not share the same story the Old and New canonized Scriptures share - so why would they be included? The "church" today can canonize all those 'lost' Scriptures and have a faith unto its own. That would not minimize what already exists in the Biblical Scriptures. It would still come down to choice to believe or not to believe in one or the other... just like we have in all the many different denominations and religions.

 

[wxtornado]

Wouldn't that directly contradict the "free will" aspect of christianity?

You better believe it!

 

[2ndAmendment]

Wouldn't that directly contradict the "free will" aspect of christianity?

Bible clearly states that there are those that are chosen, actually created, for specific purposes. If you want to discuss the Bible and Christianity intellectuality, it would be good to read the book.

 

[2ndAmendment]

You better believe it!

No. But you won't accept that.

 

[wxtornado]

No. But you won't accept that.

Actually, the answer is a resounding "yes", the notion of free will is not compatible with an omniscient god, and *that* is what *you* won't accept.

 

[2ndAmendment]

Actually, the answer is a resounding "yes", the notion of free will is not compatible with an omniscient god, and *that* is what *you* won't accept.

Bzzzz. Wrong.

You know, I am finding you quite tedious as am TJ and Xaquin44. If you can come up with some meaningful discussion, I may join in, but so far all you three have are the endless circles like buzzards hovering. Let me give you a :clue:. Christians are not the ones who are dead.

If you find at some point you get no more responses from me, it is because you are being ignored.