Judas Gospels

[morefngdbs]

Has anyone checked out the article in National Geographic's May 2006 edititon.
In a nut shell- Jesus asked Judas to turn him in.
Even though Judas was told by Jesus" You will be cursed!"
also in the article the fact of a Bishop around 180 A.D. Irenaeus picked the 4 gospels that are in the 'New Testament' ( What I often think of as the 'Heavily Edited' even more so now)
This Bishop went about having all other Gospels declared unholy.
Sound familiar folks, sort of Politician like .
There is some stuff posted on line under Sights & Sounds as well as a forum
ngm.com/gospel
All in , it is interesting stuff ,what do you all think?

[fli]

Much has been contributed to this post...

I'm very fascinated with the Gospel of Judas, although it's not as contraversial as people believe it is...

I've read the text and the supplement several times since its release.
Well--

The Bible isn't homogenous.
It's says do this at this one part, and another thing in the other. Perhaps this is because I view the Bible as several books (anthology if you will) edited over time instead of one single book.

So I'm able to read the Gospel of Judas and the other "Gnostic gospels" that have been found thus far.

If you are interested, go read, "The Gnostic Gospels" which sketches out the several different types of Christianities people believed before it became mainstreamed and orthodoxed to what we know today. Really-- Christianity was one very variable religion in the beggining (today still-- but especially so back then).

And don't get any weird "Da Vinci" theories going on--

[Xploside]

lol, dammit.

Judas was supposed to be his best friend, or one of them. At the moment of his 'betrayal' which (if the gospel is real) is really the moment of his 'sacrifice' or 'decision', Judas told the romans that the one he kissed is jesus. Most people, before this gospel was found, had regarded this 'dis-respectful' or 'insulting' but it is quite the oposite. Judas still agknoledged jesus as his master (the sign of the kiss pays respect to your master) and followed through on jesus' will. Im certain that somewhere in Judas' gospel it states that jesus said something along the lines of 'Do what youve came here to do' or 'Do what has to be done'.

"And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:" (2 Thessalonians 2:11)

[morefngdbs]

At 5/8/06 11:11 AM, fli wrote: So I'm able to read the Gospel of Judas and the other "Gnostic gospels" that have been found thus far.

And don't get any weird "Da Vinci" theories going on--

;
You have to admit that Christianity in the first & second centuries was a bunch of seperated groups , with a similar theme (Jesus) but they had access to written & verbal works from all of the Disciples.
That this 'Judas Gospel' was in a bound book form, shows how important it was.
Books being very expensive and rare back then.
It also shows -to me- that man kind is a political animal, the Romans who were practicing Christianity were able to ,with their wealth & power base , push their ideas forward and make them into what is the mainstay of many Christian's today. ie;The New Testament, with its 4 approved Gospels.
It is contraversial in how it depicts Judas, directly opposite of what millions have been taught by the Church.
Unfortunately so much time has passed, The Spin Doctors for the Church can pretty much say what ever they want about it and the Faithful will believe them.

[ImmoralLibertarian]

So more bullshit has been uncovered that contradicts the old bullshit...big deal.

[Demosthenez]

At 5/8/06 09:39 AM, morefngdbs wrote: also in the article the fact of a Bishop around 180 A.D. Irenaeus picked the 4 gospels that are in the 'New Testament' ( What I often think of as the 'Heavily Edited' even more so now)

Read the regular gospels compared to the Judas gospel. The shit in the Judas gospel looks like the ravings of a madman. If the texts were similar back then to how they ar today, I would have done the same thing. Cause, lets face it, when you have 4 people saying the same thing and then the Gospel of Judas, someone who reportedly killed himself (we know he didnt write it then or have anything to do with it), saying some crazy shit, I would make the same choice. The Jews had to also. You make your choices about what you think is legitimate. And if there is a God, you would supposed he would help choose which books are part of the Bible by pushing the choosers to the right choices.

The Muslims, however, were lucky enough to have a single man preach their entire holy book. Made it alot simpler.

All in , it is interesting stuff ,what do you all think?

Anything that talks about the crazy shit that is talked about in the Gospel of Judas kinda makes me think "NO"

And cmon, they are Coptic Gospels. The Coptics are friggin crazy.

[The-Dran]

All gospels were different stories of Yeshua from different groups.

Mark was not written by Mark.

John was not written by John.

And so on... they were written by various groups that spread different stories of Yeshua, and then a Bishop in Rome who was wanted to centralize Christianity took away all but four gospels. Those gospels are the ones you are familiar with.

By the main reason why Judas isn't accepted, is because it brings a different story to Judas that contradicts how people see him. The Gospel of Judas promoted gnosticism. And that was considered a herecy to first church of Christianity. They wanted nothing to do with the gospel of Judas or Gnosticism at all, because it endorsed ideas that weren't Roman.

At 5/9/06 02:02 PM, Dranigus wrote: All gospels were different stories of Yeshua from different groups.

Mark was not written by Mark.

John was not written by John.

Where's your proof?

[Me-Patch]

At 5/9/06 02:08 PM, SundayBest wrote:

At 5/9/06 02:02 PM, Dranigus wrote: All gospels were different stories of Yeshua from different groups.

Mark was not written by Mark.

John was not written by John.

Where's your proof?

Well the gospels weren't written until 60 years after Jesus' death. Seems pretty odd that they were written by his middle aged freinds after all of that time. Especially when life expectansy was like 50 years back then. Luke is probably the author of his gospel though.

[Demosthenez]

At 5/9/06 02:02 PM, Dranigus wrote: Mark was not written by Mark.

John was not written by John.

They could have been directly passed in word down to them, however. Judas we know thats impossible.

Thats a much larger hurdle to pass.

[fli]

At 5/9/06 02:08 PM, SundayBest wrote:

At 5/9/06 02:02 PM, Dranigus wrote: All gospels were different stories of Yeshua from different groups.

Mark was not written by Mark.

John was not written by John.

Where's your proof?

Read the annotations of the Oxford Standard Revise, where they provide TONS of scientific and scholastic examinations of the texts--

[fli]

At 5/9/06 12:56 PM, FAB0L0US wrote: Cause, lets face it, when you have 4 people saying the same thing...

You're very much wrong. They don't say the whole complete story... the whole Passion isn't even complete without combining all of them together...

And all of them have inconsistancies and contradictions. Compare the geneologies of Jesus of Matthew and Luke.

Does Judas hang himself... or slit his gut open?

Compare the last words of Jesus in Luke to Matthew and Mark.

So why these inconsistancies? Because they were written as individual books. Sure, they essentially speak the same thing despite these inconsistancies-- but... so does Judas (essentially).

and then the Gospel of Judas, someone who reportedly killed himself (we know he didnt write it then or have anything to do with it), saying some crazy shit, I would make the same choice.

It wasn't written by Judas.
Just like the 4 orthodox Gospels are most likely not written by the Matthew, Luke, Mark, and John.

But it is certain that all of them were written by the first Christians. Albiet, they differed in certain aspects--

The Jews had to also. You make your choices about what you think is legitimate. And if there is a God, you would supposed he would help choose which books are part of the Bible by pushing the choosers to the right choices.

Well--
Judas survived after nearly being nearly destroyed several times.
Perhaps God is revealing a revelation of truth?

Or not.
Because it is people who chose the orthodoxy of the texts in the Bible, and not God. To think that God chose which books by "pushing the right decisions" will be the most accepted is purely fictional.

The Muslims, however, were lucky enough to have a single man preach their entire holy book. Made it alot simpler.

All in , it is interesting stuff ,what do you all think?

Anything that talks about the crazy shit that is talked about in the Gospel of Judas kinda makes me think "NO"

And cmon, they are Coptic Gospels. The Coptics are friggin crazy.

Not anymore than the people who believe that a man was born of a virgin.
That he, according to texts never neither written by him nor at the time he was alive, died because he was divine.
That he, upon a few days after his death, became a zombie... and then rose to heaven...

That's not pretty "friggin crazy?"

[morefngdbs]

At 5/9/06 02:08 PM, SundayBest wrote: Where's your proof?

;
You can also go to the ngm.com website, look at the video's of the experts put together to help study these old documents.
I'm not trying to put down anyones faith, or diss your religious beliefs.
I just like keeping an open mind, and looking at all this from the point of a new religion finding its way, can be manipulated by the people with the know how & power to impose their ideas over others.
I find all that stuff interesting.
Even if it is false, there were once those who worshipped as a believing Christian, who believed these documents at one time, were telling the truth!

morefngdbs

Are you one of those people who gullibly took The DaVinci Code as truth, despite all of the numerous errors in that book?

[TwO-FaCeD-PaRaNoID]

if you all have read the national geografic site, and read the part about the gnostics,
then you know that the gnostics had their own religion,

Gnostics (pronounced NOSS-ticks) generally believed that all humans possessed, within themselves, a tiny piece of a larger divine mind or power. It was the imperfect influence of the "dark" material world that prevented humans from making a spiritual connection with the "light" of the divine.

Gnostics regarded Jesus as an enlightened teacher whose message could enable an elite group of humans to find the divine spark within their own inner beings and rediscover the connection and become divine themselves, rising above the imperfection of the material world. The ability to acquire such special knowledge was often associated with self-denial.

Some Gnostics also believed that God, whom the Bible calls the father of Jesus, was not the same Yahweh of the Jewish tradition. Gnostics attributed to Yahweh the creation of the evil, material world that they strived to transcend.

that is something totaly different from mainstream christianity, so i don't see any political reasons behind it. it just differs to much from mainstream christianity,
but the new testament isn't based on the 4 gospels only, it is also based on the letters from the Apostels(spelling?) and i think the chruch leaders just picked the gospels that were the most stricking with those letters

[morefngdbs]

At 5/10/06 10:03 AM, SundayBest wrote: morefngdbs

Are you one of those people who gullibly took The DaVinci Code as truth, despite all of the numerous errors in that book?

;
No , I found some of it amusing. My girlfriend on the other hand finds it to be somewhat disturbing (probably her Cathlic upbringing)
I don't see what that has to do with this find of ancient documents?

[morefngdbs]

At 5/10/06 02:53 PM, Mick_the_champion wrote: Yeah, did you know that Osama Bin Ladden wrote a book claiming "George Bush told me to bomb the twin towers, even though he said 'you'll be cursed'"?

But you're not allowed to see the book.

;
C'mon Mick, you head the Cathlic Crew, IF Jesus had 12 Diciples , there stands to reason there should be at least 12 texts from these teachers when they moved out to spread the message. Then their is Mary Magdellan,the gnostic writingds on her, doesn't make anything more or less true.
I don't believe any of them are 100% correct,but there is often some truth in a story.
It is an oddity to me that there are no actual writings from the time of Jesus, by his diciples or other religious persons of that time . Everything seems to come at a later date.
Also
Osama & George etc. isn't what this topic is about.

At 5/9/06 05:37 PM, fli wrote:

And all of them have inconsistancies and contradictions. Compare the geneologies of Jesus of Matthew and Luke.

There is no contradiction.

Does Judas hang himself... or slit his gut open?

There is no contradiction.

Compare the last words of Jesus in Luke to Matthew and Mark.

There is no contradiction.

At 5/11/06 03:03 PM, Mick_the_champion wrote:

At 5/11/06 11:43 AM, morefngdbs wrote:

C'mon Mick, you head the Cathlic Crew, IF Jesus had 12 Diciples , there stands to reason there should be at least 12 texts from these teachers when they moved out to spread the message.

Why is that? How do we even know they were all literate? Sure they were a group of Fishermen.

Not all of the original 12 were fishermen. Matthew (also known as Levi) was a tax-collector.

Then their is Mary Magdellan,the gnostic writingds on her, doesn't make anything more or less true.
I don't believe any of them are 100% correct,but there is often some truth in a story.
It is an oddity to me that there are no actual writings from the time of Jesus, by his diciples or other religious persons of that time . Everything seems to come at a later date.

Yes, including gnostic writings - a much later date.

The Gnostic "gospels" were written between 150 and 200 years after the Ressurection of Jesus. The Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were all written before 70 A.D.

Also
Osama & George etc. isn't what this topic is about.

I was merely making a point.

Did you also know that FDR told Hirohito to bomb Pearl Harbor?

Funny.

At 5/11/06 03:11 PM, Mick_the_champion wrote:

The Gnostic "gospels" were written between 150 and 200 years after the Ressurection of Jesus. The Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were all written before 70 A.D.

What's your point?

What historical event happened around 70 A.D.?

Hint: It has to do with Jerusalem.

At 5/11/06 03:34 PM, Mick_the_champion wrote:

fuck and wank.

That's not very Christian of you (assuming you are a Christian).

At 5/11/06 03:41 PM, Mick_the_champion wrote:

At 5/11/06 03:37 PM, SundayBest wrote:

At 5/11/06 03:34 PM, Mick_the_champion wrote:

fuck and wank.

That's not very Christian of you (assuming you are a Christian).

I don't see anything in the bible that says swearing is a sin.

"But now ye also put off all these; anger, wrath, malice, blasphemy, filthy communication out of your mouth." (Colossians 3:8)

Please keep in mind that I am not here to judge you (or anybody else).

Right enough, I've only read the new testament - The proper New Testament:

I assume you are talking about the 4 Gospel Accounts (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John), the Acts of the Apostles, the 13 Pauline epistles (Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Phillipians, Colossians, 1 and 2 Thessalionans, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, and Philemon) Hebrews, James, 1 and 2 Peter, 1, 2, and 3 John, and Revelation.

None of that gnostic wank.

Well there's something else we can both agree on.

Can I crush your world perspective for a minute?

The Da Vinci Code is Fiction :o

I already knew that. Not only is it fiction, but millions (including some Christians) actually believe it to be fact. It's just sad.

At 5/11/06 04:06 PM, Mick_the_champion wrote:

I just said "fuck" and "wank" - not with anger, wrath or malice. They're only words - I could call you something harmless like a moron with anger, wrath or malice and call you something like a Son of a Bitch in a jokey way. I didn't blaspheme either...in that post.

I know you didn't. But still, let's just try and be courteous with one another. Okay?

Well, actually I've only fully read the 4 Gospel Accounts, I've only read bits and pieces of the rest.

That's okay. In fact, I encourage you to read the rest (especially Romans).

God bless.

[fli]

At 5/11/06 12:05 PM, SundayBest wrote:

At 5/9/06 05:37 PM, fli wrote:

And all of them have inconsistancies and contradictions. Compare the geneologies of Jesus of Matthew and Luke.

There is no contradiction.

Yes because both lineages go through men.
I'm not even sure Mary's lineage is recorded, although we can make one. Infact, women were disregarded from geneolgies.

All versions of the Bible say so. I'll use the King James for this instance. "And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli..." (Luke 3:23-38)

Nope... It's about Jesus's family tree through Joeseph. And this one starts with Joseph being the son of Heli. But in Matthew:

"And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ." (Matthew 1:16)

It's very obvious that the texts do conflict with each other. Is Joseph the son of Heli? or Jacob?

Greek and Hebrews didn't record lineages of women. This is because this is a male dominated world. There are only 4 women besides Mary that's ever mention, and one pretended to be whore, one is a true whore, one is an adulterous, and the last a nice but damnable non-Hebrew.

Go read the texts yourself--

Does Judas hang himself... or slit his gut open?

There is no contradiction.

OMG.
Rubbish only suitable for the heap pile. The Bible didn't say that Judas hang himself, and the rope snapped, and that such a force eviscerated him. To believe so is false because this is made up. It says that he hanged himself. Or that he bursted open. To believe otherwise is your attempt to smooth these very glaring consistancies in the same fashion how Intelligent Designists morph religion, unscrupulous science, and inconsistant rhetoric to make the world palletable.

Read what is in the text.

There are even two accounts of how the Field of Blood got its name.

Compare the last words of Jesus in Luke to Matthew and Mark.

There is no contradiction.

"It is not necessary for each writer to record every occurrence and every word spoken by the Lord..." OMG-- more rubbish.

Everyone can create an explaination. Easily. But the fact is that the Bible doesn't say what they say.

And this is because the Bible is a series of books. Bible is an anthology, and rightly so-- because let's observe the etymology of "anthology". "A collection of flowers". Yes-- Bible is a collection of flowers to create one picture.

Now I won't say it's false, but, going back to the Gospel of Judas, everyone is in its own text just like Judas. To say Judas is false text because it doesn't fit with the 4 canonical gospels would be overlooking the fact that even the 4 gospels aren't congruent with several things: genaologies, stories, quotes, etc.

We should read Judas and find out what's important. The importance isn't in the differences, but what's the same. And what is that?

To love thy neighbor. To "circumcize your heart" (Old Testament, but beautiful, none the less...). To have faith.

And faith requires not needing a scientific or logical question. If you feel the need to know that the 4 gospels have to be uncontradictory, that means that you don't have faith.

Science can never measure faith. Or never prove it wrong.
You just need to hope, that's all...

But

At 5/11/06 04:15 PM, fli wrote:

At 5/11/06 12:05 PM, SundayBest wrote:

I am just the messenger, fli. If you have any beef with the Bible, you should take it up with the people on the website.

God bless.

[Fuoco]

Ok, so Judas hung himself up and then he wrote his gospel...

lol

[TheThing]

At 5/11/06 07:03 PM, The_Crazy_Potato wrote:

At 5/11/06 06:43 PM, FuocoOnAshes wrote: Ok, so Judas hung himself up and then he wrote his gospel...

lol

I don't beleive you understand exactly how biblical texts were written. Most were written after their actual messengers met their deaths.

yeah, they were written by people close or related to teh people. in fact, christmas wasnt even a christmas holiday until the 2-300s.

[TwO-FaCeD-PaRaNoID]

the new testament isn't based on the 4 gospels only, it is also based on the letters from the Apostels(spelling?) and i think the chruch leaders just picked the gospels that were the most stricking with those letters i dont see pollitical reason behind it. Because at that time they were all being supressed

comment?

[morefngdbs]

At 5/13/06 06:42 AM, TwO_FaCeD_PaRaNoID wrote: the new testament isn't based on the 4 gospels only, it is also based on the letters from the Apostels(spelling?) and i think the chruch leaders just picked the gospels that were the most stricking with those letters i dont see pollitical reason behind it. Because at that time they were all being supressed

comment?

;
According to the article,-quote-" around 313 A.D. Roman Emperor Constantine had legalized the Church, BUT , his tolerence extended only to the organized Church" He also-quote- "Showered them with riches & privileges,not to mention Tax breaks."
It was a guy named Athanasius -quote-" a Bishop from Alexandria, who was a keen admirer of Irenaeus in 367 issued an order to every Christian in Eygptlisting 27 texts, including today's Gospels, as the only New Testament books that could be reguarded as sacred."
That is what we are still going by today.
So it was the unsactioned Christians who had different opinions/belifs that were now being persecuted.