Ancient Text Sheds New Light on Judas

[Evendusk]

WASHINGTON -- For 2,000 years Judas has been reviled for betraying Jesus. Now a newly translated ancient document seeks to tell his side of the story.

The "Gospel of Judas" tells a far different tale from the four gospels in the New Testament. It portrays Judas as a favored disciple who was given special knowledge by Jesus - and who turned him in at Jesus' request.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1110AP_Gospel_of_Judas.html?source=mypi

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/science_technology/article356265.ece

The National Geographic Channel is running a program on the Gospel of Judas on April 9th at 8pm ET/ 9pm PT

[Dawa Lhamo]

Yeah, they did a story on CBS World News about it (I saw it on Discovery Channel Science News earlier today)....

What really got me was that they said twice that, though it's definitely 1700 years old, the content is suspect because it was written by Gnostics with "different views". Shouldn't ALL texts be subject to critical analysis, not just ones who differ from the Church???

Besides that, it makes sense. If you want Jesus to have intentionally died for your sins, then Judas is necessarily a knowing or unknowing catalyst for your own salvation. Thus, vilifying him seems to be like getting angry for being saved. Weird.

Tashi delek!
Dawa Lhamo

[Djiril]

I saw a documentry about that on a cable channel, (can't remember which one), a few years ago. I love this stuff!

[_Banbha_]

In the US, it's going to be on a National Geographic Channnel Documentary on April 9th. Link Here (http://reference.aol.com/natgeo?id=20060404161809990001)

[iaphoenix]

Yeah, they did a story on CBS World News about it (I saw it on Discovery Channel Science News earlier today)....

What really got me was that they said twice that, though it's definitely 1700 years old, the content is suspect because it was written by Gnostics with "different views". Shouldn't ALL texts be subject to critical analysis, not just ones who differ from the Church???

Besides that, it makes sense. If you want Jesus to have intentionally died for your sins, then Judas is necessarily a knowing or unknowing catalyst for your own salvation. Thus, vilifying him seems to be like getting angry for being saved. Weird.

Tashi delek!
Dawa Lhamo

I agree on the point about the need to examine all documents critically. In this case, the gnostics really would have some (almost) unique reasons for favoring Judas.

In gnostic thought, the world was essentially comprised of two elements: the physical and the spiritual. To a gnostic, the physical world was inherently corrupt.

This meant humans were in a state of conflict. As spiritual beings, they had the ability to become perfected. But the physical body prevented it and allowed the soul to become tainted.

Because of this, death was seen as the liberation of the pure spirit from the impure physical incarnation. Thus Judas may well have been seen as a uniquely important disciple because his actions allowed Jesus' liberation.

From what I read earlier today, the first mention of the Gospel of Judas goes back to 180 A.D., and we're the first to hear any significant portion in 1,700 years.

[HetHert]

Also wouldn't you need someone to turn you in so it doens't amount to a suicide? Who better to do that than your most trusted disciple.

Boy this may really change the way we percieve Judas, not to mention someone may have to go drag him up from Dante's Hell *snicker*

That is of course if this account of Judas is true. The gnostic texts are indeed the undoing of many a written word in the bible. I love that they exist as an alternative view to the ways of Christian enlightenment...way more in concordance with what I would like to believe and the mystical aspect of Christianity. It just makes more sense to me.

[Arion]

So now there's scientific proof that the Bible is a bunch of bull. Some of us have known all along. Hehehe

[Toby Stimpson]

LOL, you know do you scott...?

[Garm]

The significance of all this is being a tad overplayed.

This is just one of a number of extracanonicals floating around. They're making a big deal of it for much same reason they greeted the walking fishphibian thingie with so much fanfare, a scientific counteroffensive against an obnoxious and growing demographic.

[Dawa Lhamo]

So now there's scientific proof that the Bible is a bunch of bull. Some of us have known all along. HeheheI don't think that's entirely accurate. What we have is an old document that has a differing account of Biblical events. Which is more historic? Who can say? We already have several old documents with differing accounts of Biblical events. Heck, the four Gospels have differing accounts within them... (unfortunately many of the heretical gospels were destroyed a long time ago...)

It is an interesting find, yes, but it doesn't really disprove any of the Bible. I doubt that devout Christians will even blink about this.

Tashi delek!
Dawa Lhamo

[David19]

So now there's scientific proof that the Bible is a bunch of bull. Some of us have known all along. Hehehe

I don't think it makes the bible invalid, it just provides an alternative for Christian's (and others) to look at (and people do need choice).

For me, i'm not Christian, but i think it's a good thing, and may even be a bit more accurate, and goes more into Mystical Christianity (the Gnostics, i think, were one of the mystical sects of Christianity, and a shamanic sect).

[Arion]

LOL, you know do you scott...?

haha, i knew I'd get some flack for that comment. Calm down, it's only a joke. Lol. But seriously, after spending every day in a Catholic high school for the past few years, I'm allowed to make a sarcastic comment every now and then. At least... I'm allowing myself to, so bite me. Hehe.

I think it's stupid that their religion depends on texts written by other humans, and that they take it also so seriously. It's a crackpot religion, nothing against Jesus, I'm sure he was a cool dude, but the actual religion of Christianity just makes me cringe. I bet a there are a few self-riteous pagans reading my post and are about to tell me a bunch of crap about how all religions are one, and Christianity is just as valid as anything else, lah-dee-dah. Save it. I'm entitled to my opinion, which I came to on my own, I did not steal it from the Why Wiccans Suck website, like all all the cool anti-fluffs are doing these days. :p

As for the actual gospel of Judas, I couldn't care less. It contradicts much of what the Bible says now, but it already contradicts itself a million times over, so its nothing new. All religion is a load of crap, the sooner people realize this, the better off we all will be. Find God in yourself, not some silly book.

(I'm not very good at making friends, can you tell?)
*turns off the bitch switch*

[Toby Stimpson]

haha, you know I am good at debating these things Purple...do you want to have a debate? :)

[Elderbush]

I think that it is a good thing to remind Christians and everyone else from time to time that there was a pool of writings from which the bible was chosen, and that the ones that made the cut were chosen by men for political reasons. It won't change things for Christians as a whole but there will be a few people who explore their religion a bit more because of it. Thinking about religion and asking questions is always good. :)

[Ceres]

Also wouldn't you need someone to turn you in so it doens't amount to a suicide? Who better to do that than your most trusted disciple.


To me, that was the most significant part of the whole text. Jesus choosing what amounts to an assisted suicide. It certainly puts a new spin on that old debate, doesnt it?

[Ceres]

The significance of all this is being a tad overplayed.

This is just one of a number of extracanonicals floating around. They're making a big deal of it for much same reason they greeted the walking fishphibian thingie with so much fanfare, a scientific counteroffensive against an obnoxious and growing demographic.

The significance of this is no less and no more overplayed than any other text from which christianity was derived. ALL the biblical texts are "extracanonicals" this is just not one of the ones that was chosen as part of the bible, probably because it was not known, but possibly because its content didnt mesh with the message being presented in the canonicals that were used to comprise the bible.

[Arion]

haha, you know I am good at debating these things Purple...do you want to have a debate? :)
Haha, no I'm good. Just had to let off a little steam. lol

[Garm]

The significance of this is no less and no more overplayed than any other text from which christianity was derived. ALL the biblical texts are "extracanonicals" this is just not one of the ones that was chosen as part of the bible, probably because it was not known, but possibly because its content didnt mesh with the message being presented in the canonicals that were used to comprise the bible.



First off definition,
http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_561534646/extracanonical.html

Secondly I do not remember ever seeing the ongoing work on nonbiblical gospels making front page news in the way this has, although the dead sea scrolls may have come close.

I think this spate of publicity is politicaly motivated, I don't disagree with the intent of this, but I will call it what I see it to be.

Thirdly some of these other works should be getting a lot more attention than this document has.

The controversy over the Secret Gospel of Mark for instance. We don't have that Gospel but we have a letter from one the chuch Fathers, Clement of Alexandria, discussing a longer version of Mark that was kept stashed away from public view because it was thought that the incident of Lazuras getting naked with Jesus and spending the night with him might just give people the wrong idea.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/secretmark.html

[Ceres]

First off definition,
http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_561534646/extracanonical.html

I KNOW what it means. My point was that just because it wasnt included in the bible doesnt mean it is any more or less significant than works that were included. Its all a matter of censorship. Isnt it always?:hehehehe:


Secondly I do not remember ever seeing the ongoing work on nonbiblical gospels making front page news in the way this has, although the dead sea scrolls may have come close.

I think this spate of publicity is politicaly motivated, I don't disagree with the intent of this, but I will call it what I see it to be.

Thirdly some of these other works should be getting a lot more attention than this document has.

The controversy over the Secret Gospel of Mark for instance. We don't have that Gospel but we have a letter from one the chuch Fathers, Clement of Alexandria, discussing a longer version of Mark that was kept stashed away from public view because it was thought that the incident of Lazuras getting naked with Jesus and spending the night with him might just give people the wrong idea.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/secretmark.html

And so? The secret gospel of Mark would be controversial, but so what? So is the text about Judas. If you want Mark's to be a headline, write an article on it and find someone to publish it. :boing: I cant really see how the significance of this latest controversy is diminished because there are other ones.

[Dustypuppy]

Ive never viewed Judas as a sinful negative character, indeed quite the opposite, the bad press given to him for hundreds of years, is in my view unfair. A key need for Christianity to flourish was belief that Jesus died a wholly human death and rose again through the power of God a matter of days later, thus proving himself to be fully man and fully God.
If it were not for the betrayal which put into operation the events, there would be no Christianity today, perhaps Jesus would have eventually been put to death but we have no sure way of verifying this, so we have to go with what we have got.
According to Christian belief, it was the divine intention from the beggining that God should suffer in human form in order o assuage the world of sin. It was a divine plan. Did Judas have any choice?It was ordained from the beggining, Judas may have agonised over his decision and shown remorse afterwards, yet to me it was not in his hands, he was an ordinary mortal used as a tool in the divine symphony and could act in no other way, I think Christians have a lot to be thankful of to Judas for being brave enough to condemn Jesus, a man he perceived to be the Messiah, it surely cannot have been an easy thing to do, and for this reason i believe that Judas should be perceived in a much more favourable light and honoured as a complete Disciple as the others, not vilified and reviled.x

[Little Billy]

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1110AP_Gospel_of_Judas.html?source=mypi

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/science_technology/article356265.ece

The National Geographic Channel is running a program on the Gospel of Judas on April 9th at 8pm ET/ 9pm PT


Hehehe...the Vatican is gonna have kittens. :lol:

[Rudas Starblaze]

watched it, recorded it, and ordered everything NG had to offer on it. its about freggin time everything ive believed and have told people for years about Judas is finally comming out into public view.