The Gospel of Judas

I hate to stir up religious debate, but there's been a fairly good reason, recently. Some of you may have heard of the controversial Gospel According to Judas and how it may, or may not, affect Christianity. No matter what comes of it, I think it's pretty interesting and would like to read a translation of it.

I didn't know Rob Halford had a gospel...

Ok, bad joke. But in all seriousness, I thought I had heard theories about this before. I seem to recall some people thinking that Jesus had asked Judas to do what he did before these documents were discovered. But I think I heard such statements in shows on the Discovery Channel which took a very objective view into Jesus's life.

I personally don't think it will have a very large effect, though. It will have some sort of effect, undoubtedly, but I don't believe it will be a major one.

I'd love to read this. This will bring up some issues to the Christian communality but I think this is a very important find none the less. We now have another point of view telling us of Jesus. Since this is such a historical document and by a man very important to the role of the crucifixion could very well be slipped into the bible.

This is where I see the bible as a historical archive or scrap book that should have articles added to it as history unveils itself.

This site has the gospel in pdf http://www9.nationalgeographic.com/lostgospel/document.html Thank God for digital technology.

Ah, Jesus and his damn conspiracies...

The article says:
Craig Evans, a professor at Acadia Divinity College in Nova Scotia, Canada, said New Testament explanations for Judas' betrayal range from money to the influence of Satan.

That is, from money, to being high.

I am not one to say that this is heresy... yet. I do believe the Bible is the Word of God, but I am also aware that it could have been fubared around by some priests who had 'better ideas', so it's all up for debate.

My only point of concern is that this doesn't actually contradict anything (so far as I understand)... actually, what COULD be a worry is the authorship of this document. Unless it was actually penned by Judas himself (which I don't quite see, him being dead and all shortly after), I don't see how this can be valid, if it is indeed from a 'secret conversation'.

Does this make any sense?

When in the past, when other ancient documents were discovered, did the church say - "Aw shit you're right, this changes everything. Let's implement those changes now"?

Never?

Why would this be any different? (Rightly or wrongly.)

Enjay said:
When in the past, when other ancient documents were discovered, did the church say - "Aw shit you're right, this changes everything. Let's implement those changes now"?

Never?

Not never. These things have often been about quoting apparently authentic manuscripts and sources, and that's what arranging a canon is about (in this case the scriptures.) That's why there's been so much referencing and quoting since ancient times, and that's why philology grew to be so big after the middle ages. The discovery of such documents can affect philosophical or political thinking in certain circles.

OK, "Never" was a bit too sweeping. Point conceded. ;)

DJ_Haruko said:

I didn't know Rob Halford had a gospel...

In theory, he does. He certainly has the falsetto voice...

I heard there are a lot of missing Gospels, so many that the Church has no plans to change the Bible whether or not they are real. But I wonder what other points of view are being missed? The Bible even says you cant take away or add to it or you will be punished, but the question is, what was previously removed and needs to be restored, and what was never added and shouldnt be?

Isn't this dubious document written 300 years after that of the other dubious documents (ie the Bible). It is either a third century hoax or merely a copy. Either way, can no more itself be taken as evidence for an actual historical Jesus than any of the other gospels for which the earliest texts we have were also written too late to be considered actual evidence for an actual historical Jesus... Perhaps it could be seen as such if it weren't for all the indulgence obviously taken by the story tellers in saying this 'saviour' did all these things which can for some reason be only explained as miracles.

I think it's already been proven that the Bible is a collection of mytical stories. At best, it has some half-truths in there. Only people with an unhealthy amount of faith could believe it to be accurate.

KennyJC said:

Isn't this dubious document written 300 years after that of the other dubious documents (ie the Bible). It is either a third century hoax or merely a copy.

now I am not a christian, but I do consider myself to be an open minded history buff. that said, I believe they said it was a copy of a text that was written 150 after christs death and was thought lost after that particular copy which was destroyed. before the council of nicea, arranged by the emperor constantine, there were several churches spread across the known world due to missionary action. this produced several versions of what we would call the bible today. after the council of nicea, which is how the "final" version of the bible was compiled, many scriptural writings were cast aside and considered heretical and destroyed. another thing to consider is that many of the gospels named after apostles and disciples were not actually written by them. they were most likely written by people in the churches that they had established.

as for the historical jesus, there is plenty on non-biblical evidence to support his existence. whether or not he actually was able to perform miracles as written in the bible, he has actually done many of the things he was said to have done. for example, he may not have taken five loaves and two fish and fed a multitude during "the sermon on the mount", but he did in fact preach to them. many records by historians and roman municipal sources, such as the census, provencial reports, investigations and court records show that he did exist. a pretty good book that explores the historical jesus is "Meeting Jesus Again for the First Time". make of it what you will.

This won't change anything. There are already many "lost" books of the Bible which are accepted by none of the major branches of Christianity, and several of them which are only accepted by one or two of the major branches. For example, books like 1 and 2 Esdras, which are are variably accepted by the Catholics and/or the Orthodox Church but rejected for inclusion by Protestants.

A number of the Lost Sea Scroll writings haven't found their way into scripture either.

Quasar said:
This won't change anything.

Who care if some religiuos people (or institutions) think it's suitable as holy material? The point is that the writing was referenced already but hadn't been found or verified as real.

as for the historical jesus, there is plenty on non-biblical evidence to support his existence.

Can't say I've ever seen any, although I will take your word for it and look into it later.

Although I am convinced that even if this man existed, he was not who he claimed to be. People simply believed him. How many people have claimed to be in some way connected to God? It all depends on how many followers they can dupe into beleiving him. Mohammed is a good example of one such success, as is Jesus.

Many though, not so successful...

Something may have existed, or else why all the fuss? As for concrete evidence of Jesus as usually depicted... there's very little, if any.

myk said:
Who care if some religiuos people

I can't type!

Something may have existed, or else why all the fuss?

The thing is, the scriptures of the Bible were written at least 50-60 years after the alledged death of 'Jesus'. That's plenty of time for myths to become mainstay... Especially at a time were story telling is the form of entertainment in a world without media, internet, tv etc.

What's more puzzling is that this son of God was not special enough to have anything written about him while he was actually alive...

A good example of a myth becoming an established part of a religion is when the Pope 1,000 years ago claimed that Mary's physical body ascended to heaven. The bible or any other related scripture makes no claim of this, but now it's an established belief of Catholics. Ask the Pope were he got his information from and he'd say "God told me"... Go figure...

KennyJC said:

What's more puzzling is that this son of God was not special enough to have anything written about him while he was actually alive...

Ain't that always the way...? Van Gogh will tell you.

A good example of a myth becoming an established part of a religion is when the Pope 1,000 years ago claimed that Mary's physical body ascended to heaven. The bible or any other related scripture makes no claim of this, but now it's an established belief of Catholics. Ask the Pope were he got his information from and he'd say "God told me"... Go figure...

I'd always considered that as alluding to a mother God, which I have no problem with. Or it could've been complete bull. That's the way religion is sometimes. It's been used as a tool for people who seek power more than redemption.

KennyJC said:

What's more puzzling is that this son of God was not special enough to have anything written about him while he was actually alive...

That’s the thing with Jesus. He was the underdog until the end. No famous person of that era was ever recognized until years later when it finally sinks into the public.

That’s the thing with Jesus. He was the underdog until the end. No famous person of that era was ever recognized until years later when it finally sinks into the public.

I don't buy that. As well as the fact there are no writings on his existence from when he was actually alive (nevermind 60 or 300 years after)...and there is a story, and the character walks on water, turns water into wine, comes back from the dead to be seen to ascend up to heaven, virgin bith etc... he is fictional.

The same book that said the universe was created in 6 days, that adam was created from dust and clay, and eve was created from adams rib (Adam lived to over 900 years old btw), that enough rain fell to cover all of land within 40 days... People claim this book is literal truth, and it doesn't do the argument for the existence of 'Jesus' any good that his existence only exists in the Bible, a collection of fictional stories.

Well, you're treading old ground here. The fact is, even most devout theists consider the Bible (and indeed, any sacred text) to be mostly allegorical-- and even we don't know what the deal is with those fundamentalists.

Funamentalists might be more common than you think. If there were no fundamentalists there would be no controversy over evolution. A significant percentage of any society will agree that creationism (Adam & Eve etc) is what actually happened.

It's jesus lol.

darwinian evolution fuels racism

Skeletor said:
darwinian evolution fuels racism

What? Unless you mean, of course, that if there were no genetic variation there wouldn't be any racism whatsoever... there's the little problem that there wouldn't be any lifeforms on Earth, as well, though.

darwinian evolution fuels racism

This sounds like religious right scaremongering... A poor attempt to tarnish evolution.

Of course, the religious right should look in the mirror when accusing others of being racist.

First off, I assure you I am not a part of the religious right.

Caucasoids
Mongoloids
Negroids
etc.

that hasn't fueled racism? Look back in past scholarly research. It'll say something like 'caucasoids are the most beautiful, intelligent,' etc...

and personally, I believe in microevolution but not macro.

Skeletor said:

and personally, I believe in microevolution but not macro.

Microevolution over centuries and centuries makes macroevolution.

?

Micro is evolution within species.

Macro is evolution from one species into another.

Humans may look like aliens 5000 years from now but that doesn't make them a different species. They're still human.

Didn’t you hear about spieces that tear apart in two different species?