The Lost Gospel of Judas turns christianity on its' head

[SuperTrouper]

Judas wasn't the betrayer of the Messiah with that kiss of death but was actually ordered by Jesus to single him out with a kiss. Seemingly Jesus wanted to set his own crucifixion into motion. Modern christians don't know how to handle this and automatically reject this notion because it will cause them to re-think the foundation upon which they have based their beliefs.

The proverbial rugs have been pulled out from under their feet.

And furthermore the codex containing the "letter from Peter to Philip" will further contradict popular beliefs by modern day christians

[pastorgbc]

I will tell you how I have handled it since I first heard about it about 25 years ago. It is a second or third century writing from the gnostics that is not divinely inspired. It is no different than the other gnostics writings.

That means they are irrelevant.

Ray

[StrongInChrist]

Im sorry dude but the whole belief in the Bible is centered around the fact that its message pertaining to salvation and our relationship with God is without contradiction in the canon of scriptures. I am sure there were many phalse teachers at that time as there are now which is why Paul said

"beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy.........traditions of men.......vain deceipt...ect."

I also believe this gospel of Judas is dated far later than the earliest NT manuscripts. Traditionally Judas commited suicide so one could understand why he may have attempted to clear his name. After realizing this wouldnt happen he killed himself. This is just a theory but I personally think the whole thing is not written by Judas at all.

Bottom line is this book does not line up with the earliest writings and does not fit at all in the canon of scriptures which makes it of no interest to me. Ive read a good deal of it and it comes off like a disgruntled disciple who knew he messed up and tried to turn the whole thing against the eleven faithful desciples and make himself look like the real man of God.

I belive Jesus said you will know them by there fruit. What fruits did your boy Judas bear?

[pastorgbc]

There is no chance--none, that Judas wrote this gospel. Didn't the "scholars" on the History channel go over that a few weeks ago?

Ray

[illriginal]

Judas wasn't the betrayer of the Messiah with that kiss of death but was actually ordered by Jesus to single him out with a kiss. Seemingly Jesus wanted to set his own crucifixion into motion. Modern christians don't know how to handle this and automatically reject this notion because it will cause them to re-think the foundation upon which they have based their beliefs.

The proverbial rugs have been pulled out from under their feet.

And furthermore the codex containing the "letter from Peter to Philip" will further contradict popular beliefs by modern day christians

There's a whole Pandora's Box just waitin to open and explode in the faces of these poor misguided Christians.

[illriginal]

There is no chance--none, that Judas wrote this gospel. Didn't the "scholars" on the History channel go over that a few weeks ago?

Ray

Why was Mary's gospels/scriptures taken from the holy scriptures? Why did they exclude her as nothing but just a mother of Jesus, or the pathetic **** I heard that she was supposedly a hooker whatever.

**** Constatine, **** the historical Romans, and **** the beginning of albinos (yeah that's right... albinos, yeah you don't get it... learn your Christology and save your soul)

[pastorgbc]

Why was Mary's gospels/scriptures taken from the holy scriptures? Why did they exclude her as nothing but just a mother of Jesus, or the pathetic **** I heard that she was supposedly a hooker whatever.

**** Constatine, **** the historical Romans, and **** the beginning of albinos (yeah that's right... albinos, yeah you don't get it... learn your Christology and save your soul)

Again, these were gnostic writings from the second or third century. The writings you so colorfully allude to were never considered part of the canon of scripture.

You do have to understand that when many of the false teachers came on the scene, they wrote all manner of nonsense. They wree not divinely inspired text.

Ray

[aiwass]

Christians are too stuck in their ways to ever reconsider any part of the Bible. It would cause them too great an inconvenience.

[illriginal]

Christians are too stuck in their ways to ever reconsider any part of the Bible. It would cause them too great an inconvenience.

And you're completely right. Most if not all Christians would even believe the new Pope is truely holy, a man of God.

[pastorgbc]

And you're completely right. Most if not all Christians would even believe the new Pope is truely holy, a man of God.

I think you have badly confused Christians and Catholics.

I don't mean to sound harsh, but you have no idea what you are talking about.

[wanttobearnold]

And you're completely right. Most if not all Christians would even believe the new Pope is truely holy, a man of God.

With this statement, you have shown your complete ignorance of Christianity and what Christians actually believe. Until you can show that you have actually researched some of what you say, I think it would be safe to say that you are just saying anything you feel like, much like those who wrote the "Gospel of Judas"

[Random907]

I think you have badly confused Christians and Catholics.

I don't mean to sound harsh, but you have no idea what you are talking about.

LOL.

[David77]

I will tell you how I have handled it since I first heard about it about 25 years ago. It is a second or third century writing from the gnostics that is not divinely inspired. It is no different than the other gnostics writings.

That means they are irrelevant.

Ray

Your statement is complete opinion.

There is nothing except personal bias that would indicate that the gnostic texts are not divinely inspired. You certainly can't use the text's age, as Thomas is older than the 4 biblical gospels.

Besides that, you have no idea what is inspired and what is not. By what method do you determine divine inspiration?

[pastorgbc]

Your statement is complete opinion.

There is nothing except personal bias that would indicate that the gnostic texts are not divinely inspired. You certainly can't use the text's age, as Thomas is older than the 4 biblical gospels.

Besides that, you have no idea what is inspired and what is not. By what method do you determine divine inspiration?

First, the Gospel of Thomas is not older than the other gospels. This is only one school of thought by people who do not hold the divinely inspired texts in any esteem.

Divine Inspiration:

I will limit this to NT (Christ Himself said the OT was divinely inspired):

1. Apostolic authorship, or authorized to written by an apostle.
2. Is in agreement with other divinely inspired text.
3. Makes claims under apostolic auspices that it was divinely inspired.
4. Is called divinely inspired by a divinely inspired writing.

Hardly my opinion.

Ray

[David77]

1. Apostolic authorship, or authorized to written by an apostle.
2. Is in agreement with other divinely inspired text.
3. Makes claims under apostolic auspices that it was divinely inspired.
4. Is called divinely inspired by a divinely inspired writing.

Hardly my opinion.

Ray

1. I'm not too familiar with the historic aspects of the gospels, but I'm pretty sure none were written directly by the apostles who they are attributed to, and there were later additions by others to most of them.

2. OK so how is the Thomas Gospel not in accordance with other texts? There are so many contradictions in the Bible it's rediculous. So by your definition all of the books that have something that contradicts other books are not divine, which would make most of the Bible man made.

3. It's your personal opinion that the apostles word is infallible.

4. Like I said eariler, you have no way of knowing PERSONALLY what is inspired or what isn't.

[pastorgbc]

1. I'm not too familiar with the historic aspects of the gospels, but I'm pretty sure none were written directly by the apostles who they are attributed to, and there were later additions by others to most of them.

2. OK so how is the Thomas Gospel not in accordance with other texts? There are so many contradictions in the Bible it's rediculous. So by your definition all of the books that have something that contradicts other books are not divine, which would make most of the Bible man made.

3. It's your personal opinion that the apostles word is infallible.

4. Like I said eariler, you have no way of knowing PERSONALLY what is inspired or what isn't.

1. I believe them all to be written directly by or under the auspices of the apostles. Luke would have been under the auspices Paul.

2. Thomas is merely a collection of sayings; they were gnostic sayings in general. I am curious what contradictions you are speaking of. You can name just few if you like. I would be happy to look at them with you.

3. I never said the Bible was infallible. That is a Roman Catholic doctrine they apply to the pope. I do believe the Bible is inerrant in the original autographs.

4. Sure I do.

Ray

[notorius1]

4. Sure I do.

Ray

In your head you do.

[notorius1]

I will tell you how I have handled it since I first heard about it about 25 years ago. It is a second or third century writing from the gnostics that is not divinely inspired. It is no different than the other gnostics writings.

That means they are irrelevant.

Ray

Where's your proof of this?

[pastorgbc]

Where's your proof of this?

I will give you a link to a very liberal site. It dates this writing between 140-170. Other sources list it closer to 180.

Ray

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

[AlbinoGerbil]

the beginning of albinos (yeah that's right... albinos,

Albinos baby, we are everywhere now....

[xer0xed]

Why was Mary's gospels/scriptures taken from the holy scriptures? Why did they exclude her as nothing but just a mother of Jesus, or the pathetic **** I heard that she was supposedly a hooker whatever.

**** Constatine, **** the historical Romans, and **** the beginning of albinos (yeah that's right... albinos, yeah you don't get it... learn your Christology and save your soul)

Umm... I think you're mixing up Mary Magdalene with the other Mary... =o

[illriginal]

I think you have badly confused Christians and Catholics.

I don't mean to sound harsh, but you have no idea what you are talking about.

Confused? Looks like to me Christians confused Christology with mythology.

[illriginal]

With this statement, you have shown your complete ignorance of Christianity and what Christians actually believe. Until you can show that you have actually researched some of what you say, I think it would be safe to say that you are just saying anything you feel like, much like those who wrote the "Gospel of Judas"

Ignorance to Christianity... CHRISTIANS are all ignorant and obviously don't know God. Most Christians will go to hell and I don't need to explain it, anyone that's not brainwashed by all these stupid sects of Christianity would see what the problem is. But don't worry, you'll have centuries of Christians world wide in hell with ya so you won't be lonely.

[fish153]

Umm... I think you're mixing up Mary Magdalene with the other Mary... =o

Neither one was a "hooker" either.

Judas wasn't the betrayer of the Messiah with that kiss of death but was actually ordered by Jesus to single him out with a kiss. Seemingly Jesus wanted to set his own crucifixion into motion. Modern christians don't know how to handle this and automatically reject this notion because it will cause them to re-think the foundation upon which they have based their beliefs.

The proverbial rugs have been pulled out from under their feet.

And furthermore the codex containing the "letter from Peter to Philip" will further contradict popular beliefs by modern day christians

As for the Gospel of Judas - the entire thing was just media hype. They played it up and made special shows about it because they COULD - because it was during the Easter season, they were able to play it up even MORE. Basically, to Biblical scholars, the text changes nothing. It wasn't written by Judas, this has been proven.

No "rugs" have been pulled out from under ANYONE - and the Gospel of Judas, while a nice find, is really not a big deal. (well, except to the media because they are the only ones who can benefit from making it out to be something it isn't)

You want to see something interesting? Try to see if you can still find the link to the press conference between the Biblical scholars and the news people. It is ridiculous. The news people keep asking "So, is this going to change the way Sunday school is taught?" and "what is Gnosticism?!" ... they ask these questions several times, and by the end, the Biblical scholars are visibly put off by the entire charade.

[farmerlee]

Ignorance to Christianity... CHRISTIANS are all ignorant and obviously don't know God. Most Christians will go to hell and I don't need to explain it, anyone that's not brainwashed by all these stupid sects of Christianity would see what the problem is. But don't worry, you'll have centuries of Christians world wide in hell with ya so you won't be lonely.

So what religion are you if you don't mind me asking?

[powerman2000]

There's a whole Pandora's Box just waitin to open and explode in the faces of these poor misguided Christians.

You're just making a fool of yourself.

[powerman2000]

1. I'm not too familiar with the historic aspects of the gospels, but I'm pretty sure none were written directly by the apostles who they are attributed to, and there were later additions by others to most of them.

2. OK so how is the Thomas Gospel not in accordance with other texts? There are so many contradictions in the Bible it's rediculous. So by your definition all of the books that have something that contradicts other books are not divine, which would make most of the Bible man made.

3. It's your personal opinion that the apostles word is infallible.

4. Like I said eariler, you have no way of knowing PERSONALLY what is inspired or what isn't.

You crack me up!

On one hand you come right out and admit that you aren't even familiar with the NT Gospels and on your other hand you make statements that you are pretty sure you know the authors weren't any of the Apostles of Christ. My friend, that is a contradiction.

[powerman2000]

Concerning the book of judas, its message is that the disciples have not learned the true Gospel, which Jesus taught only to Judas Iscariot, as exemplified in the following words: "Knowing that Judas was reflecting upon something that was exalted, Jesus said to him: Step away from the others [the disciples] and I shall tell you the mysteries of the Kingdom. It is possible for you to reach it, but you will grieve a great deal. For someone else will replace you, in order that the twelve (disciples) may again come to completion with their God."

Hellooooo people, there really is a reason why Satan is called the Father of Lies. It's what he does best!

Doesn't it seem reasonable that heretics and other enemies of Christianity would write such material? Of course it does, just look at how many suckers there are that lap up this kind of nonsense like honey. Need I remind all of the skeptics that all 4 of the real NT Gospels found in the bible have all been dated by pretty much every bible scholar in the world to have been written within A.D. 100. All of these other so called books were written 150 years or more after the last Gospel in the NT was written.

[Ruhanv]

First, the Gospel of Thomas is not older than the other gospels. This is only one school of thought by people who do not hold the divinely inspired texts in any esteem.

Divine Inspiration:

I will limit this to NT (Christ Himself said the OT was divinely inspired):

1. Apostolic authorship, or authorized to written by an apostle.
2. Is in agreement with other divinely inspired text.
3. Makes claims under apostolic auspices that it was divinely inspired.
4. Is called divinely inspired by a divinely inspired writing.

Hardly my opinion.

Ray

So there goes Mark, Matthew, Luke and John as none of them claim to be written by an apostle, they are not in complete agreement with one another, they do not claim to be inspired or are called inspired by any other divinely inspired writing.

In fact considering the latter, none of Paul's epistles claim to be inspired and if you want to include all of his epistles then you would have to include those that are lost to us today.

You might want to consider your criteria.

[pastorgbc]

So there goes Mark, Matthew, Luke and John as none of them claim to be written by an apostle, they are not in complete agreement with one another, they do not claim to be inspired or are called inspired by any other divinely inspired writing.

In fact considering the latter, none of Paul's epistles claim to be inspired and if you want to include all of his epistles then you would have to include those that are lost to us today.

You might want to consider your criteria.

Well, we will disagree on this Mr. Ruhan, but 2 Peter most definitely states that Paul's writings are Scripture. Each of the gospels were ascribed either to an apostle or to one of their direct representativies (Mark=Peter, Luke=Paul).

I do not have to include anything that is not in the canon of Scripture because they have not been preserved (Psalm 12: 6-7).

Ray