Rediscovered gospel offers radically new look at Judas
ANCIENT DOCUMENT SAYS HE WAS JESUS' BEST FRIEND

Judas Iscariot, long reviled as history's quintessential betrayer, was actually the best friend of Jesus and turned him over to authorities only because Jesus asked him to, according to the Gospel of Judas, a long-lost document presented Thursday by the National Geographic Society.

The document, considered by some to be the most important archaeological find of the past 60 years, purports to record conversations between Jesus and Judas in the last week of their lives -- conversations in which Jesus shared religious secrets not known by the other disciples.

It was ruled heretical by early church leaders because of its disagreement with the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

Most copies were destroyed. The sole known copy lay hidden in the Egyptian desert for nearly 1,700 years before it was discovered by looters in the 1970s.

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/14286321.htm

some questions come up out of this:

* how many gospels were there, really?
* how many documents have been erased because someone (Catholic Church) didn't want anyone to read them?

Anything that's ever disagreed with the official version of the bible was burned, so nobody will ever really know. Anything contrary to what the Catholic Church said was Christian teaching was illegal for most of European history, and that would extend to the Mid East too.

-

Sounds like Borges theory (in "Tres versiones de Judas") that Judas, not Jesus, was the son of God, the betrayal and subesquent universal opprobrium, ie suffering ignominity for eternity being the ultimate sacrifice.
(read Borges, folks. He rocks)

how many documents have been erased because someone (Catholic Church) didn't want anyone to read them?
-

As far as I am aware, the Bible in it's current form was produced long before any church split and so it was the Church (not a church) that decided prayerfully what was scripture and what was not. It is not a case of not wanting people to see things it was a desire for the truth.

the Bible in it's current form was produced long before any church split

Produced by who?

It was also the case of not wanting people to see things.
The early church was quite afraid of the Gnostic sects, and a lot of the Church dogma was born out of an effort to combat the gnostic heresy.

Produced by who?

a council of well-intentioned men.

As far as I am aware, the Bible in it's current form was produced long before any church split and so it was the Church (not a church) that decided prayerfully what was scripture and what was not. It is not a case of not wanting people to see things it was a desire for the truth.

This is incorrect. The compilation of the books of the Old and New Testaments occurred isnthe 3rd and 4th centuries A.D. There was no unified Church - there were many local sects with differing gospels/teachings. The Roman sect aligned itself with the emperor's family (I believe his mother was instrumental in this) and then used the power of the Roman Empire to implement the equivalent of a corporate roll-up of small companies into a mega-organization.

The Gospels were chosen to support the concept of Apostolic succession. The Roman Church spread the belief that true authority only came through direct Apostolic succession - i.e., was passed along to the Roman Church leadership from those who accompanied Jesus as his Apostles. This was done to delegitamize those who spread alternative teachings, and to disengranchise women as Church leaders. It was All About Power And Control.

There was no unified Church

that is not really accurate either. If there was'nt some unity in the Church, there would have been not council of hippo to begin with.

This was done to delegitamize those who spread alternative teachings, and to disengranchise women as Church leaders. It was All About Power And Control.

I guess that depends on your perspective.

The emperor wanted a unified Church, because he believed religion was what bound an empire together.
The Church was opposed to the heresy of the Gnostic sects, and feared their growing influence, and wanted to stamp out heresy in order to preserve what was accepted as "true" Church doctrine.
Women had been "disenfranchased" as leaders long before 393 AD, except in the Gnostic sects.

In all, I would say that the early Church leaders at the Councils of hippo and Nicea were well intentioned if nothing else.

You basically proved my point.

:nice:

hmm, then maybe I did not understand your point.
I guess you just saw a lot more selfish motivation in it than I did.

You say it was all about power, and I think the early church leaders had an honest desire to preserve what they believed were the real teachings of Christ, and real Christian doctrine.

Anything that's ever disagreed with the official version of the bible was burned, so nobody will ever really know. Anything contrary to what the Catholic Church said was Christian teaching was illegal for most of European history, and that would extend to the Mid East too.

There were and are a lot of non canonical scriptures dating from the period-some were probably destroyed but we didn't lose anything valuable.
We had the Epistles and the Gospels from the church fathers right from the beginning and of course the Old Testament.

The point is that nothing was written on Christ until 70-100 years after his death. There was no way to know whether what was written was historically or philiosophically accurate. Many things were written and resulted in disagreements. In simple terms: as man was involved in writing history, man created it and morphed it. Men in charge of the "official" church weeded out that which did not sit well with them. This is true of all religions based on the teachings of a "prophet" or "leader."
Some may believe that God speaks, and man interprets. Others that man interprets events: period - no God involved. Choose your option!
What you are left doing is picking out that which you chose to follow, but with the problem of "authorities" screaming "blasphemy" at you. The easy path is to join a sect and foolow their rules, the hard one is to struggle with the issues and question, perhaps for the rest of your life.

In the West religious groups split up and disagreed, and now have accepted their differences without resorting too much to murder (the Irish are still thinking this over:) ), in the middle East they're still in the murder blasphemers stage.

Personally I don't give a hoot whether Judas was a bad guy or was set up by JC.

The point is that nothing was written on Christ until 70-100 years after his death. There was no way to know whether what was written was historically or philiosophically accurate. Many things were written and resulted in disagreements.

Saying "they havent found it" is entirely different than saying "it doesn't exist."

the early church leaders had an honest desire to preserve what they believed were the real teachings of Christ, and real Christian doctrine.

Real according to them.

I think if you knew anything about what the Gnostics believed you would understand.

The point is that nothing was written on Christ until 70-100 years after his death. There was no way to know whether what was written was historically or philiosophically accurate. .

so matthew and john, both disciples of christ, didn't write their accounts of christ's life till they were between 100 and 130 years old? and as far as accounts not being valid or valuable because they were written after his death, should we apply this logic to all historical writings, accounts and research, since the majority of worthwhile historical writing is done well after the fact?

I think if you knew anything about what the Gnostics believed you would understand.

Some of the Gnostics were totally Whack (like the ones that claimed the Earth was created by some inferior god and that all believers should abstain fro sex). But there are present day Christian sects that are Just As Whack (ala The Branch Davidians).

The existence of some Whack Job Fringe Elements does not mean that all non-Roman Church sects were Whack. The ones that promoted the Enlightenment Version of Christ's teaching were more valid than the Roman one, imo.

http://www.smiliesftw.com/!/bsflag.gif

^ The Heartbreak of Historical Illiteracy on Parade!

Some of the Gnostics were totally Whack (like the ones that claimed the Earth was created by some inferior god and that all believers should abstain fro sex). But there are present day Christian sects that are Just As Whack (ala The Branch Davidians).

The whacko gnostics were not the tiny minority that the Branch Davidians (and their like) are.
The belief that Jehova was an evil creator god and that lucifer came to earth to enlighten man and to get him to rebel against the evil jehova.. those were common Gnostic beliefs.. not fringe ideas.

The whacko gnostics were not the tiny minority that the Branch Davidians (and their like) are.
The belief that Jehova was an evil creator god and that lucifer came to earth to enlighten man and to get him to rebel against the evil jehova.. those were common Gnostic beliefs.. not fringe ideas.


This is a complete misinterpretation of much of Gnosticism - and representative of the heretic labelling applied by the Roman Church.

Haha who needs the history lesson?

By all means, please continue wallow in ignorance, if it gives you comfort.

These documents have to be taken into historical context. Even the writings of the Jewish historian Josephus who wrote a hundred years before this, must be examined in light of the fact that at one time he was pro-Roman and later pro-Jewish. So obviously this newly found document may have purposes other than objective history.

so matthew and john, both disciples of christ, didn't write their accounts of christ's life till they were between 100 and 130 years old?

According to conservative scholars Matthew was written between 50-60 AD, Mark 50-70 AD, Luke 60-90 AD, and John (the non-synoptic gospel) 90-95 AD.

This is a complete misinterpretation of much of Gnosticism

not from what I have read, though I would welcome you to correct what you believe to be wrong.

and for the record, I am not roman catholic, and I tend to disagree with much of their dogma.

There were a wide variety of gnostic sects. Wikipedia has a relatively decent overview.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnosticism

so that would be a no?

yeah.. im sorry, but that link did not help your case one bit.
In fact, it pretty much proved my point!

:nice:

yeah.. im sorry, but that link did not help your case one bit.
In fact, it pretty much proved my point!

Now how many gospels were there, again?

Saying "they havent found it" is entirely different than saying "it doesn't exist."
Elaborate, I'm confused by what you are trying to say!

so matthew and john, both disciples of christ, didn't write their accounts of christ's life till they were between 100 and 130 years old? and as far as accounts not being valid or valuable because they were written after his death, should we apply this logic to all historical writings, accounts and research, since the majority of worthwhile historical writing is done well after the fact?

That the gospels were written by any of his disciples is still up for debate.
The authorship of the Gospel of Matthew is something of a puzzle. It is unlikely that the canonical Matthew represents a translation of an original Aramaic/Hebrew version composed by the apostle Matthew, since the author of the Gospel of Matthew probably used the Gospel of Mark as a source. Nevertheless, it is probably safe to conclude that the apostle Matthew wrote something that has some connection to the canonical Gospel of Matthew. But what exactly that text was and its connection to the canonical Matthew is difficult to determine.
The Gospel of Matthew could not have been written before Mark (mid-60's).

Of all the gospels, the Gospel of John is the most disputed concerning authorship.Dating the Gospel of John is difficult, if not impossible; some place it before 70 and others as late as the 90's.
http://www.abu.nb.ca/courses/NTIntro/IndexNTIntr.htm


As to their validity, who is to say that the gospels removed from the bible were not valid? Is it because they say things not PC at the time?
All history is written through subjective lenses, and for every "authentic" account there can be dozens of equally valuable disparate interpretations. First Mary M was a whore, now she is not. Judas was evil, now he is something else. Take the recent work on Lincoln, which showed he suffered greatly from melancholia (depression). This had been written about before but left out of the main accounts of his life, because it did not fit the prejudices of the time.

Elaborate, I'm confused by what you are trying to say!

I and many people of my belief think theywere writiing stuff at the very latest only very shortly after the death of Christ...the Epistles don't seem to indicate a long period of time passing at all.If you find documents and do your tests you might make a case for the age of that particular document but you can't prove it wasnt a copy of an earlier document...

yeah.. im sorry, but that link did not help your case one bit.
In fact, it pretty much proved my point!

:nice:


No it didn't. It showed that there are several strains of Gnosticism - and that the historical record has gaps (unsurprising given the destruction of texts by the Romans).

You are just brainwashed by the heretical stamp placed upon Gnosticism 1700 years ago.

As to their validity, who is to say that the gospels removed from the bible were not valid?

very interesting point


-

I and many people of my belief think theywere writiing stuff at the very latest only very shortly after the death of Christ

Sources for this belief?

I wonder if Christians will agree about most of the Christian "code of morality" on how to behave as humans, whether they agree on rituals, history, or authenticity of writings. Which brings up an interesting point: what would be a generally accepted code of morality of "Christian human behavior?"
We'd have to skip by: Thou shalt not kill; and forgiveness; and turn the other cheek. Or should we concede that the majority of Christians don't measure up!

Which brings up an interesting point: what would be a generally accepted code of morality of "Christian human behavior?"

There's no moral code accepted by all Christians. There are probably 5 million of them.

Now how many gospels were there, again?

depends on what you consider a gospel.

No it didn't. It showed that there are several strains of Gnosticism - and that the historical record has gaps (unsurprising given the destruction of texts by the Romans).

Yes, it did prove my point.. Perhaps you should go back and read it.
I never said there were not different sects of Gnosticism. I know there are many.
The problem is they are all loony, and are all based on pretty goofy ideas.
The things I mentioned previously about Jehova being an evil God, and the serpent in the garden bringing wisdom to Adam and Eve, seems to be one of the more universal points that Gnostics buy in to.
The Aeons, archons etc.. all equally loony ideas that have no basis in real christianity or even judaism, are part of gnosticism in general... It's not some tiny rogue sects that believed this stuff.


You are just brainwashed by the heretical stamp placed upon Gnosticism 1700 years ago.

Nice. and so the insults being. I guess that menas you know you are losing. again.

Sources for this belief?

From the Bible,there is a continuity implcit between the death of Christ and the Acts of the Apostles....

* how many gospels were there, really?

Depends how you define "Gospel," I guess. The problem with things like the Gospel of Thomas is that its much, much later than those that are considered canonical...and that is absolutely NOT in dispute. The earliest credible date you can give it is something like 135 CE, up to maybe 200 CE. We can certainly credibly argue the ages of the four canonical Gospels, but I've yet to read anything that suggests there were others that were there contemporaries. (I'm not really sure were to put the whole hypothetical "Q" business. I think most scholars consider it a collection of sources the authors of the synoptic Gospels picked stories from, not that its a Gospel in its own right. Though if I'm wrong about that, you might have a point.)

* how many documents have been erased because someone (Catholic Church) didn't want anyone to read them?

What evidence do you have that they did erase them?

As a curious aside, this whole canonical business got dusted off again with Martin Luther, who really had a hard-on for the Epistle of James. He wanted to dump it from the canon, all that business about "faith without works is useless" gave him fits. Nowadays Protestants just cheerfully ignore it. :p

Anything that's ever disagreed with the official version of the bible was burned, so nobody will ever really know. Anything contrary to what the Catholic Church said was Christian teaching was illegal for most of European history, and that would extend to the Mid East too.

This is rubbish. The writ of the Church of Rome never ran in the Middle East or in any of the Orthodox Christian Areas, never mind in Coptic or Armenian Christian areas. Even if the had wanted to destroy documents, or even control their distribution, they had no power to do so over a large part of the Christian world.

From the Bible,there is a continuity implcit between the death of Christ and the Acts of the Apostles....

I don't see how this shows when they were written!

I don't see how this shows when they were written!

The Epistles are referenced in the NT a number of places-Peter talks about the writings of Paul eg-"some of the things he writes are hard to understand"
They carried the epistles back and forth to the various churches themselves-it's not like they relied on a postal service...

I wonder if Christians will agree about most of the Christian "code of morality" on how to behave as humans, whether they agree on rituals, history, or authenticity of writings. Which brings up an interesting point: what would be a generally accepted code of morality of "Christian human behavior?"
We'd have to skip by: Thou shalt not kill; and forgiveness; and turn the other cheek. Or should we concede that the majority of Christians don't measure up!

of course christians don't. they are flawed human beings just like you. but what, pray tell, does how people measure up to their code have to do with the conversation?

There's no moral code accepted by all Christians. There are probably 5 million of them.

that's totally false. if you made an effort to investigate, you would find that most christians follow moral codes that very closely resemble one another.

There is going to be a show on TV, IIRC tonight on the Gospels of Judas.

There is going to be a show on TV, IIRC tonight on the Gospels of Judas.

On what channel?

On what channel?

I think it's the National Geographic channel. I don't even have that channel where I live, but I believe that's the one. If you go their website you can get the details.

What humors me is that fcat that this is some sort of groundbreaking information. There were literally hundreds of "Gospels" floating around before the official Canon was put together, and the gospel of Judas isn't even considered a real Gospel.

It's probably interesting reading, and an interesting story, but it's not really relevant as far as changing Christianity in any way.

When the Nag Hamiddi library was discovered, it was a great archeological find, but there aren't many large groups of people who have formed new versions of Christianity based on those particular scriptures.

Again, they're interesting reading, but they're just another example of the large numbers of scriptures that were around.

Many of these books were written sort of like novels to fill in the gaps in the life of Christ, and the people of the time usually knew that. The infancy Gospel of James, also called the Protevangelium of James tells of Jesus from the time betyween his birth, and his presenation at the temple. It's an interestiung story, and tells that he was a bit mischievous, raised a few dead birds to life as a child, and other things, but weren't accepted as official scripture. I believe it tells of St. Anne (or Anna, depending on who you talk to), who was the mother of Mary, and her husband Joachim, who like Abraham and Sarah, had the child in their old age in a miraculous way after much prayer and supplication.

It also goes heavily into the purity of Mary, and explains that this was the reason she was chosen by God above all others to bear his son. It's very likely that this is where the dogma of the immaculate conception originated, and then became scared tradition.

The author claims to be James, the brother of Jesus, but most Bible scholars don't agree, because the writings seem to be very dependent on Luke and Matthew.



There's a Gospel of Eve, Mary Magdelene, Thomas, and many more, and there not "lost" or secret. The Church has known about most of them all along, and from time to time, a new one is discovered, like this latest Gospel of Judas.

Also, at this point in time, the whole early, historical Jesus is really hot in pop culture. Holy Blood, Holy Grail, The Da Vinci code, and a few other books are selling like mad, and a good bit of the information in some of these books comes from some of the non official scriptures. Even though the Da Vinci code is pure fiction, there's a huge cult following, a major movie, and millions of dollars being made from it.

you would find that most christians follow moral codes that very closely resemble one another.

How do you know that?


-

I think it's the National Geographic channel. I don't even have that channel where I live, but I believe that's the one. If you go their website you can get the details.

It is on NGEO from 5-7pm today. Thanks!

What humors me is that fcat that this is some sort of groundbreaking information. There were literally hundreds of "Gospels" floating around before the official Canon was put together, and the gospel of Judas isn't even considered a real Gospel.

Considering the purging of "heretical" texts, I doubt we'll ever know the full scope of early sacred writings.

Watching it right now.

Me too - way too many commerical breaks. Doesn't the announcer sound like Henry Fonda?

Jeebus. Yet another commercial break. This thing is almost unwatchable. The program could have been shown in 1.5 hours with reasonable time allotments for commericals. But this is ridiculous.

this is deception from the father of lies

That's all the endorsement I need! I believe it.