Just watched on the National Geographic channel about a forgotten Gospel of Judas. Seems there were over thirty Gospels written and only four were selected to be in the bible.
The book has been dated to the time of christ, and is authentic.
According to the documents, Judas was asked by Christ to turn him over, and was not the villan history has recorded him as. But even in that ancient text, Christ told Judas he would be hated for doing what Christ asked him to do. Put a very differant spin on what may have really happened.
The old phrase "much ado about nothing" comes to mind whenever I hear the talking heads on television and radio discussing the Gospel of Judas.
But first things first:
Quote:
The book has been dated to the time of christ, and is authentic.
Actually, the Gospel of Judas has not been dated to the time of Christ. The Gospel of Judas was written 120 years after the death of Christ (carbon dating verifies this). It was part of a host of 2nd Century Gnostic writings condemned as being heretical. Not to mention that it conflicts with eyewitness accounts given in the four Gospels that were included in the Bible.
But, be that as it may, most amusing to me is how many of the so-called experts, along with the pundits on TV, portray the Gospel of Judas as somehow being a manuscript that will shake the very foundation of Christianity . . . which is obviously quite absurd. There are many historic documents that were written in the 2nd and 3rd centuries that are false. Why pick out this one (the Gospel of Judas) and suggest that it is true and groundbreaking? Is there anything more to validate the Gospel of Judas than validates any of those other writings? No, there isn't. Additionally, the Gospel of Judas was written by an author who was condemned by early Christians as a false teacher.
Even if that century-long gap doesn't stand in your way (Judas' gospel was written, I believe, around 100 years after the earliest writing of the Gospel of John), it's important to remember that just because something was written at a certain time does not mean it was theologically true. Myself, I don't believe the Gospel of Judas is theologically true for obvious reasons: If it were, it would prove the eyewitness accounts of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John false . . . or lies. Since I believe those gospels (and the Bible) were God-inspired, there's no way I can put much stock in the Gospel of Judas.
And, as well we all know, it has long since been decided by theologists that the Gospel of Judas wasn't included in the Bible because the writing wasn't believed to have been God-inspired. Of course that could open the door to all sorts of questions about whether the Bible as a whole is truly God-inspired, but I believe the assertions made by a New York Times article that I read -- that the Gospel of Judas and similar lost gospels are causing swarms of Christians to change their belief from that the Bible is God-inspired to it being a political tool -- are absurd.
The very key to Christianity is that Christ came to earth, died to save mankind from its sin, was resurrected and returned to heaven. Everything else is simply flavoring. Whether Judas Iscariot was a friend of God who sacrificed himself to the timeless speculation of history or whether he was a traitor really means little in the grand scheme of things.
__________________
We must be the change we wish to see in the world -- Ghandi
http://www.rightminded.net
What has this to do with politics ? I can see the biblical scholars debating it forever , but it's unlikely to affect the outcome of an election or change outdoor related laws .
__________________
Kevin Haendiges
NAHC Life Member
NRA Member
Wildlife Forever Member
GOA Member
Buckmasters Member
http://hunting-indiana.com
Actually, the Gospel of Judas has not been dated to the time of Christ. The Gospel of Judas was written 120 years after the death of Christ (carbon dating verifies this). It was part of a host of 2nd Century Gnostic writings condemned as being heretical. Not to mention that it conflicts with eyewitness accounts given in the four Gospels that were included in the Bible.
120yrs is around the time of Christ, maybe I shouls have been more specific. But the eyewitness Gospels were not eyewitness at all as you call them, in fact most of those were written 60yrs after the death of Christ. There were many Gospels written, but were not hand written by the deciples, but rather by the differant priests who recorded passed down stories of Christ.
Quote:
But, be that as it may, most amusing to me is how many of the so-called experts, along with the pundits on TV, portray the Gospel of Judas as somehow being a manuscript that will shake the very foundation of Christianity . . . which is obviously quite absurd. There are many historic documents that were written in the 2nd and 3rd centuries that are false. Why pick out this one (the Gospel of Judas) and suggest that it is true and groundbreaking? Is there anything more to validate the Gospel of Judas than validates any of those other writings? No, there isn't. Additionally, the Gospel of Judas was written by an author who was condemned by early Christians as a false teacher.
true, it was, but only because it conflicted with the view the church already had of Judas.
Quote:
Even if that century-long gap doesn't stand in your way (Judas' gospel was written, I believe, around 100 years after the earliest writing of the Gospel of John), it's important to remember that just because something was written at a certain time does not mean it was theologically true. Myself, I don't believe the Gospel of Judas is theologically true for obvious reasons: If it were, it would prove the eyewitness accounts of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John false . . . or lies. Since I believe those gospels (and the Bible) were God-inspired, there's no way I can put much stock in the Gospel of Judas.
Again those texts were not written first hand.
Quote:
And, as well we all know, it has long since been decided by theologists that the Gospel of Judas wasn't included in the Bible because the writing wasn't believed to have been God-inspired. Of course that could open the door to all sorts of questions about whether the Bible as a whole is truly God-inspired, but I believe the assertions made by a New York Times article that I read -- that the Gospel of Judas and similar lost gospels are causing swarms of Christians to change their belief from that the Bible is God-inspired to it being a political tool -- are absurd.
I agree, either you have faith or you dont, and nomatter what evidence comes out or doesnt, you are gonna believe what you believe, and that goes for both sides of the argument.
Quote:
The very key to Christianity is that Christ came to earth, died to save mankind from its sin, was resurrected and returned to heaven. Everything else is simply flavoring. Whether Judas Iscariot was a friend of God who sacrificed himself to the timeless speculation of history or whether he was a traitor really means little in the grand scheme of things.
In the grand scheme you are right, but if it is "GOD INSPIRED", and neither of us know if it was or wasnt, it is at least very interesting reading that pertains to the life of Christ, very close to the time of Christ.
that means he's not entitled to an opinion? christianity is one of the lynchpins of western civilization. certainly, just from a historical standpoint, it is of great interest to anyone who has more than a passing interest in history.
boysda - I gaurantee I wouldn't discuss the teachings of Muhammed, or Buddah, or any other diety that I have no belief in. Why would I ?
No, what Gobbler wants to do it is to take bits and pieces of what he's read and hear and watched and try to disgrace God and Chrisitanity. He doesn't care about God one way or the other , he doesn't want to discuss Chrisitanity ..... hewants toget his jollies out of poking fun at it and in this case using the what if, maybe, it was told "lost" teachings of the one who betrayed Christ.
I'm surprised we don't see Da Vinci code threads next and how Jesus married Mary Magdalene
boysda - I gaurantee I wouldn't discuss the teachings of Muhammed, or Buddah, or any other diety that I have no belief in. Why would I ?
No, what Gobbler wants to do it is to take bits and pieces of what he's read and hear and watched and try to disgrace God and Chrisitanity. He doesn't care about God one way or the other , he doesn't want to discuss Chrisitanity ..... heÂ*wants toÂ*get his jollies out of poking fun at it and in this case using the what if, maybe, it was told "lost" teachings of the one who betrayed Christ.
I'm surprised we don't see Da Vinci code threads next and how Jesus married Mary Magdalene
You shouldn't be afraid to talk about it though. We debate all kinds of other historical things. Why not this?
The Gospel Of Judas???
