General discussion


What??? - The Gospel According to Judas?

By DMambo ·
Located in a safe deposit box in Long Island (of all places!) the Gospel According to Judas has been translated. It reveals that Judas was making the ultimate sacrifice working in conjunction with Jesus to turn Him over to the Romans during Passover and to allow Jesus to shed His earthly mantle. Judas knew that he would be reviled throughout history for his actions, but did it because he loved Jesus.

How do you think this will affect the practice and teachings of Christianity?

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

More of

by rob mekel In reply to What??? - The Gospel Acco ...

Love your neighbour as you love yourself.

or is it more of:

Love yourself as you love your neighbour.


Collapse -

While these have been dated

by jdclyde In reply to What??? - The Gospel Acco ...

who is to say they are accurate?

They were not written by Judas, but after he was dead already.

Just a good story?

At worst case, why would this affect anything?

Collapse -

I don't believe that anny of the Gospels

by DMambo In reply to While these have been dat ...

were written by the apostles. They were all written in the first or second century after Christ's crucifiction. I'm a LOT of studying away from being a biblical scholar, so maybe someone can confirm that.

And I'm just asking and interested in others' opinions. I was not stating that I think this new Gospel will have some impact. In fact I believe the mainstream church will mostly ignore this, so it'll have very little affect on the teachings of the established denominations, at least for the foreseeable future.

Collapse -

Gospel of John written by John, at least dictated...

by X-MarCap In reply to I don't believe that anny ...

Matthew was written by Levi, one of the twelve, Mark is from a collection of Peter's sermons, Luke was Paul's physician, all of these were written while there were witnesses alive who could verify what they had seen... (Peter, John, Levi(Matthew), John Mark, Jude the brother of Jesus, James the brother of Jesus,etc. the 500.

The Gospel of Judas is interesting. It is dated to long after Judas was dead, and isn't consistant with the other gospels. Therefore it is not worthy of canon.

The least questionable of the NT books is James.
He has a nearly bored with it all attitude that give dutch uncle advice...

Collapse -

Originally there were over 30 gospels and

by Deadly Ernest In reply to Gospel of John written by ...

each disciple had written one. The only copies we have availabel today are just that - copies, like this document in question, made many years later from earlier copies. Today we have only four gospels as one church leader decided that 30 gospels were too many and decided that four was the right number and then decided which four he thought were the best to include as the approved texts - being human he chose those that went with his doctrinal views.

No one saw the divine hand of God pushing the other 26 off the table.

We do not have a single copy of the four gospels in the Bible that were written in the hand of the disciples or by a scribe under their direction. What we have are later copies.

Collapse -

1 valid Point.

by X-MarCap In reply to Originally there were ove ...

There were many writings. The ones that survived were the "Cream of the Crop".

One point is that The Gospel of Thomas, and the Gospel of Judas were written long after the eyewitnesses died. The 4 Gospels that survived were considered Canon. i.e. Reliable and witnessed and were set into Canon during the lifetime of the disciples.

There was no divine hand, but a decision about accuracy and relevance, and use was decided by man, but with a view to consistancy with OT scripture and NT Canon...

Other writings came much later, and may truly be heretical, from an orthodox point of view.

Burn them at the Stake, get the Pitchforks ;-)

Collapse -

What a Crock

by HAL 9000 Moderator In reply to 1 valid Point.

The current Christian Religion is Pauline in nature and as such very different from the Christianity taught by Jesus. Paul was a disciple on the outer ring and very much reviled by the True Christians after the death of Jesus. So in an attempt to save his skin he fled the country and proceeded to teach his perverted form of Christianity to others ands when it became known what it was that Paul was doing many where dispatched to counter his Propaganda as it was believed at the time by the True Christians that fact that Pauline Christianity has survived is more a testament to the place that Paul fled to rather than any over riding factor. After all what good Christian would allow the major religious days to be moved so that they fitted in with other religions pagan in nature?


Collapse -

Upon advise of jd

by oneamazingwriter In reply to What a Crock

I have been told that I need to restate the title of my last reply to Two questions! :) I would do that through edit, but it would make his reply to me seem strange.

So I offer apology. Eesh! The Blunders of Beth continue!

edit: Double blunders!! I attached this reply to the wrong post! ROFL

Collapse -

You are of course correct, Colin

by jardinier In reply to What a Crock

although perhaps a little extreme (simplistic) in your comment.

It has always concerned me that in developing doctrine, the words of Paul are given equal status to those of Jesus, and in some instances probably greater status.

So yes, the religion would more correctly be called: "Paulianity."

While Paul wrote some really cool stuff -- like 1 Corinthians 13 -- I personally am a follower of Jesus.

Collapse -

Col, for someone ho doesn't follow a path, you seem to be an expert.

by X-MarCap In reply to What a Crock

You have the bitterness of a broken faith.

The Paulianity you complain really doen't contradict Peter, John, etc. Paul rebuked Peter, and peter repented. Read the book of Acts. Yep, Paul was treated like a leper by some in the early church. People knew he was having them killed before he converted. Many thought he was trying to infiltrate and then kill them...

Paul died long before Peter did in Rome. Peter came to lead the church in Rome, and he died there. Peter and the other disciples followed after Paul in many places...

What he was more than the other disciples was literate. He was a Gamalian student... He wasn't a Rabinical failure... He would have been the greatest Jewish leader of his day, if it hadn't overlapped the life of Christ, in whose name he followed. Don't blame Paul at this point. Blame Peter and James for not being more prolific writers...

Related Discussions

Related Forums