General discussion

Locked

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 -

Hanging of Judas

by Jellimonsta In reply to The intriguing part is we ...

It is in Matthew 27:5 that Judas is purported to have hung himself.

It is in Acts 1:18 in which he 'fell headlong and burst at the midsection'.

Check this link for some food for thought.
http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2846

Regards,
Mike <

Collapse -

AP got it totally wrong

by Deadly Ernest In reply to Hanging of Judas

Thanks for the Matthew reference, I always remember the content of what I read, but not always where I read it or the chapter. I just read the web page and the references and set AP an e-mail with the following content:

Start quote

Matthew 27: 4 - 8 states that Judas threw the money in the gutter and hanged himself. Then the
priests took counsel and bought the potter's field to bury strangers and it was then called the
field of blood.

Acts 1:18 - 19 states that Judas himself bought the field and then fell down the field, clearly
he was alive at that point, and the field was then known as the field of blood. No mention
of a potter's field at all.

Your claim about Judas hanging himself than fall to the field just does not hold water as he
could not have bought the field after his death.

End quote

I think it interesting to note that there is a significant time difference between when Matthew was written and when Acts were believed to be written. Also they were written by different people living under different socio-political pressures. It is very possible, as some scholars believe, that Judas was being intentional demonised by Matthew as it helped him with other issues. I don't know, I was not there - it is my belief that Matthew is not accurate in his attitude to Judas.

Edited to correct wrong references to John that should have been Matthew. 3.30 am after a very long day and after just writting about John at length sorry for any misunderstanding.

Collapse -

Let me know...

by Jellimonsta In reply to AP got it totally wrong

If you get a reply from AP let me know. I would be interested in seeing how they try to refute your message.
Mike <

Collapse -

Hey Jelli AP did reply, and with another link.

by Deadly Ernest In reply to Let me know...

Here is their reply and my response.

Dear Mr. Bywater,

The following link will take you to an article on the subject in question.

http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/569

I hope that you find it helpful.

Sincerely,

Eric Lyons

Dear Eric Lyons,

Thank you for your response, and your time involved.

I am sorry but that article, like the first, appears to me to be revisionistic in an attempts
to reconcile the unreconcilable. In Matthew 27:1 to 11 it is a clear statement that Judas
was supposed to approach the priests the morning after the betrayal and was rejected,
he left and hung himself, they then bought the field, then went on to take Jesus before the
govenor. Thus Judas dies the day after the betrayal and before Jesus.

Yet in Acts 1:1 to 22 we are clearly told that Jesus has died and been resurected verse 9
describes the ascent on the cloud. Then verse 12 tells us that they had returned to Jerusalem
from Olivet about a week's journey. Then we are told that Judas purchased the field and fell
down it to his death and the field is now called the Field of Blood.

The wording is clear in both, to claim that one is absolutely clear in meaning while the other
is interpretive is wrong. This screams of revisionism and attempts to mould things to suit the
authors own point of view. Another intersting point is that the fate of Judas is not mentioned
in the Gospels of Mark, John, or Luke. Yet if Judas had died as stated in Matthew this would
have been a significant enough event, showing instant retribution, that it would have been noted.
To me, this is more an indication that the bit about Judas' hanging was not part of the original
text but inserted into later copies that have reached through the ages.

The maxim about acting through others is valid only where the others are acting on, or under,
the first persons direct, or specific, orders or directions. To take your own example: If a young
man asks his father to buy him a car and the father does so then the father is acting for the son.
However, if the father decides 'it is time my son had a car' and goes and buys it without talking
to the son then the father is acting on his own behalf. The maxim you quote relies heavily on the
person being acted for giving the direction or instruction without that direction then the maxim
does not, cannot, apply and nor can an interpretation reliant on that be valid.

BTW I do find the few articles I have read interesting and worth reading, if only to make me think.
I am just sorry that me slow speed access doe not allow me enough time to go through your site
in detail - when I can get a high speed connection I will do so.

Collapse -

Deadly Ernest: AP

by Jellimonsta In reply to Let me know...

Oh, oh, looks like you may be on a merry go round!

Collapse -

An alternate theory

by faradhi In reply to AP got it totally wrong

I amazes me that that people who take a translation of a translation of a translation, ..., at face value that they are shocked there may be some internal conflicts.

Additionally, the bible is a mix of metaphors, symbolism, history and allegory. As such, there is a real possibility that there will be times when everything is taken literally, even with perfect translations, that it will conflict.

As such I propose that both the writings could be stating the same thing in separate ways. What if Judas threw the money away and hanged himself as Matthew describes. The priests purchase potters field with the Judas' money. (Thus Judas' purchasing the land.) Fitting both scriptures. The Judas was buried in the field which could be descibed as "fell down the field." As described in Acts.

I am merely suggesting that none of these writings should be taken at face value. There is no right or wrong only it is possibility.

But again, I am no religious scholar. I know this is rather simplistic. However, Just like I can not prove that either of the scriptures are wrong, you can not prove i am.

-edited for grammer, I may have actually made it worse.

Collapse -

like a potato

by dawgit In reply to An alternate theory

so they made a potato out of him? reclycled him? doesn't sound harsch enuf, if they hated him. And that would then go against Christs teaching, no?

(potato; cut up in little pieces an planted in a field, grows more potatoes, 'be fruitfull and multiply' and recylcled.)

Collapse -

sorry dawgit, you lost me

by faradhi In reply to An alternate theory

That is not hard mind you.

But I missing the point in your post.

Collapse -

Off Topic, but I don't know where else to post this

by oneamazingwriter In reply to Hanging of Judas

Below this discussion there are some interesting sponsored links, and I followed this one:

http://www.wizardacademy.com/TheGospelofDonQuixote.asp

Just last week in a blog post I referred to myself as a female Don Quixote.
On my planet coincidence is just another way God says , "Hi! Gotcha!" to me. It keeps me giggling.

A different kinda duck,
Beth

Collapse -

Ernest, I heartily disagree with point 1.

by X-MarCap In reply to A few points to keep in m ...

1. No, that isn't what the New Testament teaches. There is only one High Priest, Christ Jesus of the order of Melchizidek. There is one between you and the Father, and he is your advocate, Christ Jesus... Any other understanding is a twisting of the scripture.Man's construct within the Catholic Church notwithstanding...

Related Discussions

Related Forums