Gospel of Judas authenticated

Discussion in 'Religion Archives' started by Dinosaur, Apr 10, 2013.

  1. Dinosaur Rational Skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,592
    As an atheist, my interest in this is sociological/historical rather than theological.

    A 2006 scientific examination authenticated a Gospel of Judas document.

    It makes Judas out to be acting on instructions from Jesus when he betrayed him to the authorities.

    If this view is valid, it indicates that Jesus believed that he was the Christ & chosen to represent the god of that era.

    BTW: My interpretation of New Testament stories suggests that Jesus viewed himself as a reformer of Judaism rather than an advocate of a new religion.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,297
    Presume you mean it indicates that the writer viewed Jesus as the Christ, i.e. in the same way as the writers of the 4 canonical gospels.

    From the little I've read about this, it is one of many Gnostic writings, written in the c.2nd. This one was already known to have been referred to (and condemned, naturally) by the Bishop of Lyon, around 180AD. So in a sense it is old news, though of course having an actual document will no doubt give the translators and archaeologists some new insights.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,160
    This is not exactly true, since Christ also preached to the Gentiles and sinners, who were excluded from the old religion. Law of commandments contained in ordinances specified blood lines and rules of conduct. The Gentiles could never be accepted with those rules. Jesus knew, if he preached such drastic changes, this would lead to him being handed over for torture and death; blasphemy. The wage of sin was death, according to the law. He needed a catalysts; Judas, since the leaders were not swift enough to trip him on their own. He was too smart, so he allowed them to cheat. I would guess Jesus picked Judas for the future knowing he was coined operated and therefore predictable for his needs.

    Picture if you were an accepted liberal, at the democratic convention, and suddenly started to preach republican ideas. This would not go over too well, especially if some of the delegates started to listen to you because your words and logic made sense. The top level leaders don't not want any change, since they are optimized to the rules of the current game. They will try to discredit you. If this does not work, they will eventually plot against you with a trumped up charge. One can anticipate this, especially if your popularity is increasing and you can meet all their logical and rational challenges. Harry Reid would softly give the kill command.

    Liberals, like most people, have a soft spot for the underdog. If you fight and beat the leaders at their own game, since you already know what they will do, you will become an over-dog. This will not win the empathy of the soft hearted people. But if you let them plot, scheme and crucify you, without a fight, the empathetic will see the unfairness of the self righteous leaders; leaders will condemn themselves with their actions. They will prove all that you said.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    51,740
    LOL, this happened. Obamacare was a republican idea which Romney started. It went over pretty well. It was the Republicans who worked on created trumped up charges.
     
  8. Dinosaur Rational Skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,592
    At the time of Jesus, the temple priests engaged in various money making schemes. Note that many believers traveled from a distance, arriving with animals for sacrifice & currency to be donated.

    Donations had to be in Shekels. Those with other currency had to convert to Shekels. The exchange rates were controlled by the priests.

    Only animals deemed by the priests to be without flaw were allowed as sacrifices. The priests would call a lamb flawed, buy it cheap & sell a lamb deemed suitable. Latter the lamb previously called flawed would be sold for sacrifice at a profit to some other traveler.


    When Jesus overturned the money changers' tables, he was condemning practices like the above. The above is one of the reasons I view Jesus as a reformer rather than a person intending to start a new religion.

    BTW: Christian theology was established & written down circa 300 AD by a council at Nicene. Much of it was due to the writings of Paul rather than being based on the 4 Gospel accounts.
     
  9. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,297
    Yes, the 1st Council of Nicaea, convened by Constantine to deal with Arianism by affirming the full divinity of The Son. Though I think it is a bit much to say Christian theology was written down then. The creed was an attempt to get the basics defined but theology was already, and has been since, a discipline in constant flux. I've read there is a case for seeing Christianity as a sort of synthesis of a progressive Judaism with Greek philosophy. That synthesis has probably been its strength, but I quite agree it seems not to be simply the teachings of Jesus, but rather those teachings interpreted by a Greek-trained mind.
     
  10. Yazata Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,632
    That doesn't make very much sense to me. "Authenticated" it as being... what?

    An actual manuscript from the early Christian centuries? That's probably all that a "scientific examination" could show.

    Authenticating this as an early manuscript only suggests that perhaps some author back in the early Christian period believed what it says, and/or wanted other people to believe it. More speculatively, maybe some faction of the early Christians believed it as a doctrine of their sub-group. That would be interesting to church historians, I guess.

    Ok.

    Or something.

    I agree. Jesus was a Jew, so interpreting his ideas in terms of the Jewish thinking of his time is probably the best way to understand him. My own guess is that the historical Jesus would be absolutely aghast at what Christians say about him today. (The idea that he was an incarnation of God himself would sound like blasphemy to Jewish ears.) My suspicion is that the Islamic view of Jesus (as a prophet) is probably a lot closer to how Jesus imagined himself than the extravagant theologies that the early Christians subsequently imagined about him.
     
  11. nonplasticcholyman Registered Member

    Messages:
    3
    Eashoa (Jesus) spoke in the Galilean dialect of Ancient Aramaic, because that is where he grew up.In fact,all the disciples were Galilean Jews, and so it is obvious that they would record the saying of Eashoa in their language. So the New Testament was recorded in Ancient Aramaic and later translated into Koine Greek,which is a form of Greek more akin to Aramaic,as it was heavily influenced by Aramaic.

    The disciples and apostles spread the teaching of Eashoa using this language. Mattai (Matthew), Marqus (Mark), Luqah (Luke) and Youkhanna (John) recorded the New Testament in their own native language.

    All of them were Galilean Jews. Shawool (Saul) of Tarsos, later known as Paul, knew them all and in fact trained them as scribes. There are many quotations from the Old Testament Scriptures in the New Testament, and the only way to spread the new faith in Eashoa had to incorporate the prophecies of the Old Testament prophets, so obviously the writers of the Four Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, and the Letters of the Apostles had to have been written in the Ancient Aramaic as well. The Ancient Aramaic (also called Ashurit by the theologians of Judaism, as it originated from Nineveh capital of Ashur and was the language of Jonah the Prophet,) was the sacred language of all Scriptures. It has always been known as Leeshana Supprayah, or the scribal language. This is the sacred language of all Scriptures, the same language that Eashoa read from in the synagogues of Judea.

    In order to understand the Bible accurately it is necessary to read it from the original source, not from a translation made from the Greek, Latin or English versions. No matter how attached you may be to these Bibles, you are not going to get the true meaning. Sometimes you will be close, but overall you will end up with unintended meanings.

    The prejudice against the Jews was introduced through the Greek, Latin, and subsequent translations into English, German and other European languages. The prejudice was not in the Ancient Aramaic original Scriptures. The early Christians emerged out of Judaism; they were Jews, so there was no prejudice against their own culture. How could there be? Therefore, it's important to note that the word for Jews was (and is) "Judean." There were those Judeans who didn't believe in Eashoa (Jesus).

    They were predominantly in Jerusalem; those people who were closely associated with the Scribes and Pharisees and the High Priests who conspired against Eashoa. The majority of the Judeans in Jerusalem also followed Eashoa. The Disciples continued to preach in the temple in Jerusalem after Eashoa rose from the dead and went to Heaven. The persecution against early Christianity was from Rome. For many centuries the Jews were followers of Eashoa. After the Greeks and Romans became Christian and later when the Bible was published in Europe during the Middle Ages, there was much persecution against the Jews in Europe; but this was pure racism. The crucifixion of Eashoa was used as an excuse.

    It was not the Jews who had crucified Eashoa anyway, so the Jews became the scapegoats for Western Christianity's political ambitions. Today it is still hard for the West to accept the Ancient Aramaic Scriptures, because the Western Churches are so used to the biased translations. Eashoa's teachings cannot be appreciated, His deity cannot be comprehended through the Greek-Latin derivative Bibles.
     
  12. nonplasticcholyman Registered Member

    Messages:
    3
    There are some points in my thread post, excerpts from v-a.com, that I'd like to add to. I saw a BBC Documentary on the Romans called "Jesus Christ - the rise to power" and it said the Romans didn't go hard and persecute the Christians as many churches say they did...they were merely exaggerating...

    As they wouldn't do that to the Christians just for the hell of it.If they did indeed do it,it was because the Christians wouldn't do the roman style sacrifices.Titus? told ? not to persecute the Christians but another? felt he had to,as they weren't taking part in the daily Roman sacrifices to appease their Gods.

    Some Christians felt okay "we don't want Roman persecution,so what harm could a little biddy Roman sacrifice be?" The Romans banned secret meetings,and banned Firefighters,as they believed it to be a type of meeting.
     
  13. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,875
    You might want to brush up on your New Testament. Jesus did NOT preach to the gentiles. And it was Jesus who said, “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.” – Matthew 5:17 King James Version

    And then there is Matthew where Jesus instructs his apostles to avoid the gentiles.

    “These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not” Matthew 10:5 King James Version

    And then there is:

    22 And a Canaanite woman from that region came out and began to cry out, saying, “Have mercy on me, Lord, Son of David; my daughter is cruelly demon-possessed.” 23 But He did not answer her a word. And His disciples came and implored Him, saying, “Send her away, because she keeps shouting [j]at us.” 24 But He answered and said, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” 25 But she came and began [k]to bow down before Him, saying, “Lord, help me!” 26 And He answered and said, “It is not [l]good to take the children’s bread and throw it to the dogs.” Matthew 15:22:26

    Jesus never preached to the gentiles. It wasn’t until Paul of Tarsus that Christians began proselytizing to non-Jews. And Paul of Tarsus, also known as the Apostle Paul, did not meet Jesus or know or work with Jesus while Jesus lived. Paul of Tarsus only knew the post mortem Jesus, the risen Jesus.


    As Spidergoat has already pointed out, that has already happened – more than once. It has been happening for decades now. I recall a Republican congressman shortly after the election of Bill Clinton complaining that Clinton had stolen Republican thunder, stolen Republican policies and ideas. And I recalled thinking if the congressman was seriously committed to the ideas of his political party and believed in them; then he should be delighted that the President Clinton was pushing them and had adopted them. Healthcare reform is just the more recent and most visible Democratic adoption of Republican ideas. It is not the first, and it won’t be the last.

    Instead of rejoicing that Democrats have adopted conservative ideas, Republicans find the practice unsettling, causing them to drop their previous positions, no matter how sound they might be, like a wet rag and invent new and increasingly more bizarre ideas. It truly is sad.
     
  14. Robittybob1 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,199


    Where did you get this from? Was it Wiki-Leaks? I think you have made this up.​
     
  15. Dinosaur Rational Skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,592
    Yazata:
    There have been various forged documents written after 1200 AD & alleged to be from circa 100 BC to 400 AD. The document was authenticated as having been written circa 100 to 400 AD.

    What is the issue addressed by the following?
    The above remark applies to all the Christian literature from that & later eras.

    RobittyBob1: The following is from my OP & your later post.
    I deny the allegation & defy the allegator.

    Although I am an atheist goy, one of my best friends was a colleague & a devout Jew. Once per week, he drove circa 10 miles to a group who discussed the Torah while eating lunch. He asked me to keep him company on the drive & said I might be interested in the discussions.

    The group often discussed issues not directly related to the 5 books of the Torah. One of the side issues mentioned was due to my asking for the context of the New Testament story about Jesus over turning the money changers’ tables.
     
  16. Robittybob1 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,199
    Am I the allegator? Therefore the allegation was "that you made it up". So at least now you tell us clearly about the source - someone else made it up.
     
  17. gmilam Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,691
    This seems to support Dino's claim that the allegation is indeed a croc - so to speak.

    http://www.biblewise.com/archives/2006/april/overview/money.htm
     
  18. Dinosaur Rational Skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,592
    GMilam: Thanx for finding a citation which supports my view.

    RobittyBob1: Do you really believe that the Old Testament religious leaders were infallible, scrupulously honest, & not willing to take advantage of their prestige/power?

    The Oriental or Hindu religous leaders might be beyond reproach. At least I have never heard of accusations against them. The clergy/officals of most religions, especially those higher up, include some whose hands are not clean.

    BTW: I am not an evangelistic atheist. I will defend the POV, but do not actively try to unconvert those with theist beliefs. I do believe that silence condones a POV being described & will sometimes react to theosit activity/remarks, especially when they try to pass legislation supporting their beliefs. For example: I object to creationism being taught in biology classes.
     
  19. Robittybob1 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,199
    Sounds a bit like any good business. If you want to sit on the chairs you have to buy the food from the restaurant, not from down the road.
    I was wondering about your story about the temple, where did it come from? For I hadn't heard of it before.

    I read the problems of the gospels, I believe the story is lot more truthful than most today are willing to accept. I studied the timing of Jesus' birth for I wanted to find a timeline that fitted in with history and was in the end mathematically correct.
    In my analysis Jesus was born in 17 BC and hence was 12 when he returned from Egypt. He was 30 when he started his ministry but was "about 50 years old" (47- 48) when he was crucified, in AD 31.
    OK there is Christian group that also uses these dates but I am not affiliated with them. So when you read the Gospels with these dates in mind there are not as many contradictions on the dating age issues.

    Interesting documentary on the Gospel of Judas
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSe5PTPl0nQ

    The thing I have not heard yet is anyone using the connection with the OT law that stated if you betray an innocent man you will be punished with the same penalty as was going to be handed out to the accused. So when Judas goes back and confessed that he betrayed an innocent man they didn't listen but said "what is that to us, see to it yourself". So Judas committed suicide to become sinless, for then he had paid the price for the crime he had committed.
    So I have been a fan of Judas for a long time.

    English translation found here:
    http://www.nationalgeographic.com/lostgospel/_pdf/GospelofJudas.pdf

    Definitely not written by Judas IMO.

     
    Last edited: May 4, 2013
  20. Yazata Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,632
    Ok.

    I was just suggesting that authenticating this gospel as an actual ancient document doesn't in itself verify sweeping conclusions about what Jesus supposedly really thought about his own mission, about how Paul and co. might have distorted Jesus' understanding, or whatever.

    We don't know if the Gospel of Judas account is any more accurate than the more familiar Mark, Luke, Matthew and John accounts. It's just another version at this point. Somebody evidently believed it back in ancient times, or at least wanted other people to believe it. It may provide a window into the beliefs of an early sect of Christians that differed significantly from the group who eventually became the established church and who promulgated their own orthodox interpretation of events (which people find today in their Bibles). But we don't know if this alternative version is really any more true than the other.

    Right. I agree with that.
     

Share This Page