Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Gospel of Judas
pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 6023 days)
Posts: 1567
Joined: 06-10-2004


Message 1 of 25 (301939)
04-07-2006 11:11 AM


I thought this was rather interesting:
The "Gospel of Judas" tells a far different tale from the four gospels in the New Testament. It portrays Judas as a favored disciple who was given special knowledge by Jesus -- and who turned him in at Jesus' request.
The text, one of several ancient documents found in the Egyptian desert in 1970, was preserved and translated by a team of scholars. It was made public in an English translation by the National Geographic Society.
Text might be hidden 'Gospel of Judas' (CNN story)
Lost Gospel Revealed (at National Geographic site)
If anyone knows of an English translation on-line, please post it.

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Codegate, posted 04-07-2006 11:37 AM pink sasquatch has not replied
 Message 3 by Modulous, posted 04-07-2006 11:40 AM pink sasquatch has not replied
 Message 7 by Faith, posted 04-07-2006 11:59 AM pink sasquatch has not replied
 Message 14 by Omnivorous, posted 04-07-2006 2:05 PM pink sasquatch has not replied
 Message 15 by macaroniandcheese, posted 04-07-2006 2:09 PM pink sasquatch has not replied

  
Codegate
Member (Idle past 818 days)
Posts: 84
From: The Great White North
Joined: 03-15-2006


Message 2 of 25 (301959)
04-07-2006 11:37 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by pink sasquatch
04-07-2006 11:11 AM


I've been looking around for translations as well - the best I've been able to find online is here, which is just a few choice snippets.
The Coptic Ps.Gospel of Judas (Iscariot)
EDIT: I've also found a 'supposed' full translation at the following URL:
http://www9.nationalgeographic.com/...about_coptic_text.html
This message has been edited by Codegate, 04-07-2006 11:40 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by pink sasquatch, posted 04-07-2006 11:11 AM pink sasquatch has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 3 of 25 (301962)
04-07-2006 11:40 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by pink sasquatch
04-07-2006 11:11 AM


Beat me to it
I saw this, but it raised an interesting question in my mind. The chances are that this Gospel will not be added to the canon, but if things turned out differently, we might have been missing one of the four canon Gospels...if we had only found the Gospel of John in the last few decades, would it have found its way into the Holy Bible?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by pink sasquatch, posted 04-07-2006 11:11 AM pink sasquatch has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Codegate, posted 04-07-2006 11:45 AM Modulous has not replied
 Message 5 by Faith, posted 04-07-2006 11:48 AM Modulous has replied

  
Codegate
Member (Idle past 818 days)
Posts: 84
From: The Great White North
Joined: 03-15-2006


Message 4 of 25 (301966)
04-07-2006 11:45 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Modulous
04-07-2006 11:40 AM


Re: Beat me to it
I doubt that any new additions would be made to the current bible - it is too well established to change now. If a new gospel was to be found that reinforced the current gospels it would probably be released as a distinct text, separate from the Bible, but nevertheless, endorsed by the church.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Modulous, posted 04-07-2006 11:40 AM Modulous has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 5 of 25 (301976)
04-07-2006 11:48 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Modulous
04-07-2006 11:40 AM


Re: Beat me to it
There is little reason to doubt that this is just another of the gnostic "gospels," such as the Gospel of Thomas, which were written in opposition to the canonical teachings of the faith, rejected by the early church and condemned by every generation of believers until the canon was established.
This message has been edited by Faith, 04-07-2006 11:49 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Modulous, posted 04-07-2006 11:40 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Modulous, posted 04-07-2006 11:53 AM Faith has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 6 of 25 (301978)
04-07-2006 11:53 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Faith
04-07-2006 11:48 AM


Re: Beat me to it
There is little reason to doubt that this is just another of the gnostic "gospels," such as the Gospel of Thomas, which were written in opposition to the canonical teachings of the faith, rejected by the early church and condemned by every generation of believers until the canon was established.
Yes, as I said, it is unlikely that this will be accepted as canon. The point of my post developed from there though - what if it wasn't as you described. What if the Gospel agreed with the rest of the Gospels, but added some more information for us? What if one of the current Gospels wasn't discovered until recently? Is the tradition and immutability of the Holy Bible a potential weak spot as well as its strength?
I think Codegate put forward what seems to be a plausible sequence of events. In the above case the Church (at least many denominations) may well accept the Gospel, but it would not be added to the Holy Bible, but as supplementary reading material as it were.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Faith, posted 04-07-2006 11:48 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Faith, posted 04-07-2006 12:02 PM Modulous has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 7 of 25 (301980)
04-07-2006 11:59 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by pink sasquatch
04-07-2006 11:11 AM


I suspect it is all written around John 13:27:
And after the sop Satan entered into him. Then said Jesus unto him, That thou doest, do quickly.
This is Jesus talking to Satan rather than to Judas. Satan is certainly God's servant, required to do only what God wills. This does not let Judas off the hook any more than anybody else who does the will of Satan rather than God.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by pink sasquatch, posted 04-07-2006 11:11 AM pink sasquatch has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by DBlevins, posted 04-07-2006 3:35 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 8 of 25 (301982)
04-07-2006 12:02 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Modulous
04-07-2006 11:53 AM


Re: Beat me to it
Anything that supports the canon would be treated with respect, but not included with the inspired writings. At least not by Protestants, who don't accept the Apocrypha as inspired although the Catholics do. Some of the Apocrypha add interesting historical information that is accepted, but some of it also embellishes scripture stories too fantasically to be accepted.
The gnostic gospels, however, oppose the canon, have nothing to do with it.
I think Codegate put forward what seems to be a plausible sequence of events. In the above case the Church (at least many denominations) may well accept the Gospel, but it would not be added to the Holy Bible, but as supplementary reading material as it were.
This would be to treat it like the Apocrypha, but since it teaches something that contradicts scripture it will not be accepted by any orthodox church.
This message has been edited by Faith, 04-07-2006 12:04 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Modulous, posted 04-07-2006 11:53 AM Modulous has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Coragyps, posted 04-07-2006 12:19 PM Faith has not replied

  
veiledvirtue
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 25 (301985)
04-07-2006 12:07 PM


one cant help to wonder if this book came about in the same message as to judas' intentions

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 10 of 25 (301994)
04-07-2006 12:19 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Faith
04-07-2006 12:02 PM


Re: Beat me to it
but some of it also embellishes scripture stories too fantasically to be accepted.
ROFL! Like they're not fantastical enough without.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Faith, posted 04-07-2006 12:02 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by veiledvirtue, posted 04-07-2006 12:33 PM Coragyps has replied

  
veiledvirtue
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 25 (302005)
04-07-2006 12:33 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Coragyps
04-07-2006 12:19 PM


Re: Beat me to it
that has 0% intellectual value with 100% mean spirited aloof intentions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Coragyps, posted 04-07-2006 12:19 PM Coragyps has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Coragyps, posted 04-07-2006 1:22 PM veiledvirtue has not replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 12 of 25 (302028)
04-07-2006 1:22 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by veiledvirtue
04-07-2006 12:33 PM


Re: Beat me to it
You really don't consider talking snakes or donkeys, worldwide floods that leave no evidence, the sun "standing still" or going ten degrees in reverse, or dead folks coming back to life "fantastical?" You likely would apply that adjective to no-more-ridiculous stories in the Apocrypha, the Odyssey, or the Prose Eddas. Why is that?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by veiledvirtue, posted 04-07-2006 12:33 PM veiledvirtue has not replied

  
Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 13 of 25 (302029)
04-07-2006 1:27 PM


People, focus on the topic's theme
The topic and theme is "The Gospel of Judas".
Adminnemooseus

  
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3978
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 14 of 25 (302042)
04-07-2006 2:05 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by pink sasquatch
04-07-2006 11:11 AM


Why then and not now?
That is interesting, ps.
If I understand correctly, the mainstream idea of orthodox churches is that God shepherded the Bible into its current form: its books were not written all at once, nor compiled at one go, and some pieces were added and then removed.
Why has that process ended? Was there some revelation of "C'est Finis!"?
It took centuries to produce the Bible in its present form(s)--why is it considered finished now? Who first said it was? From the Protestant point of view, I guess we can assume it was not the Catholic Church that declared it finished, since Protestants dropped the Apocrypha, etc.. Was it King James? Luther?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by pink sasquatch, posted 04-07-2006 11:11 AM pink sasquatch has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Faith, posted 04-07-2006 2:44 PM Omnivorous has not replied

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3928 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 15 of 25 (302043)
04-07-2006 2:09 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by pink sasquatch
04-07-2006 11:11 AM


i really don't understand what all the fuss is about. this book is supposed to portray judas as jesus' assigned helper. i don't really understand where the crazy christian idea of judas as a traitor came from. i think it's idiotic. there's all these people who allegedly believe that jesus was the son of god and he was supposed to come and die but they don't want to give any respect to the guy who was assigned to assist in this? morons.
i've always liked judas; just like i've always liked thomas. fundies are so inconsistent.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by pink sasquatch, posted 04-07-2006 11:11 AM pink sasquatch has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024