Text might be hidden 'Gospel of Judas'

[Xameil]

OK, first let me set you straight. I am a Christian, Episcopal since birth. Now, the bible may have been inspired by God, nut it was commissned by an Emporer that had his own agenda. I think that the Bible is a living document, and new things are discovered all the time. To think that there are not things missing, or mis-interpreted is laughable. This is why right now, I have a problem with alot of the organized religion out there right now (including how I was raised). I have seen too much corruption in ALL the religions, too much personal agenda. That's not to say that every priest or minister is like that, just the ones who get publisized, and the ones I have had to deal with.

I also, do much research before I actually make a claim, I google and read several articles before I state anything. If I don't know something, I ask on here, so I can get a response from both sides. The problem I have os the articles the ultra-religious provide are from people who have things to lose if they are proven wrong. I try and read the ones from Theologists who have nothing to gain either way. If I do come across one that seems they do, I try and find an article or articles that support and/or refute there conclussions.

edit - Just so you know, I am not, and will never try and change one of the ultra-religious' minds, someone who is steadfast in their faith shouldn't ever waiver. I do however debate these things, because I am looking for someone, anyone to try and give me an actual, supporting fact, or document that is not written by a partisan person who's only goal is push their agenda, and keep their money-making machine rolling.

[Zguy28]

Sorry to get into this so late, but I've been preoccupied.

This "Gospel of Judas" is nothing but another case of Gnosticism, which believes in hidden knowledge, and was an early enemy of the real church. Research it if you like. I have.

As far as the Bibles authenticity, well heres an idea, ever think that since God's omnipotent hand guides men, that He kept what was true in the canon, and not what was false? I mean, we could accept the "Acts of Paul" and believe that a lion talked to Paul and was baptized and saved. Absurd isn't it?

By the year 150 all of our present twenty-seven New Testament books were being used by the churches. However, other books were also being used. The reason why the New Testament canon began to move toward official closure about this time was due to a heretic by the name of Marcion. He issued a list of sacred writings which he considered authoritative, but he omitted the entire Old Testament and much of the New Testament. Church leaders began to take steps toward a more official recognition of which books should comprise the New Testament. What were the standards used in the decision on which books to include in the New Testament? There were at least three: (1) tradition. Has the writing proved itself by a long history of use in the churches;(2) value and doctrinal consistency. Does it strengthen the faith of believers and equip them for Christian living; and (3) apostolicity. Was it written by an apostle or a close coworker of the apostles? God determined the New Testament canon, but the church recognized the New Testament canon. Inspiration preceeded recognition. The canon was formed by the common consent of the Christian community, not by some formal human authority. A couple of centuries later,

official agreement was reached concerning our present twenty-seven New Testament books. In A.D. 367 these books were officially mentioned as being used among all the churches of that time. In A.D. 397 an early church council approved the list. Informally, however, the question of the New Testament canon had been settled for most of the church since the mid-second century.

[Xameil]

But you see, my whole problem right now, is the things that have been deemed heresy were done so by a group of people that had their own agenda. This is where you loose me. It's no secret who commissioned the Bible, and it's no secret he wasn't the best Christian in the world.

[techboy]

OK, first let me set you straight...

I'm making myself into a liar (hardly the best witness), but I felt compelled to say one more thing, because I'm afraid I offended you, judging by the tone, and that was certainly not my intention. I never intended to question your faith, your honesty, or your previous research. If it felt like I was doing so, I apologize. Perhaps I was too blunt. I always advise my students that if they have to preface a comment with "I don't want to be (blank), but...", then they shouldn't say it because whatever it is is probably (blank). I should have followed my own advice when I prefaced my comment about my bluntness.

And, since I'm already writing this, I'll just add one more thing. I submit to you that what you seek, regarding an unbiased source, is logically impossible. It's an argument I hear all the time, of course. "Give me a convincing argument for the validity of the Scriptures from a non-Christian source".

On the surface, this makes sense, but if you think about it, anyone intelligent enough to be a valid source, if he or she has a convincing argument for the validity of the Scriptures, is going to become a Christian! And, in fact, it has happened more than once (for example, Josh McDowell was an atheist who set out to disprove the Bible and ended up becoming a Christian. Lee Strobel, who wrote The Case for Christ, is another such case).

So, I'm afraid, except on very general issues, we basically have two camps of scholars: non-Christians who don't think the Scriptures are reliable, and Christians that do.

Further complicating this is that most people choose their career for a reason. Thus, most Biblical Scholars are going to either be Christians/Jews, or people who have some reason to want to disprove same (I can't prove this, but I suspect it's true).

Finally, people don't like to waste their time. Thus, almost all the arguments you read are going to motivated by a desire to either prove or disprove the Scriptures. As such, it will be rare to find a truly unbiased, uninterested party, because why would such a person waste his time arguing about something he doesn't care about? (I will also admit that this gives the Christian a distinct advantage in these kind of discussions, because we are motivated, and our "opponents" are generally not.)

Now, I really should be grading papers. I'm quite certain the debate will carry on without me. I just felt the need to apologize.

[Xameil]

I'm making myself into a liar (hardly the best witness), but I felt compelled to say one more thing, because I'm afraid I offended you,

Well, thank you for the apology, but I really wasn't that offended, and it's a shame if you are "bowing" out of the debate, you've provided probably some of the most logical, and backed-up "rebuttals" that I have heard. Unfortunately, there are very few papers that are unbiased, that's why you have to read them all, and try and read between the lines of what the author is stating, and just take their findings, and compare them to others that are on the opposite side.

I'm one of the hopefully up and coming type of scientists who can see both sides, and not be blinded by science, and try and discredit every thing the bible teaches. For example, the new theory that ice was the reason Jesus was able to walk on water. Now, even if this was the case, how come the ice was deep enough in one area where he was walking and not in the others?

Just so you all know, I question validity of both sides.

[Taylor 36]

Somewhere, Mel Gibson is very angry.

Why would you say that??? Mel Gibson told the story the way it is put forth in the New Testament. He was not in any way trying to be antisematic. (Are directors and writers of WWII movies trying to make ALL Germans out to be bad people because of the NAZI movement???) Why would it make him angry that this new "Gospel," which, by the way, has not been proven to actually be the Gospel of Judas, adds more information and understanding to the time period and the actions of Jesus and his apostles???

I think that this is fascinating, but like many other parts of the testiments, we may never know in this life the entire, true story.

[skinfan133]

There's no need for any "new" books of the Bible to do that. The original does that quite well on it's own thank you very much.

could you give some examples?

[Xameil]

I think that this is fascinating, but like many other parts of the testiments, we may never know in this life the entire, true story.

Couldn't agree with you more. There are many Gospels out there, and we'll never actually know due to bias, agendas, and missing pieces to documents.

[chomerics]

I'm not sure exactly what you're saying. I mean sure, he lived life "as a man," meaning he experienced everything that men experience inherently by being men(which means I disagree with ZoEd, that Christ had no fleshly desires). But he definitely had great restraint of his fleshly(you know, with a major theme of the religion being to deny the flesh) desires. Otherwise it messes up the perfect sacrificial lamb thing.

PRECISELY!!!! Why do you think only four of the Gospels were put in the NT? Because they diefy Christ, and remove all semblance of him being a man. Why has the Pope denounced the Gnostics and the scrolls at Nag Mammandi? Because they shed light that Jesus was actually a mortal man that had a MUCH deeper relationship with Mary Magdelane. Don't think for a minute when the Council of Nicea was meeting this wasn't discussed. They needed to diefy Christ in order to use their religion for political gain. . .and it worked!!!

I would suggest everyone research the scrolls found at Nag Hammandi and read what was in them, because they shed major light into the Jesus and Mary relationship. They also explain how Peter was VERY jealous of mary, and actually confronted Jesus about his love for her above the love for the other Apostles.

For me, I completely think this is a true story of Judas, and again the council wanted to pass off Judas as the "evil one" because it promoted their cause against the Jews, and gave them a simple explination as to why they were not a worthy religion. . . I mean after all, they were the ones who gave Christ up to Pilot right?

[ZoEd]

As a Christian (surprise!) this statement makes me nervous. Christianity is a religion of absolute Truth (yes, I capitalized it!), and has no place for relativism. When Jesus says He is the only way to the Father, He isn't equivocating or making any kind of relativistic statement. Even if we, as humans, can't know the truth of every issue with 100% certainty now, it doesn't mean that there isn't a Truth (I did it again!). Of course, that probably isn't what you meant to imply, and I'm probably overreacting.

You are absolutely 100% correct about it being TRUTH. What is the truth? If scripture is open to interpretation, who's right and who's wrong? Your right about the KJ version of the bible being a translation. That being said, we all know that there are several different meanings to a single word which can greatly change the meaning of scripture if taken into account. The Bible is the TRUTH. My problem is with religions that take liberty with the TRUTH to support their secular beliefs. That's why I said the only religion I believe in is the Bible.

[ZoEd]

PRECISELY!!!! Why do you think only four of the Gospels were put in the NT? Because they diefy Christ, and remove all semblance of him being a man. Why has the Pope denounced the Gnostics and the scrolls at Nag Mammandi? Because they shed light that Jesus was actually a mortal man that had a MUCH deeper relationship with Mary Magdelane. Don't think for a minute when the Council of Nicea was meeting this wasn't discussed. They needed to diefy Christ in order to use their religion for political gain. . .and it worked!!!

I would suggest everyone research the scrolls found at Nag Hammandi and read what was in them, because they shed major light into the Jesus and Mary relationship. They also explain how Peter was VERY jealous of mary, and actually confronted Jesus about his love for her above the love for the other Apostles.

For me, I completely think this is a true story of Judas, and again the council wanted to pass off Judas as the "evil one" because it promoted their cause against the Jews, and gave them a simple explination as to why they were not a worthy religion. . . I mean after all, they were the ones who gave Christ up to Pilot right?

The bible says to love your wife the way Jesus loves the church. Jesus' only love was for the church. Jesus had no need to indulge in such pleasures. He was a man but to imply that he was a normal man that needed to indulge in such things is crazy.

[70th Week]

I cant believe it took 6 pages of threads for chom to come in and say he believes this "new" account of judas. :doh:

[monkey66]

I was thinking about posting this myself yesterday...

I am an assitant editor at National Geographic TV & Film, and I worked on the two hour television special that will air this Sunday.

Everyone that worked on the project had to sign an NDA, etc. So it pretty damn exciting to see all the press this is getting now...

Interesting side story, we origianally sold the show to a major television network. At the last minute they backed out and decided not to air the show becuase of the feared backlash. That is why we are now airing the show ourselves.

I encourage everyone who is interested to watch this Sunday, it really is a good show (shameless plug)...

[ZoEd]

Nice series of posts, techboy. Thanks for coming out of the "lurker's realm" to share with us. Please don't be a stranger.

I agree, imput such as your's is needed and most definitely welcome. :applause:

[prophet]

people are so predictable :doh:

[Xameil]

I was thinking about posting this myself yesterday...

I am an assitant editor at National Geographic TV & Film, and I worked on the two hour television special that will air this Sunday.

Everyone that worked on the project had to sign an NDA, etc. So it pretty damn exciting to see all the press this is getting now...

Interesting side story, we origianally sold the show to a major television network. At the last minute they backed out and decided not to air the show becuase of the feared backlash. That is why we are now airing the show ourselves.

I encourage everyone who is interested to watch this Sunday, it really is a good show (shameless plug)...

OK, tell me, since maybe you have a bit on insight (and yes I plan on watching the show I saw it advertised yesterday), what is the bias of any of the experts you guys used? what gain do they have?

[Xameil]

people are so predictable :doh:

:laugh: oh please elaborate.

[70th Week]

Revelation

22:18: For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

22:19: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

I am sure this is all I need to know. :2cents:

[Xameil]

Can someone tell me who the author of Revelations is?

For some reason when I was growing up in Sunday school, they never wanted to teach anything from it. Can someone tell me why? I'm formulating my own opinion from research, but I need more.

[SKINS/HOOS]

Can someone tell me who the author of Revelations is?

For some reason when I was growing up in Sunday school, they never wanted to teach anything from it. Can someone tell me why? I'm formulating my own opinion from research, but I need more.

John is the author of Revelation's. It's contents were revealed to him late in his life.

[70th Week]

Can someone tell me who the author of Revelations is?

For some reason when I was growing up in Sunday school, they never wanted to teach anything from it. Can someone tell me why? I'm formulating my own opinion from research, but I need more.

When John the divine or some call him John the revelator was exiled on the isle of Patmos God revealed this to him in a vision and told him to write it down.

[Xameil]

When John the divine or some call him John the revelator was exiled on the isle of Patmos God revealed this to him in a vision and told him to write it down.

Now is he the same as John the Baptist?

[Johnny Punani2]

PRECISELY!!!! Why do you think only four of the Gospels were put in the NT? Because they diefy Christ, and remove all semblance of him being a man. Why has the Pope denounced the Gnostics and the scrolls at Nag Mammandi? Because they shed light that Jesus was actually a mortal man that had a MUCH deeper relationship with Mary Magdelane. Don't think for a minute when the Council of Nicea was meeting this wasn't discussed. They needed to diefy Christ in order to use their religion for political gain. . .and it worked!!!

I would suggest everyone research the scrolls found at Nag Hammandi and read what was in them, because they shed major light into the Jesus and Mary relationship. They also explain how Peter was VERY jealous of mary, and actually confronted Jesus about his love for her above the love for the other Apostles.

For me, I completely think this is a true story of Judas, and again the council wanted to pass off Judas as the "evil one" because it promoted their cause against the Jews, and gave them a simple explination as to why they were not a worthy religion. . . I mean after all, they were the ones who gave Christ up to Pilot right?

I find it ironic that someone who thinks believing in something without proof is foolish is willing to buy this text lock, stock, and barrel. Nobody even knows who wrote this.

[70th Week]

Now is he the same as John the Baptist?

no,John the Baptist died earlier in prison I think?

[SKINS/HOOS]

Now is he the same as John the Baptist?

No, this was the Apostle John. John the Baptist was beheaded, if I remember correctly before Jesus was crucified.