'Gospel of Judas' Surfaces After 1,700 Years (Jesus asked to be betrayed)

[RamboLiberal]

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/06/science/06cnd-judas.html?hp&ex=1144382400&en=d58e9f87384d906d&ei=5094&partner=homepage

An early Christian manuscript, including the only known text of what is known as the Gospel of Judas, has surfaced after 1,700 years. The text gives new insights into the relationship of Jesus and the disciple who betrayed him, scholars reported today. In this version, Jesus asked Judas, as a close friend, to sell him out to the authorities, telling Judas he will "exceed" the other disciples by doing so.

Though some theologians have hypothesized this, scholars who have studied the new-found text said, this is the first time an ancient document defends the idea.

The discovery in the desert of Egypt of the leather-bound papyrus manuscript, and now its translation, was announced by the National Geographic Society at a news conference in Washington. The 26-page Judas text is said to be a copy in Coptic, made around A. D. 300, of the original Gospel of Judas, written in Greek the century before.

Terry Garcia, an executive vice president of the geographic society, said the manuscript, or codex, is considered by scholars and scientists to be the most significant ancient, nonbiblical text to be found in the past 60 years.

[AngryAmish]

1. This is really cool

I am wondering how they authenticated the text. That said, this is another gnostic book.

[okieinpain]

2. oh boy, the fundies are going to go nuts. first jesus on ice, now it's

all a big suicide drive-by. next thing you know they will find jesus diary saying he's setting himself up to be gods son........

[Teaser]

8. There are dozens of gospels claiming weird stuff.

including texts that claims Christ used miracles to show up other kids as a child.

Why should this particular find upset any believers? What sets it apart from the other nonstandard gospels that a traditional Christian should take it seriously?

It seems likely to me, given that the use of coptic, that this was a Gnostic text as well, which had a significant motivation to undermine the traditional Christian account of the passion of Christ. Also, as the Gnostics tended toward anti-nomianism, placing the villain of the other Gospels as this gospels hero seems apropos, does it not?

[AngryAmish]

14. My favorite one was when Jesus would kill his playmates.

[Javaman]

53. My favorite one is talking about Jesus and his soccer team and...

how they kicked the crap out of the greeks in double overtime. Early on, Jesus was carded for unsportsmanlike conduct. Had to be a hell of a game.

[hedgehog]

15. I'm not certain any of the Gospels talk about Jesus' childhood

I think those stories come out of medieval traditions and mystics such as Sister Emmerich (Noted as the source for some of the more gory details in Mel Gibson' Passion).

[Teaser]

19. The Infancy Gospels of James and Thomas

Infancy Gospel of Thomas and the Infancy Gospel of James were written around 170 AD (CE).

There is an entire class of Infancy Gospels alleging all sorts of weird stuff.

[hedgehog]

59. "Weird stuff" may explain why these gospels didn't make it into the

Christian scriptures. That and the frequent promises of secret information.

[roguevalley]

69. in those, Jesus was a brat and killed a kid. then he changed. I

find all this terrific. I also find the Pagan Jesus, the Jesus Mysteries and other books exploring the pagan-christian linkage and the whole gnostic suppressed tradition fascinating and necessary to the fullness of Christian belief.

[Teaser]

108. I'm not a big believer in "pagan" influences on Christianity

It is very much a near eastern religion. If by pagan we mean the polytheistic traditions of the west. The whole "Odin hanging himself on a tree is the source for the idea of the Crucifixion" doesn't wash with me. The motives at work are too different.

Now I can certainly see lot's of neoplatonism in Christianity. The entire doctrine of the trinity falls out of neoplatonic emanationist doctrine.

[roguevalley]

112. read these books, then consider their content. it will boggle you

The Jesus Mysteries
The Pagan Christ

The authors of the Jesus Mysteries have another about Jesus and the Lost Goddess. I think that is the precise title. Hopefully.

RV

[MaryBear]

167. It really does not matter whether one believes in influences or not.

One always deals with influences, aka the social environment -- and Christianity is no different than any other faith tradition in that it exists within an environment over time, and influences and is influenced by that/those environment(s).

[FlaGranny]

172. The entire Bible is full of

"weird" stuff. A bunch of church men got together and decided which weird stuff they would keep and which weird stuff they would exclude. There really is no justification, one way or the other, as to which they kept, except for their own opinion of the texts. The excluded texts seem no more suspect than the rest, except that they say things about Jesus that these men didn't like. They didn't like powerful women, so Mary Magdalen was marginalized; they didn't like that Jesus may have been a naughty child, so no mention of his childhood, etc.

[Peace Patriot]

106. Well, Teaser, I think you have things a bit backwards. The Gnostics were

the earliest and most Christ-like of the Christians--they were communal and egalitarian (like Jesus); they did not believe in Original Sin (something Jesus never said a word about) nor infant baptism (that babies are SINFUL!); they believed in both God the Father AND God the Mother; they respected individual conscience and an independent relationship with the spiritual forces of the universe; they were not hostile to Pagans and Jews or any other cultural/ethnic/religious groups. They were the most learned people in the 1st-5th centuries.

They were relentlessly persecuted by the power-mongering "patriarchs" of the 5th century AD, who burned their Gospels (that's why some parts of them ended up sealed into jars in Egypt), drove them from the Church, anathematized them and all the other GLORIOUS VARIETY of FREE THINKING CHRISTIANS in the early Christian movement, and started on the long, horrible road of witch-burnings, pogroms, inquisitions and the utter misery of state-enforced religion, cemented at the Council of Chalcedon in 451 AD, between the unmitigated bad guys of the Church and the 'Holy Roman Emperor.'

It was these jerks who created and EDITED the narrow, highly selective group of "Synoptic" Gospels--some of much later vintage than the Gnostic Gospels. One of the Gnostic Gospels (in the Nag Hammadi collection), for instance--the Gospel of Mary, in which MARY MAGDALENE and NOT "Saint" Peter, is the acknowledged leader of the Apostles--pre-dates all the other gospels. It the earliest known Jesus gospel. (See "The Gnostic Gospels," by Elaine Pagels.)

These were the same people who burned the Alexandria Library, and killed its last great philosopher and scientist, Hypatia, by skinning her alive! Read up on the Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon*, where the man who ordered Hypatia's murder is a major player--later to be known as "Saint"--Cyril of Alexandria.

Just imagine that you were on another planet, two thousand years from now, and all you had before you of the history of the early 21st century in a place called the United States, was Faux News broadcasts. What kind of vastly distorted picture would you be getting?

That's who created the "orthodox" Gospels--the Faux News propagandists of the 5th century. And they burned all the others. Or tried to.

--------

*(And here's an interesting fact: Chalcedon? Where have we heard that name recently? Rightwing billionaire Howard Ahmanson, the one who initially funded the ES&S election theft corporation (spinoff of Diebold), also gave one million dollars to an outfit called the "Chalcedon Foundation," which, among other things, touts the death penalty for homosexuals. Chalcedon, 451 AD, was where the Church and the violent power of the state were firmly wedded together, and where one, narrow form of Christianity was endorsed, and all other ideas were banned, anathematized and slated for persecution. That's where it happened. That's where the Church veered off from the simple, loving, generous, enlightened ideas of its Founder, into greed, murder and worldly power--starting with the destruction of the best, most loving, most Christ-like Christians of that era, and the destruction of all their books.)

[CreekDog]

116. Gnostic Christian is an oxymoron.

Gnostics took the saving power of God out of the Gospel, making it into a weird instruction manual.

"Salvation for Smarties"

Not through knowledge but through Jesus who took the burden of salvation on for all people, based on his death and resurrection.

For Gnostics the key is knowledge (a common variant in Gnosticism).

In Christianity, the key is Christ's life, death and resurrection. What is your role? You are the recipient, apart from anything you do, believe it.

In Gnostic belief, the key is our behavior, our thinking, our knowledge our ability to follow an example. And the earthly Christ is limited to an example to follow rather than the divine.

As for original sin, those of you who don't believe babies sin have never met a 3 year old. Also, there's that bible passage that says all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.

[DIKB]

123. I disagree

When you say that babies sin, and that a 3 year old's actions constitute proof of their sinful nature. They do so no more than a puppy, or an excited dog.

Their awareness is limited to that of oneself. The concept of consequence and of impact on the community are beyond the child's reasoning. As the child grows it starts to become aware of IMMEDIATE impact, grasping the concept of "No" FAR earlier than it does of the ramifications of it's actions. Note that I consider "Sin" to be an abstract impact on the infinitely sensitive "super-being in the sky." Since a child learns from action vs. reaction, the feelings, emotions, etc. of the guardians are the first guide of development.

Until you indoctrinate (brainwash) the child into feeling guilty for offending an all-powerful, invisible, non-intervening being. That child is learning and adapting to society, and developing it's own set of ethics. That is, before you overwrite said ethics with a set of "biblical morals."

A baby is neither good nor evil, though capable of becoming either. A baby's guardians are responsible for it's immediate development, though I would gladly accept help from your "god" anytime he/she wished to come down and help out in the rearing of said baby, I would think omnipotence/omniscience would make the task much easier. I won't hold my breath, though.

[CreekDog]

128. Bible: conceived in sin

I won't win any popularity contests saying that babies are sinful, but if you are using the bible as your standard, it says that all are sinful. Everybody --not everybody except 3 year olds, or people who sin with malice.

Besides, how come nobody has ever been free from sin and been perfect if we truly have free will?

The free will argument is suspect, since nobody, apart from Christ, who is perfect according to the biblical teaching about, but he was also God and not like us.

Also, the virgin birth was necessary because we are conceived in sin.

[kestrel91316]

150. "We", eh? You got a mouse in your pocket?

[Critters2]

190. What are you talking about?!

I baptize babies, but for none of the reasons you accuse Christians of. Have you ever even MET a Christian?! We baptize babies to include them in the community, just as Jews circumcise. Not because they are sinful, but because they are loved by God. Period.

Please, don't misrepresent the Christian faith. It makes you look silly.

Critters, M.Div, D.Min

[DIKB]

193. Excuse me?

I think you meant to respond to the person above me, at least I truly hope so.

I made NO MENTION of babies being sinful, or needing to be baptized. The previous post DID. I was arguing against the ideas of sinful infants.

I also made no mention of the "christian" faith, as much as an assessment of the belief in/acquiescence to a mono-theistic god.

Oh yeah, one problem I have with your post: "I baptize babies, but for none of the reasons you accuse Christians of. Have you ever even MET a Christian?!"

By this statement you infer that ALL christians adhere to the same beliefs/principles/precepts/actions. Given the varying THOUSANDS of sects of christianity, ANY assumption/absolute statement made on even ONE single issue will cause you to lambasted by the varying sects that disagree.

I've met sects of xtianity that believe in "Faith based confessions." They believe what you say BECOMES true b/c of your belief in god. Therefore no one is ever said to be "sick," they are "getting better."

How about others who believe in "baptism of the spirit"? Given to you by speaking gibberish, oops, I mean in "tongues"

Or other sects that baptize ONLY adults?

Or sects that believe "once saved, always saved"?

Do you believe these? If not, according to them, you are not a real christian, nor have you likely ever met one.

Now who looks silly ?

[Roaming]

131. Great reply; you explained Gnosticism perfectly./nt

[dipsydoodle]

174. Microsoft Works

is a better oxymoron. Aside from that I'm not sure you can equate modern day gnostics to the original bunch.

[The Traveler]

197. You read, but do not understand

"Knowledge" might be better translated to "experience", in this context, experience of god. Experience requires work, and as Jesus tells us, "Faith without works is dead." It is through Jesus we are saved, but to access that salvation we must emulate his way, the work He has given us. Things like loving your neighbor, caring for the poor, judging not, etc.

It's all in Matthew. Today's Christian fundamentalists are the descendents of the Pharisees. Come, run, for Jesus is in the Temple, and it is full of money changers.

[truth2power]

158. Thanks, PP. I value your expertise in this area. n/t

[mainegreen]

178. Ahhhh, the pink laser! It eats my brain!

Note: My subject is for those who've read the last 3-4 novels of Phillip K Dick.

[Megahurtz]

183. Gee, sounds exacly like today's Right-WingNut-Fundamentalists:

"They were relentlessly persecuted by the power-mongering "patriarchs" of the 5th century AD, who burned their Gospels (that's why some parts of them ended up sealed into jars in Egypt), drove them from the Church, anathematized them and all the other GLORIOUS VARIETY of FREE THINKING CHRISTIANS in the early Christian movement, and started on the long, horrible road of witch-burnings, pogroms, inquisitions and the utter misery of state-enforced religion, cemented at the Council of Chalcedon in 451 AD, between the unmitigated bad guys of the Church and the 'Holy Roman Emperor.'"

I think that we're now experiencing an age of 5th Century A.D. Retro-Religion:crazy:

[DoYouEverWonder]

110. Would you like to site the passage you are referring to?

I admit the gnostic gospels can get pretty weird, but I've never read anything that makes such a claim.

[orleans]

199. huh??? n/t

[greyl]

11. The "Judas was on an assignment" view has been around for awhile

I first heard it mentioned by Joseph Campbell. No friend of fundies, he.

[TechBear_Seattle]

22. It stretches back to the Middle Ages, at least

The idea that Jesus told Judas to betray him is found in the 13th century and was discussed by theologians in the early Scholastic movement. I believe Thomas Aquinas addresses this belief, and rejects it soundly, in the Summa Theologica. Also, some groups of Cathars were accused of honoring Judas as a saint, according to records from the Inquisition.

[coalition_unwilling]

64. I remember in "The Last Temptation of Christ" that it has at least

a minor role, i.e., Jesus asks Judas to betray him. Of course, that film was on all the fundies' shit lists, even though I watched it again recently and was blown away by it all over again.

[SheWhoMustBeObeyed]

122. In the book it's a very strong theme

I love that book, it's so beautifully written. Great to read around Eastertime.

The first time I read it, I was a 12-year-old Catholic girl and it blew my mind, too, to consider the idea of a reluctant savior and his complicit betrayer. :thumbsup:

[Tesha]

68. It's also a central theme in "Jesus Christ Superstar". (NT)

[AngryAmish]

12. Not really

There are different sects of Christianity and they think different things. Some believe in the rapture and some don't. Some adore mary and others think this is idolatry. This is just another apocryphal (sp?) book of the bible. There have been many out there for a long time and it really does not shake the faith of most Christians. The bible as we know it was decided at the Council of Nicea (I think) shortly after the Church was adopted by the Roman Empire. Mainline Catholicism think the apocryphal books can either inform the faith or are dangerous heretical text. From the article it seems the Book of judas was one of the dangerous books that had to be suppressed for the good of the Christian people (because it could cause grave error and lead people into hell).

[rkc3]

61. You are right, Bible was developed out of the Council of Nicea.

Also, they didn't want to include Revelations in the initial version - they were concerned people would read too much into the text and do crazy things.

That has always amused me - people who weren't too far removed from thinking the sun was pulled around the heavens behind a chariot knew these books would cause trouble down the road.

[TrogL]

78. the book "the Da Vinci Code" mentions this

Much as I dislike the book for other reasons, it has a fairly accurate description of Constantine's effect on Christianity and the selection criteria for the canon.

[katty]

103. yes, and quite a few other books/articles of same/similar subject

[Peace Patriot]

109. And you are not suspicious of this cementing of religion with the power

of the state?

I think you have to consider what happened AFTER this cementing occurred, as well as during: The smashing of all the Goddess statues and sacred places of the Pagans AND the Gnostics; the confiscation of the property of Jews, Pagans, Gnostics and all who were not "orthodox"; the banning from high office of all who wouldn't go along with this crap; the death of Hypatia and the burning of the Alexandria Library (center of learning in the ancient world); baptism by the sword; the dumbing down of the underclasses; serfdom; a thousand years of darkness; incinerating millions of women and dissenters at the stake; pogroms; inquisitions; the caging of the human spirit.

That's what the Council of Nicea did--followed soon by the Councils of Ephesus (bishops slaying bishops over religious doctrine) and Chalcedon (anathematizing of everybody but the most violent powermongers, who won).

The TRUE history of the Church has never been, and will never be, a "threat" to anyone's true faith in the true Christian religion. It is ONLY a threat to "faith" in religious powermongers.

"Grave error," indeed. The "grave error" was committed by the Popes and Bishops, one after another, in their promotion of bloody crusades and wars and inquisitions and witchburnings and pogroms in the name of gentle Jesus. Their creation of "orthodox" gospels--and their burning of everything else--was the Karl Rove part of the project of co-opting and stealing the spiritual life of the people, who got along just fine, in their worship of nature and of God, without Popes and Emperors telling them what to think, and torturing and killing them if they didn't think it!

[happyslug]

147. Good Stretch, Repression of Paganism did not occur till Justinian

The relationship between the Christian Roman Empire and its Pagan Citizens was complex. First During the Time of Constantine (Ruled 306-337), Constantine wanted to complete Diocletian's (Ruled 284-305 AD) reform of the Currency. Nero (Ruled 54-68 AD) was the first Emperor to debase the Currency, it was next done by Trajan (Ruled 98-117 AD) and than almost every Emperor afterward. Septimius Severus (193-211 A.D.) attacked the Parthian Empire sacking the cities of Seleucia, Babylon and Ctesiphon (Ctesiphon was the Capital of the Parthian Empire) in 187 AD. Out of proceeds Severus increased the wages of his Troops and brought some stability to the Roman Currency, but his Successors renewed the policy of debasing the Currency (And caused the Parthians to lose control of Persia to a Native Persian Prince who brought with him a Serious threat to the Roman Empire that the Parthians had never been). This change in circumstances almost cause the Empire to Collapse during the period from 250-284 AD. Finally Diocletian came to Power and established the Situation, but he needed a stable currency to do so. Diocletian never was able to find the GOld and Silver to replace the debased coins in Circulation. Constantine found a way, he had the Christians take over various Temples and tear out the Gold and Silver Idols, which were melted down and made into Roman Coins (The Late Roman Gold Solidus at 72 to the Roman pound). This was NOT debased for over 800 years (and even then quickly restored to value till the Fourth Crusade took Constantinople in 1204 AD).

Thus the conversion of most of the Ancient temples to Christian Churches was Constantine's way of getting the necessary Gold to stabilize the Currency. Even the Pantheon in Athens was Converted (and there is Strong Evidence that the Pantheon was NOT a Temple but the Athenian Treasury, No evidence of any Pagan Alter has ever been found in the Pantheon). On the other hand Temples with little or no Gold were NOT converted until the last years of the Theodosius I (379-395 A.D.). An example of this is the Oracle at Delphi, the Oracle lived in a Cave, all the Gold was in the nearby town so it was NOT closed till 393 AD. In 391 AD Theodosius I (379-395 A.D.) had been excommunicated by the Bishop of Milan for killing several thousand innocent people in retaliation for the murder of one of his Generals. After he did his penance Theodosius started to further to destroy Temples BUT only upon Petition of a group of Christians Theodosius did not go looking for Temples to destroy.

As to the Pagan Region itself, it seems to have survived till at least the time of Justinian (527-565 A.D.). In his early years he forbade Pagans to be on the Civil list (i.e. could not be a Government Worker) and baned Sacrifices to the Ancient gods and even required all pagan teachers to either convert or be exiled (Through there is evidence that as part of the treaty with the Persians Zoroaster's he agree to leave the Pagan teachers of the Neoplatonic Academy in Athens to practice their own religion but NOT to teach it).

Thus from Constantine's Adoption of Christianity (312 AD) to the final laws banning Paganism (c 527 AD) you had over 200 years where both religions existed side by side (With Christianity with the upper hand).

As to the burning of the Great Library of Alexandria, see
http://www.bede.org.uk/library.htm
Which covers the various "burnings" of the Library and brings into question whether the library ever existed AS IT IS CONCEIVED OF TODAY (A small library maybe as either part of the Palace or a later Temple but NOT as a stand alone Library and NOT as big as most people think it was).


List of Roman Emperors:
http://www.roman-emperors.org/impindex.htm

More on Roman Coins:
http://www.byzantinecoins.com/
http://www.chicagocoinclub.org/projects/PiN/rc.html
ttp://www.virginia.edu/artmuseum/VirtualExhibitions/Coins/hoard_analysis.html
http://grupos.xasa.us/wiki/en/wikipedia/r/ro/roman_currency.html
http://www.coinsofromanegypt.org/html/library/NFA/NFA_91_sale.htm

Delphi:
http://www.sikyon.com/Delphi/history_eg.html
http://www.mlahanas.de/Greeks/Oracle.htm
http://www.greecetaxi.gr/index/article1.html
http://iam.classics.unc.edu/loci/16/16_hist.html

Other comments on Lost books:
http://www.bede.org.uk/literature.htm

[AngryAmish]

170. Religion and power of the state has always existed

For example the head of the Church of England is...Queen Elizabeth. (She's also the head of state of Canada, but that is a different matter.) Pharaoh was the leader of Egypt, etc.

Christianity is not the only faith guilty of terrible things.

I think paganism is romanticized to a great extent. It is easy to think the world was wonderful "before" the bad christians came along (it sounds like the Garden of Eden before the fall -- to the extent that they are both mythologizing a past where all was well.)

[dchill]

99. The fundies should love it...

after all, if true, it's strong evidence that J.C. was one of the first Republican operatives.

[WePurrsevere]

17. I'm looking forward to reading this new one. It sounds like it confirms...

what I felt many years ago about Judas.

What's rather "funny" is that just a couple of days ago I started re-reading (and more in depth) the Gnostic teachings HERE. I had read some of them many years ago in paperback form but in Googling something else I ran across that site and have found drawn to read them over again... although I think I'll need to find them in paperback again... it's more enjoyable to curl up in a comfy chair or bed and read. B-)

[displacedtexan]

3. They found The Passover Plot?

Did you read that book? It made a lot of sense to me.

[TechBear_Seattle]

26. Somewhat different plots

"The Passover Plot" was about faking the resurrection, if memory serves. That is different from the doctrine that Judas was ordered by Jesus to betray him to a real death and resurrection.

[displacedtexan]

62. It was also about being martyred.

Schonfield reached the following conclusions:

* That Jesus was a deeply religious Jewish man, probably well-versed in the teachings of the local northern sects such as the Nazarenes and Essenes.
* That growing up in Biblical Galilee he had a skeptical and somewhat rebellious relationship to the hierarchy and teachings mandated by the authorities (the Pharisees) of the Temple in Jerusalem.
* That Jewish Messianic expectation was extremely high in those times, matched to the despair caused by the Roman occupation of the land, and by their subjugation of the Jews.
* That he was in many ways both typical of his times, and yet extraordinary in his religious convictions and beliefs, in his scholarship of the Biblical literature, and in the fervancy in which he lived his religion out in his daily life.
* That he was convinced of his role as the expected Messiah based on the authority of his having been descendant from King David (the royal bloodline of David), and that he consciously and methodically, to the point of being calculating, attempted to fulfill that role, being imminently versed in the details of what that role entailed.
* That he was convinced of the importance of his fulfilling the role perfectly (after all prophesy and expectation), and that he could not allow himself to fail, as that would undoubtedly lead to his being declared a false Messiah.
* That he was perfectly aware of the consequences of his actions all along the way, and that he directed his closest supporters, the original twelve apostles, unknowingly to aid him in his plans.
* That he involved the least possible number of supporters in his plans ("need to know" basis), therefore very few knew of the details of his final plan, and even then only the least amount of information necessary.

The culmination of his plan was to be his death (the crucifixion), his resurrection and his reign as the true Kingly and Priestly Messiah, not in heaven but on earth— the realized King of the Jews.

[BrklynLiberal]

96. I remember reading that years ago. That book said that Jesus

had sort of set himself up to fulfill the whole Messiah prophecy, and that included having Judas betray him.
In it, Jesus supposedly assumed he would be tied to the cross, not nailed to it.

[xmas74]

4. Thanks for the link!

This is really interesting.

[Canuckistanian]

5. I smell coverup...

Judas has gotten a bad rap for years in this Jesus caper.

So, the "thirty pieces of silver" was just Sanhedrin propaganda?

I'll wait for Woodward's book about it.

[TexasLawyer]

18. Yeah-- obviously

Judas invested some of his "sell-out" money on spin doctors and damage-control consultants.

Sounds familiar.

[Inland]

30. "First of all, it was forty pieces. So you understand my position."

You know, there was a retelling of the three little pigs from the wolf's POV, too.

[Penance]

85. I've never had much animus against Judas

I went through Catholic school and CCD and it always seemed to me as a kid that the Jesus betrayal thing had a certain fatalism to it with pronouncements and prophecies that the Messiah or Son of Man must be betrayed in order for the whole redemption thing to work. It always seemed to me as a kid that Judas was just fulfilling his role. If he hadn't betrayed Jesus, Jesus wouldn't have been crucified or resurrected. Then where would Christianity be?

Granted, I was 10 at the time.

[Canuckistanian]

124. Right, it was pre-ordained

It was all part of God's plan.

And who are we to question the intentions of God by villainizing Judas?

[Connie_Corleone]

6. The National Geographic Channel is supposed to have a special

on this Sunday. (I think that's the channel)

Nightline is supposed to talk about this tonight too.

[NIGHT TRIPPER]

50. justintime for Advertising the DAVINCI CODE w Tom Hanks-playing next month

And then there's the new Celestine Prophecy movie--

gotta love a good PR campaign!

timing is everything!

[Critters2]

187. This kind of crap always appears around Holy Week

It was around this time of year that Time reported that Jesus never said the Lord's Prayer. Or that the media reported on the Jesus Seminar voting on which parts of the gospels were authentic. and on and on.

This is as surely a part of Holy Week tradition as the Stations of the Cross and Easter Lilies.

[greyl]

7. It was found in the 1970's - you should change your headline.

(yes, I know it's a NYT mistake)
http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/04/06/gospel.judas.ap/index.html

[Roland99]

37. See Pg. 2 of the NY Times online article.

[greyl]

46. I can't, what does it say? nt

[Roland99]

86. Same thing...first found in 1970.

[greyl]

91. Haha, oh :)

But how does that make the headline true? Is it like that "discovered America" thing? :)

(normally, I can access the times, but I'm only getting the first paragraph.)

[FiveGoodMen]

9. "The only known text...said to be a copy...of the original"

How do we know there was an original?

[jobycom]

25. In this case, because they had references to the original from other

sources. Very few ancient documents actually exist. Most of what we have of the Roman and Greek era exist as copies made of copies. Scholars check authenticity in a number of ways, ranging from linguistic analysis (any clear anachronisms, for instance, or historical inconsistencies, such as a mention of someone who has already died, or could not have done what he did in the document--think of the Niger documents, signed by an official long out of power, etc.)

In this case, the document itself was linked to 300AD, but they knew of the Judas Gospel from a late second century text by a Bishop in Lyon (I'm going off what CNN said, I'm not an expert on it). The bishop mentions the Gospel as fictional, because it disagrees with the accepted story of Jesus. I don't know how much of it he includes in his text about it.

There are a lot of such documents floating around, and many that are lost but are referenced in other documents. Shortly after Jesus's death, as the religion began to grow, stories about his life were circulated widely. Some were from people who may have known Jesus, others were from people who heard a story who heard a story. Some were probably pure fiction from people either trying to impress or con others, or people who wanted to prove something they believed about Jesus (good or bad). These stories were usually given the name of a famous acquaintance of Jesus--Matthew Mark, Luke, Judas, Peter, Thomas are some of the more famous ones. Naturally, no one would listen to Joshua the camel groomer's opinion, but if Joshua claimed he heard the story from Peter, he gains more credibility.

Under Constantine, scholars and religious leaders got together and debated which ones were true and which false, and compiled the ones they were sure of into the Bible. (SOme people derogatively claim that the books of the Bible were voted on, but it's a little more complex than that).

Anyway, that's the background. Some of the texts that weren't considered reliable (or were politically or religiously upsetting) continued to circulate amongst "heretics," who had to hide their beliefs--and the documents. Some of these talk about Jesus being married, having children, killing people accidentally as a child, faking his own crucifixion (while watching it from a distance and laughing about it). There's also a geographic consideration--the Roman Emperors and the Pope cracked down on "heresy," whereas in regions like Africa there was less control over what was circulated. The Judas Gospel came from the Coptic Church, which was in Egypt.

None of the Gospels, even the Biblical ones, can be traced using historical or scientific means with absolute certainty to someone who knew Jesus. Of the four in the Bible, Matthew and Mark seem to be derived from Luke, and John seems the most personal, so some scholars feel that John has the best chance of being told by someone who knew Jesus. Even that one was written in its current form some time after Jesus's death.

Some claim Jesus may have never even existed, but that's a whole nuther can of worms.

Sorry to be so long--I've got all this useless stuff in my head and so few chances to tell anyone. :)

[okieinpain]

70. hey thanks. I'm going to show this to my wife. she will probably make

me sleep on the couch.

[roguevalley]

73. accepted story. I have a hard time believing churches and their

bullshit sometimes. give me this text. I believe a text 1700 years older than the idiots that debunk it now for not being part of the 'accepted story'.

[hedgehog]

10. Understand, just because it's old doesn't make it true.

It could be just as much speculation as anything someone wrote down today which is why it didn't make it did not make it into the "authorized" or "canonical" version. People sat down, argued about what they knew /believed about Jesus and discarded this Gospel.

[WePurrsevere]

29. It's interesting because it could also be what those who tossed them out

didn't want people to know the information/stories in them because it would have removed some power or other factor that they felt they needed to have.

The history of what would be shared and not shared about the teaching of the man who is called Jesus is as twisted and warped as any in history if not more so. Just because it's old or was "discarded" doesn't mean it's not true either or that it has no truth or knowledge to offer. :)

[Peace Patriot]

118. "Just because it's old..." That's ONE of things that historians look at,

to judge validity--how close to the time of the event is the writing. Of course anyone can lie--or invent things creatively--at any time. So it's just ONE criterion. But it's a useful one.

"...which is why it didn't make it into the 'authorized' or 'canonical' version."

Do you really know anything about why it was buried in Egypt? Or what criterion was used for the 'canonical" version? Or how "edited" that version is? Or who did it, and what their motives were?

"People sat down, argued about what they knew..." These weren't just any people, these were the state's spiritual police! These were people who "argued" about whether women have souls. These were people who got into sword fights about whether Jesus' mother was a virgin or not. These were people, one of whom set a mob of monks on the philosopher Hypatia who ripped her skin from her body, and burned the parts of her in a Christian Church--because she stood in the way of his climb to power. She was a teacher of bishops--a neoplatonic Pagan from whom these "fathers of the church" stole their major ideas--and who was a pivotal figure of peace among the Pagans, Gnostics, Jews and other religions and philosophies.

They skinned her alive, and ripped her body to pieces, and burned the Alexandria Library, and edited Mary Magdalen's role as head of the Apostles out of the Bible, and wrote themselves in ("thou art Peter, and upon this rock..."--what B.S.!), and fixated upon the Crucifixion, and its blood and gore--because that's how their minds worked--and then inflicted a thousand years of ignorance, blood and gore upon the people of Europe.

This was no nice little community debating society. The Councils of Nicea, Ephesus and Chalcedon. These were the meetings of the American Enterprise Institute writing the "Plan for a New American Century."

These were BAD DUDES. And it's a wonder that any of Jesus' message of love thy neighbor and "turn the other cheek" managed to reach us, and it was not by THEIR effort that it did. THEY destroyed the Roman universal education system, and ruled Europe in LATIN, which soon most people didn't speak, and almost no one could read. Most people lost the art of reading. Nobody could READ the Bible until about a thousand years later. They were instead propagandized with images of the cross and crucifixion and great suffering and fear of hell, and when that didn't work, they were slain for not believing, or deprived of property and burned alive. It was only the Pelagians (Gnostics) in Wales and Ireland, and the Persians, who cared anything about real learning--as opposed to the fakery of Roman theologians.

Protestantism (freedom of individual conscience, and an end of the rule of the rotten "fathers" of the 5th century and their successors) only RETURNED when the Bible started getting translated into common languages and printed. And it, indeed, took a thousand years for that to happen.

The war criminals who selected and edited the 'orthodox' gospels--and burned everything else--were NOT scholars, in any real sense of the word. They were MULLAHS.

[endarkenment]

13. Jerry Garcia? I thought he was dead!

Oh, its Terry Garcia. Never mind.

[LouisianaLiberal]

16. Of course they'll say that its just another

apocryphal gospel. It was probably one of the many rejected in the fourth century as the bible was codified.

I'm not a Christian but this is interesting. Acts (written by Luke I think) says that Judas's intestines were forced from his body and the bribe money was used by others to buy the Field of Blood as a potter's field.

Mark says that Judas first purchased the field, and then hanged himself.

And - the four accepted gospels say that Jesus knew he would be betrayed, and this one apparently says that he made some sort of deal with Judas.

Should be interesting.

[w13rd0]

20. Concerning the "Betrayal of Judas"...

...consider it in light of God's command that Abraham sacrifice his son Isaac. Here, the "son of god" asks Judas to betray him. The other gospels say that Jesus knew it was Judas that would betray him. The conflict between the Paulists and the Gnostics is fairly well know. Hell, most of what we accept as the writings of Paul were him trying to put down Gnostic interpretations of the teachings of Jesus. I'm not a Paulist. I'll read this gospel and make my own determination, because it's fairly obvious if one studies the formation of Canon, that the decisions on what went in and what didn't had as much to do with politics and the concentration of power and advancement of personal agendas as they did with anything else. Heck, you think the Council of Nicea had carbon dating and first person accounts to verify what the elected to include and opted to exclude?

[newspeak]

27. speaking of Saul of Tarsus

some believe that he, alone, created the Christian doctrine that we see today. If Yeshua existed, he was one who never knew the teacher, yet intepreted and expounded on the teacher's beliefs. Constantine, (I dreamt of a burning cross in the sky) who believed he would conquer and rule by the sign of the cross was Sol Invictus believer, murdered his wife and son. Yet, he also has influence in what is in that black book today. Another, misognynist who wanted, like Augustine of Hippo, to further the concept of original sin--we are all sinners and the fear mongering concept of Hell. But the perceptions of Hell that many fundies believe exists, was not emphasized by the Jews. Hell and Brimstone is not the teacher's concept, but one that has been exploited after his death. Constantine abetted the concept of Eve being the sole cause of the downfall of man, therefore, original sin is all her fault.

[newspeak]

21. and, just because some male bishops

got together at Nicea and decided what they wanted or perceived should be followed and what shouldn't, doesn't mean we don't question the upheaval, influence that formed the Christianity we see today. At the formation of Yeshua's beliefs, women were an integral part of the church. Some women were leaders in the church until the formation of strict doctrinal belief that was imposed by said bishops. Look at Pelagius and those who went against his argument (Augustine of Hippo) that we are responsible for the actions that we do, that there is no original sin, we are born sin free. He was imprisoned more than once!!!!! I look at Peter and see a misogynist hothead who becomes the "rock" of the Catholic Church. Some of the Gnostic Texts have overlays of paganism, others have overlays of Buddhist teachings, but all should be studied to get a feel of what was happening in that period, how the Romans would embrace and pervert the teachings of Yeshua. Remember Buddhism is five hundred years older that Christianity and some of Yeshua's parables can be found in Buddhist parables. Was there an influence?

[saltpoint]

23. This codex is a copy of an original believed written in 200 AD?

If those are the numbers, I would love to know the author of the original.

How do we know the original was not also a copy of an earlier text?

And how do we know an early bishop -- those powermongering little opportunists -- didn't write the gospel to justify the conversion of Jesus' ministry into Paulist Christianity, a decidedly more smarmy faith/tradition?

I'll be keeping an appreciative eye out for further developments on this.

[jobycom]

35. Textual analysis and contemporary references

Historians of the era are skilled at determining a text's age from the language of the text, so they could date the writing to within a decade or two. Probably closer. They also have references to the text in other documents, so they know a minimum date of when it existed.

What's harder to determine is the age of the story. The wording and style of the document tells when it was written down, but it could be a retelling of an older story, as all of the Biblical Gospels (not to mention Homer and Genesis) seem to be. People could have passed this basic story around for a century in oral tales or even written form, when someone decided to write it down in their own words in the late second century. This it would date to the late second, but it would be an older story. Sometimes you can get hints of that from the text--maybe a catch phrase that seems much older that is included in the text, or sometimes an awkward wording which might indicate a translation of another text in a different or older form of the language.

As for the purpose of writing it down, you are undoubtedly right that it probably had a political or religious reason. Even if it's exactly right and based on some unshakeable knowledge of true events, someone still had an agenda for writing it as it was written, and also for copying it over a century later. It wouldn't have survived otherwise. An historian familiar with that era could probably tell us who or why it was written, based on the contemporary disputes within the community. Just as we can understand why the media tells a story the way it does on Iraq or Bush or anything else.

[saltpoint]

54. jobycom, thank you very much for that response. It puts me in the

picture on this codex much better.

Have always felt that the intent of a written text often determines its viability in its present time and its survivability for later ages.

I don't know what you do for a living but whatever it is, they aren't paying you enough.

Tell your miserable bosses I said you deserve a raise.

I also LOVED the comment toward the close of the last paragraph relating to Bush & Iraq.

[jobycom]

72. Well, I was trained as an historian

So naturally I work as a bookkeeper. :-) (They are more related than you might think, actually.)

[saltpoint]

77. Well I say you get a raise.

A terrific post and a big help to me.

Thank you.

[jobycom]

88. Thanks! You can be my new best friend!!

:party:

[TechBear_Seattle]

38. Because...

"How do we know the original was not also a copy of an earlier text?"

Works like this do not exist in a vacuum. They are quoted by people in letters, or reference to them is made in other gospels, apocalypses, acts, revelations, wisdoms, epistles, etc. Most likely, the first third party reference that has yet been found is from, say, 210 CE. When a manuscript that dates a hundred years latter shows up and includes the text that was quoted, it is reasonable to conclude that the latter document is a copy of an earlier text quoted in the earlier document. With no reference earlier than 210 CE, it is reasonable to conclude that the document first appeared just before that time. That doesn't mean that the document isn't quoting from a copy of an even earlier copy, of course.

[saltpoint]

56. Hi, TechBear. I hear you on that. I would concede to a selfish response

because I am eager to learn those urtext sources. It's a fascination, despite my being a non-Christian, or maybe because of it. Not sure.

In any event it thrills me when ancient manuscripts are discovered. So many significant ones were only unearthed in the last century, and I wonder how many others remain in earthen jars in the high caves above the Nile, for example.

If ever you learn of an archeologist's assistant job opening up, I would come out of retirement to apply.

Appreciate your comments on DU from other threads & your help for me in this one.

[newspeak]

42. One text I have

does state that Bishop Iraneous admitted forging. Another one to study is Josephus, the Jewish historian. Some theologians believe that there are parts of his work that look like they have been added. It is interesting to study the various theories about the Bible, when texts were written, by whom, and the social impact of said beliefs. How the author's prejudicial influence may seep into the text or translation. One small book I have purchased (it was expensive for such a small book) is a book of Yeshua's words (Beatitudes, Lord's Prayer and other passages), translated directly from the Aramaic. What a difference a translation makes. It changes the concept (sometimes), as well as, the wording of the passages we have grown familiar with taken from the Bible. The forward is by Matthew Fox.

[saltpoint]

60. Any confirmation of my suspicions of Bishop Iraneous is welcome,

so I thank you for that, newspeak.

Matt Fox is a gem. A gleaming gem. I had a brief correspondence with him for a while in the 90s and learned a GREAT deal. His books are excellent, too. If he penned the FORWARD to the book you've read, it suggests to me that the book must be a beautiful thing.

Agree with you on translation. 'Was told once by a retired Presbyterian minister that the translation in the 4th gospel is a bit suspect by the time it goes through so many interpolation and finally into a "safe" English. I don't know a syllable of Aramaic but would love to read more about the translation issue.

[newspeak]

79. I gave the book to my brother-in-law

to read. It's a thin, small book and I've completely gone blank on the title!!! The title is something like "The Words of Jesus"? My brother-in-law is not home now, but I'll call him later and get the title for you. Well, the Lord's Prayer starts out something like "O Father and Mother". The book has the Bible's (Greek) words, then the words in Aramaic. At the end of each translation, there is an explanation by the translators of certain words and their multiple meanings.

[newspeak]

87. Old Crusoe

check back in about four hours and I'll have the complete title and the translators. I also admire Matthew Fox and have a couple of his books. He was a headache for the Catholic Church. Knew a Brother who worked with a leper colony in the Pacific, and when he came to visit his Limbaugh loving brother (my boss), we would talk about religion and spirituality. He studied Buddhism, Hinduism and translations of early Christian texts. I have a few of his albums on Tibetan chants and music for meditation. Last time I saw him, he was questioning leaving the Catholic Church--I think he outgrew their perceptions of spirituality and hierarchy. His brother was shocked!!!! Shocked, I tell you!!!! Anyway, he reminds me of Matt Fox.

[newspeak]

142. Old Crusoe, sorry I'm late

the book is "Prayers of the Cosmos" by Neal Douglas-Klotz. What I thought was the title is sub-title. Forward is by Matthew Fox and Neal Douglas-Klotz is the translator.

[Minnesota Libra]

24. OK, this raises a serious common sense question...................

....why would Jesus want Judas to "betray" him knowing the type of death he faced? It just doesn't make sense?

[lindisfarne]

33. Not if Jesus believed he was "the son of god" and going to his glory.

Think of the beliefs Muslim suicide bombers have about the rewards after the suffering of death.

[Roland99]

36. Martyrdom. Jesus wasn't a messiah but he knew he could be made into one

through death by persecution.

[hedgehog]

44. Jesus didn't "want" to be betrayed

The Gospels clearly show that he didn't want to go to the Cross and prayed to get out of it (the episode referred to as the Agony in the Garden) He desperately wanted to avoid this death but acquiesced to the Father's will.

He sent Judas away from the Last Supper before he shared his body and blood. Maybe he knew his time was running out and wanted Judas gone before that final sharing. It makes sense if you think of Jesus as a man knowing that the fix was in and wanting to end the pretense that Judas was a loyal follower. On the other hand, maybe Jesus was actually offering Judas one last chance to remain faithful.

The Passion accounts in the Gospels are spare and stunning and totally unlike Gibson's film. The notion comes up from time to time that ancient people didn't think the same way we do, but the people in these accounts seem very modern.

[AngryAmish]

58. Human nature never changes

That is why we read the classics and any education without a good dose of the classics is a failure.

[KittyWampus]

57. Jesus evolved past the petty ego & lived to do the Universal Will

He identified his SELF with the ONE SELF and apparently, the ONE SELF instructed him about what was to happen.

Of course, Jesus WAS human and did have doubts (Garden of Gesthemene) and also had a period when the ONE SELF was unaccesible (Why hast Thou forsaken me).

Perhaps Martin Luther King knew he was a target. Yet he went out and preached Compassion anyway. The important thing is to keep sharing the message that the ONE SELF wishes to express through our being.

Some people see the Mountain top and know that they are Immortal. Their bodies may perish, but their Soul lives on.

To truely love and to love life you cannot be afraid of Death.

[Theres-a]

63. I like the way

you think.I'm reading a book right now called "A Great Time to be Alive" by Harry Emerson Fosdick.It was written in 1944,but it's very reassuring that good triumphs over evil eventually.

[Chemical Bill]

74. Reading the bible closely...

makes me think he didn't die on the cross. He was crucified away from the crowds that normally would have been close by an execution. He was given wine or vinegar, and passed out, so the Romans didn't break his legs. Wine and vinegar are both good solvents for herbs that can cause unconsciousness and slow respiration, etc. Being nailed to a cross doesn't kill, it's the bleeding from the broken legs that kills. The spear may have wounded him, but not killed him. He was taken down before the end of the day, instead of being left to the buzzards. These instructions to Judas only add to my belief that Jesus was a crafty politician, staging a play. How much money would it have taken for Pontius Pilate to go along? Ask Joseph of Aramethea. Too bad people thought the tricks were more important than his message of love.

Bill

[Lydia Leftcoast]

152. Actually, it's not the bleeding from the broken legs

You don't bleed to death from having your legs clubbed.

Being hung by one's arms for long periods of time can cause heart and respiratory failure due to fluid buildup. The little platform at the feet was meant to take the pressure off the arms periodically, prolonging the dying process. If the Romans wanted to hasten the victim's death, they would break his legs so that he would not be able to give himself relief from the process of heart failure.

In this case, the deaths were supposed to be hastened because the Jewish religious authorities did not want the bodies hanging on the crosses over the Sabbath.

Crucified criminals were not "left for the buzzards." The normal procedure was to throw the bodies on a rubbish heap to be consumed by dogs, who were the scavengers of the ancient world (and therefore considered "unclean.")

The Biblical account tells of "blood and water" rushing out after the Romans pierce Jesus's side. The "water" would have been fluid that built up in the chest cavity.

Also, Jesus was not crucified alone (remember the story of the two thieves who were crucified with him?), and there is no evidence that the place where he was crucified was an unusual location. The Biblical account tells of the crowd taunting him and saying, "If you're the Son of God, come down from the cross."

I don't know whose work you've been reading, but whoever wrote it was misinformed, both about the medical facts about crucifixion and about what the Biblical account says.

[FlaGranny]

173. Have to disagreewith your first sentence

Lydia. People can and do bleed to death from broken bones, especially the femur. It is the largest bone in the body and can bleed profusely - quite enough to cause death.

[Chemical Bill]

195. Thank you, ma'm. n/t

[Chemical Bill]

194. Point by point...

1) I don't have a medical degree, my degree is in chemistry. You may be right, but you aren't contradicting what I said about the soldiers not breaking his legs, which you admit was done to hasten death.

2)Buzzards or dogs, my point was that the body was normally disposed of in an unkind manner. You have bolstered my contention that the body was not normally given a proper burial, so there may have been a bribe involved.

3)Yes, the bible says that after he "gave up his spirit", his side was pierced, and blood and water came out. I stand by what I said: that this may not have killed him. There is one other thing I noticed. If he was dead, would blood have been circulating, since his heart would have been stopped? Like I said, I don't have a medical degree.

4)You are right that the accounts mention bystanders. I must have been thinking of the "women looking on from afar", but I stand corrected.

5)Misinformation about the medical facts of crucifixion? Is there much study done of actual crucifixions now, or is it mostly conjecture? And misinformation about the biblical accounts varies from book to book. I still don't know Jesus' last words.

I also stand by what I said about people being more concerned with the tricks, and less concerned with the message of love.

Bill

[Lydia Leftcoast]

204. The medical accounts of crucifixions were worked out by a French

doctor working with corpses in the 19th century.

Kinky-sounding, but true.

[brooklynite]

28. Forgive me for being illiterate...

Since I've never made it out of Genesis in the Bible, but as I read this, we're talking about a document for which the source material was written two centuries after Jesus' death. Why is this assumed to have any authenticity or historical significance?

[lindisfarne]

32. Histories are often passed down for generations by oral tradition then

finally written down. These texts are then copied (and changed) over generations.

Lots of opportunity for changing the story over time to suit either political needs of the day, or simply because the story teller thinks it will make a better story (or simply "memory" changes over time).

Sometimes if you have several different versions of a story you can compare them and try to figure out what the original story must have been.

The bible is definitely not the "word of god" directly -- lots of intermediary people were involved in preserving it before it got to the oldest written records that we have. I'm not well informed about the bible either but I'm not clear on why, for example, the "gospel according to Luke" would be considered "the word of god" -- I'd regard it "the word of Luke".

[newspeak]

34. well, because

none of the texts of the New Testament were believed to be written until after his death. I believe the oldest is approximately 70 AD? I'm in the process of moving and all my texts are packed, but I believe it's 70 AD. Just because a text is called Matthew does not mean Matthew wrote it.

[jobycom]

41. It has less historical significance for Jesus than for the early Church.

There is the possibility that this story was rewritten from an older document or an oral tradition from someone who actually knew Jesus, but there's no way to prove that. Historians will use it to better understand the early history of Christianity--what roads were taken, what roads were left behind, and what disputes arose. It could help to explain other beliefs, which may have been a reaction to this story, for instance.

[Critters2]

188. It doesn't have any authenticity, nor significance

But it sells airtime.

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[RedEarth]

39. Thanks for positng....

[TechBear_Seattle]

40. Looking for a recently published book

I recently read a book that would be very helpful to folks interested in textual criticism of ancient texts, and I can't remember the name or author :(

It was written by a professor of Biblical literature, a former "Bible is the literal Truth of God" Christian. He presents how textual criticism is used to determine earlier versions from latter versions, how changes can be introduced by various accidents, expansions, mistranslations, etc., and this affects (and does not affect) Christian theology. It was enjoyable and quite readable.

Can anyone refresh my memory as to the title?

[jobycom]

45. Not sure, but Robin Lane Fox writes about it, too

"The Unathorized Version: Truth and fiction in the Bible" is a pretty good read. Maybe a little academic. I don't know anything about Fox's religious views or history, though.

[supernova]

47. Are you talking about "Misquoting Jesus"

by Bart Ehrman? I just bought this book and his other one, Lost Christianities, a couple of weeks ago. Can't wait to get started.

Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why

The popular perception of the Bible as a divinely perfect book receives scant support from Ehrman, who sees in Holy Writ ample evidence of human fallibility and ecclesiastical politics. Though himself schooled in evangelical literalism, Ehrman has come to regard his earlier faith in the inerrant inspiration of the Bible as misguided, given that the original texts have disappeared and that the extant texts available do not agree with one another. Most of the textual discrepancies, Ehrman acknowledges, matter little, but some do profoundly affect religious doctrine. To assess how ignorant or theologically manipulative scribes may have changed the biblical text, modern scholars have developed procedures for comparing diverging texts. And in language accessible to nonspecialists, Ehrman explains these procedures and their results. He further explains why textual criticism has frequently sparked intense controversy, especially among scripture-alone Protestants. In discounting not only the authenticity of existing manuscripts but also the inspiration of the original writers, Ehrman will deeply divide his readers. Although he addresses a popular audience, he undercuts the very religious attitudes that have made the Bible a popular book. Still, this is a useful overview for biblical history collections. Bryce Christensen
Copyright © American Library Association. All rights reserved

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0060738170/qid=1144347073/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/002-0977238-2500008?s=books&v=glance&n=283155

edit: Bart Ehrman is Chair of Religious Studies at UNC-Chapel Hill.

[TechBear_Seattle]

76. That's the very book!

Thanks.

[Chemical Bill]

81. My only problem with "Misquoting Jesus" is...

Ehrman isn't writing a new translation, he just gives a few instances as examples. I would like to see him apply the whole of his research to a new text.

Bill

[BrklynLiberal]

97. He was on The Daily Show recently.

[theobscure]

84. why do you need a recently published book?

Thomas Paine's "Age of Reason" exposed the Bible for what it is, and thus Christianity over 200 years ago.

[TechBear_Seattle]

100. Because...

Ehrman did not write to dismiss the Bible as fraud: he wrote to explain exigesis, the mechanics of textual criticism and how those tools can be applied to known Biblical texts. The factual content of those texts is not what is under discussion here, just the way they have dated this gospel and decided it was a copy of an earlier text.

[theobscure]

107. ok, but since the Bible has been exposed as a fraud so long ago

what is the point of determining when the fraud was committed? I just don't understand this.

It boggles my mind that moderate Christians have entirely rejected 95% of the book which is the only justification for their faith. But they continue to build their entire belief structure around the 5% from that self-discredited book.

This is to not even mention that there isn't the slightest shred of even moderately compelling evidence that Jesus Christ was the Son of God.

Why do we have to pretend that this is anymore acceptable or sane than the Christian Fundamentalists' literal interpretation of the Bible? It's the same. Christian moderates legitimize Christian fundamentalists and bear some responsibility for the latter's actions.

[CreekDog]

113. Who/When/Where exposed the Bible as a fraud?

Apparently I missed that in the morning paper. Edify me.

[theobscure]

115. Thomas Paine... "Age of Reason" ...200+ years ago...France..n/t

[CreekDog]

117. I'll take Paul over Thomas Paine any day of the week

How can one man, Paine, discredit an entire religion, a religion based on faith?

You have to give me more than that to work with.

[superconnected]

120. Wow, almost nobody likes Paul. Especially Christians.

Paul is my hero.

If they found another letter by Paul, I would be interested. This Judas crap is annoying though. Sounds like apocrapha to me.

[TechBear_Seattle]

137. Actually...

Using the same techniques of textual criticism used to date and identify this Gospel of Judas, I has been established that seven of the letters attributed to Paul -- Romans, Philippians, Galatians, Philemon, First and Second Corinthians and First Thessalonians -- were written by the same person. They have essentially the same vocabulary, use the same syntatic structures and are generally consistent in both doctrine and how that doctrine is presented. There is no reason not to think that the author was Paul.

First and Second Timothy, and Titus, however, use significantly different syntax and vocabulary. The doctrine in these letters is at odds with the doctrine found in the first group and with each other, even contradictory. Most Biblical scholars agree that these three letters were written by three different authors and not Paul.

There is an even split among scholars as to whether the remaining letters -- Ephesians, Colossians and Second Thessalonians -- were written by the same person as the first group. These three letters are, for the most part, donctrinally consistent with each other and with Paul's epistles. However, the language and syntax are markedly different from the first group and from each other. Some scholars see this as evidence that the letters were not written by Paul; others see it as the result of scribes who recorded Paul's teachings accurately, using their own style of Greek.

So your description of "authentic" and "apocryphal" is not correct. Being a part of the Christian canon does not make a particular document authentic. And authentic texts -- in First Corinthians, Paul mentions an earlier letter to the Church in Corinth, of which we have record -- that do not make it in to the canon are not necessarily apocryphal.

[theobscure]

121. Have you read it? It systematically debunks the Bible book by..

book using the Bible itself and history. But you're right, if the Bible's legitimacy is irrelevant to you based on your faith then it would be impossible (on your terms of belief) to prove the Bible or anything at all to be a fraud.

I'm sure you are not one of those then who disputes GW Bush's belief that he is a messenger of God. After all, he's just as entitled to his baseless beliefs as you are. Right?

[CreekDog]

125. haven't read Paine's debunking

The bible, however is not a history book and doesn't purport to be but to testify to man whom God is, what he does and why man needs him.

So, even before reading this, I wonder about Paine's premise. Nevertheless, I will take a look.

You'll have to forgive me but to take the word of Paul, Moses, John, Jesus, Peter over Paine is not necessarily an act of faith alone. While my belief is of faith, I didn't check my brain at the door and a one philosopher, gifted or not is not going to make me chuck my religion wholesale.

-----

Regarding Bush's belief that he is a messenger from God, you are right that he seems to believe that --I don't see anything in the bible that says that Bush is a messenger from God. My reading of the bible is that it points to Christ. Prior to Christ, the prophets testified of God and a messiah and then Christ himself testifies to who he is and that comes through his word and the bible says through the holy spirit.

Since Bush, Dobson, Robertson, Rick Warren are not Christ and are not God's word, they are just fallible men and spiritually, I don't rely on them for teaching --especially since they spout a lot of personal experiential theology, which I find quite unreliable. Furthermore, Bush talks about knowing God from how he feels in his heart --this a recent doctrine in Christianity, and not borne out in historic doctrine or biblical teaching.

Bush could very well be feeling the devil in his heart, for all he knows.

One is supposed to check teachings, feelings, doctrines against scriptures and the teachings of the earliest Christians.

[theobscure]

130. Paine also actually, again using the Bible itself, shows that it was

impossible for the books of the Bible to have been written by the people to which they have been ascribed. But again, I would say that it would be a pointless read for you.

So few moderate Christians have actually read the Bible in it's entirety. Their entire knowledge of the Bible comes from the same few liberal passages read Sunday after Sunday, year after year in their churches.(not saying this applies to you)

The truth of the matter is that Bush, Dobson, Robertson, Falwell, etc., are following and espousing the Bible, which is the only word of God as far as I know, more closely than anyone. All modern Christians, moderates and fundamentalists, have perverted it to some degree, of course. After all, stoning of children and prostitutes, for example, seems to have universally fallen out of fashion, at least in this country.

The problem is that since all religiously faithful people give themselves permission to build a personal belief structure that relegates things like truth, facts, evidence, and reality to irrelevancy to some degree or other, no belief of any kind can ever really, on any reasonable grounds, be deemed untrue, a lie, baseless, or fantasy. To me, this goes far in explaining the state of the world today and the danger to our future.

As long as Christianity continues to survive to some degree and the Bible remains the only word of God we have, we are always vulnerable to a return of the days where stoning children and prostitutes is popularly accepted. I'm afraid it's far more likely though, given our technology today, that we will use a much more efficient means of destruction first. One that will sooner rather than later, answer the question once and for all.

[CreekDog]

140. couple of points to ponder

Few points to say to your last message:

1) Falwell et al are not hewing most closely to biblical doctrine and differ with the historic church on salvation, communion, baptism and the manner of conversion. Many of their teachings are just a century old.

2) Some people just use the same verses, but the lectionary exposes parishoners to huge amounts of the bible over a 1 year or 3 year period (OT, Epistles and Gospels). The church calendar also provides a framework where people can understand the life and events of Jesus just as now we learn about the Passion just before Easter. This is not simply a few select verses.

3) Reliability: I don't think the reliability of the bible is determined by the human authors but instead by that God who says we may trust it. Scripture is written by men inspired by God --the second part, not the first is where it gets its validity.

But the point of the bible is that we have a God who is perfect and demands perfection from us, however in Christ we are perfect by proxy for he takes our place. And when we pray, ask for forgiveness and so forth, God hears us and grants many things to us on behalf of Christ.

So nobody can say they are better than another. This is a biblical teaching.

I haven't seen a human teaching has persistently stated how equally bad people are before God and that they should be grateful that it need not be held against them because none of us could stand that.

Does Paine really undermine this? Or is it simply that the books attributed to Moses were actually written by others?

Anyway, food for thought. But like I said, I'm willing to check Paine out.

[theobscure]

154. response

1) Well, I'm not going to split hairs on this issue. Falwell et al and moderate Christians have equally perverted the teachings of the Bible and thus the Word of God then. Neither camp can rightly call themselves Christians.

2) I will disagree with you here. I grew up a Lutheran and was dragged to Church and Sunday School for years. The vast, vast majority of the Bible is completely ignored. The same passages are read at the same time every year. Most moderate Christians are only exposed to 1 or 2 percent of the Bible, at most. Even my confirmation classes, didn't delve into any detail. Reading the Bible on my own, from beginning to end, was the most horrifying experience of my life. I've gone back to it at various intervals of my life, with different perspective, the disgust and incredulity remains; and I've skipped right to the New Testament the last few times.

3) Again, if you want to blindly believe (since we still have zero proof) that the authors of the Bible were laboring under divine intervention, it can't possibly be discounted that others, in fact, many others would receive that same inspiration. Why not George W. Bush?

You say that it is biblical teaching that nobody is better than another. This speaks to my point about how can a Christian possibly question anything. How can a Christian make any kind of distinction between truth and untruth, fact and fiction, reality and fantasy? If you really believed and followed this it would be impossible to function outside of a vacuum. Every possibility would have to be as equally valid as any other, nothing could be exposed as a lie or understood as truth, there would be no starting point and no end line for anything.

How can you presume your own authority over your own beliefs, independent of evidence, and not grant everyone else the same allowance? If I want to go to my employer and claim that Sam I Am is my God and I need a certain day off with pay in order to commune with green eggs and ham, on what legitimate grounds can I be denied? There is no more proof of your belief than mine. The only differences are that your belief is older and more popular.

Putting aside that we both seem to agree that Christians are in no position to put one person or one belief above another, is longevity and popularity sufficient grounds on which to discriminate in regard to validity? At this point, we are back to my initial point about how much of the Bible's teachings, and in fact our oldest beliefs, have been discarded by all present day people purporting to be Christians. So clearly, holding to beliefs that are the oldest, is not a standard you set for yourself and thus cannot rightly be used to limit anyone else.

The same example can be illustrated in regard to popularity of beliefs and how those have changed. What this exposes is that any attempt to deny me my Sam I Am belief or anyone else their belief about anything is nothing more than rank hypocrisy and bigotry. I see nothing "Christian" in either characteristic; but yet, we could not have a functioning society with it. It seems to me, however, that we can do better than that; and for the sake of human prosperity and posterity, we must.

[CreekDog]

162. I believe this stuff and I tend to be a skeptic about everything

So when those Lutheran confessions say that even our belief is the work of God, that makes a little sense to me. Ultimately, it is a matter of faith for me. And why believe this over other things?

This belief offers forgiveness and which I need and the forgiveness is unconditional.

As for Sam I Am, if somebody wants to believe that, they should have the freedom to. But if you want to know why I believe what I believe...

You were dragged to Sunday School, Confirmation and Service every sunday at your Lutheran Church.

I got invited to a Lutheran Church as a kid and actually wanted to go (I was bored at times, sure), but I went through it and somehow, it has all stuck with me over the years. The beliefs sunk in.

And I stick with this because as a Christian, I'm going to be in some Christian church and except Lutherans and Catholic and Episcopalian churches, my beliefs and understanding of God simply don't fit anywhere else.

If you asked me why I'm a Democrat, I could give you a 1000 reasons. But when you ask me why this religion, not to be trite, but it gives me hope. It says that despite my flaws, there is still hope for me and when I'm down, that's deeply encouraging. When I'm up, I can't take the credit. This belief seems to make me better than I might ordinarily be.

[TechBear_Seattle]

135. Paine offered a critique and an explanation on why he did not believe

That is a very different thing from saying he disproved anything :hi:

[theobscure]

139. minimize it all you want....

I just don't see what's left to believe once the book has been shown to be riddled with inconsistency, historical inaccuracy, and not possibly written by the people it has been attributed to. Any other book like that would never have seen it's first printing; much less be the foundation for our beliefs and the benchmark for our societal and political institutions. Not to mention the fact that 95% of the book is raving lunacy and craven, transparent immorality.

Couldn't we find a better book from which to draw inspiration? One that doesn't require we chuck reason overboard. Do we really still have to pretend that we wouldn't have figured out that killing one another is bad without a voice from the sky telling us so? Aren't the stakes a little too high now to cling to fantasies?

[CreekDog]

143. it is not inconsistent

The message is that we have a God and we are sinners not fit to be in his presence or receive blessings from him. But, Jesus takes our place and punishment so that we may receive all the blessings that Jesus has earned for us.

The bible is incredibly consistent in that.

Read the bible with the work and nature of Christ and you will see consistency from start to finish. That's where it begins to fit together, when you read knowing that Christ is the point of the bible.

[theobscure]

155. well I'm not going to spend too much time banging my head...

against the wall to reason with someone who outright rejects the primacy of reason. It will be a waste of time for both of us.

My final question, however, would be can you point me in the direction of even the slightest compelling evidence that Jesus Christ was the Son of God?

[CreekDog]

163. You insisting on reason in spiritual matters

I absolutely believe in reason in earthly matters.

For the spiritual side though, why limit things to our reason? Since we are dealing with a dimension that our reason cannot comprehend, perhaps reason is not the best way to approach that realm.

[CreekDog]

164. forgot to answer your question

I don't have evidence that Jesus was the Son of God. It is written that he was and is. I do accept the teaching of the church on this one.

Reason is not my prime motivator in spiritual matters, faith is. I do use reason to ascertain fine points of doctrine of course.

And I can't prove Jesus was the Son of God. If any person comes to you and says they can, if I were you, I'd run away.

Also, I forgot to say, whether or not our reason can recognize God or not, does not mean that he does not exist and does not make anything that we've missed any less true.

It would suck to be wrong on this one. I certainly hope I am not.

[theobscure]

166. If faith could be restricted to the spiritual side, there wouldn't be a

problem. But your faith is manifested in belief. Belief is manifested in action. Action is manifested in earthly matters. So it is a fallacy to say that you recognize reason has primacy in earthly matters. You use reason only in ways as to not threaten your faith or in matters where relying on faith is insufficient or dangerous. Obviously, the realities of human mental evolution, more scientific discovery, and increasing empirical data has narrowed the scope of faith considerably for most, but not nearly enough for some.

However, there is an increasing backlash against this progress. As an example, tens of millions of Americans have voted twice for a man to be President (of the most scientifically advanced country in the history of the world) who proudly proclaims he doesn't believe in science, but who has at his disposal the technological advantage to destroy the world many times over. We are still basically barbarians, but with shiny weapons we can't resist and will use (as we always have) without reason.

I am resigned to defeat. Religious faith, fundamentalism on the backs of the legitimacy gained from moderates, will destroy us all, sooner rather than later. I've given in to that realization.

What still rankles me, however, is the hypocrisy of religious moderates. The way they pretend they are part of the solution, when in fact, they alone empower religious fundamentalists. If not for religious moderation, religious fundamentalism and it's overt threat to humanity and the quality of life would be marginalized.

[CreekDog]

93. Pretty much Gnosticism

This is not a Christian teaching. And the Bible says of Judas that it would have been better for him that had he not been born --and it says it more than once.

Gnosticism is about what YOU DO to gain spirituality/enlightenment/make progress.

Christianity is about what GOD DOES for your own sake, work that you cannot do yourself, work that Jesus did for all people.

Christian creeds, the canon and tenets were continually defined shortly after the beginning of Christian belief to combat things like Gnosticism among others.


excerpt from Christian Cyclopedia (Lutheran Missouri Synod) on Gnosticism:
http://www.lcms.org/ca/www/cyclopedia/02/display.asp?t1=G&word=GNOSTICISM

"Christ accomplishes His work by teaching knowledge (gnosis), which is received only by a select few (pneumatikoi, spirituals). The next class of men (psychikoi, psychics) must be content with faith; the lowest (hylics, material) are preoccupied with worldly cares."


excerpt from Catholic Encyclopia on Gnosticism:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06592a.htm
"...it is markedly peculiar to Gnosticism that it places the salvation of the soul merely in the possession of a quasi-intuitive knowledge of the mysteries of the universe and of magic formulae indicative of that knowledge. Gnostics were "people who knew", and their knowledge at once constituted them a superior class of beings, whose present and future status was essentially different from that of those who, for whatever reason, did not know. A more complete and historical definition of Gnosticism would be:

A collective name for a large number of greatly-varying and pantheistic-idealistic sects, which flourished from some time before the Christian Era down to the fifth century, and which, while borrowing the phraseology and some of the tenets of the chief religions of the day, and especially of Christianity, held matter to be a deterioration of spirit, and the whole universe a depravation of the Deity, and taught the ultimate end of all being to be the overcoming of the grossness of matter and the return to the Parent-Spirit, which return they held to be inaugurated and facilitated by the appearance of some God-sent Saviour."


----------------------------

People certainly have a right to believe this, but they are on shaky ground when they argue that this is part of the foundation of Christianity --it's not, which is why a news article like this one stands out like a sore thumb.

[TechBear_Seattle]

98. Except that....

Paul is very clear that salvation comes through the resurrection of Jesus. In order for Jesus to rise from the dead, Paul says that it was necessary for Jesus to have been crucified. This is one of the most ancient doctrines of the Christian faith.

In order for Jesus to have been crucified, it was necessary that he be betrayed to the authorities in such a way that the Romans got involved. As a Roman province, the legal authorities of Judea did not have the power to execute a person; aside from that, Jewish law very strictly forbade any kind of torture, which both the evangelist Mark and the filmaker Mel Gibson insisted were a required prelude to the a slow, painful, torturous execution.

Judas was the instrument of that betrayal. As such, he was the one who set events in to motion that would lead to salvation coming in to the world. That is why, despite what the Bible says, quite a number of people have honored Judas; some have even described him as the most loyal of the Apostles for being the one to take up such a distressing but vitally important task.

It is quite a theological conundrum.

[CreekDog]

104. But that answer is too clever for me

Salvation comes from the death AND resurrection of Jesus. You can't leave out the "death".

But no credit goes to Judas for getting the betrayal ball rolling. After all, we don't thank Adam and Eve for sinning so that we could be redeemed by Jesus. (Mormons are the exception to this and see the "fall" as necessary --historic Christianity sees it as the tragedy of humankind.)

Instead, give credit to God for making propitiation for our mistakes. We are only to be sorry that we have caused this need for ourselves. In other words, only God can undo what we have done, thanks to Him, he does.

[TechBear_Seattle]

138. I'm not going to argue theology

I'm just presenting what I know :hi:

[okasha]

198. "The Fortunate Fall"

CreekDog, there was a medieval line of theological thought that regarded the fall of man as a necessary prelude to the coming of Christ and therefore as ultimately beneficial. There's a medieval English lyric that ends with:

Ne had that apple taken been
That apple taken been,
Then never had Oure Lady
Have been Hevene Queene.

Then thankes be to God
That apple taken was.
Therefore we maun singen
Deo gratias.

So it was a bit of theology that got into the popular mind, too.

[FlaGranny]

175. How could it be so?

"And the Bible says of Judas that it would have been better for him that had he not been born - and it says it more than once."

If Judas had never been born, someone else would have had to take his place to perform the "betrayal." Who would it have been? Mary, Peter, Thomas, another deciple? Judas was doing the will of God. Why in the world should he be punished and reviled for it?

[Supersedeas]

180. Bart Ehrman: maybe Lost Christianities and another called Lost Scriptures

Both are very readable and thoroughly intriguing

[TechBear_Seattle]

181. I will have to track those down, thanks. n/t

[The Witch]

43. I thought this was a parody news post

...mocking the freepers' response to the new Plamegate revelations.

"If Jesus ordered it, it wasn't a betrayal!"

:rofl:

[Chemical Bill]

82. I like the way you think.

:rofl: :hi:

Bill

[0007]

48. I like the "Jesus Christ Super Star" story better.

Judas betrayed Jesus because of his love for him and thought that Jesus would be safer in the hands of the Romans instead of the Jews. When Judas realized his mistake he left this world.

[kiraboo]

49. All Christians, bar none, ignore certain parts of the bible and other

historical documentation, in favor of that which supports their own particular angle on the faith. And since the believers themselves are uninterested in the pursuit in truth, why should I, a nonbeliever, care at all? Just a thought.

[NIGHT TRIPPER]

65. many like to interpret the Bible as an "expert"-with no research/training

Funny how the truth is secondary to the defense of embedded "beliefs".

It seems these "experts" stating slanted viewpoints as fact are experts
simply because they listened to a "pastor' and attended Bible study classes.

Just read some of these "all knowing" posts on this thread!
You'd think youd get a "my opinion is" or a "my church believes" to clarify--
no you just get a "this is how it is" blanket statement!

The funny thing is that most of these self proclaimed Bible "experts" from Sundee School
don't even attempt to understand the actual physical source of the origninal texts.
Most don't realize that the "thee" and the Thou" is a translation done at the time of King James (a great guy)
and that their text is simply a translation done in Middle English.
(some do -hence the NEW English Bible- but many fun-dumb-mentalists quote "scripture" from King James version)

Hebrew numerology (and Kaballah) is usually disregarded.
Coloquial expressions of the time not taken into account-
Context is completely ignored-
Timeline and author is largely ignored-
(Paul seems to be quoted more often than anyone else and he wasn't even a disciple!)

literal ignorance--literally!

[newspeak]

89. So, if there is significance of numbers in the text

for instance, the dividing of the seven loaves of bread--do you know of a book that explains the significance of numbers in the Bible? I would really like to study this concept. Since I have read that there may be an underlying meaning to certain words that mere layman cannot perceive.

[NIGHT TRIPPER]

134. sure--it's pretty easy--

You can find a book or google info about the Hebrew Numerology used at that time.
Also Kaballah--the people who wrote the original texts were Hebrew so it was
common for them to use numbers with underlying meanings.


It's fairly easy to find info about it--I was fortunate to have been taught about
some of the numerological meanings in class at the Episcopal High School I went to-

good luck!

[truth2power]

156. Newspeak, you might want to check out

Margaret Starbird's books:

"Mary Magdalene, Bride in Exile"
"The Woman with the Alabaster Jar", and especially, if you're interested in the symbolism of numbers, "Magdalene's Lost Legacy: Symbolic Numbers and the Sacred Union in Christianity".

Here's what Starbird says about gematria, which she distinguishes from numerology:

"A few New Testament scholars are now addressing the issue of symbolic numbers found in scripture and their astonishing implications. Unfortunately for the integrity of New Testament scholarship, a number of Christians, even in our enlightened age, attack this fascinating field of study, giving it a negative spin by branding it 'numerology'. Gematria is not numerology and is not used for divination. It is, rather, a historically verified literary device used to enhance the impact of a name or phrase by deliberate association with the symbolic number of the cosmic principle it manifests. ( M.M, Bride in Exile p. 72)

I've read the first 2 books, above, and I'm still trying to wrap my mind around the concept of gematria. Hopefully, the third book will clear all this up.

[jus_the_facts]

51. Glory Glory Halli 'burton...no one's ever learned anything from history..

....in any context...you can discuss it for infinity but nothing ever changes...the have's and have more persecutin' the meek and ignorant...same politics different millennia....ahh when in Rome.... :eyes:

[fshrink]

52. Who?

[newspeak]

55. want to really have your mind blown

One book I read argued that there is John the Baptist believers (Zorastrians?) who believed that Yeshua was the pupil of John the Baptist and that Yeshua betrayed John the Baptist. Now I know the Zorastrians believe that the God over the Earth is a Demiurge and is a cruel God--and is not the Creator of all. Like a Lucifer who has dominion over the Earth. Their beliefs are very polar; light and dark, good and evil. However, I don't know if they believe that John the Baptist was the true Messiah, betrayed by Yeshua.

[Critters2]

90. This is all pretty interesting

but for those of us who study these things professionally the Gospel of Judas has already been debunked as a fraud. I can't figure out why it's just gaining such public interest all of a sudden. For those who live with these issues, this is old news. And a fraud.

[MrMonk]

111. Debunked by whom? And for what reasons?

Not a challenge, just questions asked.

[Critters2]

185. Most effectively by James Robinson, one of the best NT scholars

in this country. His book _Secrets of Judas_ debunks the idea that the Gospel of Judas is authentic. The biggest problem with it is its date. It was written in the 3rd Century, well after the canonical gospels (the latest of which was written at the end of the 1st Century). There's no reason to believe the writer(s) of this text have any real knowledge of Jesus' interaction with Judas.

Basically, it's a novel about Judas written in the 3rd C.

The MSM LOVE to drop this kind of religious nonsense into the air around Easter time. It sells magazines and commercial air time. And gets all the anti-religious tinfoil hat types worked into a lather. And look...it worked!!

There's nothing new under the sun.

[theobscure]

186. LOL....anti-religious = tin foil hat? interesting n/t

[Critters2]

192. You know, the "Council of Ncaea was a conspiracy

to rid the world of true Christianity" nonsense.

Again, it sells books and magazines. Which is the point, after all.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

153. The Zoroastrians are not "John the Baptist believers"

They're the ancient religion of Persia, founded by Zarathustra.

I know that there is a religion that believes that John the Baptist was the true Messiah, but it's not the Zoroastrians, who predate Christianity by several centuries.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/zoroastr.htm

[kineneb]

161. answer:Mandeans

Who still live in Iran and Iraq. According to some traditions, there has to be Two Messiahs (annointed ones): the Priestly Messiah, and the Kingly Messiah. John the Baptist was to have been the Priestly Messiah, but was executed before he could fulfill his end of the deal. Jesus tried to continue the movement, the goal of which was to kick out the Romans, on his own, but failed.

Other traditions hold that Jesus' twin brother, Thomas (which means "twin") was the one who died on the cross. Jesus then escaped to the east with his mother. There is a tomb in Iran which is considered by some to be the burial place of Miriam (Mary). From there, he continued east to India, where he was murdered by Brahman (or other) priests.

[newspeak]

177. thank you all for the information

i'm going to research Mandeans and locate books on sacred geometry and numbers in the Bible

[MrMonk]

191. That's interesting, because there's another tradition

that Thomas went to India.

[okasha]

200. That's the Mandaeans, newspeak.

There's still an extant community of them in Iraq. (If there's any community left extant in Iraq, that is.)

[lovuian]

66. I agree with the test Jesus knew Judas was going to betray him

and in a way the bible kinda underlying says it... when Jesus at the Last Supper tells then someone will betray them and looks at Judas and Judas says Not Me and Jesus says yes you. (Matthew) ALL mARK SAYS IS woe to the one who betrays the Son of God It would be better he not be born...In John Jesus hands the bread to Judas and says "What you are about to do, do quickly" (John) and in Luke its not brought up at the Last Supper...

Its pretty obvious Jesus saw his death and could have stopped it at anytime if he wanted... (like hightailing it out of dodge) but he didn't... this gospel just says that Judas maybe not the evil man we thought... One thing Judas teaches me is that we all have to live with the choices we make... So if you make that choice be ready to live with it or be haunted for the rest of your life... judas didn't sleep at night and thus his suicide...

If you read between the lines in the bible you can see that Jesus knew and in one passage urged Judas to betray him quickly

this version just add credence to that theory

and just to let ya know it was thirty silver coins in Matthew

[okieinpain]

67. you know I like this thread, alot of info here, that's why I like DU.

[FSogol]

71. Off topic, but "Terry Garcia" is an unfortunate name for a scholar. n/t

[Bucky]

101. Combination of Jerry Garcia and Terry Garr. I think it's perfect.

also n/t

[AuntiBush]

75. Have these findings been tested scientifically?

Wondering.

[jobycom]

83. That's what the story's about

The document was proven to date from around 300AD by carbon dating. It was written in Coptic, and is a copy of an older Greek document that was referenced by a bishop in Lyon around 180 AD.

It has not been linked to Jesus in any way, but it proves some points about the early church. Farther than that, it's a matter of belief.

[theobscure]

80. so Jesus had a Jesus complex n/t

[evworldeditor]

92. Misquoting Jesus -- Excellent layman's book on NT textual criticism

I just finished reading "Misquoting Jesus". It's a great read and explains in detail how its impossible to know exactly what the first century Christians wrote. The canon as we know it wasn't laid down until 4th century and then in an effort to unify a highly splintered sect with scores or even hundreds of epistles, gospels and apologies.

[Barrett808]

105. Also check out The Jesus Legend and The Jesus Myth by G.A. Wells

The Jesus Legend
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0812693345/qid=1144358326/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/103-2730935-6778244?s=books&v=glance&n=283155

The Jesus Myth
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0812693922/qid=1144358391/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/103-2730935-6778244?s=books&v=glance&n=283155


Both pursue the theory that was was no historical Jesus, but instead an aggregation of mythology as with any other oral tradition.

[Roland99]

157. From Jesus to Christianity - L. Michael White

A really good book.

[0rganism]

94. Stand Up For Judas! (folk song)

Stand Up For Judas/Leon Rosselson
The Romans were the masters when Jesus walked the land
In Judea and in Galilee they ruled with an iron hand
And the poor were sick with hunger and the rich were clothed in splendour
And the rebels whipped and crucified hung rotting as a warning
And Jesus knew the answer
Said, Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, said, Love your enemies
But Judas was a Zealot and he wanted to be free
Resist, he said, The Romans' tyranny

Chorus:
So stand up, stand up for Judas and the cause that Judas served
It was Jesus who betrayed the poor with his word

Jesus was a conjuror, miracles were his game
And he fed the hungry thousands and they glorified his name
He cured the lame and the lepers, he calmed the wind and the weather
And the wretched flocked to touch him so their troubles would be taken
And Jesus knew the answer
All you who labour, all you who suffer only believe in me
But Judas sought a world where no one starved or begged for bread
The poor are always with us, Jesus said

Now Jesus brought division where none had been before
Not the slaves against their masters but the poor against the poor
Set son to rise up against father, and brother to fight against brother
For he that is not with me is against me, was his teaching
Said Jesus, I am the answer
You unbelievers shall burn forever, shall die in your sins
Not sheep and goats, said Judas, But together we may dare
Shake off the chains of misery we share

Jesus stood upon the mountain with a distance in his eyes
I am the way, the life, he cried, The light that never dies
So renounce all earthly treasures and pray to your heavenly father
And he pacified the hopeless with the hope of life eternal
Said Jesus, I am the answer
And you who hunger only remember your reward's in Heaven
So Jesus preached the other world but Judas wanted this
And he betrayed his master with a kiss

By sword and gun and crucifix Christ's gospel has been spread
And two thousand cruel years have shown the way that Jesus led
The heretics burned and tortured, and the butchering, bloody crusaders
The bombs and rockets sanctified that rain down death from heaven
They followed Jesus, they knew the answer
All non-believers must be believers or else be broken
So put no trust in Saviours, Judas said, For everyone
Must be to his or her own self - a sun

(Dick Gaughan did my favorite version of this song)

[ShortnFiery]

146. Love it! Conveys all we need to know about which path in life to take.

:applause:

I'll go the way of my "reward in heaven" route.

With a TRUE loving master, we will be rewarded in the afterlife.

If only we would heed his word ... IMO, The Sermon on the Mount.

BTW it freaks me out when people AD HOC quote scripture, but in this thread, I believe that, this one is "a keeper" for strength in this world:

Luke 18 9 ... Also He spoke this parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector to some who trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others. But the self righteous in their own works will not be accepted by God. Only those who come humbly depending on his mercy seeing themselves as sinners will be accepted.

[CreekDog]

149. thanks for the Luke 18:9 cite

Good choice.

[ShortnFiery]

151. You're welcome n/t

[Zhade]

95. Cool, I love good new fiction!

NT!

[bee]

102. so this is rough draft then. Before the more dramatic re-write. n/t

[melody]

114. This reads like Bible fan fiction lol

Makes you wonder if there's a twist ending we don't know about. :evilgrin:

[superconnected]

119. you gotta wonder why people would want a book by Judas

Next do we get Satans version of what REALLY happened.

I'd like to hear Gods story, myself. So far it's all "God said".

Of couse the most insane person I ever met gave me a copy of the book _a course in miracles_ which is what Jesus told the author. He didn't specifiy to take dictation, but she did anyway... then died a short time later from a few years of super deep depression.

So why should this Judas book be any better.

[newspeak]

145. well, actually, didn't Mark Twain

write a book about Lucifer reporting to God how things were going down on Earth? How the humans were doing.

[VegasWolf]

126. How fucking boring! One group of religionists vs another. Next problem

please.

[CreekDog]

129. The story was about religion

VegasWolf,

If you find it boring, there are thousands of other threads to read.

What discussion did you expect from a thread about a Gospel of Judas? Cupcake recipies?

[VegasWolf]

133. Just offering my opinion!!! Actually I feel all religion is boring and I

have a right to say so as long as religious nutcakes try to interfere politically by imposing their narrow, simple, unimaginative viewpoints on the country!!!!!

:evilgrin::evilgrin::evilgrin::evilgrin::evilgrin::evilgrin::evilgrin::evilgrin:

[CreekDog]

144. Okay, no problem

But if you don't like drunks, stay away from bars. As they say.

;o)

[VegasWolf]

160. LOL. but actually I like drunks!

:toast:

[CreekDog]

165. drunks are only fun if you're drunk with them

;o)

[ShortnFiery]

148. Oh alas!

Why do you hate Our Lord, Our God! :sarcasm: and in case you didn't catch it - :sarcasm: :sarcasm:

[VegasWolf]

179. The Invisible Sky People are being sarcastic! nt

[VegasWolf]

127. Duplicate post.

[sweetheart]

132. this is like sooo... whatever

Oh rupert murdoch must have a smile,
yellow news trash uncovered from what he said she said,
and my mother told me 300 years ago awhile,
he said, judas oh please jack me up instead.
In thy apologistic verse doth betray,
the iconic love abstracted from his enlightened dissolute head,
300 years from now, bush forgotten, new republic, hey!
the iraqis asked us kindly, to bomb them stone-cold dead.

Jesus did you ask me to betray you
;and the neo-Jesuit can wear golden robes well fed,
Jesus Lord, can God holy spirit ever betray you
;without you and within you, devout immaculate head.
Soon they'll be burning mountains of bibles,
a crystalline night, flaming pyramids of liabel.

[MaryBear]

168. He said she said my grandmother told me, is what the Bible is

and indeed it contains some powerful anecdotal stuff! Who defines trash? The majority or the minority? The politicians at the Council of Nicea? Or the Politico-Theologians of today?

[JPZenger]

136. So Judas was a good German - he was just following orders

Lets not mention all that silver

[NashVegas]

141. The Secret to Good Show Business Is .... Timing

I just heard an ad for the Nat'l Geographic special on the scroll for this Sunday.


Neat coincidence, huh?

[Maddy McCall]

159. NATIONAL GEO CHANNEL TO AIR "GOSPEL OF JUDAS" SUNDAY NIGHT.

Sunday Night
8PM eastern
National Geographic Channel

http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/channel/gospelofjudas/

[Raine]

169. I'm a history buff, I love this kind of stuff

ABC's Nightline had a good piece on it. It's interesting to think about how many of the atrocities (like the Holocaust) possibly happened because of the suppression of things like this.:-(

[brentspeak]

171. A copy made in 300 A.D of the original made in 200 A.D.

That sort of rules out that the actual Judas -- or anyone else of his time -- could possibly have written this: Judas, Jesus, etc. all lived between 1-100 A.D.

[FlaGranny]

176. Indeed, and this also applies

to most of the New Testament.

[Zynx]

184. Books of the New Testament were mostly written in the first and early

second centuries. When they were collected into the New Testament is a different story altogether.

[Critters2]

189. The "Gospel of Judas" was written well after the canon

The latest canonical gospel was written by 100 CE. A good century, or more, before this document.

[Megahurtz]

182. So I guess we're all not going to Hell after all!!!

:silly::silly::silly::silly::silly::silly::silly::silly::silly::silly::silly:

[phrenzy]

196. The Existence Of Historical Christ

How anybody can read evidence and apply common sense to the Bible and the growth of the Jesus legend and STILL believe he existed in history has always seemed strange to me. To not even question his very existence seems to be willful ignorance.

In fact, the early Gnostics were already calling "bullshit" on a historical flesh and blood Jesus. Also, if you study EARLY Christianity, Christ is spoken about in a VERY metaphysical way. As visions and symbols, etc.

The Bible AND Jesus are PURE Allegory.

Now, I am not judging the SYMBOL of a Jesus figure - Most of the messages attributed directly to him are honorable and noble and make a for a pretty good moral compass. But that shouldn't stand in the way of REASON.

FROM WIKI:

"It is not just that the early documents are silent about so much of Jesus that came to be recorded in the gospels, but that they view him in a substantially different way—as a basically supernatural personage only obscurely on Earth as a man at some unspecified period in the past, 'emptied' then of all his supernatural attributes (Phil.2:7), and certainly not a worker of prodigious miracles which made him famous throughout 'all Syria' (Mt.4:24). I have argued that there is good reason to believe that the Jesus of Paul was constructed largely from musing and reflecting on a supernatural 'Wisdom' figure, amply documented in the earlier Jewish literature, who sought an abode on Earth, but was there rejected, rather than from information concerning a recently deceased historical individual. The influence of the Wisdom literature is undeniable; only assessment of what it amounted to still divides opinion."

[madrchsod]

201. big deal...

i place that with Ezekiel "saw the wheel" and the jews wandering around for 40 years when "the promise land" was just right next door. another good story to keep the uneducated medicated

[nolabels]

202. Many of the twisted stories in bible are philsophical adaptations

It's illogical dismiss the whole world because one person or even a few lied or embellished a story.

Using philosophy from the bible seems okay to me as long as it's practical and life affirming. The fundies give that book a bad reputation if you ask me though.


Btw I am a non-religious cynic by application

[madrchsod]

203. i know i was being cynical