The Gospel of Judas
The Gospel of Judas
I'm curious to see what others think of this. I have my own thoughts but I'd rather not start steering the discussion.
Gospel of Judas
Gospel of Judas
Last edited by Alatar on Fri Apr 07, 2006 12:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.
The Vinyamars on Stage! This time at Bag End
-
- Posts: 1579
- Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2005 3:34 pm
If it is used to learn about the early church, and the various splits and differences of opinion therein, I think it's fascinating.
If it's used to attack Christianity saying it's core biblical gospels are somehow less true or wrong... then I naturally question the attacker's motivation... even if it's eloquently spoken in scholarly works.
There are many writings of early members of the church... and each comes from people who had differning opinions about what the church should be, and what Christianity should be...
What makes the writings that made it into the Bible more important than the others? Well, you can come at it from different places... one, the people that put together the writings for the new testement, were the ones that were closest to the people who were actually THERE, and therefore knew what was accurate... two, if Jesus was God, then it seems likely he would have used divine inspiration to make sure his message survived intact and through the centuries in a centralized text... three, despite thorough attacks throughout millenia, the texts in the Bible are in fact internally consistant, and other writings of the early church introduce many inconsistancies.
Some believe the Bible is the actual word of God. Others thing it is compiled by man, and therefore possibly flawed, and possibly incomplete, or there may be stuff in there that shouldn't be.
To me, it's simple. If it's not the word of God, if it's possibly flawed... then we can NEVER KNOW what's accurate and not accurate, and therefore can never possibly get the message from God in a written form. Since I believe God wants us to get his message, in any way we possibly can, I think he would deliver it to us... and I think that vehicle is the Bible.
So while The Gospel of Judus, and the Gospel of Thomas, and all the other writings of people from the first few centuries are extremely interesting historically... I do not believe it is necessary to incorporate them into Christian beliefs... I think God's given us what we need.
(I don't know if that's the kind of stuff you wanted to talk about Alatar, but it's what I think about every time one of these things gets into general discussion )
If it's used to attack Christianity saying it's core biblical gospels are somehow less true or wrong... then I naturally question the attacker's motivation... even if it's eloquently spoken in scholarly works.
There are many writings of early members of the church... and each comes from people who had differning opinions about what the church should be, and what Christianity should be...
What makes the writings that made it into the Bible more important than the others? Well, you can come at it from different places... one, the people that put together the writings for the new testement, were the ones that were closest to the people who were actually THERE, and therefore knew what was accurate... two, if Jesus was God, then it seems likely he would have used divine inspiration to make sure his message survived intact and through the centuries in a centralized text... three, despite thorough attacks throughout millenia, the texts in the Bible are in fact internally consistant, and other writings of the early church introduce many inconsistancies.
Some believe the Bible is the actual word of God. Others thing it is compiled by man, and therefore possibly flawed, and possibly incomplete, or there may be stuff in there that shouldn't be.
To me, it's simple. If it's not the word of God, if it's possibly flawed... then we can NEVER KNOW what's accurate and not accurate, and therefore can never possibly get the message from God in a written form. Since I believe God wants us to get his message, in any way we possibly can, I think he would deliver it to us... and I think that vehicle is the Bible.
So while The Gospel of Judus, and the Gospel of Thomas, and all the other writings of people from the first few centuries are extremely interesting historically... I do not believe it is necessary to incorporate them into Christian beliefs... I think God's given us what we need.
(I don't know if that's the kind of stuff you wanted to talk about Alatar, but it's what I think about every time one of these things gets into general discussion )
Or that it is even possible. You can't very well incorporate something that is contrary to the currently established tenets of the faith. Either Jesus was the Son of God or he wasn't. I don't see how a Christianity that views Jesus' divinity and sacrifice as essential, and a Christianity that doesn't, are reconcilable (speaking generally, not in reference to the opening link which I have not yet read).halplm wrote:I do not believe it is necessary to incorporate them into Christian beliefs...
The article didn't seem to suggest that the gospel of Judas challenged any of those things. The only real difference was that it suggested that Judas' betrayal was premeditated and orchestrated by Christ. It's an angle I have always found interesting. To me, Judas has always been a fascinating character. Without him, Christ would never have achieved what he did. He was an instrument of God as much as anyone else. So why is he reviled? This document suggests that Judas was working with Christ right till the end. Perhaps he was trying to bring Jesus and the Pharisee's together before there was bloodshed. Perhaps Jesus was using Judas as the instrument of his destruction. Either way, I cannot believe that Judas was not crucial to Christs resurrection. It makes no sense otherwise.
The Vinyamars on Stage! This time at Bag End
- truehobbit
- Cute, cuddly and dangerous to know
- Posts: 6019
- Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 2:52 am
- Contact:
Isn't that the same a German magazine reported on a year or so ago? I remember Kushana asking about it in the German thread on b77. There was a bit of discussion about it there.
Everybody knows that by the year 300 Christianity was split up and confused among its own members by theological discussion about things like the nature of Christ and the difficulty to translate the new ideas into different cultures.
Which is why the first General Council was assembled in Nicaea in 325. It came up with a summary of accepted creed, and was followed by another council in 381 - the new creed addressed the points on which diverging opinions had arisen.
Just thought this was interesting with respect to the reliability of the article.
Um - there is no myth of a monolithic religion.These discoveries are exploding the myth of a monolithic religion, and demonstrating how diverse — and fascinating — the early Christian movement really was."
Everybody knows that by the year 300 Christianity was split up and confused among its own members by theological discussion about things like the nature of Christ and the difficulty to translate the new ideas into different cultures.
Which is why the first General Council was assembled in Nicaea in 325. It came up with a summary of accepted creed, and was followed by another council in 381 - the new creed addressed the points on which diverging opinions had arisen.
Just thought this was interesting with respect to the reliability of the article.
but being a cheerful hobbit he had not needed hope, as long as despair could be postponed.
Judas was crucial. However, his betrayal was still a betrayal. This gospel of Judas is saying it wasn't, that they were in some kind of conspiracy to get Jesus arrested...
Just because Judas needed to betray Jesus, does not mean he planed that betrayal with Jesus... otherwise it would not have been a "betrayal" Not to mention, why would Judas then hang himself... and why would none of the other disciples know of this plan?
The entire description seems to imply that Judas was somehow "better" than the rest... and no biblical writings that I'm aware of... make those kind of distinctions.
Just because Judas needed to betray Jesus, does not mean he planed that betrayal with Jesus... otherwise it would not have been a "betrayal" Not to mention, why would Judas then hang himself... and why would none of the other disciples know of this plan?
The entire description seems to imply that Judas was somehow "better" than the rest... and no biblical writings that I'm aware of... make those kind of distinctions.
-
- Posts: 1579
- Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2005 3:34 pm
- truehobbit
- Cute, cuddly and dangerous to know
- Posts: 6019
- Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 2:52 am
- Contact:
That was what I thought, too, Tosh, especially as the German magazine that reported on it a year ago isn't exactly known for its restraint in sensationalism or reliability in research. Also, the name sounds more than suspicious, doesn't it?
I can't tell, though - maybe they have discovered an ancient text. What to make of whatever is written on it, though, seems a question of interpretation.
Edited to add: from b77
not a big discussion, just Kushana's post, really, in the Symposium
And here's the bit from the German thread (with Kushana using German, and me answering in English - LOL - there's also a link to the German magazine article in Kushana's first post)
And it really is almost exactly a year ago - how strange that the NY Times should print an article now!
I can't tell, though - maybe they have discovered an ancient text. What to make of whatever is written on it, though, seems a question of interpretation.
Edited to add: from b77
not a big discussion, just Kushana's post, really, in the Symposium
And here's the bit from the German thread (with Kushana using German, and me answering in English - LOL - there's also a link to the German magazine article in Kushana's first post)
And it really is almost exactly a year ago - how strange that the NY Times should print an article now!
Last edited by truehobbit on Thu Apr 06, 2006 9:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.
but being a cheerful hobbit he had not needed hope, as long as despair could be postponed.
Well, you see, even though Harry saw Snape kill Dumbledore, and even though we know he made a vow to do so with Dumbledore's enemies a year in advance....clearly, it was all part of The Plan TM. Dumbledore asked Snape to do so, because he was trying to save Draco, or protect Snape's status as spy, or because he has a really perverse sense of humor, or because he was dying anyway.....halplm wrote:Just because Judas needed to betray Jesus, does not mean he planned that betrayal with Jesus... otherwise it would not have been a "betrayal." Not to mention, why would Judas then hang himself... and why would none of the other disciples know of this plan?
Yeah, you can always come up with conspiracy theories. In a story (particularly a mystery story), they might turn out to be true. In real life? Not as likely.
Judas is an interesting character, but I think it clear that he is a traitor. Dante knew something about him, in the end..... And I agree with Cerin - he's hardly necessary. They could have sent someone to follow Jesus to the Garden if they really wanted to know where he was! And have you ever seen the 'betrayal with a kiss' scene played convincingly? Generally, the guards stand there with their torches, the disciples stand there in a panic/ run off, and then Judas blatantly steps out from among the guards, and walks over to Jesus, who is practically standing there waiting for him. Judas always seems superfluous to me there.
Hmmm, the above is meant to be tongue-in-cheek. Of course I take the Bible more seriously than other books or movies. Sorry....
As for the article....exactly a year apart? Is this an April Fool's joke?
- Impenitent
- Throw me a rope.
- Posts: 7267
- Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2005 12:13 am
- Location: Deep in Oz
No, not an April Fools' joke.
It is agreed by most experts that the documents date from around 300 CE - so they are not contemporary with the apostolic era and it is doubted they will reveal anything unknown.
However, I think the alternative view of Judas' role presented in the writings could have impact on the view of the betrayal.
Is it really necessary from a Christian perspective that Judas IS a traitor? Could not everything else have followed, without any rearrangement of creed, if his role is reconsidered and rehabilitated?
There's also this: Judas as money-grubbing traitor became the model for the early Church's view on Jews and was not immaterial in the churches anti-semitism.
It is agreed by most experts that the documents date from around 300 CE - so they are not contemporary with the apostolic era and it is doubted they will reveal anything unknown.
However, I think the alternative view of Judas' role presented in the writings could have impact on the view of the betrayal.
Is it really necessary from a Christian perspective that Judas IS a traitor? Could not everything else have followed, without any rearrangement of creed, if his role is reconsidered and rehabilitated?
There's also this: Judas as money-grubbing traitor became the model for the early Church's view on Jews and was not immaterial in the churches anti-semitism.
Mornings wouldn't suck so badly if they came later in the day.
There are other Bible verses (Judas' remorse and hanging himself) with which that would be inconsistent.Is it really necessary from a Christian perspective that Judas IS a traitor? Could not everything else have followed, without any rearrangement of creed, if his role is reconsidered and rehabilitated?
The whole idea makes little sense to me. Jesus' death and arrest wasn't the result of Judas identifying him to the Roman soldiers. Judas was hardly necessary for the events of history to take place, so the notion that this would have been some tremendously significant role, it's just silly, imo.
In the gospels, Jesus refers to Judas as a devil. Also (unless I am greatly mistaken) there is some reference to Judas as a thief who stole coins from the company's common purse.
Also it is hard to imagine a man who, having acted on instructions from his leader, commits suicide in remorse for having done so. No, there is no room in the gospels for this re-envisioned Judas.
Obviously those who don't believe the gospels can believe as they choose. But I don't there is any way of squaring both accounts.
Also it is hard to imagine a man who, having acted on instructions from his leader, commits suicide in remorse for having done so. No, there is no room in the gospels for this re-envisioned Judas.
Obviously those who don't believe the gospels can believe as they choose. But I don't there is any way of squaring both accounts.
The early church, or the plays of the Middle Ages? The portrayal of Judas in the passion plays is sometimes linked to Anti-Semitism. I can't remember why, though - the only detail I recall is that they tended to give him red hair
The narrator says that the devil entered into Judas when he left the Last Supper. Jesus says that it would be better if he had never been born (which I take to mean that he is damned). The apostle that Jesus refers to as the devil is Peter: he says, "Get behind me, Satan!" to him after Peter says something about Jesus not having to suffer or die.
The narrator says that the devil entered into Judas when he left the Last Supper. Jesus says that it would be better if he had never been born (which I take to mean that he is damned). The apostle that Jesus refers to as the devil is Peter: he says, "Get behind me, Satan!" to him after Peter says something about Jesus not having to suffer or die.