Ancient Text says Jesus asked Judas to betray Him

[QED]

Originally posted by: Schadenfroh

anyone who doesn't believe jesus had a wife just doesn't pay any attention to history at all.

History being The Da vinci Code?

Apparently...

So for you self-proclaimed history experts out there, did Jesus even exist? Or did he exist, but was married to Mary Magdalene? Because you can't have it both ways...

 

[QED]

Originally posted by: Babbles

Originally posted by: JoLLyRoGer

Originally posted by: j00fek
give me a break, religion is horse sh!t

Fixed..

It's this sort of closed-minded idiocy that lends to cause problems in the world. Way to go.

Anyhow, I fail to see why so many people are quick to judge this as being false. I am no Biblical scholar in any sort of fashion, however I was under the impression that in the Bible as we know it, Jesus knew Judas was going to sell him out to the Romans. As such, I find it hard to understand why this particular Gnostic citation would not be believable since it would essentially tie-in with what is already accepted; I could see how this would fit into the rest of the account of Jesus' Crucifixion. Now with that being said, I could also see how it would be totally false due to people attempting to spin Judas' actions into a more positive light. However, what would be the purpose of them doing so? Why, in 300CE, would somebody create some document to make Judas look like Jesus' buddy and the only one who really "got it"?

Good questions...

Whether or not this text is factually correct or not is probably not even determinable-- so it cannot be dismissed solely on those grounds.

However, seeing as it was written sometime significantly after the events it describes you do have to question it legitimacy and its sourcing-- just as has been done to the writings which are currently accepted as part of today's Bible.

 

[kitkat22]

How can anyone accept this as true so quickly? I have a few problems with this; how do we know the author of the document didn't have something against Christianity? How do we know this person didn't "fall" from the faith? How do we know this person actually wrote a factual document and wasn't lying? Isn't this supposed to be a "secret" conversation? Who overheard it? How was it passed down? Carbon dating puts this at 300AD, if the story was passed down, how do we know it wasn't altered; that is at least 270 years? I don't buy it unless there is another document to prove it, which will probably not happen. The Bible, Science and the courts all state the more witnesses/experiments the better.

 

[Jzero]

I don't think anyone with a brain is actually going to either just accept or deny that this document is gospel truth (see what I did there?)

 

[mordantmonkey]

Originally posted by: Accipiter22

The manuscript was first mentioned in a treatise around 180 A.D. by a bishop, Irenaeus of Lyon, in what is now France. The bishop denounced the manuscript as differing from mainstream Christianity and said it produced a fictitious story.

haha yeah hate to have a fictitious story in the bible. Cause you know it's important that everything in the bible is fact checked.

 

[Lonyo]

Why is this any less likely to be true than what made it into the Bible?

 

[LordMorpheus]

I've always been somewhat sympathetic with Judas. I wouldn't be surprised if this account is closer to the truth than a greedy Judas story.

I say truth in the more historical sense of the word - nobody can argue that Jesus and his followers aren't historical.

 

[J Heartless Slick]

It was written around 270 years after Jesus died and it reveals new information that is not discussed by Mark or Paul's books.

What do you think?

 

[Papagayo]

Does this mean that Judas was a hero?

 

[SaturnX]

Originally posted b:disgust:y: cscpianoman
How can anyone accept this as true so quickly? I have a few problems with this; how do we know the author of the document didn't have something against Christianity? How do we know this person didn't "fall" from the faith? How do we know this person actually wrote a factual document and wasn't lying? Isn't this supposed to be a "secret" conversation? Who overheard it? How was it passed down? Carbon dating puts this at 300AD, if the story was passed down, how do we know it wasn't altered; that is at least 270 years? I don't buy it unless there is another document to prove it, which will probably not happen. The Bible, Science and the courts all state the more witnesses/experiments the better.

You do realize that EVERYTHING, specifically the Gospels, within the Bible were passed down for years and written hundreds of years after the alleged events occured, right? :disgust:

 

[Accipiter22]

Originally posted by: AMDZen

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
Why is the fact that it's a Gnostic text a caveat?

ZV

I've noticed people won't believe anything new that sheds light on Christianity. The Bible is the be all end all and thats just the way it is.

In my personal opinion, the Gnostic gospels are even more valid then the gospels written in the bible. Mainly because they haven't been translated 50 times and changed each time.

I still ask Christians occasionally about their thoughts on Mary Magdeline, and they always say its the most blasphemous concept ever spoken of. Frankly, anyone who doesn't believe jesus had a wife just doesn't pay any attention to history at all.

Gnostic texts were translated just as many times, and were generally proven to be not based in fact time after time back in the early days of the church. I put it as a caveat since most of what they have to say is pretty much opposite to the teachings of Jesus and they guise His words as proof for for their false-religion

 

[Accipiter22]

Originally posted by: SaturnX

Originally posted b:disgust:y: cscpianoman
How can anyone accept this as true so quickly? I have a few problems with this; how do we know the author of the document didn't have something against Christianity? How do we know this person didn't "fall" from the faith? How do we know this person actually wrote a factual document and wasn't lying? Isn't this supposed to be a "secret" conversation? Who overheard it? How was it passed down? Carbon dating puts this at 300AD, if the story was passed down, how do we know it wasn't altered; that is at least 270 years? I don't buy it unless there is another document to prove it, which will probably not happen. The Bible, Science and the courts all state the more witnesses/experiments the better.

You do realize that EVERYTHING, specifically the Gospels, within the Bible were passed down for years and written hundreds of years after the alleged events occured, right? :disgust:

ABSOLUTELY CORRECT. The EARLIEST piece of the bible we have is about 40 characters from Mark I believe, from around 120 A.D. Most of it comes from 300-400 or so

 

[foghorn67]

Originally posted by: AMDZen

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
Why is the fact that it's a Gnostic text a caveat?

ZV

I've noticed people won't believe anything new that sheds light on Christianity. The Bible is the be all end all and thats just the way it is.

In my personal opinion, the Gnostic gospels are even more valid then the gospels written in the bible. Mainly because they haven't been translated 50 times and changed each time.

I still ask Christians occasionally about their thoughts on Mary Magdeline, and they always say its the most blasphemous concept ever spoken of. Frankly, anyone who doesn't believe jesus had a wife just doesn't pay any attention to history at all.

Me thinks you need to have the bible re-learnt to you. /southernpreachervoice

Most translations are researched back to the original languages. We pretty much have translation nailed down word for word, phrase for phrase. Must discrepencies have to do with the wrong english word chosen (like the difference between kill and murder) or it looses its meaning when trying to form a sentence that flows well in english.
If you reall think that the bible was translated 50 times operator style, you might want to go back on that and dig some more.

 

[dwcal]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
Why is the fact that it's a Gnostic text a caveat?

ZV

Gnosticism was a competing interpretation of Chrisitanity in the early years, and it was denounced as heresy by the Catholic Church. If you know the Nicene Creed,those are the official beliefs of the Catholic Church that were adopted in 325.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicene_creed

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: Accipiter22
This comes with a caveat...even when I was half way through reading this I thought it sounded suspiciously Gnostic...and then a few sentences later they mention Gnostics...still an interesting read

http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/04/06/gospel.judas.ap/index.html


WASHINGTON (AP) -- National Geographic unveiled an ancient manuscript Thursday that may shed new light on the relationship between Jesus and Judas, the disciple who betrayed him.

The papyrus manuscript was written probably around 300 A.D. in Coptic script, a copy of an earlier Greek manuscript.

It was discovered in the desert in Egypt in the 1970s and has now been authenticated by carbon dating and studied and translated by biblical scholars, National Geographic announced.

Unlike the four gospels in the Bible, this text indicates that Judas betrayed Jesus at Jesus' request.

The text begins "the secret account of the revelation that Jesus spoke in conversation with Judas Iscariot."

The key passage comes when Jesus tells Judas "you will exceed all of them. For you will sacrifice the man that clothed me."

This indicates that Judas would help liberate the spiritual self by helping Jesus get rid of his physical flesh, the scholars said.

The manuscript was first mentioned in a treatise around 180 A.D. by a bishop, Irenaeus of Lyon, in what is now France. The bishop denounced the manuscript as differing from mainstream Christianity and said it produced a fictitious story.

There were several gospels in circulation at the time in addition to the four in the Bible. When those gospels were denounced, it was thought that believers hid them away.

The gospel of Judas was kept by a group called the Gnostics, who believed that the way to salvation was through secret knowledge given by Jesus to his inner circle.

National Geographic said the author of the gospel of Judas believed that Judas Iscariot alone understood the true significance of Jesus' teachings.

Some musings...

I think rather that they have misinterpreted this finding. It makes more sense to me that Judas did not betray Jesus, but that Jesus and his disciples conspired to betray another man who would be crucified *AS* Jesus in his stead. It would stand to reason then that such conspirators would have motive to collect the body from it's tomb before it could be closely inspected. The absence of the real body coupled with Jesus still up an walking around after he was supposedly crucified... voila! Resurrection myth.

-Garth

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: dwcal

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
Why is the fact that it's a Gnostic text a caveat?

ZV

Gnosticism was a competing interpretation of Chrisitanity in the early years, and it was denounced as heresy by the Catholic Church. If you know the Nicene Creed,those are the official beliefs of the Catholic Church that were adopted in 325.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicene_creed

I worship at an Anglican church where we recite that creed at least once a week. I'm familiar with both the creed and with the intentions of the Council of Nicea. The creed is a marvelous starting point, but it rather completely side-steps the inherent mysticism of Christ's teachings. Turning Christianity into a dogma, while necessary to form a solid foundation, cannot ever be fully sufficient or expressive of who and what Christ is.

I still fail to see how the fact that it is Gnostic is a caveat.

Anyone even remotely familiar with Gnosticism knows that nothing in Gnostic writings can be taken as "fact" in theobservable sense. The entire point of Gnostic writings is the use of myth to express eternal facts that are not accessable through other means.

As far as the teachings of Gnosticism being against the teachings of Jesus, that's not fully accurate. Gnosticism aligns well with Jesus' actual quotations. What is doesn't align with is Paul's teaching.

ZV

 

[wkabel23]

Originally posted by: dwcal

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
Why is the fact that it's a Gnostic text a caveat?

ZV

Gnosticism was a competing interpretation of Chrisitanity in the early years, and it was denounced as heresy by the Catholic Church. If you know the Nicene Creed,those are the official beliefs of the Catholic Church that were adopted in 325.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicene_creed

Let me attempt to define Gnosticism as I remember from college

Gnosticism is basically a term that was invented by scholars in the process of categorizing the early Christian "heresies." Scholars generally divide the earliest types of heresies into 2 groups: Jewish Christianity and Gnosticism. Jewish Christianity is characterized by too positive an appropriation of Judaism; whereas Gnosticism by too little Judaism or even a negative attitude towards it.

On the other hand, Orthodoxy is "just right," rejecting "Jewish error" while claiming the heritage of Scripture for its own. Orthodoxy establishes what is considered the "correct" relationship to Jewish Scripture and tradition as the single most important factor in defining normative Christian identity. These typologies can only be established in hindsight and are merely academic constructs.

The texts/people that are grouped under Gnostics did exist but they never understood themselves as anything other than Christians, let alone herectics. The label Gnostics is simply a method for labeling these people as herectics while maintaining the appearance of impartiality.

 

[dwcal]

Originally posted by: wkabel23
The texts/people that are grouped under Gnostics did exist but they never understood themselves as anything other than Christians, let alone herectics. The label Gnostics is simply a method for labeling these people as herectics while maintaining the appearance of impartiality.

So what you're saying it history is written by the winners?

 

[DaShen]

gnostic gospels.

interesting read but overall put into practice as an outshooting of a cult following.

 

[JS80]

I don't see anything that suggests Jesus asked Judas to betray, but merely told him that he will betray, just like he told Peter he would deny Him three times.

 

[AMDZen]

Originally posted by: batchusa

Originally posted by: AMDZen
Frankly, anyone who doesn't believe jesus had a wife just doesn't pay any attention to history at all.

I am curious regarding this. Can you post some links with some additional info?

Just search for the Gnostic gospels. You can find information on them all over the net. Some of the documents recovered in Egypt (as with the one spoken of in this article) were also authenticated with carbon dating.

I'm not saying Jesus was married, but logic dictates that he most likely was. Look also for the culture surrounding all Jewish people in the day that Jesus lived. The fact is that all jewish men from his time married. It was culturely expected.

Originally posted by: Schadenfroh

anyone who doesn't believe jesus had a wife just doesn't pay any attention to history at all.

History being The Da vinci Code?

In case you didn't know, Da Vinci was alive long before Dan Brown. And the "rumors" if you will, of Mary Magdeline predated Da Vinci by as many years. Just because you get the only knowledge you have of history from a popular book doesn't mean the idea hasn't been around for as long as Christianity itself.

Actually the History Channel did a thing on the Da Vinci code and Mary Magdeline. Almost everything in that book was made up, the Priory of Scion and the private documents saying Da Vinci was a member was all made up. Mary may or may not have given birth to a daughter, and the supposed "line" of Christ probably didn't tie into the Merovingian's of France. But that doesn't make the simple fact that Jesus was probably married untrue. Its as yet unproven either way, however there is quite a bit of evidence that she most likely existed.

 

[AMDZen]

Originally posted by: MathMan

Originally posted by: Schadenfroh

anyone who doesn't believe jesus had a wife just doesn't pay any attention to history at all.

History being The Da vinci Code?

Apparently...

So for you self-proclaimed history experts out there, did Jesus even exist? Or did he exist, but was married to Mary Magdalene? Because you can't have it both ways...

You can't? What kind of naive statement is that?

 

[AMDZen]

Originally posted by: Accipiter22

Originally posted by: AMDZen

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
Why is the fact that it's a Gnostic text a caveat?

ZV

I've noticed people won't believe anything new that sheds light on Christianity. The Bible is the be all end all and thats just the way it is.

In my personal opinion, the Gnostic gospels are even more valid then the gospels written in the bible. Mainly because they haven't been translated 50 times and changed each time.

I still ask Christians occasionally about their thoughts on Mary Magdeline, and they always say its the most blasphemous concept ever spoken of. Frankly, anyone who doesn't believe jesus had a wife just doesn't pay any attention to history at all.

Gnostic texts were translated just as many times, and were generally proven to be not based in fact time after time back in the early days of the church. I put it as a caveat since most of what they have to say is pretty much opposite to the teachings of Jesus and they guise His words as proof for for their false-religion

Actually, barring that argument - a lot of what religion is today goes against the teachings of Jesus. He specifically stated he did not want Christianity to become what it has become today. Saying to pray outside and in congregation with your fellow man. Knowing that the idea of a church in and of itself was something he didn't want.

 

[AMDZen]

Originally posted by: dwcal

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
Why is the fact that it's a Gnostic text a caveat?

ZV

Gnosticism was a competing interpretation of Chrisitanity in the early years, and it was denounced as heresy by the Catholic Church. If you know the Nicene Creed,those are the official beliefs of the Catholic Church that were adopted in 325.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicene_creed

Thats only more of a reason to believe the gnostic documents over the catholics. Considering the lengths they went to in order to turn all pagan's into christians. They even created satan himself, and made him into a goat form because that was a pagan symbol. Not to mention taking the winter solstice, and making it Christ's birthday since it was a day celebrated by the pagan's at the time anyway. I could go on and on with examples like this

 

[Accipiter22]

Originally posted by: AMDZen

Originally posted by: Accipiter22

Originally posted by: AMDZen

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
Why is the fact that it's a Gnostic text a caveat?

ZV

I've noticed people won't believe anything new that sheds light on Christianity. The Bible is the be all end all and thats just the way it is.

In my personal opinion, the Gnostic gospels are even more valid then the gospels written in the bible. Mainly because they haven't been translated 50 times and changed each time.

I still ask Christians occasionally about their thoughts on Mary Magdeline, and they always say its the most blasphemous concept ever spoken of. Frankly, anyone who doesn't believe jesus had a wife just doesn't pay any attention to history at all.

Gnostic texts were translated just as many times, and were generally proven to be not based in fact time after time back in the early days of the church. I put it as a caveat since most of what they have to say is pretty much opposite to the teachings of Jesus and they guise His words as proof for for their false-religion

Actually, barring that argument - a lot of what religion is today goes against the teachings of Jesus. He specifically stated he did not want Christianity to become what it has become today. Saying to pray outside and in congregation with your fellow man. Knowing that the idea of a church in and of itself was something he didn't want.

the point about churches is true as well, I've often wrestled with this fact and referred back to the Bible several times.


Also many gnostic groups took on the form of cults with bizarre rituals. And I still say that the idea that Christ's message was secret is wrong. He came to spread the Word to everyone, believers or not.