It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Lost Gospel Revealed; Says Jesus Asked Judas to Betray Him

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 03:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by zerotolerance
I believe the Bible was divinely inspired by God himself. The gospels that landed in the final book were his divine influence. His decision/influence. God's decision/God's influence. Maybe he knew that certain people were "ad-libbing" the real story in their scrolls (stretching the truth out of proportion - way out). If a book didn't make it into the final version, it was because he didn't want it in there for a reason (misleading mankind).

So what do you think is your God's reason for letting the book enter the public's consciousness now? It may not be in the Bible, but it is certainly no longer a secret, and now people will be confused as ever. What do you think is the reason behind that?

Personally, I think that anybody who dares to speak for the Lord and claims know the meaning and purpose of anything done by the Most Holy and Powerful God of the Universe is committing the worst kind of blasphemy.




posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 03:49 PM
link   
This is yet another Gnostic gospel that has been discovered. As some have noticed, the article quoted explains what Gnostic beliefs were in the early ADs:


including the Gnostics who believed that salvation depended on secret knowledge that Jesus imparted, particularly to Judas.


The "gospel" of Judas begins,


The secret account of the revelation that Jesus spoke in conversation with Judas Iscariot during a week three days before he celebrated Passover.


Ahh, secret knowledge granted by Jesus to Judas. What's also interesting is that this "gospel" follows the typical Gnostic format, and not that of the synoptic gospels nor the gospel of John.

You ask what makes the Biblical gospel accounts more valid than the "gospel" of Judas? Every one of the gospel accounts in the Bible has information that is fallible. They mention locations, intricate details of the locations, and even the sermons Jesus gave were very relevant to the location in which He gave them. The "gospel" of Judas, like the other Gnostic "gospels", such as Thomas and Phillip, contain no falsifiable information. You cannot confirm the legitimacy or illegitimacy of the account.

If you want to read the actual English translation, you can do so here.



posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 03:59 PM
link   
Though similar statement scan be made about ANY currently existing religion... my comments are now directed at Christianity. That which is regarded as the Bible, specifically the New Testament.... is the result of SELECTION by the religious heirarchy ages ago. Numerous writings that did not fit with the desired dogma were discarded, repressed or destroyed. This makes neither the kept nor the discarded true. It is simply the manner in which what we now regard as christianity came to be.
....and LOOFO's comment is brilliant !!



posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 04:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by periwinkle blue
That which is regarded as the Bible, specifically the New Testament.... is the result of SELECTION by the religious heirarchy ages ago. Numerous writings that did not fit with the desired dogma were discarded, repressed or destroyed.


By who? And when? And no quoting the Da Vinci Code as evidence that this is true



posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 04:03 PM
link   
Which is right? Cannon or gnostic? Both written decades after Jesus' 'supposed' death. Both claiming to be able to remember word for word conversations from some odd 30 years ago prior to it being written to paper.

I can't ask this question enough. I love it.

How many people here can remember a word for word conversation they had with someone on march 24th of 2002. Just a short four years ago. Word for Word. Can't be that hard if we've got people claiming to remember word for word conversations 30 years after the fact.


Dae

posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 04:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by looofo

Originally posted by zerotolerance
IMHO (not yours), I believe the Bible was divinely inspired by God himself. The gospels that landed in the final book were his divine influence. His decision/influence. God's decision/God's influence.


And I believe God devinely inspired someone to find these lost gospels...


*APPLAUDS*

Nicely put Looofo!



posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 04:12 PM
link   
Prot0n, there are two things to consider in this. First, at the time the Bible was written, there was an oral tradition to history. Today, we do not have this tradition. Many people are literate, and there is no need for memorization as we can just reference the book we're quoting from or getting information from. In Jesus' time, there were Rabbis who had the entire Old Testament memorized. You could give them a chapter and verse, and they could recite it from memory. Accurately. Today, that has been lost. It is no longer necessary.

Second, I know I didn't have a conversation with someone in 2002 that I believed to be the messiah. There are conversations I've had several years ago that I can recall parts of word for word, but they were very important to me, and found a place in memory. Jesus' teachings were profound and revolutionary, and his disciples believed He was the messiah. Chances are, they talked amongst themselves and with Jesus about what He had said often; the gospel writers, too, occasionally documented these conversations when the disciples asked about some of Christ's parables.

Just because memorization isn’t necessary today doesn't mean it was never held in high regard and as very important in the past. You can train your mind to process information in whatever manner is most important. This is why some people can do complex math in their heads, and why some people can reference books or internet sites at the drop of a hat. They have trained their minds to do so.



posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 04:34 PM
link   
What amazes me is that if these newly discovered "gospels" had of confirmed "current" Christian dogma, they would have been embraced and the cries of "we told you so" would have echoed round the planet.

But they didn't did they.....

So now we experience big spin and just a tiny bit of hypocrisy.

This is not meant to be offencive, just sayin....



posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 04:35 PM
link   
The Gospel of Judas, even in its fragments, is an interesting read. It makes a number of points I've heard expressed elsewhere, and not just in Gnostic texts. I've always liked the idea that human beings were created and controlled by lesser gods or angels (the "Nebro" and "Salkas" mentioned in the text), basically to just mess with. The notion that the creators of the Christian church were all leading ignorant people astray because they misunderstood Jesus has also been expressed many times on this forum and elsewhere.

Unfortunately, like the Gospel of Thomas, it doesn't quite reveal the "secret of all secrets" that Jesus apparently would tell each apostle individually. Thomas mentioned that Jesus told him three things in secret that if he repeated them the rest of the apostles would stone him.

It would be nice to know what that secret stuff is. The implication is that your really can't get into Heaven without it, even if you think you're being a good and pious person.

Curiously, the part about his betrayal of Jesus seems oddly "tacked on" at the end. Just my opinion.



posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 04:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by whaaa
What amazes me is that if these newly discovered "gospels" had of confirmed "current" Christian dogma, they would have been embraced and the cries of "we told you so" would have echoed round the planet.


I highly doubt it. They may have been used as external sources giving weight to the scripture like the writings of Josephus, but they would not have been embraced as gospel themselves. The test for what went into the original 50 Bibles Constantine had commissioned in the late 4th century was based on what most Christian churches were already reading to their congregations. Anything discovered today, even if it was in accordance with what the gospel accounts state, would not be considered scriptural because none of the major first century churches, such as those in Corinth and Ephesus, were reading them nor did they have them on the lists of letters/accounts to read to the church.

Also, even if they were in accord with the Bible, but had additional information, I know I personally would be highly suspect of that information unless it had the testable facts that the Biblical gospel accounts contain.



posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 04:42 PM
link   
St. Judas?? Impossible.

CHRIST Himself said about the person who was to betray Him -
'it would be better for him if he were never born' - in other words,
the guy was going to hell for all eternity.

So if Christ said that about someone who supposedly was doing
His Will by betraying Him ... that would make Christ a deceiver and
a liar.

So is Christ a false prophet, or is the 'Gospel of Judas' a false
gospel??

I'm willing to bet that The Gospel of Judas was nothing
more than a fictional story and here we are 2,000 years later
thinking it is historical. Same thing is going to happen with
the Davinci Code. It's a total fabrication, and yet 2,000 years
from now some weenie will dig it up and say 'ohhhh look ...
historical evidence ....'



posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 04:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by junglejake

Originally posted by whaaa
What amazes me is that if these newly discovered "gospels" had of confirmed "current" Christian dogma, they would have been embraced and the cries of "we told you so" would have echoed round the planet.


I highly doubt it. They may have been used as external sources giving weight to the scripture like the writings of Josephus, but they would not have been embraced as gospel themselves.

A lot of current "Christians" will actually dispute and fight with you about things you tell them that are clearly and simply written in the Bible they use today. Like the simple fact that Revelation clearly says that only 144,000 virgin male Jews will be eligible for their wonderful "rapture." Oh, they will argue a blue streak about that one! But there it is in divinely inspired black and white.

Christians today are almost all just "pickers and choosers." They pick the parts of the books they like, and ignore the stuff that is too inconvenient for them. They are the lukewarm water that Jesus, himself, said he would spit out of his mouth. (They generally ignore that part, too.)


[edit on 7-4-2006 by Enkidu]



posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 05:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Prot0nHow many people here can remember a word for word conversation they had with someone on march 24th of 2002. Just a short four years ago. Word for Word. Can't be that hard if we've got people claiming to remember word for word conversations 30 years after the fact.


Ever read a biography or memoir? People routinely remember conversations from periods long in the past. Conversations that are poignant or insightful or life-altering easily stick in your memory. These gospels are essentially the same, but much, much more.

If you believe that you are hanging out with the son of God, you are going to try and actively remember everything he has to say to you, he is your teacher, you are his student. Also, it's not like they had these conversations with Jesus and forgot about them for 30 years. These apostles helped spread Christianity and used the words of Jesus all throughout their lives to inspire others. They endeavoured everyday after Jesus' death to teach others the lessons and experiences Jesus had brought to them.

So combine A. a belief in the Son of God, B. an active will to remember, and C. constant repitition with their own teachings of Jesus, and as you can see, there is not much difficulty for them to write these events on paper, no matter what time after their sojourn with Jesus.



posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 05:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Enkidu
Like the simple fact that Revelation clearly says that only 144,000 virgin male Jews will be eligible for their wonderful "rapture." Oh, they will argue a blue streak about that one! But there it is in divinely inspired black and white.


The verse you're talking about comes from Revelations 7:


3"Do not harm the land or the sea or the trees until we put a seal on the foreheads of the servants of our God." 4Then I heard the number of those who were sealed: 144,000 from all the tribes of Israel.


They are mentioned again in Revelations 14, too, which is where the virgin aspect comes from. Your understanding of these verses is but one interpretation of it, coming from the fact that Revelations 14:1,3 talks about them being the redeemed from the Earth. However, there is still the question of the rapture mentioned in the gospels. Are they the the same raptures, or are Christians taken up before the end of the Apocalypse (some believe the rapture is taking place, some that it will take place just before the Apocalypse, and others still believe it will happen 3 and a half years into it).

It's easy to ascribe to one interpretation and then say those who disagree with it are not being true to the scripture, but the fact is, there is evidence for all interpretations in the Bible. This is why there is a debate among Biblical scholars.


They are the lukewarm water that Jesus, himself, said he would spit out of his mouth. (They generally ignore that part, too.)


I agree that there are many who are lukewarm (another verse that comes from Revelations), and they will be spit out. Is this lukewarmness based off of how they interpret the scripture, though? That term actually comes from Jesus' words to the church at Laodicea, but can be applied to all Christians because He had a problem with that element of that church. He goes on to explain what He means by the church being lukewarm (Revelations 3:17):


You say, 'I am rich; I have acquired wealth and do not need a thing.' But you do not realize that you are wretched, pitiful, poor, blind and naked.


The Adam Clark Commentary does a good job of addressing this verse, as it picks apart the greek terms used in it. here is a link to it if you're interested; it's fairly lengthy, and too long to quote here on ATS. (you'll have to scroll down). Another good commentary on it can be found here, and is the Barnes' New Testament commentary. It goes more into depth in analyzing the rich element of the verse.



posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 05:31 PM
link   
Didn't read the whole thread but it would make sense.
If Jesus (presuming he was the Son of God) wanted to cement the foundations of his religion he would need to become a martyr. He asked Judas to betray him in order to do this.
If Judas hadn't betrayed him, Jesus wouldn't have been captured and subsequently tortured on the Cross, which would have led to his religion being only a small following rather than one of the most widespread, occasionally brutal and forceful influences it has become today.



posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 05:39 PM
link   
If you already accept that certain interests locked away certain parts, and other interests even added/created certain parts of the bible, then you will probably get the gist of this little secret...

the gospel of Judas includes a comment, that humanity will curse Judas until the last days, but then in the end, he will be lifted above all the others

Sounds a bit like prophesy coming true as we speak...
was he the most hated? yep
is he now being considered to be the self sacrificing "fall guy"? rather than an intentional traitor?

so maybe he was the only one who could be totally trusted with the secret (not withstanding that Jesus knew his time was limited also)

if so, it would account for how the gnostics were so different than other christians at the time. they had the secret gospel. and that made all the difference...

You know god is a pretty smart cookie... I think he anticipated the abuse and misuse of his word... and set this little trap for humanity, where we would only discover the total truth in the end times... (less time to taint and corrupt it)


[edit on 7-4-2006 by LazarusTheLong]



posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 05:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by junglejake
(some believe the rapture is taking place, some that it will take place just before the Apocalypse, and others still believe it will happen 3 and a half years into it).


Hey jj ... add to that MOST christians do not believe in a 'rapture' at all.
There are 2 billion christians on this planet. It's perhaps a couple of
hundred thousand who are 'born again' or 'fundamentalist' that believe
in a rapture. The rest do not.



posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 05:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by junglejake

Originally posted by periwinkle blue
That which is regarded as the Bible, specifically the New Testament.... is the result of SELECTION by the religious heirarchy ages ago. Numerous writings that did not fit with the desired dogma were discarded, repressed or destroyed.


By who? And when? And no quoting the Da Vinci Code as evidence that this is true


I know that the Apocrypha was removed in 1885 by the Archbishop of Canterburry. That seems to be one instance.



posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 05:53 PM
link   
I would put a big "red flag" up on this and just say "Beware". So, all of a sudden, we're supposed to believe, "Well, hey, Judas wasn't such a bad guy after all!" Sorry, I don't buy it! And, through this deception, in walks Antichrist!



posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 06:04 PM
link   
I'll ask again ....

Christ said that it would be better for the person who betrayed him
to never have been born.

So which is it .... Is the Judas Gospel true which makes Christ a liar and a
deciever ..... Or is the Judas Gospel just a work of fiction entertainment for
those of the year 300???

It has to be one or the other.

[edit on 4/7/2006 by FlyersFan]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join