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.

 

What makes the Gospels of Judas so uncredited?

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 08:15 PM
link   
I am trying to understand what evidence modern scholars have to refute the findings of the ancient texted? I understand when it was deemed heracy in the old days, and how people wanted to know exactly what it was that they were dying for, so they put together the books that were most widely excepted by the masses of christians at the time. But like everything that has to do with conception of intellect, there has/will always been varying levels of comprehention for all things esoteric. So, if perhaps the Gospels of Thomas, Mary, Judas, had points that were out of reach for some minds, they were left out of the church. So, I guess I'm rambling, but who is to say what is real and what isn't? I'm cool with the answers that were said back then, because of obvious reasons, Judas was a traitor in the eyes of the other diciples because of the obvious. But, if Jesus, who was according to the bible closest to Judas, and the others were jealous to some extent, wouldn't it make sense that Jesus had a secret with his best friend. Now being that jesus was jesus no need to question his motives, but if any of you have read the translation of the gospels of Judas, you would see a calculated story of metaphysically endeavors, not understood by others.

Of you out there that believe in the astral world (you don't have to believe for it to be true) don't you think that if you tried to explain that to someone in Jesus's time you would get cross-eyed looks? let's say for the sake of argument that Jesus is one of us ATS'ers, he love atral projection, has reached his spiritual potential, and has found glory in the intricacies of the cosmos. Would he be smart enough not to explain those parts of the whole to the group, yet still have wise words for all, extreme rightousness? Because people that know the truth, know that everyone out there is only doing the best that they know how to do, and any judgement would be erroneous. I will apologize now for the ramble, I just want to know what the pope uses as evidence to disregaurd such discovery on a modern day? Blind faith only? AAC




posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 09:43 PM
link   
To make a long story short, a couple hundred years after the birth of christianity, to prevent what was widely regarded as a 'people power' seperatist movement within judaism, and there was a grand scale attempt to squash it through a number of subversive and fake documents which largely focused on the subversion of gnostism. The Gospel of Judas is thought to come from this movement during that period, and had already been discredited a long long time ago. That's my take on it anyway.
Apparently they largely succeded as Christianity has lost all trace of the mysticisms upon which it was founded, and the gnostic traditions have become largely pomp and cirumstance rituals within catholicism and the like. Have you read this thread??



posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 10:41 PM
link   
Thanks Twitchy, I guess I just feel more allegience to the gnostics who thought that a spark of the devine can be found within, rather than only through a pastor. Thanks for the thread, it was well done. AAC



posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 10:48 PM
link   
I'm not sure how to address all of your post, but I'll take a stab at the first question.

First
The copy of the "Gospel of Judas Text" being published in cooperation with National Geographic has been floating around the antiquities market since the late 1970's. Until 2 years ago, no one was really interested in it. NOT because it has forbidden information, but because it isn't actually a 'gospel.' The traditional understanding of a 'gospel' is a text that tells of the earthly teachings and doings of Jesus. This text, like much later gnostic material, doesn't focus on Jesus as much as it does on the concept of numerous heavens/hells, as well as various hypostasies, or emanations of the Godhead. Gospels originally were supposed to include Jesus' wonderworkings as well as his death. "Judas" contains neither.

Second.
Several authorities, department heads at world-class universities turned down the work; the scuttlebut was that the text doesn't tell us nearly as much about the "followers of Judas" as the writings of Irenaeus do. His "Against Heresies" is a catalogue of various heterodox belief systems. Irenaeus actually goes into more details about the "Cainites" than this short 60 page document does.

Third
The scuttlebutt is that several of these authorities weren't willing to make a public statement, but that "Judas" is quite probably stolen. The brothers who marketed it are actively wanted by the state of Egypt. One recent multimillion dollar sale of theirs to a Texas museum was returned with a demand for a refund. Talk is that the statue had been stolen from the Cairo museum in Egypt, known for its years of lax security.

The coptic letter-forms of Judas are said to "strongly" resemble the handwriting of several of the Nag Hammadi scrolls. I have heard some speculation (always off the record), that Judas was originally part of the Nag Hammadi scrolls when they were discovered, but was stolen at the time of their discovery.

No respectable museum or university wants a reputation for dealing is stolen papyrii. Since Egypt is the source of most materials, it doesn't really pay to hack them off.

Fourth.
While it's is less than a 50/50 chance, there is still a strong possibility that "Judas" is a forgery.

If the letter forms of Judas DO resemble the Nag Hammadi documents, it may be that a clever forger practiced the handwriting style of those documents, and copied it in his forgery, without realizing in the 1970's that the letter forms of the N. H. scrolls were unique, and the reflection of the unique scribes that wrote them, and were never common in Egypt.

And here's the telling one, the instance that is getting more attention as days go by:

The nature of the ink is iron-gall based, rather than carbon based. Carbon inks are largely based on lamp-black, the soot from an oil lamp. You scrape it up, mix it with egg whites and some gum, and there you have ink. The trouble is it begins to fade rapidly after 2-5 years, and tends to rub off of the papyrus surface quite easily. This is what the Nag Hammadi scrolls are written with.

But iron gall inks are based on a welt that forms on oak trees when a certain catepillar builds its cocoon under the bark of a tender shoot. A lump forms, which is rich in tannic acid and ferrous compounds. Iron Gall ink is much blacker, and far more permanent than its predecessor.

Now Judas is purported by its owners to date from the 300's AD. If true, then this is one of the very earliest uses of iron gall ink in documented history. What an unbelievable coincidence, that the same document that is supposed to overturn our knowledge of gnosticism, (but turns out to restate what Irenaeus said 1800 years ago), is also written in a totally revolutionary type of ink!!!

Even National Geographic's own site notes that iron gall inks didn't really catch on until about 600 AD, 200-300 years after Judas was seeming written.

In other words one document is supposed to revolutionize both the roots of Christianity AND our understanding of when modern inks developed!!!

It sounds too good to be true. . .

which makes some people think it is.

Links:

Fraud suspected in "gospels of Judas"

Aboutaam Brothers wanted in connection with frauds by Egypt, others

Iron Gall Inks and Ink Corrosion website

One reason that people are in the mood to suspect a forgery:
The "secret Gospel of Mark" a forgery??

National Geographic's own site
Revealingly, National Geographic's lead article doesn't even address questions of provenance, dating, or authenticity--merely how Judas is expected to revolutionize our understanding of the 'historical' Jesus. Heady stuff indeed.

.



posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 11:29 PM
link   
There is actually a longish thread discussing the gospel of judas from all aspects. Anyone interseted would probably want to check it out there, there are a lot of people there who know about the gospel's history, and who aren't going to go into a new thread.

www.belowtopsecret.com...



posted on Apr, 14 2006 @ 01:04 PM
link   
I think the good dr_s has it correct, until Dan Brown's Devinci Code became popular, the GofJ was just floating around. So now there is a new movie coming out, a lot of various pseudo-documents, tv programs, other books, etc, and now the GofJ is suddenly becoming popular. I think it is because questioning religous authority, and writing the works of fiction about religous authorities, is becoming more widespread.



posted on Apr, 15 2006 @ 11:04 AM
link   
here are a couple facts that might help sort some issues out, and might add to the confusion.

during the first 250 years of christianity there was not a single church, there were several.

In 180 Ireaneus was trying to consolidate and CENTRALIZE the power and doctrine of the PAULINE church. Modern xianity has less to do with Jeshua and what he taught than with saul and what he taught that Jeshua taught. All of the " New Teatament" writings with the possible exception of the writings attributed to John are at the least pauline based. chronologically the act is earlier than all the others.

The church @ Jerusalem was headed by James , Not Simon the thick (called peter). He followed off aftersauls little red wagon.

The Gnostic writings are remnants of the teachings of Jeshuas closest followers within the church @ Jerusalem.

by the time of ireaneus, there were also arian , marcionite,and numerous other churches that followed writings of various disiples.

as for the dating of this particular codex it is a fact that there are no extant
examples of any of the writings prior to the 4th century ( as I recall). The only claim to veracity the canonical writings have is that the names attributed to themare mentioned somewhere. there is no verifiable proof that theyare infact the writings mentioned or were even written by the named author.

all extant writings are3 transscriptions by scribes who could well have
attached the name of their own particular hobby horse or pet ass to the writings.



posted on Apr, 15 2006 @ 12:31 PM
link   
OOOPS!!

My post here was off on a tangent, based on my MIS-READING of someone else's post. Deleted my own blather as did not respond meaningfully to anything else on this thread.

See my signature-line for more info.

.

[edit on 15-4-2006 by dr_strangecraft]



posted on Apr, 15 2006 @ 06:18 PM
link   
The Gospel of Judas


"The Cosmic Drama of Christ would be impossible to represent without the role of Judas; this apostle is then the most exalted Adept, the most elevated amongst all of the apostles of the Christ Jesus." - Samael Aun Weor (1973)


..."Please, I beg the brethren that are listening to me, to comprehend what I am stating here: Do not be scared; I sense that some of you who are listening at this moment due to prejudices and fear based on some erroneous information from some dogmatic priests, offer resistance to these statements.

All of us in childhood received a certain type of education, thus, erroneous, absurd negative and harmful ideas were inculcated within us.

We were told that Lucifer was a terrible devil that gave orders over all the Earth, that takes our souls to an orthodox hell in order to torture us in containers of fire, etc., etc.

I want you, my friends, to comprehend once and for all that such a devil of orthodox religions does not exist; but the true devil is the one that each of you carries within your interior"...



posted on Apr, 15 2006 @ 08:35 PM
link   
~~

the 6 well stated replies you've(AAC) already received pretty much says it.

there were many articles about the 'Judas Text' about a week ago...
incl the www.nytimes.com/
in their Science Section; Titled "'Gospel of Judas' Surfaces After 1,700 Years"

...talks of a 26 page document (Judas Text), thought to be a copy
in Coptic, made around 300AD ,
of the original Gospel of Judas, written in Greek, around ~200 AD.
~~~~~

bottom line, the early church leaders deemed the Judas Text
as unorthodox and too mystical as was the Gnostic body of thought...
(heretics in the church leaders view)
and as such did not fit into the church Cannon they were creating.

but, that was their opinion then, and that opinion survived till todays
Christian Churches & all their different denominations...
You however, do not have to accept popular Christianity's judgement that
the Judas (or for that matter Mary Magdellans' texts) as discredited
religious/spiritual writings. Make your own determination & worldview.

www.nytimes.com...
www9.nationalgeographic.com...



posted on Apr, 15 2006 @ 11:32 PM
link   
Its like finding Jesus after a near death experience, he'll only be there until he eats your Capt'n Crunch behind your back.

I read the Gospel of Judas and all I can say is Jesus laughs alot!!!



posted on Apr, 23 2006 @ 12:51 PM
link   
No crap, you know how many texts are out there that the church never put in the bible. They don't want to the text of judas because it would contradict some church ideas. Its not uncreditied the church just thinks it is.



posted on Apr, 23 2006 @ 07:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by PsychoSteve85
No crap, you know how many texts are out there that the church never put in the bible. They don't want to the text of judas because it would contradict some church ideas. Its not uncreditied the church just thinks it is.



True enough. On the other hand, why would they include texts they disagree with? The Bible isn't a Sears & Roebuck catalogue; it's a compendium of the church's source teachings.

The Pagans haven't put Gospel of Judas in their "Book of Shadows," either. Maybe the Pagans are in on the conspiracy to suppress it, as well!



posted on Apr, 23 2006 @ 08:38 PM
link   
It's a gnostic forgery. There are a million trillion Gnostic forgeries out there, people should wise up and see that some 3rd century Greek writing a story of Jesus being a super agent from some pagan God does not carry the same weight as a gospel written by an apostle or some corroborating text by somebody close. Why is this so hard to understand? Jews don't include the book of Maccabees in the Torah (neither do we by the way), Sunni Muslims rightly regard the Hadiths as commentaries on the Quran of little credibility, and so forth. Get the picture?

[edit on 23-4-2006 by Nakash]



posted on Apr, 23 2006 @ 08:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tamahu
..."Please, I beg the brethren that are listening to me, to comprehend what I am stating here: Do not be scared; I sense that some of you who are listening at this moment due to prejudices and fear based on some erroneous information from some dogmatic priests, offer resistance to these statements.

We were told that Lucifer was a terrible devil that gave orders over all the Earth, that takes our souls to an orthodox hell in order to torture us in containers of fire, etc., etc.

I want you, my friends, to comprehend once and for all that such a devil of orthodox religions does not exist; but the true devil is the one that each of you carries within your interior"...


All true but this is mystery religion as secret society.

Lucifer is humanity fallen from the higher realms.

Good and evil is in all but the author of this text due to their inherent bias and support of the dark side ignores the struggle between light and dark and suggests that such a struggle is either non-existant or pointless.

A gnostic-christian would not of course adopt that view.



posted on Apr, 23 2006 @ 11:08 PM
link   


Gnostic Christian


That's an oxymoron. Gnosticism has nothing to do with Christianity, it's Neoplatonic Philosophy with a veneer of mystery religion. It's an ideology which developed centuries after Jesus Christ (or at least became popular much after his life, though the core was present to some degree before, ie: the Manichaens, Zoroastrians, etc.)



posted on Apr, 23 2006 @ 11:19 PM
link   
Some of the gnostics texsts aren't significantly older than the non-gnostic ones though (as far as I understand it), and the gnostic sort of faith seemed to have a following similar in size to the non-gnostic one. Its not immpossible, from a non-religious point of view, that the gnostic faith was the original one.

But, as noted it does contain lots of ideas directly lifted form greek philosophical thought, ie, appears as application of greek philosophy to the core jesus myth.



posted on Apr, 24 2006 @ 08:18 AM
link   
I would say that, generally speaking, the gnostic materials tend to be later than the texts accepted by the largest factions of ancient "mainstream" Christianity. (Marcionites, Monophysites, Arminian).

"The church" represents a stream of ideas that quickly coalesced into a unified system of faith and practice, in part because they were the focus of the Empire's wrath until the 290's AD. And there's nothing quite like adversity to unify people. You see the same dialectic at work within any community, whether its marxism in the Russian revolution, or supporters of Copernican cosmology.

"Gnostic" has become a catchphrase for anything that isn't mainstream. Originally, it was applied by the church (and self-applied by many of its adherents) to the belief that humanity needs saving, and that saving comes through specialized, esoteric knowledge. Other than that broad definition, there is no defining characteristic of "gnostic" theology, other than as an alternative view.

For instance, some (like the notorious "Cainites," to whom Irenaeus attributed the Gospel of Judas) stood orthodox Christianity on its head, making a demon out of the deity of the Bible, and lauding lucifer as the true savior of humanity. Others, while believing in knowledged-based salvation, accepted the other teachings of the church. Many of them even attended worship alongside their orthodox brethren.

It is this second group, the "secret" gnostics, that really upset Irenaeus and company. They took the sacraments, but didn't feel any need to "remain true" to the church in times of oppression and torture. They had no scruples about denying the faith when compelled to do so by the state, and even in "naming names," particularly of orthodox believers!

It's been a decade since I waded through the Adversus Heresium of Irenaeus. I would characterize it as slow going, to put it politely. But the reader will learn as much, if not more from Irenaeus (by reading between the lines) than he will by relying on the sparse "gnostic" documents that have survived to the currrent age.

Somehow, though, Irenaeus isn't considered as sexy by Barnes and Noble and the Coffee-table book crowd.

.



posted on Apr, 24 2006 @ 09:15 AM
link   
What I've taken away from the emergence of the Gospel of Judas is an impression that we are supposed to think that, not only did Jesus know that Judas was going to betray Him, He wanted Judas to do so.

This is in complete contradiction to the Agony of Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane, when He prayed to God, the Creator, His Holy Father.



Matthew 26

39 And he went a little further, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt.


Jesus did not want to be betrayed. He was not seeking death. He was seeking our eternal salvation, following the will of His Father.



posted on Apr, 24 2006 @ 09:19 AM
link   


The Pagans haven't put Gospel of Judas in their "Book of Shadows," either. Maybe the Pagans are in on the conspiracy to suppress it, as well!

first not all Pagans Have a Book of Shadows. BoS is usually only kept by
those who practice the Craft. Not always but usually. I have several and
Judas May make it into one of them.


There are a million trillion Gnostic forgeries out there, people should wise up and see that some 3rd century Greek writing a story of Jesus being a super agent from some pagan God does not carry the same weight as a gospel written by an apostle or some corroborating text by somebody close


There is no substantive evidence that any of the 4 gospels were written by
followers of Jeshua or for that matter that they were even written by the persons credited . the 3 synoptic gospels , by style,flavor, and texture,
were probably written by a follower of Saul the jew killer.

There are no copies of any of these writings cannonical or otherwise that
predate the 4th century. the only claim any have is being mentioned in the writings/ramblings of some one from an earlier time. how do we today know
that any of these writings canonical or otherwise are not just the ancient
equivalent of writing jokes on the S++++******* wall?




quote:
Gnostic Christian
That's an oxymoron


No more so than Baptist Xian, Protestant Xian, Catholic Xian,
evangelical xian, fundaMENTAList xian(now there are a couple real oxymorons) or any of the other 2995 flavors du Jour of xianity.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join