The Gospel of Judas

Re Michael

yes, I know all that already, but I referred to what you wrote:


"But you appear not to have either any experience or any knowledge of that third dimension of consciousness."


You have a transcendometer? Functioning at distance on unknown persons? Can you get them with a manual?

reply to post by Becoming


Judas was as fellow of Jesus while Hilter was a fellow of "Satan" so I would not believe HIlter anways, choose option 1 and to answer your last "question", one day or another some enlighted historian will maybe explain us about "how" the nazis financed their war(s) when they were supposed to be totaly runied from WW1 (...).

reply to post by SaturnFX


It's a Gnostic gospel written centuries after Jesus died and rose again. First of all, just because Jesus knew He would be betrayed by Judas doesn't mean Judas didn't betray Jesus. Jesus alerted David to the betrayal in prophecy 1,000 years before He came to Earth, recorded in Psalms. Secondly, Judas didn't write gospels, after betraying Jesus, Judas went back to the temple, threw the money in the door, and committed suicide the next morning. I doubt the man ate food after betraying Christ, much less sat down to write a gospel narrative.

The Gnostics were well known to forge gospels and attribute them to people who knew Jesus in an effort to make them seem reliable. They did this in the 2nd and 3rd centuries. If a person wishes to know if a letter or Gospel was genuine or not one only needs to read the letters and books written by the Apostlic fathers to see what the early church was passing around as genuine. The "Apostolic fathers" are the direct disciples of Jesus's apostles. Example: Polycarp was John's disciple, Clement of Rome was Peter's disciple, and Timothy was Paul's disciple.

Gnostics hate the 2nd epistle of Peter because it specifically addresses the Gnostic heresy. They all claim it wasn't written by Peter, yet they are ignorant to the significance that Peter's disciple Clement quotes from it extensively in his writings. They can't comprehend the fact that if 2 Peter wasn't Peter's 2nd letter then the man who studied directly under him for over a decade WOULD KNOW THIS! And you'll find by reading the works of the Apostolic fathers that the epistles and gospels that make up the Bible today are the same ones uses during the first century by the Christians at Antioch, Syria.

This thread has morphed into a fine example of what a round table ~debate~ may
have been like for the court of King James' bible scholars. Very interesting to
say the least.

The words of an important world religion written by different men, at different times,
complied, edited and abridged ~at once~ by a council few, and under the guidance
of one--accepted as truth by the many. It makes we wince when I turn on the
Sunday TV and witness a man holding up a book proclaiming it to be the
literal word of God--a man who should have more education on the subject
than the average layperson.

~segue~

When I first heard of the Gospel of Judas years ago, the early translations were
quite different than those in the OP's post. I don't know if my memory has failed me,
the translation has changed, or if my own bias and time has affected what I recall.

It is very hard to see the world thru untainted lenses. The lenses can become
smudged by the mere act of trying to keep them clean...

I for one thinks this is an intersting topic of discussion. The vatican reected this Gospel did they not?

One loves reading up on these things, starred and flagged keep the revelations comming, pls. TYVM!

reply to post by rival


LOL wuuuut???

That's not even remotely close to the methodology that gave us the cannon of scripture we have today.

Not by a mile. What books are you reading??

Personally that while I personally believe that the Gospel of Judas is fraudulent. I do like it for its attempt to provide a different viewpoint on Judas. To this day many churches and religious leaders scorn him as the betrayer. That he may have been but he had a purpose, the plan for human salvation could not have been completed without him. It is the same as the Christian hate of the Jews, it shouldn't be relevant to how you view them it had to be that way if it weren't we would all be doomed.

To hate anyone over the crucifixion is pointless and foolhardy, the events had to unfold as they did there was no way around this. So if you believe in Christ and you believe he is who he says he is and you believe that he fulfilled his path as laid down in the prophecies then it is imprudent to view Judas and the Jews as being worthy of our scorn. They fulfilled the roles they were assigned to accomplish what had to be done nothing more nothing more nothing less.

And while it may be inappropriate to look on them as heroes, it is also inappropriate to view them and their actions as anything but the tools used to accomplish the greater plan. With neither scorn or hate.

reply to post by Jovi1


I think of Judas the same way Jesus does:

"The Son of Man goeth as it is written of him: but woe unto that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It had been good for that man if he had not been born."

Matthew 26:24

reply to post by NOTurTypical


I don't because it isn't my place to judge him it isn't my place to vilify him, it is mine to simply accept what is. It was all a part of the plan without him it couldn't happen, it is that simple. His ultimate fate is up to God and it is best to leave it at that.

reply to post by Jovi1


That's sweet, and most likely would earn you a few Ms. Congeniality points, but the Lord Jesus Himself cursed the day Judas was born.

And I follow Christ

If Judas was truly asked by Jesus to betray him, then Judas did not actually betray him at all. If Judas was to really betray Jesus, then he would have done so by not betraying him at all. After all, its human nature to f*** up once in a while.
If the gospel of Judas taught about the mind bending the reality that appeared in Juda's eyes to be the truth, and save his best friend through the act of betrayal,then it would have easily allowed Christ's teachings to show the fundamentals of a broken, guilty mind without any actual harm as a consequence, helping eliminate war, and the possibility of a "hell" where people are destroyed for not helping straighten their leaders' broken mind for the sake of future creation. my two cents take it or leave it...

This is definately a gnostic text... Its very interesting, but its too bad a lot of it was missing.

Gnosticism was the prominant belief in that time, which was probably why the churches had most of them killed, and their texts destroyed. They believed in many things the church didn't see as holy, such as vegetarianism, kindness to animals, and reincarnation.

Its a shame this isn't the full document i would have like to see what was missing.

reply to post by Akragon

Gnosticism was the prominant belief in that time

How is that possible considering the first person to mix Gnosticism with Christianity was Justin Martyr who was born in 103 AD. The last book of the Bible, Revelation, was written in 95 AD, 8 years before Justin Martyr was even born.

Justin died wearing the robes of a pagan priest.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by Akragon

 

Gnosticism was the prominant belief in that time

How is that possible considering the first person to mix Gnosticism with Christianity was Justin Martyr who was born in 103 AD. The last book of the Bible, Revelation, was written in 95 AD, 8 years before Justin Martyr was even born.

Justin died wearing the robes of a pagan priest.

Let me rephrase that...

What was the prominant belief at that time became gnosticism.... all religions stem from paganism one way or the other *shrug*

either way its still just a label...

Let me rephrase that...

What was the prominant belief at that time became gnosticism.... all religions stem from paganism one way or the other *shrug*

either way its still just a label...

Gnosticism was a mish-mash of Greek Philosophy, Egyptian Mysticism, and Eastern Religions.

Secondly, Christianity by definition didn't originate in "paganism", unless you wish to say Catholicism. In that case I'd agree, but Catholicism is Catholicism. Catholicism has a different view of justification, salvation, the person and work of Jesus amongst many other things.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Secondly, Christianity by definition didn't originate in "paganism"

Explain Horus then...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Secondly, Christianity by definition didn't originate in "paganism"

Explain Horus then...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Wow, this debunked idea is still making it's rounds here?

*sigh*

Jesus = Horus Myth

Zeitgeist Totally Refuted ~ Abovetopsecret.com

The reason I said "by definition" Christianity can't be from a pagan religion is because Christianity isn't a form of Polytheism, byt one of Monotheism.

Paganism (from Latin paganus, meaning "country dweller", "rustic"[1]) is a blanket term, typically used to refer to polytheistic religious traditions.

Paganism ~ Wiki