Gospel of Judas

[WV Cowboy]

I mean, there really is very little information available given that jesus ministry was 3 years or so and given the type of influemce he is beleived to have had among the people. There should be so much more available to read about his life and ministry, we only hace a very small fraction, so when another document appears we should be thankful that it may give us more insight into his life.

25 Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written. - John 21

 

[Cajuncowboy]

No one said the document was originally written by Judas. In the early days a lot was oral tradition. I imagine that there were a lot of papers written by those who were trying to record events happening around christ and the disciples. But i doubt jesus sat and gave interviews, so you have many many fragments written here and there capturing a little of what was said or what happened on a particular day.

Then after christs death people who were hungry for knowledge met and would take whatever thay could get, very few people would have had actual documents, so some groups would likely have some information written by one source....and another group of people meeting in another town would have some other fragments to study from.

It is clear from studying any of the 4 gospels in the bible that they are actually fragments peiced together, they do not flow in a linear fashion. The gospel of mark was not written by someone who followed jesus around and penned everything that happened, it was compiled at a later time from what little information was there. I mean, there really is very little information available given that jesus ministry was 3 years or so and given the type of influemce he is beleived to have had among the people. There should be so much more available to read about his life and ministry, we only hace a very small fraction, so when another document appears we should be thankful that it may give us more insight into his life.

None of this makes any sense. Who wrote this then? If not Judas, who? Who did he tell this tale to? Would you belive any news account written today if you didn't know the author of the story?

One reason we have so little information is because people saw what happened to His followers and Him and we afraid.

Also, to obvuscate your point further, Judas would have had to tell someone this tale and then run off and kill himself. This doesn't sound like someone who was getting ready to off themself.

One want to put so much credence in something that only recently came to life to justify ones own unbelife when we have thousands of years of documetnation that only confirms the Bible.

If this gets you through the day then have at it, but it will not get you through eternity.

Also, Jesus' said many would come in my name but they would be false prophets.

All end this with scripture from the end of the book of Revelation.

"I testify unto every man that hears these words of the prophesy of this book, if any man adds to them, God shall add unto him plagues which are written in this book..." Rev: 22:18

Have a nice day.

 

[joseephuss]

None of this makes any sense. Who wrote this then? If not Judas, who? Who did he tell this tale to? Would you belive any news account written today if you didn't know the author of the story?

One reason we have so little information is because people saw what happened to His followers and Him and we afraid.

Also, to obvuscate your point further, Judas would have had to tell someone this tale and then run off and kill himself. This doesn't sound like someone who was getting ready to off themself.

One want to put so much credence in something that only recently came to life to justify ones own unbelife when we have thousands of years of documetnation that only confirms the Bible.

If this gets you through the day then have at it, but it will not get you through eternity.

Also, Jesus' said many would come in my name but they would be false prophets.

All end this with scripture from the end of the book of Revelation.

"I testify unto every man that hears these words of the prophesy of this book, if any man adds to them, God shall add unto him plagues which are written in this book..." Rev: 22:18

Have a nice day.

Typical. Casting people to hell even though it is not within your power.

 

[Cajuncowboy]

Typical. Casting people to hell even though it is not within your power.

Want to elaborate? I simply quote the Bible and you say I am casting people to hell? Feelin' the heat are you????

 

[joseephuss]

Want to elaborate? I simply quote the Bible and you say I am casting people to hell? Feelin' the heat are you????

I don't feel anything.

If this gets you through the day then have at it, but it will not get you through eternity.

 

[Hoov]

None of this makes any sense. Who wrote this then? If not Judas, who? Who did he tell this tale to? Would you belive any news account written today if you didn't know the author of the story?

One reason we have so little information is because people saw what happened to His followers and Him and we afraid.

Also, to obvuscate your point further, Judas would have had to tell someone this tale and then run off and kill himself. This doesn't sound like someone who was getting ready to off themself.

One want to put so much credence in something that only recently came to life to justify ones own unbelife when we have thousands of years of documetnation that only confirms the Bible.

If this gets you through the day then have at it, but it will not get you through eternity.

Also, Jesus' said many would come in my name but they would be false prophets.

All end this with scripture from the end of the book of Revelation.

"I testify unto every man that hears these words of the prophesy of this book, if any man adds to them, God shall add unto him plagues which are written in this book..." Rev: 22:18

Have a nice day.

uhhhh, who wrote the gospel of matthew and mark and john. You really dont beleive the disciples who were with christ wrote those books do you ?

Those are the gospels attributed to those disciples, they were penned at a later time and penned by someone who received information orally. And they are very fragmented showing that bits and peices of information were put together and assimilated by someone.

Who knows why someone titled that writing as the gospel of judas, maybe since judas is one of the main characters it was titled that.

And accepting the gospel of judas as a historical document which may have some truth to it is by no means adding prophetic verses to the end of revelations. I would wager that the gospel of judas was in use and circulating among early christians before revelations was penned down.

 

[Cajuncowboy]

I don't feel anything.

Obviously.

 

[Cajuncowboy]

uhhhh, who wrote the gospel of matthew and mark and john. You really dont beleive the disciples who were with christ wrote those books do you ?

Those are the gospels attributed to those disciples, they were penned at a later time and penned by someone who received information orally. And they are very fragmented showing that bits and peices of information were put together and assimilated by someone.

Who knows why someone titled that writing as the gospel of judas, maybe since judas is one of the main characters it was titled that.

And accepting the gospel of judas as a historical document which may have some truth to it is by no means adding prophetic verses to the end of revelations. I would wager that the gospel of judas was in use and circulating among early christians before revelations was penned down.

And you know that the Gospels were not written by the diciples, how?

 

[CanadianCowboysFan]

Why does not believing TV, and not believing the Bible not balance out intellectually to me?

TV is trash. NY and Hollywood run TV and they are the cesspool of America.

The Bible tells us that all scripture is God breathed, so I do believe the Bible is literal.

TV on the other hand is not.

I will always trust the Bible over TV, thank you.

But if serving the LORD seems undesirable to you, then choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your forefathers served beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you are living. But as for me and my household, we will serve the LORD." - Joshua 24:15

If the Bible is literal, then how is there a human race when Adam and Eve only had sons?

 

[CanadianCowboysFan]

And you know that the Gospels were not written by the diciples, how?

They weren't that is common knowledge. The Gospels were written 40-50 years after Christ. The original Christians believed Jesus of Nazareth would return to Earth shortly after his death. It was only after they started dieing that people realized they needed to write the stories down.

The Roman Catholic Church ultimately decided what gospels would end up in the New Testament. It was a man made decision.

You referred to Judas' gospel as heresy, well just because it doesn't fit with the other stories in the bible. Yet you never once considered that the reason the other stories in the bible mesh is because a human decided to put in stories that did in fact mesh.

 

[Cajuncowboy]

If the Bible is literal, then how is there a human race when Adam and Eve only had sons?

Easy one. The Jews did not consider females when writing thier liniage unless it was of major importance. Men were the ones that they spoke of. Only when the women had a direct impact on the message were they mentioned.

 

[Cajuncowboy]

They weren't that is common knowledge. The Gospels were written 40-50 years after Christ. The original Christians believed Jesus of Nazareth would return to Earth shortly after his death. It was only after they started dieing that people realized they needed to write the stories down.

The Roman Catholic Church ultimately decided what gospels would end up in the New Testament. It was a man made decision.

You referred to Judas' gospel as heresy, well just because it doesn't fit with the other stories in the bible. Yet you never once considered that the reason the other stories in the bible mesh is because a human decided to put in stories that did in fact mesh.

First of all the Roman Catholic church is not the end all be all. They have books that are not included in non Catholic Bibles.

Secondly, what you call common knowledge is not an accepted theory in Christian circles. Some of the diciples lived for quite awhile. As a matter of fact, John lived for many, many years, even after they tried to kill him several times.

Also, human's did not write or inspire the scrptures. It may have been penned with human hands but the Holy Spirit is what inspired them.

Without that understanding or belief then you will only believe the humanistic explanation that attempts to waterdown and dilute the Gospel.

 

[Hoov]

They weren't that is common knowledge. The Gospels were written 40-50 years after Christ. The original Christians believed Jesus of Nazareth would return to Earth shortly after his death. It was only after they started dieing that people realized they needed to write the stories down.

The Roman Catholic Church ultimately decided what gospels would end up in the New Testament. It was a man made decision.

You referred to Judas' gospel as heresy, well just because it doesn't fit with the other stories in the bible. Yet you never once considered that the reason the other stories in the bible mesh is because a human decided to put in stories that did in fact mesh.

Excellent Post !!! People always think your trying to tear down the faith when you question the validity of certain things in the bible, not the case at all for most of us....Most people just have a sincere desire to look at all the information available objectively to get to the truth, and that includes scriptures from other cultures and religions.

 

[WV Cowboy]

If the Bible is literal, then how is there a human race when Adam and Eve only had sons?

Having only "read" the Bible for a number of years, I know the difference between just reading it and now really studying it.

When you truly study the Bible for years, with other believers, and share discussion, etc., you find that the Bible is the most incredible book ever.

There is no other book like it.

I have been fortunate to be taught/mentored by two very Godly, Biblically taught, annointed teachers of the Word.

These two have brilliant minds and would excel at whatever they studied and taught, it just happens to be the Bible.

It is always a good witnessing tool to share what the Bible says, and I enjoy that.

I wish I could obsorb all that these teachers have taught when I was present.

Do I understand all that the Bible says, no. I wish I did.

It comes down to Faith. But scripture proves scripture, time and again.

Now to answer your question from what the Bible does tell us.

Since Adam lived several hundred years, having lots of children was not a problem. The Genesis account does not tell us about the order of the births nor does it tell us how old they were. By having many children it is certainly possible that there were many women around. This would mean that Cain married either a sister or a niece or some other relation. Of course at this point, the question of inbreeding is raised. But it is not a problem early on in the human race because the genetic line was so pure. Therefore, the prohibition against incest was not proclaimed until much much later (Lev. 18:6-18).

 

[DallasCowpoke111]

I thought political and religious threads were a no-no on here?

 

[WV Cowboy]

uhhhh, who wrote the gospel of matthew and mark and john. You really dont beleive the disciples who were with christ wrote those books do you ?

Those are the gospels attributed to those disciples, they were penned at a later time and penned by someone who received information orally. And they are very fragmented showing that bits and peices of information were put together and assimilated by someone.

Matthew

The early church unanimously held that the gospel of Matthew was the first written gospel and was penned by the apostle of the same name

Mark

Mark was not an eyewitness to the events of Jesus' life. He was a disciple of Peter and undoubtedly it was Peter who informed Mark of the life of Christ and guided him in writing the Gospel known by his name. "Papias claimed that Mark, the Evangelist, who had never heard Christ, was the interpreter of Peter, and that he carefully gave an account of everything he remembered from the preaching of Peter."7 Generally, Mark is said to be the earliest gospel with an authorship of between A.D. 55 to A.D. 70.

Luke

Luke was not an eyewitness of the life of Christ. He was a companion of Paul who also was not an eyewitness of Christ's life. But, both had ample opportunity to meet the disciples who knew Christ and learn the facts not only from them, but from others in the area. Some might consider this damaging to the validity of the gospel, but quite the contrary. Luke was a gentile convert to Christianity who was interested in the facts. He obviously had interviewed the eyewitnesses and written the Gospel account as well as Acts.

John

The writer of the gospel of John was obviously an eyewitness of the events of Christ's life since he speaks from a perspective of having been there during many of the events of Jesus' ministry and displays a good knowledge of Israeli geography and customs.

And accepting the gospel of judas as a historical document which may have some truth to it is by no means adding prophetic verses to the end of revelations. I would wager that the gospel of judas was in use and circulating among early christians before revelations was penned down.

FYI - John only received one revelation, and so the last book of the Bible is called Revelation, not revelations.

 

[CanadianCowboysFan]

The main problem I have with many of the ultra religious is that they refuse to consider that all in the Bible might not be 100% true. I prefer to consider the Bible to be good literature, full of nice stories that can help you lead a better life. I do not believe Jonah lived in the whale, that Methusaleh was 900 years old, that the Red Sea parted or that everyone was fed with two loaves and five fishes (or was it two fishes and five loaves). However, not believing those stories literally does not detract from their meaning, that God is everywhere, even in the darkest spot on Earth (a whale's gut), that anything is possible if you believe (the Red Sea parting) or that God can provide you with nourishment even when it appears hopeless (the fish and loaves).

The stories in the bible are parables. Remember, the people in those days were pretty much illiterate and barbaric. They only understood what they were told as they couldn't read anything. In order to keep their interest, the stories had to be ones they could relate to their daily lives.

The big problem I have with literalists is that on the one hand they say it is all true, but when you point out how it cannot be, they use bs excuses like "the Bible tells you what isn't true" or "oh well that's because the Bible only listed Males unless the female was important". Either it's literally true or it isn't. You cannot have it both ways.

 

[TheEnigma]

The main problem I have with many of the ultra religious is that they refuse to consider that all in the Bible might not be 100% true. I prefer to consider the Bible to be good literature, full of nice stories that can help you lead a better life. I do not believe Jonah lived in the whale, that Methusaleh was 900 years old, that the Red Sea parted or that everyone was fed with two loaves and five fishes (or was it two fishes and five loaves). However, not believing those stories literally does not detract from their meaning, that God is everywhere, even in the darkest spot on Earth (a whale's gut), that anything is possible if you believe (the Red Sea parting) or that God can provide you with nourishment even when it appears hopeless (the fish and loaves).

The stories in the bible are parables. Remember, the people in those days were pretty much illiterate and barbaric. They only understood what they were told as they couldn't read anything. In order to keep their interest, the stories had to be ones they could relate to their daily lives.

This is where faith comes in. I have faith in God's provision, and because of my faith in that provision, I believe that what I have in the bible, is true. And I believe that what composes the bible, is all that is necessary to me right now. Because if it wasn't true, or if it didn't include something, then I believe God would have provided us with the truth or something more complete.

The big problem I have with literalists is that on the one hand they say it is all true, but when you point out how it cannot be, they use bs excuses like "the Bible tells you what isn't true" or "oh well that's because the Bible only listed Males unless the female was important". Either it's literally true or it isn't. You cannot have it both ways.

I'm not going to come out and say that I can guarantee that 100% of the bible is true as I am not well enough versed in the bible to do so. I can only have faith that it is. But I'd be willing to bet that many of the "continuity" problems are due to errors in translation more than anything else. Those who come out and state that some part of the bible is in error, are either overlooking something due to agenda, or out of laziness. Therefore, I challenge somebody to give examples of these errors.


Also, some food for thought. Some may have a hard time believing that if things were passed by oral tradition, then many of the things passed on would not have been passed entirely correct, kind of like the game of telephone. But, if you look at our society today, and everything that we deal with in a day, life today is alot more complex than it used. We don't need to remember everything word for word simply because of all the resources we have. Also, there are alot more things to distract us now than back then. Finally, if the main method of transferring information back then was orally, then chances are they were very good at it.

However, not believing those stories literally does not detract from their meaning, that God is everywhere, even in the darkest spot on Earth (a whale's gut), that anything is possible if you believe (the Red Sea parting) or that God can provide you with nourishment even when it appears hopeless (the fish and loaves).

I don't quite understand this. How is it that a person could believe that God is everywhere, anything is possible with God, and that God can provide even it appears impossible, yet not believe accounts of it happening. This sounds like a contradiction to me, or you really don't believe that God could do all that. Otherwise, you'd be taking alot away from the power of God by saying he could do those things, but not those as tough as a whales gut, a red sea parting, or making food last.

 

[WV Cowboy]

The main problem I have with many of the ultra religious is that they refuse to consider that all in the Bible might not be 100% true.

If it is not 100% true, then none of it is true.

Or who decides what part is true and what part is not ?

Who decides what to believe and what to not believe ?

I feel like that is a very dangerous slippery slope.

We may not understand everything but I have faith that the Word is literal and true.

Seeing how God is so awesome and powerful that he spoke the universe into existence, was born of a virgin, and rose from the dead on his own power, ... (3 things no one else could do) why is it so hard to believe Jonah, the Red Sea and other happenings mentioned in the Bible ?

As a matter of fact, after I read that he spoke the universe into existence, ... not using his hands or anything else, only the spoken Word, ... I realize he is capable of anything.

 

[Danny White]

If it is not 100% true, then none of it is true.

Or who decides what part is true and what part is not ?

Who decides what to believe and what to not believe ?

I feel like that is a very dangerous slippery slope.

We may not understand everything but I have faith that the Word is literal and true.

Seeing how God is so awesome and powerful that he spoke the universe into existence, was born of a virgin, and rose from the dead on his own power, ... (3 things no one else could do) why is it so hard to believe Jonah, the Red Sea and other happenings mentioned in the Bible ?

As a matter of fact, after I read that he spoke the universe into existence, ... not using his hands or anything else, only the spoken Word, ... I realize he is capable of anything.

While the parables in the New Testament are clearly identified and laid out, it's not so clear in the Old Testament.

It's entirely possible that some of the Old Testament stories are simply allegories or parables that were handed down from generation to generation to convey truths.

Remember, just because something may or may not be based in hard historical fact does NOT mean that it can't convey truth... truth that was passed down to man by God himself.

In my humble opinion, true faith does not necessarily mean you take every point in the Bible literally... true faith means that you take the truths presented in the Bible as the inspired Word of God, whether or not every word actually transpired in history.

If your faith is dependant on everything in the Bible being proveably true... then what happens if something were to be proven false? Would that shake your faith? And if your faith hinged on the actual existence of a man named Jonah who was swallowed by a whale, Daniel surviving in the lion's den, or Moses parting the Red Sea (rather than on the truths conveyed in these stories) then how deep is that faith?

I'm not trying to convince anyone that these stories AREN'T true. I really don't know if they are or not. But my faith in God and in his Word is not dependant on whether or not they happen to be true. I believe in God, his message, and his salvation regardless of the literalness of the Bible. My faith wouldn't be strengthened one bit if I was shown conclusive proof of Noah's flood or Moses' plagues... and it wouldn't be shaken one bit if those events were proven to be literary inventions.

Faith goes beyond the stories to the truth that is behind them.