psuedo "gospel" of Judas

[MC IMaGiNaZUN]

I wasn't quite sure if this was appropriate here

Does anybody remember the ossuary of St. James, the brother of Jesus. So said the allegations.

About three years ago Archeologists found an ossuary(which is kind of like a coffin, but smaller, and meant to hold the bonesof the deceased, shaped like a small chest.).

There were three inscriptions on it.

James.
Son of Joseph.
Brother of Jesus.

This, of course, caused an uproar in the media. There was front cover stories.

The scholars, of various christian faiths got together and examined it. What they found is that the each of the three texts were written by a different hand at different times. Each one was supposed to give more credibility, and probably more profit by connecting it to Jesus. In the old times, if you had a piece of the true cross, everyone would want to see it and touch it. It was the pilgrimage business.

But, nobody remembers this. The media claimed it would challenge the very deep roots of our Christian faith.

It did not.

And we can hardly remember.

And church attendence is NOT down as a result of this.

Three years from now, nobody is going to remember this supposed Gospel of Judas.

This alleged Gospel was written a couple of centuries after the real Gospels, and it circulated amongst a heretical group called the gnostics.

But i also started this thread to discuss gnosticism...

SHALOM

[iheartjp2]

Amen to that.

[crazymaine catholic]

you would think that people wouldn't buy into a text that contradicts what FOUR other approved gospels say. four accounts versus one account sure convinces me which version is correct.

[Socrates]

[quote name='MC IMaGiNaZUN' date='Apr 8 2006, 03:18 PM']I wasn't quite sure if this was appropriate here

Does anybody remember the ossuary of St. James, the brother of Jesus.  So said the allegations.

About three years ago Archeologists found an ossuary(which is kind of like a coffin, but smaller, and meant to hold the bonesof the deceased, shaped like a small chest.).

There were three inscriptions on it.

James.
Son of Joseph.
Brother of Jesus.

This, of course, caused an uproar in the media.  There was front cover stories.

The scholars, of various christian faiths got together and examined it.  What they found is that the each of the three texts were written by a different hand at different times.  Each one was supposed to give more credibility, and probably more profit by connecting it to Jesus.  In the old times, if you had a piece of the true cross, everyone would want to see it and touch it.  It was the pilgrimage business.

But, nobody remembers this.  The media claimed it would challenge the very deep roots of our Christian faith.

It did not.

And we can hardly remember.

And church attendence is NOT down as a result of this.

Three years from now, nobody is going to remember this supposed Gospel of Judas.

This alleged Gospel was written a couple of centuries after the real Gospels, and it circulated amongst a heretical group called the gnostics.

But i also started this thread to discuss gnosticism...

SHALOM
[right][snapback]940272[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
These phony gnostic "gospels" were denounced as false by the Church when they first began circulating 1600 years ago.

While interesting historically, they reveal nothing new and shocking about the "origins of the Church." They came out well after the Church was established, and were contrary to the Church, not part of it.

[YMNolan]

What people don't realize is that there are tons (near 50?) of fake gospels that the Church has been aware of since they first reared their heads some 1600 years ago. It's always presented as this "new find" that is going to "change Christianity forever", when in actuality it's just the same garbage recycled for a new and unknowing century. It's never been a real threat and never will.

St. Matthew, St. Mark, St. Luke, and St. John... Pray for us!

[MC IMaGiNaZUN]

I think that one of the problems with it is this.

There is a renewed intrigue in "gnosticism." more a superficial giddiness over a mysterious forgotten cult. It may have something to do with Dan Brown. But the gnosticism of Dan Brown has little in common with what true gnosticism was. And people who are interested in it, probably would be repulsed by it if they actually knew what it was.

Gnosticism is the most prevellant heresy in our church history, and it likes to return every now and then.

But what is so ironic, is that so many critics of the church criticize the church for being the very things that it condemns as heresy.

SHALOM

[YMNolan]

has the Church come out and said anything about this "gospel" specifically?

[MC IMaGiNaZUN]

[quote name='YMNolan' date='Apr 9 2006, 04:39 PM']has the Church come out and said anything about this "gospel" specifically?
[right][snapback]941215[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Here is an article from a top Jesuit Scholar. He says it does not even deserve the title "gospel." thats actually why i called the thread psuedo gospel.

[url="http://www.catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=19372"]Catholic Online: Gospel of Judas does not deserve name ‘gospel,’ Jesuit scholar says[/url]

But, the church allready came out and condemned it in the early ages you know the third century when it was written.

SHALOM

[cappie]

Sydney priest "chuckles" at Judas reports


The director of Sydney's Archdiocesan Catholic Adult Education Centre said on ABC Radio that he was amused by claims in the news last week that the man who kissed Jesus to identify him to his Roman tormentors was not betraying him, but was acting on Jesus' own orders.

Fr John Flader told The World Today on Friday: "My first reaction was every year at Easter time we come up with some new book, some new allegation some new article that shows that Jesus didn't exist or he didn't die on the cross or he didn't rise from the dead."

A gnostic writing long thought to have been lost, the Gospel of Judas, was put on display on Thursday at the National Geographic Society in Washington. The document, a third-century Coptic translation of what had originally been written in Greek before 180 AD, paints Judas in a more sympathetic light than his well-known role as Jesus' betrayer in the canonical Gospels.

Fr Flader said that he looks upon the tract "with great scepticism".

"Not the authenticity of the document at all," he said. "We have now a new historical finding, an ancient document and these are always to be welcomed that we discover what the Gnostics were writing. This was a Gnostic sect that produced this document, the Gospel of Judas.

"It's always of interest to find out what they were writing and so for that, in that sense, we welcome it, but as far as the story and Judas' role we don't think this is going to change anything in the Church's views."

"Many of the gospels contain the facts of Jesus' birth, of his life, his teachings, his death, his crucifixion, his resurrection," he said. "All of that is important, but we must remember that in the early church, as Malcolm was saying, there were many different documents.

"Even in what are called gospels, there are four that are regarded as canonical, that is inspired by God and accepted by the Church. There are perhaps dozens of other ones, some of them Gnostic or of other origins that the Church never accepted and they will contain allegations of facts and those are to be sifted, of course, in the light of tradition especially, teachings of the church, the authenticity of the documents themselves."

[MC IMaGiNaZUN]

I was watching the news with Fr. Provincial and one of the other Seminarians. The segment on the Judas Gospel came on. We laughed.



SHALOM

[smeagol]

It is easy for us to dismiss such a radical view. However, we cannot dismiss this historical account on such a thoughtless whim. I have been thinking about Judas's role in the crucifixion of Jesus and I'm still not quite convinced, but we have to consider its merit.

1. Abraham was willing to kill his son, but we do not label him a murderer or hateful father. Rather, he is the Father of Faith. He bypassed the supposed "universal" law of refrain from killing in order to answer an even higher calling, that of God. Can the same be said of Judas? While it may look like Judas was heartlessly betraying Jesus, maybe he was answering God's calling. Therefore if you believe Abraham to be faithful because of his actions, you cannot dismiss Judas based on assumptions made from his actions, because those very assumptions would dub Abraham a murderer.

2. Jesus suffered for our sins. However, after the crucifixion, Jesus ascended into heaven and presumably suffered no more. On the other hand, Judas is said to have descended into hell where he is eternally suffering for the worst sin ever, treachery against the Messiah. So Judas is ostensibly suffering more than Jesus had, ultimately because of the sins of man. How do we resolve this? Did Jesus not suffer for the sins of Judas as well?

3. Why ought we reject this book simply because it is not in the canon? Just because the Catholic church picked the 4 gospels of Matthew Mark Luke and John doesn't mean that they're necessarily true. The church would have a reason to lie about Judas not really betraying Jesus, as a way to incite fear of hereticism. Betrayal against Jesus could be analogous to disobeying the church, at least implicitly through the Church's interpretation.

4. Also, it is easier to hate Judas than it is to love him. The man who turned the Son of God in to the authorities who then killed him cannot possibly be a noble man, can he ? It is instinctual to condemn him. However, let us not forget the case of Abraham where we don't instantly disdain him. The hatred of Judas is easily explained psychologically as well as from the perspective of any authority.

The biggest objection to all of these, I think, is that Jesus doesn't seem like he would deceive people. Why would He lead us to believe that Judas is a dirty backstabber? But then again, how do we know where this deception came from? It could easily have resulted from early official accounts of Jesus's last few days, which we take for granted today.

I don't think we will ever know the role Judas played in the death of Christ, but it is very important to Christians to adequately think about his role and question what we have been taught, even if we don't ever come to any conclusion.

----------
either way, let us pray for Judas's soul

[toledo_jesus]

[quote name='smeagol' date='Apr 11 2006, 01:37 PM']It is easy for us to dismiss such a radical view. However, we cannot dismiss this historical account on such a thoughtless whim. I have been thinking about Judas's role in the crucifixion of Jesus and I'm still not quite convinced, but we have to consider its merit.

1. Abraham was willing to kill his son, but we do not label him a murderer or hateful father. Rather, he is the Father of Faith. He bypassed the supposed "universal" law of refrain from killing in order to answer an even higher calling, that of God. Can the same be said of Judas? While it may look like Judas was heartlessly betraying Jesus, maybe he was answering God's calling. Therefore if you believe Abraham to be faithful because of his actions, you cannot dismiss Judas based on assumptions made from his actions, because those very assumptions would dub Abraham a murderer.

2. Jesus suffered for our sins. However, after the crucifixion, Jesus ascended into heaven and presumably suffered no more. On the other hand, Judas is said to have descended into hell where he is eternally suffering for the worst sin ever, treachery against the Messiah. So Judas is ostensibly suffering more than Jesus had, ultimately because of the sins of man. How do we resolve this? Did Jesus not suffer for the sins of Judas as well?

3. Why ought we reject this book simply because it is not in the canon? [color=blue]Just because the Catholic church picked the 4 gospels of Matthew Mark Luke and John doesn't mean that they're necessarily true.[/color] The church would have a reason to lie about Judas not really betraying Jesus, as a way to incite fear of hereticism. Betrayal against Jesus could be analogous to disobeying the church, at least implicitly through the Church's interpretation.

4. Also, it is easier to hate Judas than it is to love him. The man who turned the Son of God in to the authorities who then killed him cannot possibly be a noble man, can he ? It is instinctual to condemn him. However, let us not forget the case of Abraham where we don't instantly disdain him. The hatred of Judas is easily explained psychologically as well as from the perspective of any authority.

The biggest objection to all of these, I think, is that Jesus doesn't seem like he would deceive people. Why would He lead us to believe that Judas is a dirty backstabber? But then again, how do we know where this deception came from? It could easily have resulted from early official accounts of Jesus's last few days, which we take for granted today.

I don't think we will ever know the role Judas played in the death of Christ, but it is very important to Christians to adequately think about his role and question what we have been taught, even if we don't ever come to any conclusion.

----------
either way, let us pray for Judas's soul
[right][snapback]943449[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
uhhh, did you question the truth of the canonical Gospels in this post?

Anyway, Jesus died for Judas too. If I recall, Judas committed suicide. He would have been forgiven had he lived and had he believed.

[YMNolan]

[quote name='smeagol' date='Apr 11 2006, 11:37 AM']It is easy for us to dismiss such a radical view. However, we cannot dismiss this historical account on such a thoughtless whim. I have been thinking about Judas's role in the crucifixion of Jesus and I'm still not quite convinced, but we have to consider its merit.

1. Abraham was willing to kill his son, but we do not label him a murderer or hateful father. Rather, he is the Father of Faith. He bypassed the supposed "universal" law of refrain from killing in order to answer an even higher calling, that of God. Can the same be said of Judas? While it may look like Judas was heartlessly betraying Jesus, maybe he was answering God's calling. Therefore if you believe Abraham to be faithful because of his actions, you cannot dismiss Judas based on assumptions made from his actions, because those very assumptions would dub Abraham a murderer.

2. Jesus suffered for our sins. However, after the crucifixion, Jesus ascended into heaven and presumably suffered no more. On the other hand, Judas is said to have descended into hell where he is eternally suffering for the worst sin ever, treachery against the Messiah. So Judas is ostensibly suffering more than Jesus had, ultimately because of the sins of man. How do we resolve this? Did Jesus not suffer for the sins of Judas as well?

3. Why ought we reject this book simply because it is not in the canon? Just because the Catholic church picked the 4 gospels of Matthew Mark Luke and John doesn't mean that they're necessarily true. The church would have a reason to lie about Judas not really betraying Jesus, as a way to incite fear of hereticism. Betrayal against Jesus could be analogous to disobeying the church, at least implicitly through the Church's interpretation.

4. Also, it is easier to hate Judas than it is to love him. The man who turned the Son of God in to the authorities who then killed him cannot possibly be a noble man, can he ? It is instinctual to condemn him. However, let us not forget the case of Abraham where we don't instantly disdain him. The hatred of Judas is easily explained psychologically as well as from the perspective of any authority.

The biggest objection to all of these, I think, is that Jesus doesn't seem like he would deceive people. Why would He lead us to believe that Judas is a dirty backstabber? But then again, how do we know where this deception came from? It could easily have resulted from early official accounts of Jesus's last few days, which we take for granted today.

I don't think we will ever know the role Judas played in the death of Christ, but it is very important to Christians to adequately think about his role and question what we have been taught, even if we don't ever come to any conclusion.

----------
either way, let us pray for Judas's soul
[right][snapback]943449[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I can't say I agree with you. I don't think it is very important at all to question Judas' role taking into concern sources outside of the Canon established nearly 2000 years ago. Anything other than Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the teachings of the Magesterium are not relevant in seeking our salvation. The Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are those which the Church deemed divinely inspired at the Council of Trent. And until the Lord's Church says differently, those four Gospels are all that is important.

Even if there was some truth conatined in "gospels" outside of the four canonized Gospel's, the Holy Spirit did not move our ancient father's to include them in the Bible, and He had a reason.

[ruso]

The gnostics were a sect, that incorporate elements of several religions, no only the Christian.
The gnostics think that the origin of badly in the world was God, its interest in rehabilitating personages like Judas, Esau or Cain, also they are known like Cainits.
The "gospel" of Judas is later to your life, can to be a copy of text that it already mentions S. Irineo bishop of Lyon in the year 180, in your book against the heritics.
However three of our gospels were written by eyewitnesses.

Edited April 11, 2006 by ruso

[MC IMaGiNaZUN]

[quote name='smeagol' date='Apr 11 2006, 10:37 AM']1. Abraham was willing to kill his son, but we do not label him a murderer or hateful father. Rather, he is the Father of Faith. He bypassed the supposed "universal" law of refrain from killing in order to answer an even higher calling, that of God. Can the same be said of Judas? While it may look like Judas was heartlessly betraying Jesus, maybe he was answering God's calling. Therefore if you believe Abraham to be faithful because of his actions, you cannot dismiss Judas based on assumptions made from his actions, because those very assumptions would dub Abraham a murderer.
[right][snapback]943449[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Abraham hoped against hope. It was accredited to him by faith. God made a promise to Abraham, before he ever asked for the life of Abrahams only son. Abraham was promised that his descendents would be as numerous as the stars in the sky!!! What a remarkable assertion on God's behalf. Such would seem impossible to an old shriveled man, who could not concieve one miserable child in his meaningless life. But in his old age God proved true. It is, in a strange sense, heroic of Abraham to not ever refuse to give up his only son believing remarkably that God would still make Abraham's offspring numerous.

But such a comparison to Abraham and Judas fails to see the intricacies of revealed Scripture. Namely: Typology... That God revealed such through Scripture, as directed to, or pointing to Christ. Of course, Mr. Smeagle, if you have no belief whatsoever in the divine inspiration of the sacred scriptures, my claims only fall flat and meaningless to you. But, in the eyes of the Church there is a vast difference in this situation...

[quote name='smeagol' date='Apr 11 2006, 10:37 AM']2. Jesus suffered for our sins. However, after the crucifixion, Jesus ascended into heaven and presumably suffered no more. On the other hand, Judas is said to have descended into hell where he is eternally suffering for the worst sin ever, treachery against the Messiah. So Judas is ostensibly suffering more than Jesus had, ultimately because of the sins of man. How do we resolve this? Did Jesus not suffer for the sins of Judas as well?
[right][snapback]943449[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

"Judas is said to." The church makes no official claim to who goes to hell. The church has no ability. The church can cannonize saints, proclaming them to indeed be in heaven, but it doesnt work the opposite way.

Jesus suffers so that all may believe and recieve salvation. But salvation is a gift freely offered. We have to merely accept it. Of course, in a state of sin, even God's all merciful love cannot penetrate us.

Judas refused the mercy of God. In other words, maybe he thought he was better than God's Mercy.

[quote name='smeagol' date='Apr 11 2006, 10:37 AM']3. Why ought we reject this book simply because it is not in the canon? Just because the Catholic church picked the 4 gospels of Matthew Mark Luke and John doesn't mean that they're necessarily true. The church would have a reason to lie about Judas not really betraying Jesus, as a way to incite fear of hereticism. Betrayal against Jesus could be analogous to disobeying the church, at least implicitly through the Church's interpretation.
[right][snapback]943449[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Once again, you appear to be questioning the divine inspiration of Sacred Scripture. So anything i say hereafter may prove fruitless and meaningless to you.

If you accept the innerracy of Sacred Scripture, you must accept the Accuracy of the Canon. If you accept the infallibility of the Church, you must accept the Accuracy of those in the Cannon.

Perhaps you are curious about other faiths, or you are simply so handicapped, that you cannot believe that an institution with human members can possibly be so arrogant to claim infallibility in anything. Perhaps, it is just impossible for you to trust anybody who claims authority in anything, and you would prefer to trust your own instincts in the matter, or in any matter. But, really, i don't see how that is going to get you anywhere outside of your own emotional attachments, repulsions, and particular biases. Such an attitude is not "freedom" per se, but merely a enslavery to whims and feelings. There is no freedom in the inability to "believe."

Now, according to GK Chesterton, if the Church did not reject the arrogance, the cynicism, the prudish puritanism, and the sheer pessimism of the gnostics, she may have very well been swallowed up in it. Gnosticism is based heavily on pessimism. Namely that all around us is evil and currupt. All worldly things, all authority, all society, all laws, anything man made is necessarily currupt. It is DESPAIR in life. It is not FAITH, it is not HOPE, and it is definitally not LOVE. The Church, has an obligation to Truth, and if the Church believes these not to be truth, she has an obligation to condemn them.

Now, in the selection of Scripture, the Church was very particular. It was clear that the Four Gospels, and the Apostolic Letters where accepted by the mainstream Christians, who professed one, holy, catholic, and apostolic faith. Some of the apocryphal works, where deemed special by heretical groups. Some apocryphals works were probably written too late to be attributable to the Apostles. It is, in those times, quite clear to see, how some of the gnostic gospels could not have their origins in the Apostles, when they belonged to fringe absolutist factions which set themselves above everything, and apart from the Apostles successors.

[quote name='smeagol' date='Apr 11 2006, 10:37 AM']4. Also, it is easier to hate Judas than it is to love him. The man who turned the Son of God in to the authorities who then killed him cannot possibly be a noble man, can he ? It is instinctual to condemn him. However, let us not forget the case of Abraham where we don't instantly disdain him. The hatred of Judas is easily explained psychologically as well as from the perspective of any authority.
[right][snapback]943449[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Hatred of Judas. Hmmm, you are assuming we are condemning this out of mere immature hatred. How immature of you. Because i for one love Judas, and regret that someone handpicked by Jesus for the Mission of the Gospel would turn such a Vocation down.

[quote name='smeagol' date='Apr 11 2006, 10:37 AM']The biggest objection to all of these, I think, is that Jesus doesn't seem like he would deceive people. Why would He lead us to believe that Judas is a dirty backstabber? But then again, how do we know where this deception came from? It could easily have resulted from early official accounts of Jesus's last few days, which we take for granted today.

I don't think we will ever know the role Judas played in the death of Christ, but it is very important to Christians to adequately think about his role and question what we have been taught, even if we don't ever come to any conclusion.

either way, let us pray for Judas's soul
[right][snapback]943449[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

How is Jesus leading us to believe this. Mr. Smeagle, you are making many mean and gross assumptions about the Church and Christianity, which seem to verge on pure cynicism. I am glad you do trust us enough to engage in intelligent discussion, and i appreciate your knowledge and interest in this topic. But be careful in making mean assumptions about us...

SHALOM

PS I didnt put up this original thread to mock the gospel of judas. I am mocking the "media hype." As i am sure that most of us are. What my original point is, that the media is portraying this as something that will challenge the whole Christian view on reality. Which it will not. Scholars are not making any such claims about it. The simple fact is that the media is looking for a hip story that will appeal to popular and ignorant interest. I am saying that people, and most especially the media will forget it. Especially after it is translated, and they don't find anything of much novelty.

Edited April 11, 2006 by MC IMaGiNaZUN