psuedo "gospel" of Judas

[Socrates]

[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.
[/quote]

First of all, this so-called "Gospel of Judas" came from the Gnostics, who mixed Christian themes with certain pagan ideas of "gnosis" or salvation through hidden knowledge. The Gnostics believed that the Creator of matter was evil, and gnostic writings often offer a strange (I would argue Satanic) inversion of traditional Christian understanding of Scripture. For instance, Gnostic writings have glorified the Serpent as mankind's liberator, and honored Cain, the primal murderer. Similarly, they would make Judas, Christ's betrayor, into a hero.

The Church was never gnostic, and always condemned gnosticism from the beginning.

St. Irenaeus wrote against the Gnostics in the 2nd Century:
"It is within the power of all, therefore, in every church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the churches, and to demonstrate the succession of these men to our own times; those who neither taught nor knew of anything like what these heretics rave about. For if the apostles had known hidden mysteries, which they were in the habit of imparting to 'the perfect' apart and privily from the rest, they would have delivered them especially to those to whom they were also committing the Churches themselves." [Irenaeus, book III, chapter iii.]

(Here is a [url="http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1996/9601fea1.asp"]good article on Gnosticism and the Church.[/url] It is somewhat long, but well worth reading.)

Smeagol, obviously, you reject the authority of the Catholic Church, even from the earliest days. Yet, from your post, it seems you consider yourself some kind of Christian (calling Jesus Christ the Son of God, etc.)
This begs the question: What is your source for the truth about Christ?
From the Four Gospels in the Biblical Canon?
You claim they may be lies.

If the canonnical Gospels are untrustworthy, though, why should we believe in gnostic writings? By what authority can we believe anything about Christ or His Truths?

If simply any writing about Jesus has as much claim to truth as any other, we really have no way of knowing anything at all about Him!

This conclusion may be expected from an atheist or agnostic, but from a Christian, it makes no sense.

[Paladin]

The "Gospel of Judas" isn't worth the ASCII being wasted on it here. It's 3rd century heretical silliness. Junk then, junk now. The reason it's being so hyped is because the media are religiously illiterate. They like a good story, and if some fella wrote something weird about Jesus a long time ago and people are just again finding out about it, they'll puff it up to make it sound like news. It's not. It's an old gnostic text that doesn't say much of anything about Christianity. IMHO, our best response is to consider it a quaint relic of ancient heresey, roll our eyes at the silliness of gnosticism, and move on.

[MC IMaGiNaZUN]

[quote name='Paladin' date='Apr 11 2006, 07:43 PM']The "Gospel of Judas" isn't worth the ASCII being wasted on it here.  It's 3rd century heretical silliness.  Junk then, junk now.  The reason it's being so hyped is because the media are religiously illiterate.  They like a good story, and if some fella wrote something weird about Jesus a long time ago and people are just again finding out about it, they'll puff it up to make it sound like news.  It's not.  It's an old gnostic text that doesn't say much of anything about Christianity.  IMHO, our best response is to consider it a quaint relic of ancient heresey, roll our eyes at the silliness of gnosticism, and move on.
[right][snapback]944178[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I agree... Except that, we can't just move on.

Gnosticism is the most prevallent heresy in the history of the church. And as long as there are cynics, pessimists, and other hatefull arrogant religious nuts in the world, gnosticism will continue.

However, i think this superficial fascination (a la Dan Brown), would have no ground if people actually knew what gnosticism is.

SHALOM

[Church Punk]

[quote name='crazymaine catholic' date='Apr 8 2006, 06:45 PM']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.
[right][snapback]940327[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

You would think, but look at what the number one selling book in the country is?

(DaVinci Code)

[Desert Walker]

The following quote illustrates EXACTLY why the "gnostic gospels" were rejected by the Roman Catholic Apostolic Authority so many centuries ago.

[quote]"This ancient text helps the modern world rediscover something that the early Christians knew firsthand," said Reverend Donald Senior, president of the Catholic Theological Union in Chicago, Illinois.

"In the early centuries of the Christian era there were multiple sacred texts resulting from communities in various parts of the Mediterranean world trying to come to grips with the meaning of Jesus Christ for their lives." [/quote]

In other words, the early Christians were very familiar with confusion and debate about Jesus Christ and His teachings. The successors of the Apostles decided to take a shot at ending that confusion by codifying an official canon of Sacred Scripture: what most of us know as the Catholic Bible.

So I'm not quite sure what Rev. Donald Senior, president of the Catholic Theological Union, is getting at. Why do WE need to "understand" that the early Christians experienced confusion about Jesus??

We have our OWN confusions!

This is all a Satanic plot to create even MORE confusion!

[smeagol]

i appreciate the discussion here. especialy from imaginazum. i feel compelled to say that i am very very reticent to believe anything in this historical document. (of course i too agree it should not technically be called a gospel b/c by definition it is not, but that is really a moot point.)

however, i refuse to simply brush this off my shoulder as some inconvenience that shouldn't even be given the time of day. if it is by some far shot in fact true, then we obviously must give great attention to it, but more likely that if it is indeed false, then we should use this to stregthen ourselves in faith. regardless of the truth-ness of this document, it is important for those of faith. to dismiss it because the Church dismisses it is shallow and gets one nowhere. that would be like believing simply because you are told to believe, not because you truly believe in your heart of hearts. and that is what i'm getting at.

we can't dismiss Judas simply because he did betray just as we cannot condemn Abraham simply because he was about to sacrifice his son. we must look past actions to motivation. if Judas' motivation was greed, then he deserves nothing more than the pity and mercy we extend to any criminal. but if his motivation was a secret bond w/ Jesus and a mandate from God, then we must re-question everything about him.

of course, i am questioning the complete validity of the gospels. the church is not always infallible (i.e. Galileo, indulgences, killing heretics,...) so we cannot always take it at its word. the reason for dismissing the 'gospel' of Judas must be more than "the Church rejects it, so I must too".

i just urge everyone to think about what this is purporting and reason whether or not this really makes sense. don't mindlessly echo the sentiment of "its junk then ; its junk now". while that may be the case, use the brain God gave you to figure stuff out for yourself.

now, before you all condemn me as a heretic and cry to burn me at the stake, let me tell you that i cannot bring myself to believing the accuracy of this document. the reason i reject it is that i cannot believe Jesus to be one to employ such deceit. i imagine it was probably written in an attempt by Judas or one of his buddies to save face.

let this strengthen our faith and bring us together. instead of making this 'us vs them'. let's pray for the soul of Judas (that he receive mercy and salvation) and those who are tricked into believing falsehoods (not only about the story of Judas) but also about current events and anything else.

once again, let us not shut ourselves off from this discovery. face it head-on and confront it instead of saying it's not real or just avoiding it. also, i appreciate the level-headed arguments and thoughts that this board brings out.

~ gollum

[Socrates]

[quote name='smeagol' date='Apr 12 2006, 08:57 PM']i appreciate the discussion here. especialy from imaginazum. i feel compelled to say that i am very very reticent to believe anything in this historical document. (of course i too agree it should not technically be called a gospel b/c by definition it is not, but that is really a moot point.)

however, i refuse to simply brush this off my shoulder as some inconvenience that shouldn't even be given the time of day. if it is by some far shot in fact true, then we obviously must give great attention to it, but more likely that if it is indeed false, then we should use this to stregthen ourselves in faith. regardless of the truth-ness of this document, it is important for those of faith. to dismiss it because the Church dismisses it is shallow and gets one nowhere. that would be like believing simply because you are told to believe, not because you truly believe in your heart of hearts. and that is what i'm getting at.

we can't dismiss Judas simply because he did betray just as we cannot condemn Abraham simply because he was about to sacrifice his son. we must look past actions to motivation. if Judas' motivation was greed, then he deserves nothing more than the pity and mercy we extend to any criminal. but if his motivation was a secret bond w/ Jesus and a mandate from God, then we must re-question everything about him.

of course, i am questioning the complete validity of the gospels. the church is not always infallible (i.e. Galileo, indulgences, killing heretics,...) so we cannot always take it at its word. the reason for dismissing the 'gospel' of Judas must be more than "the Church rejects it, so I must too".

i just urge everyone to think about what this is purporting and reason whether or not this really makes sense. don't mindlessly echo the sentiment of "its junk then ; its junk now". while that may be the case, use the brain God gave you to figure stuff out for yourself.

now, before you all condemn me as a heretic and cry to burn me at the stake, let me tell you that i cannot bring myself to believing the accuracy of this document. the reason i reject it is that i cannot believe Jesus to be one to employ such deceit. i imagine it was probably written in an attempt by Judas or one of his buddies to save face.

let this strengthen our faith and bring us together. instead of making this 'us vs them'. let's pray for the soul of Judas (that he receive mercy and salvation) and those who are tricked into believing falsehoods (not only about the story of Judas) but also about current events and anything else.

once again, let us not shut ourselves off from this discovery. face it head-on and confront it instead of saying it's not real or just avoiding it. also, i appreciate the level-headed arguments and thoughts that this board brings out.

~ gollum
[right][snapback]945618[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
The issue here is not the state of Judas' soul (which the Church has made no dogmatic pronouncement on), but on the authenticity of this so-called "Gospel of Judas."

As Catholics, we indeed believe the Church is infallible when making statements on Faith and Morals (which includes declaring which writings are divinely inspired, and which are not). Infallibility does not extend to judicial and disciplinary decisions (especially those of local ecclesial courts). The issues you cited do not actually involved infallibility, and the facts have been distorted by anti-Catholic propaganda. These things must be dealt with in their true historical context. Here are some articles on [url="http://www.catholic.com/library/galileo_controversy.asp"]Galileo[/url], [url="http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1994/9411fea1sb2.asp"]indulgences[/url], and [url="http://www.catholic.com/library/inquisition.asp"]the inquisition[/url]

To deal with the issue of the "Gospel of Judas," one needs to understand the historical context of Gnosticism, the false dualistic religion which spawned this phony "gospel," along with many other "gnostic gospels" which have long been known and available. I suggest you read the article I linked to in my earlier posts. The "Gospel of Judas" did not come from Judas, who had hanged himself, but from those preaching gnosticism, or the teachings of "secret knowledge" kept hidden from the masses.
This gnosticism was [b]not[/b] what was orginally taught by the Apostles and handed down to their successors, as the Church Fathers attest.
I will repeat my quote from St. Irenaeus here:
[quote][b]It is within the power of all, therefore, in every church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the churches, and to demonstrate the succession of these men to our own times; those who neither taught nor knew of anything like what these heretics rave about. For if the apostles had known hidden mysteries, which they were in the habit of imparting to 'the perfect' apart and privily from the rest, they would have delivered them especially to those to whom they were also committing the Churches themselves. [Irenaeus, book III, chapter iii.][/b][/quote]
The finding of fragments of this gnostic "gospel" is [b]not[/b] some new revelation into the nature of the Church, but is that same gnosticism which was solidly condemned and discredited by the Church over 1600 years ago.

While you accuse us of shallow thinking by rejecting it because the Church has rejected it, you have given no "logical" reasons why it should be accepted as truth. Simply suggesting that the Church lied or is mistaken is not a rational argument, but merely the casting of doubt.

It all comes down to Faith; do you believe that the Church is that founded by Christ, who gave His teaching authority to Peter and his successors?

"You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it" (Matt. 16:18).

This is attested to by the early Church Fathers: ([url="http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0407frs.asp"]article here[/url])

Are we to trust, the Church, the successors of St. Peter, - or the Gnostics?

If we do not accept the authority of the Church regarding Christ, we end up merely following our own opinions.

[God Conquers]

The funny thing about this is that the media touts it as "new evidence".

haha... the Church crushed it with truth 2000 years ago and every day since, and will do every day hencforth.

There's nothing "new" hear. Just the same old lies authored by the same very very old Liar.

[Theoketos]

Smeagol, This "gospel" was written way after the fact, even sympathetic scholars admit that.. Judas was certainly not Gnostic (if anything he was a millitant jew like those of the jewish revolt in 70), but Gnostics definately have a literary genre of making heros out of villians (see Maricion thoughts on Cain et alia). So this gospel is worth something in so far as it gives us a greater idea of who the Gnostics are. I even see furhter worth in that it proves the way Ireneaus presents the Gnostics is accurate.

[YMNolan]

[quote name='God Conquers' date='Apr 16 2006, 01:14 PM']The funny thing about this is that the media touts it as "new evidence".

haha... the Church crushed it with truth 2000 years ago and every day since, and will do every day hencforth.

There's nothing "new" hear. Just the same old lies authored by the same very very old Liar.
[right][snapback]949155[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Amen bro!

[MC IMaGiNaZUN]

[quote name='smeagol' date='Apr 12 2006, 08:57 PM']however, i refuse to simply brush this off my shoulder as some inconvenience that shouldn't even be given the time of day. if it is by some far shot in fact true, then we obviously must give great attention to it, but more likely that if it is indeed false, then we should use this to stregthen ourselves in faith. regardless of the truth-ness of this document, it is important for those of faith. to dismiss it because the Church dismisses it is shallow and gets one nowhere. that would be like believing simply because you are told to believe, not because you truly believe in your heart of hearts. and that is what i'm getting at.
[right][snapback]945618[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Smeagol, first of all, a lot of us here are into historical, intellectual inquiraries. We have come to discover through gripping thought processes and research of why the gnostic sect is dangerous. At least, that is the impression i get when i am in here, i feel intimidated surrounded by the intelligent people in this forum, and with the exception of this particular thread, i hardly have raised my voice much.

But i feel in no way to immediately to dismass those who have SUPERNATURAL FAITH. The inablitiy to BELIEVE is a handicap. And if God gives somebody the GRACE of FAITH to accept the doctrine of Sacred Scriptures, who am i to criticize. If something is true, but i have to overanalize and criticize, it is a weakness of my own to not be able to accept it.

Jesus Christ blesses those who BELIEVE without having seen, or experienced. BLESSED indeed are those given such SUPERNATURAL FAITH to accept the HOLY TRUTHS of the CHURCH. If you however refuse to accept them, that is a matter of your own conscious, and you should not be hypocritically trying to force your beliefs on Catholics, as you criticize the Church for doing the same. You take your own system of values, and purpote it as absolute, but criticize an organization for doing the same thing. Perhaps it is inconcievable to you that the Church is jampacked with Scholars who do analyze all the documents. The Church has scholars, so that NOT EVERYBODY will be required to do so. Many people are doing the HOLY WORK OF GOD in their daily lives, and probably are earning a better inheritance in heaven then we are squabbling over these matters.

[quote name='smeagol' date='Apr 12 2006, 08:57 PM']we can't dismiss Judas simply because he did betray just as we cannot condemn Abraham simply because he was about to sacrifice his son. we must look past actions to motivation. if Judas' motivation was greed, then he deserves nothing more than the pity and mercy we extend to any criminal. but if his motivation was a secret bond w/ Jesus and a mandate from God, then we must re-question everything about him.
[right][snapback]945618[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

This is nice to speculate in fantasy merely. If there is no such thing as truth, you can just make it up as you go along, and base everything on feelings and whatever nonsense that arises from the moment and trends of today. There is little to indicate that the Gospel of Judas has any accuracy in fact. The parchment that the controversy covers has been carbon dated to the end of the third century. That is more than two centuries following the "betrayal" in question. If it wasnt for the Church Father St. Irenaous, we would not have taken this seriously as an historical document. However, as a matter of Christian faith, that is not what it is. It is clear from what we know of the gnostics, that it is incompatible with our faith. In fact, if that is the case... The Church Faithful have a RIGHT to not consider it sacred.

[quote name='smeagol' date='Apr 12 2006, 08:57 PM']of course, i am questioning the complete validity of the gospels. the church is not always infallible (i.e. Galileo, indulgences, killing heretics,...) so we cannot always take it at its word. the reason for dismissing the 'gospel' of Judas must be more than "the Church rejects it, so I must too".
[right][snapback]945618[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Your problems that you bring here are great misconceptions based on anti-catholic re-writings of history.

the Galileo controversy had troubled me. The Church makes no claim of infalliblity outside the realm of FAITH and MORALS. The Church has never claimed a right in science. However, as Galileo was in Court, there were many Monasteries, and Jesuits universities who were making scientific breakthroughs. Gregor Mendel for instance was an Augustinian Abbot who discovered the Laws of Inheretince. The problem of Galileo was his overt writings against the church. In fact, it is never mentioned, that Galileo chaned on a correct discovery based upon other innacurate scientific principles. For more details check out the research man! : [url="http://www.catholic.com/library/galileo_controversy.asp"]http://www.catholic.com/library/galileo_controversy.asp[/url]

Indulgences is not WRONG per se. It was the selling of indulgances that was an abuse at the time of Martin Luther. The Church teaches purgatory, that is a time of purging and purification before one enters into the beatific vision. That is when the state of sin is fully removed through the pain of fires. An indulgance is a supernatural grace that relieves of the deadly effects of sin, and therefore get someone out of purgatory faster. However, this is such a complicated thing, and in the minds of the simple and superstitious it can be easily exploited, as it had at the time of Luther. Indulgences in and of themselves, when properly understood from the Catholic perspective are okay. When misrepresented by Anti-catholics, they seem a terrible thing. Do the research man! Like somehow the "church" is the only biased teaching source out there.

killing heretics. Times have changed. In the old times, it tended to be the state which condemned heretics to death. That was a matter of keeping things in order. Joan of Arc was one of the few to be burned at the stake. It was rare for the Church to ever do that believe it or not.

However Smeagol, you seem to be confusing and either misunderstanding, or blatantly misrepresenting the Catholic position on infallibility. That is called a logical fallacy. It is also highly unchristian and uncharitable. But i am assuming that you are well intentioned, and are just misinformed by your infallibly anti-catholic resources.

[quote name='smeagol' date='Apr 12 2006, 08:57 PM']i just urge everyone to think about what this is purporting and reason whether or not this really makes sense. don't mindlessly echo the sentiment of "its junk then ; its junk now". while that may be the case, use the brain God gave you to figure stuff out for yourself.
[right][snapback]945618[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I think some of them are. The ones that refuse to, well i am sure have other things to speculate seriously on.

[quote name='smeagol' date='Apr 12 2006, 08:57 PM']now, before you all condemn me as a heretic and cry to burn me at the stake, let me tell you that i cannot bring myself to believing the accuracy of this document. the reason i reject it is that i cannot believe Jesus to be one to employ such deceit. i imagine it was probably written in an attempt by Judas or one of his buddies to save face.
[right][snapback]945618[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Funny you make use of the burning heretic stereotype. Did you know that when Galileo was under house arrest for his "heresy," protestants where burning and pillaging alleged witches. In fact, it is clear from what we know of history, the dealings of the pope and Galileo where those of two highly immature men (well i might prefer to call them boys, because they behaved as such) Galileo went at lengths to outwardly and explicitly insult the pope in his writings. His pompousness got him a house arrest.

[quote name='smeagol' date='Apr 12 2006, 08:57 PM']let this strengthen our faith and bring us together. instead of making this 'us vs them'. let's pray for the soul of Judas (that he receive mercy and salvation) and those who are tricked into believing falsehoods (not only about the story of Judas) but also about current events and anything else.
[right][snapback]945618[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

The simple fact is that the Gospel of Judas is a text belonging to the Gnostics, and not the Christians. if the Gnostics want it, go ahead fine. The Church has no obligation to seriously consider it. It had in the past, and the document has not changed, except that it is disintigrating perhaps. And since when is the story a falsehood? You are going around making up things when historical facts show otherwise. How can we trust your judgement on values, when you just start making stuff up without historical backing. The Church seems to have more backing thanyou, with all due respect Smeagol, i prefer to go where the weight is.

But i really do agree with you that the Church as a whole would profit spiritually when it takes the document head on, and makes a declaration on it after it is fully translated. It will not change anything, people just need a clear message. But, the church is not obligated to say anything on behalf of the gnostics.

[quote name='smeagol' date='Apr 12 2006, 08:57 PM']once again, let us not shut ourselves off from this discovery. face it head-on and confront it instead of saying it's not real or just avoiding it. also, i appreciate the level-headed arguments and thoughts that this board brings out.

~ gollum
[right][snapback]945618[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

[TheConvertKid]

Bottom line: If it's not in the Bible and it's not taught in the Order of Mass, I'm not paying much attention to it. Jesus was crucified. Judas Iscariot, son on Simon Iscariot, betrayed him and then hung himself. There are 4 gospels and any other "gospel" that jumps out the woodwork holds no weight. Peace.

[MC IMaGiNaZUN]

[quote name='TheConvertKid' post='953934' date='Apr 19 2006, 11:27 AM']
Bottom line: If it's not in the Bible and it's not taught in the Order of Mass, I'm not paying much attention to it. Jesus was crucified. Judas Iscariot, son on Simon Iscariot, betrayed him and then hung himself. There are 4 gospels and any other "gospel" that jumps out the woodwork holds no weight. Peace.
[/quote]

Well, this discussion is for well intentioned people, Smeagol for instance who have a curiosity. I accept the canon of Scripture as divinely inspired based on the authority of the Church.

Some people are clearly incapable of trusting anybody in authority, and such outright dismissals only go so far as showing those who are questioning that their reasons to not trust the Church are true.

Now, Convert kid, there is nothing wrong with not bothering the time to mull over it, we are confident it is nonsense. But for the Church to study it, and come out, and say, with a clear voice once again (St. Iraneous has, but that just doesn't appear to be rellevant to today's mind) about how incorrect it is. And that should follow careful analysis.

Of course, the church should be under no obligation to do so, but it probably will, just to clarify things for those who feel they must criticize every corner of creation.

SHALOM