Is the Gospel of Judas authentic? Does it change the overall view of how the Bible was written?
373847
I found the language of the show to be quite interesting. Fore instance, during the first half of the show, they kept asking the question: "Is it real?" This isn't really what they meant, what they meant was "Is it old?" To me, they were implying that "real" = "true".\n\nThey also did not mention several Gnostic beliefs that would have discredited the movement in many people's eyes. You remember the scene at the last supper when they talked about Jesus laughing because the disciples were worshipping the wrong God, that the God who created the universe was actually an inferior God that was not worthy to be worshipped. What they didn't say was that Gnostics believed that this was the God of the Old Testament, so they ignored the Old Testament.\n\nAnother thing that stuck out to me was the phrase "When Jesus appeared on the Earth." Because they believed that the material world was evil, they had what is known as a Docetic view of Jesus. That is, that Jesus only appeared to be human, because God would have never become human and contaminated himself with the material world.\n\nI strongly agree with the speaker at the end who said that the Gospel of Judas provides valuable historical information about the history of Christianity and the movements within it. It shows us that there was never one single Christianity being practiced.  People have beein arguing about who Jesus was since a few minutes after he died.  With that being said, I do not personally believe it provides a historically accurate picture of the characters of Jesus and Judas.\n\nFinally, they seemed to think the fact that there were many Christianities unique. I have to disagree with that. There are many different versions of the Christian faith today, with different holy texts, etc. The book of Mormon is a prime example.\n\nIf you read the other Gnostic texts, you will find they have a lot in common with the Gospel of Judas.  For instance, both the Gospel of Judas and the Gospel of Thomas elevate one of the Disciples above the others.  The Gospel of Mary Magdalene does the same thing for Mary.  None of the four canonical gospels does this for their author.\n\nAnother thing that absolutely amazes me is that we have 4 gospels that tell very similar stories.  There are some minor differences in the order of events or the events included, but they are consistant for the most part.  One new gospel is found that offers a different story and many people jump on that and say, "Wow!  This is the real story."  It just doesn't make any sense.
375606
the bible is rewritten a lot\nit was changed a lot\n\nits now FALSE\nif you need evidences \njust contact
354722
:]\nThe copy of the Gospel of Judas was in Egyptian, therefore a copy from the original language (Greek). It is a single manuscript copied about 300AD, the only other knowledge that we have of its existence is that one of the Church fathers spoke against the veracity of a book by the same claimed author in 160 AD.\nIt's amazing to me that the same people who doubt the New Testament (24000 ancient manuscripts) would jump to accept this.\nWe know that Judas died in about 33 ad and would probably not have had enough time or the mental and emotional stability to write anything like a new gospel in the short time he lived after the events (included in that gospel) regarding the death of  Christ.\nWhat we have is a single manuscript, in the wrong language, dating to more than 250 years after the death of the claimed   author. a denial of it veracity and tons of scriptural evidence against it, and the integrity of it's alleged author\nsome prefer to suspect that the holy spirit made a significant error of omission in assembling the word that Jesus had promised would be sure and would pass away even if heaven and earth did.\nNo I relegate it to the same shelf of malarkey as i do the other gospels (Thomas, Phillip, Barnabas, Mary and any others )
564021
According to the newly discovered gosple of Judas, that's exactly what happened.  According to that book, Judas did not betray Jesus as all, but merely did what Jesus told him to do.\n\nOf course, it's important to keep in mind that Judas and Jesus are both fictional characters.
318897
The gospel of Judas is not credible. Scientists believe it to be the work of gnostics, a mystical early Christian denomination. People in those times did not have the access to the scriptures as we do today. They rarely had more than one or two books of the Bible at one time, so they often did not know what the other parts said. Gnostics often wrote stories of the way they thought things might be. The gospel of Judas is a philosophical conjecture, not scripture. It was also written at least 100 years after the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John - the 4 gospels present in the Bible that tell of Judas's betrayal.\nAlso, because "gospel" means "good news", and the good news is that Jesus died for our sins, the text would have to include the crucifixion and resurrection to be classified as a gospel. The gospel of Judas tells of neither. \n\nThe gospel of Judas has indeed been authenticated - that means that it is indeed as old as it seems. It does not mean that it is a work of scripture. If you want to back up what I have said, go to the link for the National Geographic Channel and either watch for the next show date of their special, or order the video. You can also read the text at this site.
874776
The real message is not that difficult to understand, its the nonsense in the bible that causes the problems.\n\nThe four gospels were not written by the apostles.\n\nThey were written close to the end of the first century long after the apostles were dead and gone. The john who wrote revelations was not the apostle john. He was a poor man kept in prison so long that he simply lost his mind and started to imagine a vengeful God who would punish his captors and anyone like them.\n\nThe bible was created 2 centurys later by the roman empire to change the message of Jesus to something that the Romans found more acceptable.\n\nThis is why it is often difficult to understand. The message of Jesus on the other hand is elegant and simple to understand. You need to separate the message that Jesus left for us from all of the nonsense that the Romans overlaid it with and it will start to become quite easy to understand.\n\nDon't take my word for any of this. Study biblical history for your self and draw your own conclusions. There are many good books on this subject by some intelligent and thoughtful people. Take advantage of their efforts. \n\nEmail if you are interested and I will send so suggested reading material.\n\nLove and blessings.\nDon
304021
The Gospel of Judas was written many many years after the apostles lived and their associates (Timothy and Luke). Where did you get your historical research? \nGive me a break. \n\nThe gnostic gospels are from beliefs that began in the 2nd and 3rd century, which meens that the writings come from a time period more than 100 years after Jesus ministry, far later than any New Testament book. Why in the world should we believe that these later documents tell us more about events than the earlier documents? They are simply not useful for trying to understand Jesus ministry and the shape of very early Christianity. (1)\n\nThe gnostic gospels were late arrivals, which is ONE reason why church leaders rejected them ... they lacked authority since their authors were neither (a) apostles of Jesus nor (b) persons associated with apostles of Jesus... and no one knows who wrote those gnostic gospels. (2)
683390
The writing in the bible is one-dimensional and often immorality is portrayed as moral.\n\nMost importantly, Mr. Brown lists his book as fiction.  The Bible claims it's ludicrous stories are absolutely true.
319870
Here it is, and I'm going to cut and paste from another answer I gave, b cuz I've answered this so many times now...\n\nThe gospel of Judas is not credible. Scientists believe it to be the work of gnostics, a mystical early Christian denomination. People in those times did not have the access to the scriptures as we do today. They rarely had more than one or two books of the Bible at one time, so they often did not know what the other parts said. Gnostics often wrote stories of the way they thought things might be. The gospel of Judas is a philosophical conjecture, not scripture. It was also written at least 100 years after the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John - the 4 gospels present in the Bible that tell of Judas's betrayal.\nAlso, because "gospel" means "good news", and the good news is that Jesus died for our sins, the text would have to include the crucifixion and resurrection. The gospel of Judas tells of neither.\n\nAs for the other gospels, the earliest known manuscripts date from 65 to 95 AD. That is 35 to 65 years after Christ died. It is quite possible then, that even if these were the earliest manuscripts (and not just the earliest known ones) that they are first-hand accounts.\n\nAnd by the way, the verse that people use to say that we are not to add or remove from the Bible is found in Revelation 22:18 - For I testify to anyone who hears the words of the prophecy in this book: If anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are mentioned in this book; and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the Book of Life, from the Holy City, and from the things which are written in this book.\n\n"This book" refers to the book of revelation - not the entire Bible. The Bible as a whole book did not exist when Revelation was written. Granted we are not to add or remove from scriptures, but this verse is misused all too often. Furthermore, we are to use good judgement by finding out the origins and intentions of any text before latching on to it as scripture.
310344
3rd or 4th-century document called "The Gospel of Judas" was launched upon an unsuspecting world yesterday by no less a biblical authority than the National Geographic magazine in Washington. Its contents were "explosive", according to Mario Roberty, president of the Swiss foundation which now owns the ancient papyrus manuscript. \n\nSo as the heat faded from the television lights at the press conference, has 2000 years of orthodox Christianity been overturned? Well, not quite. But it was all jolly interesting, for those who love that sort of thing.\n\nHalf of the 62-page codex, written in Coptic script, is devoted to an account of the final days of Jesus Christ written from the viewpoint of the man who has for two millennia been excoriated as Christ's deadly betrayer. The text begins: "The secret account of the revelation that Jesus spoke in conversation with Judas Iscariot three days before he celebrated Passover..."
565370
There is no question over the wording of 98.5 percent of the Bible. Despite the centuries of copying the OT/NT Biblical manuscripts, only 1.5% contain any questions on content/wording (BTW: the NT is 99.5% accurate to original wording). No ancient writings of the entire world approach the accuracy of the Biblical documents. \n\nThat 1.5 percent does not affect any doctrinal beliefs. The vast majority of those variants consist mainly in variations of wording and spelling. \n\nPeople can reject the Bible if they want, but they should at least have the intellectually honesty to admit that it is a very reliable document.
971935
To the first poster and anyone after me,  I say "whatever" there is a purgatory.  If there's a hell and a heaven then there's a limbo then.  Just because it isn't mentioned in the bible don't you think that it may have been written out of the bible.  Remember folks the bible was created by men perhaps thru God.  The Roman Catholics belief that it truly exist and perhaps the Christian and the other similar don't believe in it.  To answer your question, Judas may have been sent to Purgatory and may have been forgiven but it is the author's personal theory on Purgatory.  I hope this helps you out in my answer.
626839
You want to know the answers to why the Bible is historically accurate and reliable? Well this is going to be long but it will answer your question. This writing discusses common myths held by most people concerning the Bible and analyzes the evidence that points to the Bible’s authenticity.\n\nMyth #1: The Bible’s been copied, translated, and handed down for so long it looks nothing like the original and cannot be reliable anymore.\n\n    This is undeniably a misconception and misinterpretation that’s been around for over a century. It is probably the most common and told myth of the Bible. It has no doubt hindered many people from ever reading and even considering the Word of God.\n\nThe Facts\n    In the early nineteen hundreds scholars started to seriously question the Word of God particularly the Old Testament. Since the earliest copies we had dated to around 900 AD, they started to question how reliable are copies really were. Since we didn’t have the original and since they’ve been copied so many times, we had no idea how accurate our version was. Critics mocked believers of the Bible claiming that the prophecies (particularly about Jesus) could have easily been altered to fit history.\n\n    Enter a small Bedouin boy. In 1947 in an effort to recapture a lost goat he accidentally stumbled upon a cave with hundreds of clay jars found near the Dead Sea in Israel. Further investigation revealed that inside those clay jars lay ancient copies of the Bible written over a century before Jesus. Here were copies of the Old Testament dated around 130 BC written a thousand years earlier than our oldest copies!\n \n    When compared to our version of the Old Testament it was analyzed that the two versions were 95% identical. The 5% variation consisted chiefly of obvious slips of the pen and variations in spelling. Not a single teaching or main passage of the Bible was in question or in error.  So now we can rest assured that our current Old Testament is completely and utterly reliable because it has not changed in over 2,000 years!\n\nMyth #2 of the Bible: It’s contradictory.\nThe Bible is unbelievably and completely harmonious with itself. In simpler terms the Bible addresses hundreds of controversial topics (i.e., marriage, divorce, salvation, morality) yet from Genesis to Revelation (the first and last books) the Bible is in complete agreement with all of these topics. \n\n    Let me just put this into perspective for you. How often do two people agree on anything? How often do three people agree on the same issue? How about 30? The point is that given the hundreds of books out there hardly any of them agree on any one issue. They are all horribly contradictory with each other. One book says to eat eggs, another says to not eat eggs, yet another one says to eat only the whites of eggs. Which one is right? \n\n    Yet when it comes to the Bible every single topic is completely in agreement with each of the 40+ authors. “But what about the contradictions in the Bible?” you ask. Well, show me them, or simply show me one. Every contradiction that people claim are never actually checked up on. People just believe what other people say and they believe because someone else said it, so on, and so forth. If they actually read the passage they might see that there is no contradiction. In any event saying that there are contradictions in the Bible is just an excuse to keep people from reading the Bible which might contain the very thing people are looking for.\n\nThe Facts\n    Most if not all contradictions are due to interpretation error. There are several tests or principles you must use to determine the meaning of any given passage in the Bible. Some include: 1. You must understand the context of the passage, 2. Interpret difficult passages in the light of clear ones, 3. The Bible uses non-technical, everyday language, 4. Note when the Bible uses different literary devices, 5. Don’t base teaching on obscure passages.
649454
I just checked out the Gospel of Judas the other day @ the local B&N. Wow. It felt like a part of history jumping into my hands.\n\nKnowing what Judas was to become; reading what depictions he'd written of Jesus; the pieces of text felt so raw with emotion. They felt so real. Knowing the ending of the story of course, did make some of the pre-betrayal friendliness tough to swallow.\n\nThis brought me to the realization that these newer books need to be included, don't they? I haven't asked my priest at church, but a newer version has to be in the works.\n\nForget about red tape, just order the entries and publish the thing.\n\nWith the Da Vinci Code getting more publicity than the Dead Sea Scrolls, now'd be a pretty good time to release a newer, fuller edition of The Bible.\n\nThanks for answering my last question,\n\n-Justin
1177688
It depends. I spoke to our Parish priest about that, (^_^) and he said that it was INSPIRED in the prophets who wrote it, so in reality it was not really what Jesus exactly says (or said).\n \n(^_^)
439957
Um, do you mean Jesus and Judas? You can read it for yourself at www.nationalgeographic.com. It is believed to be the work of gnostics, and not of Judas. A fairy tale.
329567
It HAS been altered.  Books have been taken out, things have been chopped, text re-written, all of it.  Every person who has had it re-written has changed stuff.  The Song of Solomon was all but gutted because it was judged to be 'too sexual', Jesus' text was re-written to make him sound less sarcastic.  Ever king or ruler that commissioned a re-write of it changed it slightly to what he felt it should be.