Is it true that the Gospel of Judas has been found? I overheard an ad on National Geographic the other day.?
409654
Regardless of what has been found. You are always going to find someone trying to portray Christianity as fake or not real. Or in that fact people claiming that Christ is not the Savior for man kind. The only way to find out is see for your self. Open up the bible and read scripture. Or find someone to help you study the bible. The truth is there it is just up to you to search it out.\n\nGod Bless
481875
Jesuit scholar says Gospel of Judas does not merit name 'Gospel'\n\nBy Cindy Wooden\nCatholic News Service\n\nROME (CNS) -- The Gospel of Judas was unimportant to most Christians when it was written hundreds of years ago and it is unimportant today, said a Jesuit professor who has convoked a series of ecumenical studies of the historical Jesus. \n\nJesuit Father Gerald O'Collins, a longtime professor of Christology at Rome's Pontifical Gregorian University, said the text, like the gospels of Mary Magdalene and Philip, "does not merit the name 'Gospel.'" \n\nThe National Geographic Society unveiled the document April 6, posting a copy of it on the society's Web site, www.nationalgeographic.com, and releasing English translations of portions of the text.\n\n"A 'Gospel' is a literary genre -- established by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John -- focusing on the life, death and resurrection of Jesus," Father O'Collins said. \n\nWhile including events supposedly related to the life of Jesus, the Gospel of Judas and the others really are texts "attempting to bolster the importance" of the personalities they are named after, not of Jesus, the priest said. \n\n"They are not summaries of the good news," he said.\n\nThe texts come from the gnostic tradition, a religious-philosophical current popular in the second, third and fourth centuries. The gnostics claimed to have secret knowledge unavailable to the vast majority of people and focused so strongly on the spiritual and intellectual that they despised material creation, including the human body. \n\nIn the year 180, St. Irenaeus condemned the gnostics, mentioning particularly a Gospel of Judas.\n\nFather O'Collins said the most important thing about the text released in early April is that "it shows just how right Irenaeus was in saying the gnostics were against mainstream Christianity and Judaism, they were against our God." \n\n"To give Judas greater credit," the Jesuit said, the gnostics "portray Jesus giving him secret knowledge. It was a nice try," but there is no evidence to support the claim.\n\n"It was junk then and it is junk now," he said .\n\nFather O'Collins, who between 1996 and 2003 convoked a series of ecumenical, interdisciplinary summits for scholars on the historical Jesus, said it was "ridiculous" for anyone to claim publication of the Gospel of Judas will challenge mainstream Christianity. \n\nEND
380079
No.  It is interesting to me that the same people who bash Christians and deny the authority of the entire Bible are always the first to jump on the latest theological bandwagon as long as it runs contrary to accepted beliefs.  Take for instance the Divinci Code.  Now the hot topic is the gospel of Judas.  It reminds me of the way Hollywood is quick to make movies about the powers associated with the devil and demons, but rarely makes one portraying God's side of the picture.  How many horror movies have been made about demons?  How many movies have been made about Christian faith?  Beware of the latest fad -ALWAYS!  To me the good news about the latest debate is that anyone seriously engaged in it, has already admitted some very basic truths.  Namely that Jesus existed, that he was crucified, that his follower Judas handed him over to the authorities.  Those truths have never been in question.  Any historian will tell you that the life of Jesus is THE most well documented event in history.  That in itself should tell you something.
438750
Because it was widely believed to be the work of gnostics, which were a mystical denomination of early Christianity. Their writings can be compared to our Christian fiction, like the Left Behind Series - which may or may not be true, but are certainly NOT scripture. The reason they were written was that in those days, there were few who had access to the Bible as a whole, and few could read. They read what they could, and when they had questions, they wrote these "gospels" and other works to answer those questions as best they could with limited resources. They also believed that one god created the earth and that another was actually God, which we know by reading the Bible is an unfounded conclusion. I suggest that you read a book on the subject of all the writings that were not included. The National Geographic Channel special on the gospel of Judas may also be helpful.
322707
Go here and get the full thing, including how it was authenticated.  Sounds real to me.\nhttp://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/04/0406_060406_gospel.html
302209
If you understand the nature of the "Gospel of Judas" and related works, I think you'll agree that the New Testament gospels are a better bet by far.  (By the way, there are FOUR of them, and all tell of Judas's betraying Jesus.) \n\nThe "Gospel of Judas" was one of a host of "Gnostic gospels" that began to pop up in the second century (decades after the four gospels in the New Testament).  The Gnostics believed that they were a very special elite  (beyond the common, 'run of the mill' Christians) who had been given a very special, secret knowledge that was withheld from everyone else.\n\nWhat that implies is that the REAL truth must be something hidden, a secret that 'ordinary' people (or ordinary Christians) do not and cannot get, only the initiated. \n\nWhat the Gnostic gospels have in common is that they pick ONE person to whom Jesus is supposed to have told "the REAL plan", which was different from what everyone else thought.\n\nInteresting implications of this are\n1) ONLY Thomas, or Judas, or whichever person supposedly had been given this special truth and passed it on, had the truth.  So only ONE of these gospels can be correct. ALL the other gospels (including all the other Gnostic gospels!!) had to be mistaken!\n2) Because it was a SECRET, revealed on the sly to just one person (initially), you could not DISprove it by pointing to all the evidence and teaching that did not fit in with it!\n\nAs for Judas.  Since this "gnosis" or '(hidden) knowledge' was a secret NOT revealed to anyone else, and was beyond the understanding of ordinary 'unenlightened' folk (Gnostics wer real spiritual elitists!) it makes sense for it all be a big surprise (not at all what you would expect from general Christian teaching).  That would make Judas an ideal choice.   You see, the ordinary people THOUGHT that Judas chose to betray Jesus.   Only the enlightened knew the truth!\n\nBASIC GNOSTIC BELIEFS in short: \nElitist (not accessible to most people), can only have ONE gospel (all others false), the special knowledge CANNOT be proven false (historical evidence does not count), and incidentally, thinks VERY negatively about the physical world (Christian view, like the Hebrew was that the physical world was created good... believed in a REAL physical incarnation of Jesus, the hope of a physical resurrection  vs. Gnosticism which holds that the spiritual world is good, the material world is evil)\n\nDo people understand that THIS is what the "Gospel of Judas" and the rest are about??   Is that really what folks want to believe?  (Or maybe the information they are being fed about it doesn't tell them some of these things?)
655811
There is no "new" gospel.  Scripture was canonized by God's sovereignty.  Revelation 22:18 might be of interest to anyone claiming they have found "new" writings.  ("...If any man shall ADD unto these words, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book")
577321
There probably is missing Gospel. What relevance? It would have the same message, no?
354507
The "gospel of Judas" is an oxymoron. Gospel means "good news". What is so great about the man who was possessed by Satan, betrayed Jesus Christ for 30 pieces of silver, then hung himself when it was all over????
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.
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 )
684848
People who have absolutely no idea will scream, "LIES" without even reading the book or investigating the history behind it. From what I was able to find, here is what's true and what's not:\n\n- Gnostic Gospels: True, except the text in the Gospel of Mary Magdaline where is says, "Jesus kissed Mary on the lips" is actually, "Jesus kissed Mary on the (hole in parchment)". Brown took a liberty here. Also, there are several references in the Gnostic gospels as well as the bible itself that refer to Jesus "favoring" Mary Mag but they don't go into detail...leaving room for speculation.\n\n- Priory of Sion: A real org., however every bit of information about links it to one of 3 men in the 1950s, and there's no information or reference of the org before that. It's thought to be a hoax.\n\n- Myth of Jesus's Family: The book is correct that Mary Mag was not a prostitute. The bible makes absolutely no reference to that at all. As for the legend of Mary Mag fleeing to France, the only evidence that I know of is a reference in a 15th century book, and an old French myth. Supposedly she had a daughter named Sara, which in Hebrew means Princess. So, the conclusion could be reached that she was the child of Jesus, but its a bit of a stretch.\n\nDa Vinci: Some agree 100% that Mary Mag is in the painting of the last supper. Several art historians claim that during the Rennesaunce (spelling) John was often painted feminine.\n\nConstantine: This was about 80% true from my research. Yes, Constantine formed the Christian religon as it is now (more or less). History is a little fuzzy though as to how much involvement he had choosing which books to include in the bible (some say it was him alone, some say it was several people over several years). However, he DID remove all other religions claiming to follow another messiah, and shape the Christian religion the way he wanted it and make it mainstream. Whether that's following God's influence or a personal agenda, you decide.\n\nOver all, as for the history and theory part of the book I'd say its about 50% fact, 40% legend-theory-assumption, and 10% false. Dan Brown even admits that, "the opinions in the book are conclusions drawn by the characters". He is himself a Christian.\n\nNow...isn't that better than an angry Christian screaming "LIES" when they don't have a clue what they're talking about?
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.
508860
Allow me to rephrase.. Yes it changes the meaning. But ((why)) are such things in the bible when we know they were added later? But there are more verses which were added (the NIV indicates them in footnotes). So, if such things were added, then who knows what else was added or removed?\n\nBTW, do you know about the "Secret Gospel of Mark"? This is a gem indeed. It answers the difficulty of Mark 10:46 (ie. what happened at Jericho?) and demonstrates nicely how they removed things they didn't like ;)
988142
No. There has been too much lost in the numerous translations. And I would question your statement about the book being in existence for 'thousands' of years. The new testament and the gospels were not instantly assembled upon the death of Jesus of Nazareth. The old testament was passed on by word of mouth long before the books were written.  Compound these necessary flaws with the council of cardinals who decided which books were going to be part of the bible and which books were not, and the church's practice of censoring anything that did not agree with doctrine, and you have a less than perfect product.
372114
:}\nNo electronic coppies are available. National Geographic holds the rights to the translation and will be publishing it for sale. not yet released.\nThe Internet is full of rumors about what it says, if you care to google it.  \nThe rumors are probably as accurate account of what it contains as it is an accurate record of the life of Christ.
454072
Joshua.  People like you crack me up.  Really!  You argue about biblical-specific entries and events as if they were factual and undeniable.  "written 4000 years ago"  On what?  Notebook paper?  Do you have some copies of those 4000 year old writings?  Do you have some secret text that nobody else has ever seen?  Are you on heroin or acid?  What's your trip?  None of the authors of the NT witnessed the alleged resurrection.  No matter how you stretch it, there are no actual accounts of it.  Most of the NT was created and written in 320AD under the direction of Constantine the Great, and its puirpose was NOT for historic accuracy.  Its purpose was to create a doctrine at the Council of Nicea that all factions of religious doctrine could agree upon and pull everyone together.  Why does it appear that there only a few people that post here regularly who actually know this?  Is your only source of "history" the Bible itself?  Are you crazy enough to use the Bible to prove the Bible?  Talk about illogic!\n\nThe original poster is correct -- if the notion of god portrayed in the bible is accurate, then there is no need for "free will" -- God already knows how things turn out.  He already knows who chooses free will and who doesn't choose free will, how they act, and who the sinners are and who goes to hell.  He already knows the choices people made in the past and what they'll make in the future.  He already knows how things will turn.  Already been there.  Outside of the time line?  Fine, state it however you wish.  It's still the same.  He's all knowing.  He knows how the "souls" will turn out. There's no need for a test on earth.\n\nThe question is not flawed at all.  Your assumption that the Bible is incontrovertible is flawed, and your statements of biblical myths as assertion are ridiculous.  It is one of hundreds of unprovable myths on this whole planet, full of fatal flaws, like the one this question raises.