What do you think og Gospels of Judas?
478507
Thats really an intresting question. Well, most didn't take This seriously, but I feel Pope by contradicting this in his easter speech certainly poked at the bee hive. \n\nIntrevention by Pope means there is something utter nonsence or there is possibility that it is true & the church wants to hush it up.
365679
I watched the special on National Geographic. Have they made the text available to read anywhere?\n\nBased on the information that was given on the National Geographic premiere...I firmly believe that Jesus chose Judas to sacrifice him. Someone had to do it and he wanted Judas to be the one. The thing that gets me is that when Jesus tells Judas that he will be known as deceitful person for many, many years but in the END, the truth will be known. Wow, that means we know now....does that mean that we are really close to the end?\n\nI would love to look at it more in depth when they release it; if you know anywhere it has been published, please let me know.
455033
I don't believe this so called "Gospel of Judas". I don't doubt that it exists, or that it was written when it was supposedly written, but I do believe the writer skewed the text to reflect his/her thoughts and that it is not an accurate account of the facts. Yes, Judas betrayed Jesus and yes it was a part of the grand design that God had planned for the salvation of man. I don't think Judas necessarily betrayed Jesus because Jesus told him to though, I think Judas didn't realize at the time of the betrayal that it would end in the crucifixion of his Lord. That's why Judas tried to get the Pharisees to take back the 30 pieces of silver and why he ultimately committed suicide. This is simply another example of how satan tries to confuse the truth and turn people away from God.
350946
No. But then i dont believe in anything Christian either. \n\nThe Gospel of Judas shows that the gospels were written not about historical facts, but from the theology of the authors. If a gospel author believed something, he wrote a story to 'prove' what he believed. The author of the gospel of Judas believed Judas was doing the will of Jesus, so he wrote a story to 'prove' it. The same is true with the other gospels in the Christians' New Testament.
371661
The "Dead Sea Scrolls" don't prove that the Jesus of the Bible was a real person, nor do they prove that such a person performed the miracles attributed to him. \n\n"Noah's Ark" has never been found. That was a hoax and has been well-documented. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/ark-hoax.html\n\nJust like all the other gospels, Judas' gospel proves nothing. The gospels in the Christian bible as we have it today, were written by anonymous authors, decades after Jesus' alleged death, with numerous contradictions, and they weren't eyewitness accounts.\n\nLaws aren't based on Christian principles. The idea of not killing one another, and treating others as you'd have them treat you, have been around much longer than Christianity has. In fact, the so-called "golden rule" was taught by Buddha hundreds of years before the Jesus story popped up.\n\nIf you want to look at Christian principles, let's see what Jesus allegedly said:\n\nLuke 14:26\nIf any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. (The word "hate" in that verse is "miseo", the Greek word. The same one from which we get other words that indicate hatred, like "misogynist." It definitely means HATE.)\n\nMatthew 10:35-36\nI am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.\n\nLuke 19:27\nBut those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. (This one is a parable, but read it and make no mistake: who do you think the king is?)\n\nMark 14:3-7\nYe have the poor with you always. (Here, expensive oil is used on Jesus. Instead of using the oil to sell to provide money for the poor, this was his response: "You'll always have the poor." How compassionate.)\n\nThe fact that the Christian religion is supposed to fulfill Judaism, yet completely contradicts it should be more than enough evidence to undermine Christianity, but the ignorance of Christians when it comes to the origins of their own religion prevents them from looking beyond what they're taught at church.\n\nChristianity is supposed to be the "fulfillment" of the "Old Testament" - if so, the Jewish Bible is what must be used to determine what such fulfillment will consist of. Using the Jewish Bible, it can be shown that to date, no one has come who has fulfilled the requirements of the Jewish Messiah. Furthermore, the Messiah was only ever for the Jews - not the Gentiles - so even if Jesus *had* been the Messiah, it wouldn't concern a non-Jew, anyway.\n\nOutside of the Christian bible, which was written by a combination of anonymous authors and Paul (a self-confessed liar), there is nothing to support the existence of an historical Jesus whatsoever. There is nothing that is both historical and contemporary to show that there ever was a Jesus of the Christian bible at all. The so-called Josephus passage that is often cited, was not contemporary (Josephus never saw Jesus, let alone met him), and that single passage is agreed by the majority of historians to be a forgery. After all, if he truly believed Jesus to be "the Christ", why was only ONE sentence devoted to Jesus in all his writings, and why did Josephus himself remain a Jew? Not very convincing.\n\nExtraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I, too, was once a wide-eyed believer. I truly believed with every fibre of my being that Jesus was Lord. Then I saw the light.\n\nI strongly recommend you research your claims and your supposed evidence a little more thoroughly. They're the same pieces of "evidence" that I once believed existed as well.\n\nGood luck on your journey.
412701
thats nice... you also watched that!!!\n\nactually, there is alot of inconsistent details in the bible but nonetheless the same....\n\njudas' gospel was very compelling it contradicted the 4 gospels but i guess you wouldn't believe in that unless you have a strong faith towards jesus...\n\n\nnow, i'm having a hard time thinking.......
1080723
I know and to be a gospel it had to be written by one of the disciples or their assistant.  The gos[pel of Thomas, Judas etc, were NOT written by them.  The stuff that people will believe!
355184
First of all, I think all this hype at Easter time about a supposedly hidden gospel, written by a major player in the crucifixion story is a little suspect....imagine......... television trying to get ratings...lol.\n\nOn the other hand, if it is an actual document recorded by people who had Judas' story handed down to them (like the four big gospels), I've always wondered if Judas actually imagined to the point of belief that HE was the center of bringing about the new government.  \n\nHe may have actually thought that Jesus was giving him some kind of signals to carry out the dirty work. He certainly hasn't been the last person to believe he was getting divine direction to commit a crime in the name of God. Especially if money was involved.\n\nAnd before anyone tries to defend Judas' actions or say that what Judas did was "God's will" and "part of The Plan", don't forget the Sanhedrin was determined to do away with Christ. They didn't have to have Judas.
654771
it is HERETICAL. I heard parts of it read and I could not believe my ears it is a joke. Christians do not need to worry.\n\nThe "Gospel of Judas": National Geographic Attacks Christianity With Biased "Research"\nhttp://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/gospel_judas.html
685937
My understanding is that of a layman; there are many good reference works you can turn to for a better understanding. Apparently they are the earliest of the gospel accounts, and therefore, the most reliable. The earliest gospel is considered to be the gospel of Mark, which is the shortest. Matthew, Mark, and Luke are called the synoptic gospels, as they share much common material. The Gospel of John is the most mystical of the gospel accounts.\n\nIn the early centuries of Christianity there was a number of writings being circulated, writings that were not included in the New Testament canon. The New Testament books are all believed to have been written in the first century. Many subsequent writings were those of groups such as the Gnostics, groups which came to be seen as heretical by the Catholic Church. Again, I am not an expert in church history, but all the books that came to be included in the NT came under close scrutiny and examination. It is my understanding that it was argued at length as to whether \nthe book of Revelation was to be included in the canon.
1169062
These events occurred around two thousand years ago, which means there are many academic and traditional theories about the gospels.  Most of these theories hold that the gospels were all written before 100, placing the penning less than 70 years after the event.\n\nEach of the gospel writers wrote to specific audiences, and included/excluded details based on their audience.\n\n-Matthew (a Jew) wrote to Jewish Christians. Much of the gospel of Matthew justifies Jesus as the Messiah.  He quotes the Old Testament often.  Conservative scholars propose that Matthew was written in the 60's, but liberal scholars prose it may have been written between 80 and 100.\n\n-Mark wrote to a Roman audience.  Popular theories hold that Mark was the first to write a gospel.  Dates for the writing of Mark's gospel are between 60 and 80.\n\nLuke (a Greek, physician & historian) wrote his account to "most excellent Theophilus."  This gospel is written to a Greek audience.  Tradionally, Luke is dated between 60 and 63.  Critically, the book is dated between 75 and 100.\n\n\nJohn wrote to non-Jews.  One critical view of dating John's gospel proposes that the gospel was written in stages starting possibly as early as 50, and was probably finished around 100.  \n\nGiven the timeframe of the lifetime of Jesus and the gospel writers, the accounts focus on the events of Jesus' professional life (his ministry, started at age 30 years), which is why very little is written about Jesus' childhood.\n \nCurrent academic studies call the gospels according to Matthew, Mark & Luke "synoptic gospels".  The synoptic gospels contain much of the same content, sometimes even using similar words and phrases to describe the same event.  Some theories suggest that there was a gospel (now lost) which Matthew, Mark & Luke (Matthew was an eye-witnesses to Jesus and the events in his gospel; Mark wrote based on the discourse of Peter; Luke wrote based on eyewitnesses http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%201:1-4;&version=31; ) as a base for what to include in their narratives.  This lost gospel is referred to as "Q document." Other theories propose that Mark wrote his gospel account first, and Matthew and Luke both wrote their gospels based on Mark's.\n\nThe gospel according to John is not a synoptic gospel, and contains the more original conent not mentioned in Matthew, Mark, or Luke.\n\n-----\nConcerning the issue of translation that TAFF mentioned:\nMost modern translations of the Bible come from the oldest docuements in existance.  When ancient docuements of the same peice conflict, scholars and translators work to attain what they believe the author orginally wrote.  Differences in document sources come from a varity of sources, such as scribes copying down documents being copied, and writing down an oral mispronucation.  Another source of variences in texts is marginal notes which were written on a document, and the note became a part of the next copy because the scribe included it.\n\nThere's a pretty big misconseption about Bible translations which holds that the Bible was written in Hebrew and Greek, then translated to latin, then to old english, then king james english, then modern english.  In reality, most modern translations (NIV, New Revised Standard Version) are new translations from the orginal languages (Greek, Hebrew).  These translations use redation--that is, they critically examine differences of sources to acertain the orignal writing.\n\nThe King James Translation even translates directly from Hebrew and Greek sources.\n\n-----\n\nAddressing what words_that_live_on said about languages:\n\nThe Old Testament was written in Hebrew (with the exception of the book of Daniel, which was written in Hebrew and Aramaic).  The New Testament was written in Greek (with the exception of the book of Hebrews, which was written in Hebrew).  Matthew, Mark, Luke (Greek), and John all wrote in Greek.  G
444468
Yeah it sucks to be Judas.  To me it is an interesting question.  If he hadn't betrayed Jesus His salvation plan might not have taken place (at least the way it had been prophesied), but I think Judas' role is given too much credit.  Jesus had spoke before thousands of people and was well-known to most of Roman Palestine.  He had a large following and his entrance to the city a week earlier was celebrated.  But all Judas really did was tell the Jewish leaders where Jesus would be, then identify Him with a kiss.  I am sure that they could have found Jesus on their own had Judas decided not to betray Jesus.  His kiss may have been because it was dark in the garden.  \n\nAlso, Judas did not make Jesus die on the cross.  I doubt if Judas originally realized what would happen when he gave up Jesus.  When He did He killed himself.  It was prophecied that Jesus would be betrayed, so that asks the question... did God make Judas betray Jesus in order to fulfill prophesy or did God simply know Judas would make that decision himself.  If Judas is burning in Hell because God made him betray Jesus that would seem horribly unfair to me.  \n\nBut hours before the betrayal, Jesus called Judas out and told him that he would betray Him that night.  Judas went and did it anyway which makes me think he did it of his own free-will.  He betrayed his friend (and leader) for 30 pieces of silver (which was not a fortune).  Christians blame Judas because of his character.  The crucifixion coud have occurred without his betrayal, but the way he betrayed Jesus makes him a despised figure.
468665
honestly, i need to know more about the facts surrounding the gospel of judas before i make any analysis.  that being said, i think this is a gimmick to promote the da vinci code movie.
398012
yes\n\nthe gospel of Judas is false doctrine, written by gnostics in 300 AD... \n\ndont just accept what dan brown says people
453947
It as in natgeo, a new gospel was found it looks like is genuine it says that Judas was only fallowing orders from Jesus and he didn't betrayed him
539491
Its interesting in that it claims Judas was the one crucified, and that Jesus ascended into heaven.\n\nit also claims that jesus foretold of a final prophet for all men, "the blessed one" - the blessed one, when translated into arabic becomes "Muhammad".
372760
I watched it.  I doubt it will stir up any thoughts among the people who most need the thoughts.  The Pope left it off the list of the New Testament so no one uses it.  Since I accept papal authority and the authority of the episcopate, it isn't an issue for me.  It is an interesting view into early Christianity but none of the thoughts are new.  I think there are profound implications for Protestants, but I don't think they will notice them.  By brushing it off as outside the canon, they are ignoring the issue of how the canon was determined.  They do not have a formal mechanism of rejecting it, but why do they stick with the Catholic NT.  I don't understand that.  I could see not accepting Judas, by why not Hermas or Barnabas or I Clement?\n\nThat is something I don't get, there is no reason for Protestants to not use them except an appeal to apostolic tradition which they reject.\n\nI would like to see the entire translation when it is done, to the extent it is recovered.  Should make for an interesting view into that early period of ideas.  From my viewpoint reading Judas is like reading Calvin, they hold the same weight and correctness and so are interesting because they are, from an ideas point of view, valid ideas just not valid teaching.