Jesus asked Judas to betray him

[Blacknad]

Interesting, more rubbish.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/04 ... index.html

but:

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/20 ... udas_x.htm

Regards,

Blacknad.

[ryo dokomi]

yeah, i heard about that on the history channel. THE GOSPEL OF JUDAS. ... total junk if you ask me. i like the history channel if it does things that dont pertain to the Bible, but otherwise, they always use evolutionists to talk about the bible...its really upsetting that people get such a view of the Bible from TV.

[Canuckster1127]

Another Gnostic Gospel.

Certainly interesting, but hardly definitive.

Round up the usual suspects and lets hear more of the same promoting the modern day resurgence of Gnosticism and call it scholarship .......

[bizzt]

Another Gnostic Gospel.

Certainly interesting, but hardly definitive.

Round up the usual suspects and lets hear more of the same promoting the modern day resurgence of Gnosticism and call it scholarship .......

Indeed they say the document was written around 300 AD and BELIEVE that it is from Sources before that

[bluesman]

This all goes in hand with "Davinci Code" and host of other books.

First they try and say Jesus never existed, and since that doesn't work they
try to change the truth.

Now there is a movie coming and it will be hard to ignore.

As far as this Gospel goes .. ... Matthew was written at least before 70 AD and Mark maybe before Matthew. Not to mention that Matthew was written by either Matthew himself or from his notes.

I hope the leaders in the church will speak out loud against this trash, instead of ignoring it, in hopes it will go away.

Mike
Bluesman

[August]

For all of the bluster in the media, I wonder how many of those writing these reports have acutally read the thing.

Anyhow, if you are interested, here is where you can read it:
http://www9.nationalgeographic.com/lost ... fJudas.pdf

Maybe I am just stupid, but I cannot make much sense out of it.

[Jac3510]

Thanks for the link . . . that anyone could read this and thing it's actually worth anything just shows how far people are willing to go to find a reason not to believe. I mean, sheesh . . . talk about classic gnosticism. :p

[BGoodForGoodSake]

Actually reading the bible when I was younger I actually suspected that Jesus did ask Judas to betray him.

I never understood why some were anti-semetic when it was the death of Christ which gives us salvation and therefore his death was good. And if this is so then why be angry at those who brought about his demise? It is God's plan after all is it not?

It was this line of thinking which led me to the idea that Judas was asked to betray Jesus. Jesus being the son of man would know that he had to die for the sins of mankind. In the old testament Abraham was asked by the lord God to sacrifice his only Son Issac. This is where I saw a parallel and helped me to make sence of Jesus' own death.

Jesus was a sacrifice and therefore had to be offered up to the lord God by those who loved him. The Romans did not sacrifice Jesus, the twelve disciples did along with Judas Iscariot.

The book of Judas may be heretical, but the idea that Judas was an evil person also seems equally heretical to me.

[August]

Actually reading the bible when I was younger I actually suspected that Jesus did ask Judas to betray him.

I never understood why some were anti-semetic when it was the death of Christ which gives us salvation and therefore his death was good. And if this is so then why be angry at those who brought about his demise? It is God's plan after all is it not?

It was this line of thinking which led me to the idea that Judas was asked to betray Jesus. Jesus being the son of man would know that he had to die for the sins of mankind. In the old testament Abraham was asked by the lord God to sacrifice his only Son Issac. This is where I saw a parallel and helped me to make sence of Jesus' own death.

Jesus was a sacrifice and therefore had to be offered up to the lord God by those who loved him. The Romans did not sacrifice Jesus, the twelve disciples did along with Judas Iscariot.

The book of Judas may be heretical, but the idea that Judas was an evil person also seems equally heretical to me.

While this is certainly an interesting hypothesis, why would Judas accept payment to betray Jesus if he was asked to do so by Jesus? And why would he commit suicide afterwards? Surely if he was under the impression that he was fulfilling the holy plan, he would have done so in humility and love, and not for an earthly reward, and neither would he have agonised over it to the point of death, he would simply have gone on to fulfill the mission of the apostles. If that was part of his mission as an apostle, why would he do only that part of it, but not follow the rest of the instructions given to the apostles?

Furthermore, there is nothing in Scripture that supports the hypothesis. In fact, we read this:
Luk 22:3 Then Satan entered into Judas called Iscariot, who was of the number of the twelve.
Luk 22:4 He went away and conferred with the chief priests and officers how he might betray him to them.
Luk 22:5 And they were glad, and agreed to give him money.
Luk 22:6 So he consented and sought an opportunity to betray him to them in the absence of a crowd.

This shows the exact opposite of what you are positing, that it was Satan who lead Judas to betray Jesus. John 13 confirms this account. Jesus clearly knew who would betray Him, but in order for His sacrifice to atone for sin, His betrayal had to come as the result of sin, not as the result of a holy request.[/quote]

[IRQ Conflict]

Actually reading the bible when I was younger I actually suspected that Jesus did ask Judas to betray him.

So, that would make Gods Word a lie and mans word, in this case the so-called "Gospel" of Judas the truth?

Rom 3:4 God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.

I never understood why some were anti-semetic when it was the death of Christ which gives us salvation and therefore his death was good. And if this is so then why be angry at those who brought about his demise? It is God's plan after all is it not?

Mar 14:21 The Son of man indeed goeth, as it is written of him: but woe to that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! good were it for that man if he had never been born.

It was this line of thinking which led me to the idea that Judas was asked to betray Jesus. Jesus being the son of man would know that he had to die for the sins of mankind. In the old testament Abraham was asked by the lord God to sacrifice his only Son Issac. This is where I saw a parallel and helped me to make sence of Jesus' own death.

One deals with faith and obediance. The other deals with betrayal and in no way says Jesus asked Judas to betray Him.

Luk 22:48 But Jesus said unto him, Judas, betrayest thou the Son of man with a kiss?

Jesus was a sacrifice and therefore had to be offered up to the lord God by those who loved him. The Romans did not sacrifice Jesus, the twelve disciples did along with Judas Iscariot.

It was the chief preists, scribes and pharasies (jewish leaders).

Luk 23:20 Pilate therefore, willing to release Jesus, spake again to them.
Luk 23:21 But they cried, saying, Crucify him, crucify him.
Luk 23:22 And he said unto them the third time, Why, what evil hath he done? I have found no cause of death in him: I will therefore chastise him, and let him go.
Luk 23:23 And they were instant with loud voices, requiring that he might be crucified. And the voices of them and of the chief priests prevailed.

Act 3:13 The God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, the God of our fathers, hath glorified his Son Jesus; whom ye delivered up, and denied him in the presence of Pilate, when he was determined to let him go.
Act 3:14 But ye denied the Holy One and the Just, and desired a murderer to be granted unto you;
Act 3:15 And killed the Prince of life, whom God hath raised from the dead; whereof we are witnesses.

The book of Judas may be heretical, but the idea that Judas was an evil person also seems equally heretical to me.

2Co 13:1 This is the third time I am coming to you. In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.

Where is the second witness to this letter?

[BGoodForGoodSake]

Actually reading the bible when I was younger I actually suspected that Jesus did ask Judas to betray him.

So, that would make Gods Word a lie and mans word, in this case the so-called "Gospel" of Judas the truth?

I'm sorry, the Gospel of Judas was unknown to me at the time. It was the summer 1989, I was 13.

[IRQ Conflict]

Thats ok Bgood, we were all young and impressionable at one time.

But the rest of your post lent itself to the fact you still believed this?

The book of Judas may be heretical, but the idea that Judas was an evil person also seems equally heretical to me.

Sorry if I misunderstood.

[BGoodForGoodSake]

Thats ok Bgood, we were all young and impressionable at one time.

But the rest of your post lent itself to the fact you still believed this?

The book of Judas may be heretical, but the idea that Judas was an evil person also seems equally heretical to me.

Sorry if I misunderstood.

I was only pointing out that some of the Gospel of Judas seemed familiar.

[Fortigurn]

The earliest reference to anything like the 'Gospel of Judas' is found in this comment by Irenaeus (180 AD):

Others again declare that Cain derived his being from the Power above, and acknowledge that Esau, Korah, the Sodomites, and all such persons, are related to themselves. On this account, they add, they have been assailed by the Creator, yet no one of them has suffered injury. For Sophia was in the habit of carrying off that which belonged to her from them to herself.

They declare that Judas the traitor was thoroughly acquainted with these things, and that he alone, knowing the truth as no others did, accomplished the mystery of the betrayal; by him all things, both earthly and heavenly, were thus thrown into confusion. They produce a fictitious history of this kind, which they style the Gospel of Judas.

Irenaeus, 'Against Heresies', 31:1

The text recently published may or may not be a copy of the 'Gospel of Judas' to which Irenaeus refers. There are significant differences between what it says and how Irenaeus describes the 'Gospel of Judas'. The text recently published says nothing of Esau, Korah, the Sodomites, or Cain. It is incomplete, so it is possible that such references exist, but it is unlikely since it is difficult to see where they would fit in the existing gaps.

A few fast facts:

* Despite what people are saying, the recently published 'Gospel of Judas' is not an entirely new discovery. Academic works on New Testament apocrypyhal books have included the 'Gospel of Judas' for decades (Wilhelm Schneemelcher's 'New Testament Apocrypha, Gospels and Related Writings' is probably the standard work).

* This 'Gospel of Judas' was not 'banned' by 'the Church', 'forbidden by the Church for centuries', or 'left out of the Bible' - there is no evidence that the early Christians even knew about this particular manuscript (Irenaeus is the only one who mentions anything like it), and there is no evidence that it was ever considered part of the canon (it appears in none of the canon lists prior to the Canon Councils of the late 4th and early 5th centuries)

* The provenance (origin and place of discovery), of this manuscript is still unknown and questionable (it was allegedly discovered as early as 1947, but controversy surrounds the precise details of its discovery and its origin)

* The recently published 'Gospel of Judas' was found in a 4th-5th century Sahidic manuscript (of unconfirmed and suspect provenance), containing a copy of a 2nd-3rd century Coptic 'Gospel of Judas' which has been known from fragmentary evidence for decades. It's hardly news.

* The work is clearly a product of the Gnostics, who were a schismatic sect which broke away from Christianity, combining their own pagan ideas with Christian thoughts. They frequently borrowed from canonical works, and produced reams of nonsense for their own purposes. They were the equivalent of the Mormons. Their writings date from the 2nd century AD.

* Contrary to popular comment, the recently published 'Gospel of Judas' does not contain 'proof' that Jesus instructed Judas to betray him. The relevant section from the 'Gospel of Judas' is as follows:

Judas said to Jesus, “Look, what will those who have been baptized in your name do?”

Jesus said, “Truly I say [to you], this baptism [56] […] my name [—about nine lines missing—] to me. Truly say to you, Judas, [those who] offer sacrifices to Saklas […]God [—three lines missing—] everything that is evil.

“But you will exceed all of them. For you will sacrifice the man that clothes me.

Already your horn has been raised,
your wrath has been kindled,
your star has shown brightly,
and your heart has […]. [57]

“Truly […] your last […] become [—about two and a half lines missing—], grieve[—about two lines missing—] the ruler, since he will be destroyed. And then the image of the great generation of Adam will be exalted, for prior to heaven, earth, and the angels,that generation, which is from the eternal realms, exists. Look, you have been told everything. Lift up your eyes and look at the cloud and the light within it and the stars surrounding it. The star that leads the way is your star.”

Judas lifted up his eyes and saw the luminous cloud, and he entered it. Those standing on the ground heard a voice coming from the cloud, saying, [58] […] great generation[…] … image […] [—about five lines missing—].

As you can see, there is no such commandment from Jesus to Judas (I have attached a translation of the entire text as we have it).

What's really hilarious is the fact that the very people who deny that the canonical gospels can be accurate historical accounts (because they were written decades after Christ), are the same people who hold up lunatic writings such as the 'Gospel of Judas' as presenting the 'real' story of Christianity, despite the fact that such writings were invariably written between 100 and 200 years after Christ.

We're not supposed to give any credence to the canonical gospels, because they were written long after Christ and were (allegedly), not written by his original followers, and were written from a biased point of view, to support a particular 'brand' of Christianity.

Yet we're supposed to give credence to something like the 'Gospel of Judas', despite the fact that it was written over 100 years after Christ (postdating the canonical gospels by at least 60 years), copies haphazardly from the canonical gospels, was patently not written by Judas himself, and was certainly written from a biased point of view, to support an early Christian schism.

Give me a break.

[Iggy]

there are a ton of lines missing... so we cant really judge it... but i'd say it went like this

Jesus tells judas to betrey him, judas is freaked out by the fact that jesus asked him to do so. BUT, being as it's the son of God asking him to do this... he wont say no. so he does it but doesnt really want to. but he does, and once he does, he cant believe what he just did, he thinks he sinned and kills himself. the fact that one of the dispels said satan entered judas... well there's a reason that it's call the gospel ACORDING to (name) is that person's point of view. matt mark luke and john all differ at some point.