The Gospel of Judas Iscariot

roundshort

Active member
indyt said:
I dont follow a religion. I have a relationship with Jesus Christ, and yes, He is over my life.

Always nice to hear from you CH!

I love people who complain about how religion is this and that, but usually they are the least open minded, "I am always right" people in the world. I have always felt that anyone who is or isn't religous is great, and I hope people find comfort in what they do or don't believe in, just don't talk about to others.
 

Johan

Active member
THe gospel of Judas has no credibility for what it say's. It was written long after the other gospels and it does not have the prerequisites that the other gospels have. The true gospel offends everything that is human nature. The secular world will find anything to disproove the Bible. Jesus is the most offensive man to the world. No other man stirs up this much controversy, why? Because The message of Christ can be offensive to our human nature...and the implications of Christ being the living God is just too much for people to take.
 
Last edited:

qwerty

New member
As far as I am conserned whole bible was writen long after it was supposed to be in order to be taken word for word
 

Joe Brody

Well-known member
Maybe I'm missing it, but wasn't this whole Judas-is-the-best-bud thing played out in Last Temptation of Christ?
 
"THe gospel of Judas has no credibility for what it say's"
Well, no more or less than any other..... Fiction is after all, fiction....

"since it was condemned as heresy by early Church leaders"
In other words, it said things that the fat men who were in power didn't like, and so -they- called it 'heresy' and left it out of the 'Holy' book.... No "God".... no epiphany.... nothing supernatural..... Just one small group of people ensuring they can continue to stick it to a much larger group of people who are blinkered enough to follow them....

Exactly the same as we've been doing to each other since we came down out of the trees....
 

qwerty

New member
ClintonHammond said:
Exactly the same as we've been doing to each other since we came down out of the trees....

Hey, don't be rude. We were doing that even before we came down from trees.
Just back than it was a big show wich other animals enjoyed watching.
 

Johan

Active member
Actually it was written around 150 years after the TRUE gospels...likely by some gnostics that have the greek view of the inablity to seperate spirtuality with the Physical realm. Studies show that Judas had nothing to do with the book. The other TRUE gospels had to have eye witnessess in order to make the cannon of what we call scriptures today as well as being consistant with Jesus' message.
Anyway, I can't change the way you view it all...you have to have an encounter with Christ before I could do that.

You are starting to sound like those people that said "The holocost never happened"
 
Nice... So, people who disagree with you are Nazis?!?!?! Ignorant moron! And you wonder why no one gives anything you say any respect?!?!

"TRUE gospels had to have eye witnessess"
Not a SINGLE gospel was written before AD70, and so not a SINGLE gospel is 'eye witness'..... Just ONE source for now...
http://www.geocities.com/questioningpage/When.html



"Studies show that Judas had nothing to do with the book"
What 'studies'?!?!?




"We were doing that even before we came down from trees"
True, but don't tell them that... they think we rose up, fully formed out of dust....

"When Will Jesus Bring The Pork Chops"
Listening to the audio book right now as a matter of fact...
 

Paden

Member
ClintonHammond said:
"Studies show that Judas had nothing to do with the book"
What 'studies'?!?!?
My best understanding is that there is no scholarly agreement on the authorship of the text. As I mentioned in my prior post, I've yet to come across any theory about a specific author of the book. The National Geographic website stated that radiocarbon dating indicated that the pages and binding of the book dated from between 220 and 340 A.D. The earliest historical mention of the book that I've read about thus far was in Irenaeus' "Against Heresies". Irenaeus, the Bishop of Lyons, stated that the book was associated with the Cainites, a gnostic sect. Irenaeus' book was published in 180 A.D., so the text had to have existed in some form prior to that time.
 

San Holo

Active member
ClintonHammond said:
"you mean it has been Elvis all this time"

Yes... Elvis... poor sad fat dead white guy who sucked all the life out of some very good black music so that it could be sold to other fat ugly white people in a form that didn't make them feel uncomfortable....

Used him up and spit him out.... they even burried him in the back-yard like he was the family dog....

Well, they did call him "King" didn't they.....

Poor guy.....
Speaking of fat,ugly, white people....How's your mom doing?
 

HovitosKing

Well-known member
IndyJohan said:
THe gospel of Judas has no credibility for what it say's. It was written long after the other gospels and it does not have the prerequisites that the other gospels have.

IndyJohan said:
Actually it was written around 150 years after the TRUE gospels...likely by some gnostics that have the greek view of the inablity to seperate spirtuality with the Physical realm. Studies show that Judas had nothing to do with the book. The other TRUE gospels had to have eye witnessess in order to make the cannon of what we call scriptures today as well as being consistant with Jesus' message.
Anyway, I can't change the way you view it all...you have to have an encounter with Christ before I could do that.

As a matter of setting the record straight, the Gospel of Judas was condemned as heresy in 180 A.D., which means that it was written well before that date; the first of the canonical gospels (Mark) only arrived on the scene around 60 A.D. I don't care if you believe the Judas gospel, find it interesting, consider it heresy, or refuse to acknowledge its existence at all. Just don't presume to "know" that the canonical gospels are true and the others are false because of the date they were "allegedly" written (none of which can be dated with certainty) or because of their "alleged" authors (all of which were written anonymously and held sacred by one early Christian sect or another). You sound painfully ignorant when you don't know anything about the history of your own religion, which explains why you're so easily threatened by new truths coming to light.
 
Last edited:

Johan

Active member
ClintonHammond said:
Nice... So, people who disagree with you are Nazis?!?!?! Ignorant moron! And you wonder why no one gives anything you say any respect?!?!

"TRUE gospels had to have eye witnessess"
Not a SINGLE gospel was written before AD70, and so not a SINGLE gospel is 'eye witness'..... Just ONE source for now...
http://www.geocities.com/questioningpage/When.html



"Studies show that Judas had nothing to do with the book"
What 'studies'?!?!?

..

I'm sorry that's how you interpreted what I said. I was referring to the recent groups that denied the existance of the holocost; meaning I was referring to the ignorance of the history of the gospel...in fact nothing to do with nazis.
And by studies, I mean the various radio programs I've heard and news articles talking about the insignifigance of the lies in the "gospel of Judas"
And I did not say they were written by eyewitnesses, I said they had to HAVE eye witnessess. They were written from eye wittness accounts. I DID go to Bible school. And the fact that there are 4 different gospel accounts that have a few perspectives shows the accuracy of the gospel. It is like people doing 4 different documentries on events...they have different recoleections of lets say "what color shirt he was wearing" or "he drank and than ate rather than ate and than drank"...the main principles and nature of the events are consistent.
I find it interesting how much out of your way you are going to make it known how much against Christianity you are. Even to seek out information on how "wrong" all these crazy religous fanatics are. You can find information on both sides to proove any point and it alway's ends up prooving nothing because you haven't experienced it.
Something must be offending you, and it alway's will.
 
Last edited:

HovitosKing

Well-known member
IndyJohan said:
And the fact that there are 4 different gospel accounts that have a few perspectives shows the accuracy of the gospel. It is like people doing 4 different documentries on events...they have different recoleections of lets say "what color shirt he was wearing" or "he drank and than ate rather than ate and than drank"...the main principles and nature of the events are consistent. I find it interesting how much out of your way you are going to make it known how much against Christianity you are.

On the first point quoted above, I would remind you that there were at least 30 different gospels in existence during the 2nd Century, each telling generally the same story yet differing in many regards. Of the four selected by the proto-orthodox christians for inclusion in the canon, many blatant contradictions yet exist. One example is the suicide of Judas, which is presented as a hanging at one point and jumping off a cliff in another. This isn't surprising since all of the gospels, canonical or not, were written decades after the fact by many anonymous "followers of Christ."

On the second point, I must admit that I certainly do allow my hatred of christianity to influence my thinking at times. I cannot respect or adhere to a religion which teaches love and acceptance yet has a history filled with nothing but murder, rape and carnage. The christian church has murdered countless innocents through the ages who refused to accept its doctrine, the gnostics and cathars being only a couple of examples. Do a little research into the Crusades for more interesting lessons in christian doctrine. Invaluable texts and artwork have been lost forever to the church's maniacal bloodlust and greed. Christianity is saturated in the blood of millions, and I will never give it more than a fleeting glance. It's a religion steeped in hate and destruction which promotes ignorance and intolerance. If you argue these facts, you merely illustrate my point. It's time to wake up.
 

Paden

Member
Reading over the last few posts, I was reminded of a recent news story on this topic which rightly stated that, from a certain point of view, this text was "old news", in that it had been a point of discussion and controversy centuries ago.

HovitosKing's most recent post also made me think of this thread, in which the impact, both positive and negative, of various religions on the world was discussed.
 
Top