The Gospel of Judas Iscariot

I have to wonder if possibly the reason why the Gosple of Judas was left out of the "Bible" is simply that it's author didn't or couldn't PAY Emperor Constantine the fee required for its inclusion.

Dropped from history just for being poor....

Heh
 

Doc Savage

New member
Glad to see we can all be amicable.

Being this is my first post in this forum, I'll lay it on the table. I tried everything else. Atheism, Scientology...I even read all the recycled Nietzche that Anton LaVey regurgitated. When I came to the end of ME is when I found HIM...Jesus, if there's any question. Do I need a crutch? Not anymore. Anyone who calls it a crutch should first correct their own limping.

As for the Gospel of Judas...Cainites, Korahites, and Edomites have always been quick on the draw to lionize those the Bible has denounced as traitors and forfeiters. I see this "Gospel" as nothing more than "more of the same." A speculative take, perhaps, but a valid speculation.

In the end, "archaeology is the quest for fact, not truth." There is more historical evidence, Biblical and extra-Biblical, for the life, death, and subsequent uproar over a widespread belief in His resurrection than there is on the life of Julius Caesar. Again with speculation, is it any wonder that those who would (and do) fear His impact seek to discredit what IS documented by the historical likes of Josephus, Pliny the Younger, and St. Luke (described by some as one of the most meticulous historians)?

Gentlemen (and ladies, if there are any reading), don't assume veracity just to appease conscience or attack what you claim to so "thoroughly" understand. Be as unbiased in your analysis as you insist we Christians should be.
 

Doc Savage

New member
Which historian would you like to hear from? Even the means of transmission of Christ's life lends to its authenticity. The fallibility that the authors ascribe to themselves, the weight given by detractors and adherents alike to the impact of Jesus. Even the choice of "Ghost-writers;" if the Gospels were engineered, shepherds, fisherman, traitorous tax collectors, and women would have been the least credible choices, chronistically speaking. Heroic character and social standing would have been attributed to His followers. We gloss over the fact that Siddartha Guatama (Buddha) abandoned his wife and child, not to mention the origin of another "religion of love and peace," but when the early days of Christianity are very well documented, the propensity is disbelief. I believe that to be "scientifically" invalid and absurd.
 
"if the Gospels were engineered, shepherds, fisherman, traitorous tax collectors, and women would have been the least credible choices, chronistically speaking. Heroic character and social standing would have been attributed to His followers"

Not if you want to entice and control "shepherds, fisherman, traitorous tax collectors, and women".... You play to the largest section of your audience... Any public speaker knows that

"would have been"
According to whom?
 

HovitosKing

Well-known member
There really is no way to settle this argument, since none of us were there and can only speculate based on our wide variety of beliefs and opinions (which will themselves never converge)...so can we please kill this thread already? PLEASE!?
 

Doc Savage

New member
ClintonHammond said:
"would have been"
According to whom?

According to the society of the time. Shepherds were like sailors, tax collectors were sellouts to the Roman Empire, and women were viewed as flighty at best, property at worst. And as far to pandering to an audience, "respectable" Jews would reject an individual crucified. "Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree."

And in response to HK, hypothesis, debate, and speculation have done more for archaeology in its short life than spade and pickaxe. Whether to the positive or the negative is open to interpretation. :whip:
 

Doc Savage

New member
ClintonHammond said:
I'm afraid your point is lost DS....

How so? Sociological conditions at the time would lend credence to the discussion as much as a "document" brought forth to coincide with a major motion picture that will bring into question the cornerstone of faith for billions of people.
 

Finn

Moderator
Staff member
IndyJohan said:
Surprisingly enough, written by a reverend. It would be interesting to see people not so known of religious beliefs write up something like this (and yes, I know that atheists wouldn't sign this kind of text so I don't mean them).

Even though the man can be right, it always take a scratch away from the written word's relibiality if the writer is known to have bias into one direction or another. The only problem just is that not-so-religious people don't bother trying to prove something like this.

Plus, there're some points one could argue...


Anyway, I'd like to rise up another thing I truly wonder.

http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html

This diagram... you probably sit in one of the groups, but... there'll always be more people believing differently than you do. So, how can you be so certain that <i>you</i> are right?

The only answer I can figure out to be at least moderately right is to rule out the unknown and take the contradicting points of evidence with caution. But each to their own, I guess.
 
"Sociological conditions at the time would lend credence to the discussion as much as a "document" brought forth to coincide with a major motion picture that will bring into question the cornerstone of faith for billions of people."

I'm afraid that sentance doesn't make much sense to me at all.....
 

roundshort

Active member
temple of john said:
I believe he's referring to "The DaVinci Code" and it's upcoming release in theatres. Unfortunately, there are still people out there that do not realize that this book was pure fiction. I have read many articles and even one from the creator of the supposed "Priory of Scion" who ADMITS that he made up the name of the group. It was named after a mountain in his hometown. People are so damn gullable it's amazing. This book is as factual as "Jurrasic Park".

What, people are this worked up of a work of fiction . . .must be good it has started such a debate!
 

Doc Savage

New member
Temple...yes, I realize that The DaVinci Code is pure fiction. I also am very aware that many "scientific" channels and publications used its release to hop on a bandwagon and lend their version of credence to the "possibilities." Hitler said, "Tell a big enough lie long enough and loud enough..." (paraphrased, of course).

My point, gentlemen, is that the so-called Gospel of Judas floated around on the black market of antiquities for years. I find it more than coincidental that it's coming to the forefront now. I've had discussion after discussion with people who have tried to use pseudo-science, revisionist history, and "the travesties of the church" to refute the authenticity of the Bible. Facts, as of late, have become as malleable as the interpretation of them.
 

Doc Savage

New member
I agree wholeheartedly! The "church" has inflicted evil after "evil" on humanity since it's religio-political inception. My disagreement is in including a body politic (namely organized "religion") and a Body Deific in the same lump assessment. Those who have comitted said atrocities may have done so in the Name of Jesus, but it was not at His behest.

Ultimately, Jesus wasn't Catholic or Episcopalian or what-have-you. Neither was Peter. Neither was Paul. Neither am I. A "church" doesn't accomplish what we believe He did. And I find it sad that so many have excluded themselves from true Christianity because men in funny hats have claimed and acted on authority never given them.
 
"My disagreement is in including a body politic and a Body Deific"

Except that the Body Politic created the Body Deific...... Invented it as a tool to control people....
 

Doc Savage

New member
ClintonHammond said:
"My disagreement is in including a body politic and a Body Deific"

Except that the Body Politic created the Body Deific...... Invented it as a tool to control people....
Your opinion...voiced repeatedly. You can no more prove it than I can.
 

Finn

Moderator
Staff member
Finn said:
Anyway, I'd like to rise up another thing I truly wonder.

http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html

This diagram... you probably sit in one of the groups, but... there'll always be more people believing differently than you do. So, how can you be so certain that <i>you</i> are right?

The only answer I can figure out to be at least moderately right is to rule out the unknown and take the contradicting points of evidence with caution. But each to their own, I guess.
Hmm, everybody ignored my humble thoughts, I see. The interesting thing is that this usually happens when I make a point they can't argue despite that they'd like... heh.
 
Top