*disclaimer: just because i don't believe in it doesn't mean i am not fascinated by it*


I was watching a documentary this morning about the Gospel according to Judas, it is dated back to about 180 AD. in it it paints Judas as Jesus's Saviour, releasing Christ from his human skin and even paints Judas as Christs right hand man.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Judas



i was facinated watching this because the amount of "Judas bashing" going on in the bible, the Apostles paint Judas as the evil betrayer.

Now i have been to Sunday School, Church and even a Catholic High School and i have never seen or realised that Judas was the betrayer, it was Christ who told him (according to scriptures) that he had to "betray" him and that he had already forgiven Judas because he knew he had to do it.


Any thoughts??

I dont have any thought on this at this minute. So instead, I'm going to ask a question. Do you believe Jesus talked to his mother in his infantcy?

what??? i have never heard that one, but i did see on this Doco that he presented himself in a child like manner and even appeared as a child

yeah, a nun was telling us that during catachisim (spelling) class. So you can imagine my eyes rolling into my head and left the class to smoke a rather large J

Makes sense. It'd suck to be judas.

Repost

http://www.theforumlounge.com/gospel-judas-t6521.html?&highlight=judas+gospel

oh i am sorry, should have looked harder, but i still say that Jesus was the one who told Judas what must be done therefore he is not at fault

Leaving out gospels is also a convenient way to manipulate...

Leaving out gospels is also a convenient way to manipulate...

This argument is baseless. By the time of the canonization of the NT (325 AD), there was enough evidence by the disciples of the apostles to establish which books were authentic. I believe the point of canonization was to exclude books that were popping up all over the place without any history in the church.

Seriously folks, a study of the historicity and authenticity of the manuscript evidence of the NT will lead you to conclude that Jesus was in fact who he claimed to be.

and who did the canonization? what group or entity decided which books were in and which ones were out?

or, more to the point, when did this take place? I submit to you that your date of 325 AD is quite incorrect. In fact, the catholic church was responsible for the canonization, and it began in the 4th century. It was not even finalized completely until the 15th century. It also was not the only canonizaton that took place, as the catholic church did not have much control over the eastern churches, which then had their own splits and their own versions of canonization.

Then, there are texts that according to the modern bible we know they existed, like Paul's early epistle to the Colossians....we know they existed because the books that the catholic church chose to include back then mention them. But they dont exist themselves today.

Of course, we also have to consider the fact that while all this was happening, the Catholic Church was as much a political organization as anything else....and in some cases, probably more a political organization than a spiritual one. This is who we have to rely on to get it right! Men, who have been historically proven to serve their own needs and wants. So then, how do we know without any doubt that these books are the correct ones, and how do we know that they are the only correct ones? History is written by the leader, remember that. Right or wrong, history is written by those who are in power.

Blah

Your argument might have some clout if the Bible didn't vehemently speak out AGAINST the Catholic "faith"

If the "Victor" wrote history to suit their manipulative, why would they write it against themselves?

what the bible speaks for or against largely depends on how you interpret it....dont forget that. Lest you forget, the Catholic doctrine already misinterprets all kinds of things about the Bible--from infant baptism, to the concept of the pope, to confession....why would it be such a stretch for you to see that and how it would have worked in their favor all this time?

Is there any one passage in the entire bible that uses the word "catholic"? Please, post the scripture--chapter and verse--that specifically and irrefutably identifies the Catholic faith as "the enemy". When you cant find it, it will only serve to bolster what I have stated.

Sometimes, "writing" the history doesnt need to be done--controlling the reading and interpretation of it has proven in many cases to work just as well. This is very plainly one of them. What other possible reason can you give for any of the Catholic doctrine that is not specifically commanded in the Bible? Why do all those Catholics follow those things, even though they arent specifically spelled out in the Word? Simple--they follow what they are TAUGHT....by whom? By the catholic church!

Have you ever sat down with a Catholic believer, and ask them to show you the scriptures that command the way the Catholic church operates? Try it sometime....its pretty eye-opening. I did this from the point of view, years ago, that I really wanted to learn what the Catholic faith was and why. There are many practices that are not commanded by God, in the Word. What on earth would make you think that a church that has made such a practice of interpretation all these centuries couldnt do it for the rest of the Word?

oh i am sorry, should have looked harder, but i still say that Jesus was the one who told Judas what must be done therefore he is not at fault

I'm not sure that Jesus was telling Judas what must be done in the sense of instruction. I think Jesus was more acknowledging what was going to happen. Jesus knew of God's plan already but Judas, at the time, was unsure of his "role", and I think was just coming to the realization of some of the impact. It was much like telling a drunk that he would be drunk again, even if the drunk is unsure of where he would get the money for it. See what I mean?
Jesus, imo, was not telling him to do it, but more letting Judas know that He knew what was coming and that Judas was a part of it.

I think that's an important distinction.

I'm not sure that Jesus was telling Judas what must be done in the sense of instruction. I think Jesus was more acknowledging what was going to happen. Jesus knew of God's plan already but Judas, at the time, was unsure of his "role", and I think was just coming to the realization of some of the impact. It was much like telling a drunk that he would be drunk again, even if the drunk is unsure of where he would get the money for it. See what I mean?
Jesus, imo, was not telling him to do it, but more letting Judas know that He knew what was coming and that Judas was a part of it.

I think that's an important distinction.
no
Judas was a mere pawn, puppeted by God Himself. If Judas himself triggered guilt post-jesus, then god is insensitive to our feelings.

There you have it, a lesson from God. And a God with no feelings of guilt would make since.

every time i read something about god it always sates "God see's all, God has a plan for every one, blah, blah, blah, czaro is right Judas was just a pawn.

why would it be such a stretch for you to see that and how it would have worked in their favor all this time?

No, they didn't back what they did with scripture, they took single lines out of context, and spoon fed the masses little scraps of the bible. Even those in the hierarchy didn't have to read it directly. It's not really that open for interpretation if you just up and read it. Is the "Church" spoke of in the bible anything like the "Catholic Church?" Not even _remotely_.

Later, the Catholics were so against the bible getting out to the general populous, they burned copies of it in any language but Latin, or the originals, dead languages.

Ever notice the last indication of the beginning of the fall of "The Church" from power in English speeking countries coincides with the release of the King James Bible?



Is there any one passage in the entire bible that uses the word "catholic"? Please, post the scripture--chapter and verse--that specifically and irrefutably identifies the Catholic faith as "the enemy". When you cant find it, it will only serve to bolster what I have stated.

Not quite, the word "Church" isn't in the bible either. It was "Sunogogue" or "Ekklesia;" greek translations of hebrew words "kahal" and "edah;" all meaning simply "Gathering" or "Assembly." It NEVER referred to a building or religion, it could even refer to a group of pagans.

Nither is "Baptisim" really in the bible either, but thats for another day.

Anyway, it is spoken of, many writings speak of what false teachers will do in the future . . . I think Isaiah 1 also ties in pretty well, even though it was originally applied to those Jews who fell away to idol-worship at the time.

Sometimes, "writing" the history doesnt need to be done--controlling the reading and interpretation of it has proven in many cases to work just as well. This is very plainly one of them.

Err, thats what I was saying . . . that the Catholics didn't write/modify/codify the bible, they made up their own thing. Besides, they weren't the only "sect" of "Christianity" to exist at that time. They were just one of many.

Have you ever sat down with a Catholic believer, and ask them to show you the scriptures that command the way the Catholic church operates? Try it sometime....its pretty eye-opening.

Yes, as a matter of fact, two of them, and they both renounced their "Catholic Faith." And praised the God of Issac, Abraham, and Jacob.

I did this from the point of view, years ago, that I really wanted to learn what the Catholic faith was and why. There are many practices that are not commanded by God, in the Word. What on earth would make you think that a church that has made such a practice of interpretation all these centuries couldnt do it for the rest of the Word?

What?

Roman Catholic Church is a strong leader in faith. Discount their method all you want, Jesus will always be their number one focus.

Roman Catholic Church is a strong leader in faith. Discount their method all you want, Jesus will always be their number one focus.

Or at least some fellow NAMED "Jesus" that few of them know much about.

ok here is a really dumb question and please forgive my ignorance but Jesus was a Jew that was what religon was based upon the Jewish faith, so why are there so many different religons based on the one god but have serverly different teachings?

Jews don't believe that Jesus was the Son of God, that's why.

and who exactly do Jews think jesus was?

some prophet

Jews don't believe that Jesus was the Son of God, that's why.

What? Almost _ALL_ of the first believers were Jews! :P

and who exactly do Jews think jesus was?

Depends witch one you ask. For example, I'm Jewish :P

What? Almost _ALL_ of the first believers were Jews! :P

I was referring to Jews today. Of course, as you can testify, this is not an absolute :)

some prophet

Why you Christians have to accuse the Jews of thinking everything is about profit??? ;)

Or at least some fellow NAMED "Jesus" that few of them know much about.

How much more do you want to know about jesus? We all get it. We are all schooled by the fact that Jesus claimed to be God. And Jesus being God is the main staple of the Roman Catholic Church. Is possesion of the correct image more important here? And isnt His mother worthy to fuss over?

Why you Christians have to accuse the Jews of thinking everything is about profit??? ;)

I never thought about that

No, they didn't back what they did with scripture, they took single lines out of context, and spoon fed the masses little scraps of the bible. Even those in the hierarchy didn't have to read it directly. It's not really that open for interpretation if you just up and read it. Is the "Church" spoke of in the bible anything like the "Catholic Church?" Not even _remotely_.

Later, the Catholics were so against the bible getting out to the general populous, they burned copies of it in any language but Latin, or the originals, dead languages.

Ever notice the last indication of the beginning of the fall of "The Church" from power in English speeking countries coincides with the release of the King James Bible?





Not quite, the word "Church" isn't in the bible either. It was "Sunogogue" or "Ekklesia;" greek translations of hebrew words "kahal" and "edah;" all meaning simply "Gathering" or "Assembly." It NEVER referred to a building or religion, it could even refer to a group of pagans.

Nither is "Baptisim" really in the bible either, but thats for another day.

Anyway, it is spoken of, many writings speak of what false teachers will do in the future . . . I think Isaiah 1 also ties in pretty well, even though it was originally applied to those Jews who fell away to idol-worship at the time.



Err, thats what I was saying . . . that the Catholics didn't write/modify/codify the bible, they made up their own thing. Besides, they weren't the only "sect" of "Christianity" to exist at that time. They were just one of many.



Yes, as a matter of fact, two of them, and they both renounced their "Catholic Faith." And praised the God of Issac, Abraham, and Jacob.



What?


Not sure why youre really even debating this with me because yorue saying the same exact thing I did, just in different words.

When I said "interpretation", I didnt say that as a good thing. I didnt say that they use the Bible all over the place. I didnt say that their church is the one talked about in the bible--in fact I said the complete opposite of that. So why are you acting as if I am saying these things, then debating them by repeating my position back to me like youre telling me something I dont know?

I said they use interpretation to make it look like the Bible supports what they teach. And I can give you examples quite easily--like how the story of Peter suddenly became their justification for the Pope's existence. They interpreted that scripture in such a way as to suit their actions. Wrongly, but they still did it. Hey, I never said they were in the right for doing it, I just said they did it. Confession is another one--they took James 5:16 and turned "confess your sins to one another" into "confess your sins only to this one man in a big box". The original scripture instructed the faithful to confess their sins to each other and pray for each other--=the Catholic church wrongly interpreted that and it became "confess your sins to this man, thats the only way to get forgiveness". NOW do you see my point? Or are you going to keep "debating" me by telling me what I just told you, like youre trying to educate me on the matter??

When you said they didnt back what they did whth scripture, youre saying the same thing I did. I never said they rightly did so--I said that they backed what they did witn a WRONG INTERPRETATION of bits and pieces of scripture. Here--try reading it again:

Sometimes, "writing" the history doesnt need to be done--controlling the reading and interpretation of it has proven in many cases to work just as well. This is very plainly one of them.

Next time youre going to try to educate someone, it would work well to not tell them what they just told you. You misread one specific part of that post and then ignored the rest of what I said, and ran with it.