Gospel of Judas

[Zkribbler]

Anyone see the National Geographic Channel's show on this? I found it rivetting.

I assumed the show was going to be about some scam -- a fake gospel and all that. Turn out the gospel was real and that a ancient copy has been found and translated.

I didn't know that in the early Christian days, there were over 30 gospels. The Gospel of Judas was one of the Gnostic gospels that was eventually repressed as part of the reduction to just the four: Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

The Gospel of Judas doesn't end with -- or even mention -- the Cruxifiction and Resurrection. Rather, according to it, Jesus preached that He (like everyone) has a devine spark inside him. The gospel ends with Judas turning Jesus over to the Romans so that His "spark" could be released.

In another part of the show, there was just a brief reference to a very bizarre passage. According to the Gospel, at one point, eleven of the disciples (not Judas) were getting ready pray to the Creator. Jesus laughed at them. Jesus explained to Judas that the Creator was a god who was not really powerful and was nothing compared to the God who ruled all. This passage makes this version of Christianity sound almost like a polytheistic religion.

Anyone else see this and care to comment?

[alva]

Judas!!!

[Zkribbler]

I know!

And the whole thing with a version of Christianity without the Cruxifiction. It's like an automobile with no wheels.

[alva]

We had this on an item on the news last week, guess what.
All the catholics renownced it as being lies and blasphemism, atheists and the like had a good chuckle about it...it's impact will be small (at least short and mid term).

[Urban Ranger]

I watched it too.

Judas is portrayed in the Gospel of Judas as the only person who knew what Jesus was talking.

There's also another interesting point in the doco. The description of Judas becomes progressively more sinister and evil from Mark to John (which is largely propaganda anyway).

[Elok]

I heard something about this a while ago. Didn't hear the bit about the "divine spark" needing to be released though (didn't see the show you mentioned). Mmm, sounds very Gnostic indeed....I guess the RCC's historical hatred of the flesh just isn't cutting it anymore. From the gnostic perspective, Christ's death wasn't a painful sacrifice so much as a liberation from the inferior material world. Which of course was created by the "demiurge," a crazed aeon who wanted to lord it over concrete forms instead of a superior existence on the spirit plane. And Christ was the last Aeon, sent to liberate us from this degraded existence, blah blah blah.

According to some versions of it, at least. It varied widely between regions and traditions, even more so than the rest of the early Church. I'm honestly not sure why people think the "religion" worth considering. It's a bastardized mix of Christianity and various occult traditions from Asia Minor, Persia and who knows where else. In terms of actual beliefs, it's like worshipping the Matrix trilogy. Why don't people just become good-natured Origenists if they're going to be experimenting with archaic heresies?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Elok
Why don't people just become good-natured Origenists if they're going to be experimenting with archaic heresies?

You only call it a heresy because the sect lost in the power struggle. Otherwise it would have been othordox.

[Nostromo]

Was not the actual document written like 300 years after the fact?

[Elok]

And if L. Ron Hubbard had been elected Pope, all good Catholics would be confessing with a pair of tin cans in exchange for their life savings. History is written by the winners, we all know that. I'm just glad we were the side that won instead of the syncretist fruit loops.

The flip side of your argument, of course, is that these "suppressed" Gospels are only attracting attention because they didn't make it. A thousand years from now, archaeologists will dig up old copies of "the National Enquirer" and excitedly publish, in a reputable journal, astonishing evidence that Elvis did not in fact die when it was believed he did! The authorities just suppressed the news that didn't fit in with their own belief system regarding The King, which is why it didn't survive into the fourth milennium. Historians who remark that it's all bollicks will be ignored as tools of the thousand-year conspiracy.

[alva]

Originally posted by nostromo
Was not the actual document written like 300 years after the fact?

Aren't they all?

[Nostromo]

Aren't They All?

I don't know, you tell me

[Berzerker]

Jesus explained to Judas that the Creator was a god who was not really powerful and was nothing compared to the God who ruled all.

Wow, that fits in with the theory the "creator" was just a collision between celestial objects resulting in Earth and life on Earth...and possibly, life on the other object.

I saw this stone from the Red Paint culture of the northern eastern seaboard dating back about 7500 years depicting the sun, a man, and a serpent forming a partial circle surrounding the man who was in between the sun and serpent.

O t ) kinda like that but the serpent or curve extended above and below the man. In isolation this wouldn't look like much, but I continually see celestial imagery in ancient myth pointing to some truth we haven't discovered...officially...

But I missed the show, I hope they repeat it.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by alva
Aren't they all?

Mark was supposedly completed in the first century CE, based on earlier, lost documents titled L, Q, etc.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Elok
And if L. Ron Hubbard had been elected Pope, all good Catholics would be confessing with a pair of tin cans in exchange for their life savings. History is written by the winners, we all know that. I'm just glad we were the side that won instead of the syncretist fruit loops.

To an outsider, the Gnostics weren't more wacky than the orthodox doctrines, complete with Crucifiction, Rssurrection, Trinity, and the whole works.

Originally posted by Elok
The flip side of your argument, of course, is that these "suppressed" Gospels are only attracting attention because they didn't make it.

I don't know where you got this from.

Originally posted by Elok
A thousand years from now, archaeologists will dig up old copies of "the National Enquirer" and excitedly publish, in a reputable journal, astonishing evidence that Elvis did not in fact die when it was believed he did! The authorities just suppressed the news that didn't fit in with their own belief system regarding The King, which is why it didn't survive into the fourth milennium. Historians who remark that it's all bollicks will be ignored as tools of the thousand-year conspiracy.

I like to get some cheap hay. Do you have a good source?

[Dinner]

There were a bunch of gospel but in the late Roman period the Pope and a few archbiships sat down and decided what would become the official cannon and what would be declared heresy. They did a lot of picking and choosing about what they wanted plus supposedly they rewrote things they didn't like in order to make it more to their liking. Knowing little facts like that just makes it even more laughable when the fundies start claiming the Bible is the literal word of god. That just means those people are to stupid to study history.