http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/06/science/06cnd-judas.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

A few days ago an official report was released, identifying a Gnostic text dubbed the 'Gospel of Judas' was a valid historical document, not a more modern forgery. It is one of four Gnostic Gospels found and released recently, and it brings to the fore a question religious scholars have bounced around for quite a few years: Did Judas betray Jesus out of greed, or because he was asked to do so by Jesus himself?

In addition, this also brings forward another worrisome issue. This text was sought by the Catholic church for years, and probably most of the copies of this text have either been hidden or destroyed by Rome over the past Two Thousand years. How much of our past is being hidden from us by Rome even now? What knowledge and items of power do they hold under the Vatican?

I'm most definietly not the most rightous person on this board, but I do know people really try hard to disprove Christianity. Thats something to think about, all these attacks all the time. Why don't we turn it to the flip side. Maybe there's something that the so called ghost and gobilins and psychos don't want to get out. Maybe it isn't the church thats the problem, maybe its something out there that dosen't want the church to have any influence in this world.

Yeah, Yeah, I know some of you are die hard intolerante of the Christain faith, and thats fine. Just putting out another perspective for people to look at.

I'm not intolerant of the Christian faith... I was raised in a Christian household, by heretics (not that they take as much pride in the title as I do). I've been philosophizing about religion since I was 12 years old, and in my ponderings and researches, have come to realize a number of things about differences between "religion" and "faith"...and one of the biggest things I've realized is that about 80% of the people who have one, don't have the other.

I won't bore everyone here to tears with gritty details about my philosophies, but if anyone actually is interested, I'm in the process of writing a series of essays, which I hope to someday compile into a book, like my father-in-law has done...

I am interested to hear back about what's in this gospel. I no longer subscribe to the "religion", and many of its practices no longer interest me, but as my in-laws have pointed out, this could mark big changes in the church.

Heh, in my opinion, that's the best way to be...

Big changes? Hardly.

Why? This wouldn't be the first book dug up that tried this. For anyone knows its propaganda from back in the day or just an first fan fiction starring Judas.

I know everyone wants to see changes in the church, but attacking its principles isn't the way to do it. And since I prescribe to the religion I can honestly tell I do think for myself. Its the really wierd stuff that I have a problem with, vampires, were-wolfs, stuff like that.

It's interesting how many people concider this new information an assault on the church itself, and react in that manner immediately.

This is just a new piece of information. That it, or any other hidden texts that might further explain the life of Christ, exists is not somthing surprising. And that the Vatican has systematicaly gone out to destroy or surpress information that they find unfavorable to them is not supposition, it is proven historical fact.

the formation of religion was nothing more than a power play on the world. as they all use the same teachings the koran read in proper format not in the rantings of some man with a grudge will say the same as the cristian bible.

but any negitivity towards either and you are daming the church and that cant be had.

As for Celeste Darken yes you are like my brother hood once tauted about in the streets mine as a virtue or good and your kind as a devils spawn now we are set to the back shelves and denigned about by those who once would call us by name

Ron Caliburn wrote: I'm sure he's down in Satan's private playground with the other villains of history - Dracula, Hitler, Stalin, Nixon and Lennon."

I know John Lennon said he was more popular than Jesus, but is that really reason enough to be condemned to Satan's private playground?

Your paps a scary guy Ron no wonder you left.

Celeste Darken wrote:I am skeptical of Christian beliefs and feel no great love for their sects. Any priest that claims authority to damn everybody to hell that doesn’t pay their church copious amounts of money, and then promise a seat in heaven to those who do pay, is a menace to society and should be drained of blood. As most churches would label me an abomination in the sight of God and never to be saved, even if it was through no fault of my own, I suppose the feeling is mutual.

Celeste Darken

Madam, you wound me deeply. I would ask you to recall my defense of you earlier, and also ask you to consider that the only reason I do so is because of my faith. No true Christian teaching says that one should pay a priest to go to heaven, not that a lack of funds damns one. This is akin to saying that because one American is a neo-Nazi bigot, they all are. Or even that because 10,000 Americans are neo-Nazi bigots, they all are. You are comparing the warped beliefs of corrupt individuals to the great teachings of an ancient and noble faith.

Madam, if my God did not stay my hand, I would have not given a second thought to utter extermination of all "Creatures of Darkness". It is my God and my Christian faith that show me that there is capacity for good in the souls of all people, that none are damned by any hand but their own.

Yes, let's get back on the subject...

I was talking to my in-laws (who are both heretics who retain their faith in the belief system), and they told me of a movie called "The Body"... To make a long story short, they pretty much found Jesus' skeleton in a hidden chamber in the back of his tomb... A pair of Jewish characters were talking in the movie, and one of them said to the other that this find would shake the very core of the Christian religion. The other answered with probably the most apt line I've ever heard of that, this, or any other similar situation... It ran pretty much:

"This won't shake the Christian religion. Christianity will go on pretty much as it always has. Those who claim to believe in the faith won't believe in this, and those who truly hold the tenets of the faith won't find this to matter. Of everyone else, they won't number enough to change anything."

Having said this, it's important to note several somethings about the Bible... First off, note that in every Gospel, both those that are found in the New Testament and in the Gnostic Scriptures that were struck or left out, each of them portrays a different disciple as Jesus' favorite (the "Beloved Disciple"). In several Gospels, it's Peter. In John's Gospel, it's John. In Mary Magdalene's, it's her. Now, it's Judas. And every time, the Beloved Disciple knows Jesus better than everyone else, and understands his teachings better than everyone else... If you look closely, you see little barbs from the writers of the Gospels, aimed at other disciples (the story of Doubting Thomas, from the Book of John)...

In this way, the Bible becomes less and less about Jesus, and more about how each disciple interpreted his teachings...a practice that has washed down all the way to this day and age in the form of the different churches (there're the Catholics, the Lutherans, the Presbyterians, and so on)...

There is more than enough evidence to support that the Gospel of Judas is, indeed, a legitimate Gnostic Scripture, and a bona fide Gospel. What's more, it fits the style of the other Gospels. It seems to me to be the real deal, but considering that it's just one more different view on Jesus, it merely muddles the picture of who Jesus was, even more than the other Gospels already had.

And thats why it was probably wrote in the first place. To muddle water so that no one can or would know who Christ was. LIke I said, this isn't the first book to come out to try to down play the the books in the bible or try to drive a hole through it.

...what? You misunderstood me completely. The point of the GoJ wasn't to muddle the vision of Christ--the Bible did that plenty enough on its own, thanks.

Judas' Gospel was to tell his side of the story--the events leading up to the betrayal, why he had done it, and what happened to him as a result (the other disciples stoned him to death for betraying Jesus).

The Gospel of Mary Magdalene was another such document that was released not too many years ago, which did much the same thing. It described her views on Jesus' teachings, and their relationship. None of the Gospels intentionally muddled the view of Jesus, nor did they intentionally confuse matters for everyone else...but that's exactly what happened with every single one of them, both in the canonized Bible and in the Gnostic scriptures that were stricken out by selfish Popes in the dark ages.

I'll thank you to know what you're talking about next time you decide to blast something.

After all... When thou knowest not of what thou speakest, thy mouth is best used for chewing. -from the Gospel of Walter Slovotsky, Guardian of the Flame

I do know a hussle when I see it. The implication of these so called gospels looks to me that its intent is turn the book that we Christians base our faitin on, on its ear.

And these from sources over three hundread years AFTER the events occurred. While the gospels in the Bible were written more then thirty to sixety years after events happen. I think I stand on pretty good ground in saying that these other gospels aren't all they are cracked up to be.

No, actually, you don't. Like the fundamentalist Christians, you decide to hear only what you want to hear about the situation, close your eyes, cover your ears, and sing "LALALALALA" as loudly as you can when anything threatens your pitiful beliefs. If you actually challenged your so-called faith once in a while, you'd probably find out you don't have any.

This Gospel wasn't written to challenge the Bible, and it was written at about the same time as the other Gospels were. It's simply that this particular transcript that they have was transcribed several hundred years after the fact.

For that matter, why put so much "faith" on things that were written even sixty or seventy years after the fact, and dispute each other? For crying out loud, they even dispute how Judas died! And this is only the Gospels in the Bible I'm speaking of! The Bible is almost completely useless as a window into the heart of Jesus. We can only derive his teachings through which teachings hold firm through every Gospel. Everything else is nothing but a window into the hearts and minds of the disciples, which falls far short of Jesus.

It's reasons like this that I lost faith in the church and in the Bible, even if I still hold faith in the man.

Thanks for clearing that up, Ron. Admittedly, I typed that without double-checking, and I couldn't remember if those numbers were exactly right or not, but I knew that Gothic's numbers weren't right, either...

Either which way, my argument still stands.

Doubt is a main stay of my faith. Having said that, what are you basing your facts on?

Of the four gospels there's literall thousands of copies of the orignal texts to date today. Thats more then the Illliad<sp> or the Obyssessy<sp> which number less then that.

All of a sudden one gospel pops up challenging everything in the bible and it has to be taken as literal truth because it has gospel in front of it?

And thank you Kon for making the point that this book was probably created to challenge Christainity. Because it does. If Jesus plotted this out, it goes against everything that the Bible already said before these events even occurred.

That is if you bother to read it and study it. Instead of giving up so readily as I speculate you may have done. The Bible is pretty solid in all aspects from philosophy to history to answer questions about God and Jesus divinity. Something that the Gnostic texts try to tear apart.

Kon don't go the route of pointing the finger at me saying that I chose ignorance when I am trying to learn the truth. Thats the escape route of the desperate. If you have acutal facts I could look at, or suppossedly challenge my beliefs I'll be more then happy to look them over and decide rather they are valid or not.

But I know your going to turn tail and run now because we're playing the fact game and your nto playing with a full deck.

Gothic, Gothic, Gothic... If you think you have more information than Kon-Tiki, you're the one working without any facts. Now, before he comes on and snarks your head off, let's get down to brass tacks, eh?

During the fourth century AD, Religous scholars from around the ancient world gathered together in a council. They discussed the essential issues of the bible and the issues of their times, and decided on what the form and structure of the bible would be in the future, what Gospels would be included and what would be left out of the central book itself.

Then they went out and forced the rest of the christians of the age to abandon their texts if they were not the same as the agreed upon book, and confiscated or destroyed books that disagreed with the new holy text of Christianity.

So citing the continued existance of the accepted upon books as validation for their primacy is rather... Assinine. Just because the people ruling the church didn't burn them gives them a prized place?

And as a second little comment... Jesus knew for a long while before the Last Supper that one of his followers would betray him, and that he would be offered up as the Perfect Sacrifice to pay for all of our sins. Hell, that was the entire purpose of his existance, becoming the new covenant between God and his People. So what exactly is so strange about the concept that he chose the exact person that would act as his betrayer?

And concidering that the rest of the gospels were written by people who, justifiably enough, felt betrayed by Judas's actions, People who never WANTED Jesus to die regardless of the number of times he told them he would have to go... Why is it a surprise that they portray Judas as abominable? Just because you learned the truth does not mean you'll live by it at all times.

Most of the people we revere as saints were mysoginistic monks. Because of them, Women are no longer alowed to be Priests in most sects, and Priests are no longer allowed to be married. Why? Because a group of Monks, who lived out in the middle of nowhere and who denied themselves everything from food to sleep to bathing, declared that those things must be sins. And people belived them, because they spent all their time reading the bible, and talking only to eachother. Modern psycology can tell you the inherant dangers of living in such a society, but the damage they did is too ingraned in the church to be undone now.

You know what, there's alot more I could say, but instead I'm going to cut off now with this.

http://www.mazzaroth.com/ChapterThree/H ... eBible.htm

It's a very interesting thing, an actual history of the bible itself, it's revisions and so on. Maybe you should read it some time, Gothic. You know, keep aware of the facts. Unless you're going to turn tail and run, now that we're playing the Fact game, and you're not playing with a full deck.

And we'll keep playing the fact game, Adama. Because you never mentioned why they destoryed documents like the Gospel of Judas. So why don't you tell me why they did it? Not broad stroke it with one big brush.

I also read the link and it has nothing to do with what we're talking about unless your talking about the church getting rid of heterical writings like the Gosphel of Judas. Which of course goese back to my question why they would destory a suppossed goshel of the Bible.

Why would they do that?

Gothicfox wrote:And we'll keep playing the fact game, Adama. Because you never mentioned why they destoryed documents like the Gospel of Judas. So why don't you tell me why they did it? Not broad stroke it with one big brush.

I also read the link and it has nothing to do with what we're talking about unless your talking about the church getting rid of heterical writings like the Gosphel of Judas. Which of course goese back to my question why they would destory a suppossed goshel of the Bible.

Why would they do that?

Because the Catholic church wanted power over everyone. They had the power to strike out things that they didn't like, that didn't agree with their views on what people should believe. They didn't want people to know what was really going on. Through all of the Dark Ages and much of the Medieval period, the Pope in Italy had more power than any ruler of any single country. If the Pope wanted something to happen, all they had to do was utter the word "excommunication" and the rulers would jump to do the Pope's bidding. By controlling what the people believed, they could tell their followers anything, and they'd buy into it (literally, since "paying for your sins" in those days was calculated in gold at the confessionals). What's worse, they hid EVERYTHING from the commoners that they held power over, by teaching the Bible in Latin, refusing to speak of anything in the Bible in modern languages that commoners understood!

There's to your religion's infinite compassion.

The only things that started to put a halt to their power base were movements of heretics, such as the Knights Templar...an honorable group of people who believed utterly that Christ was the Messiah, and that the church was sullying his name to gain power and money. Despite these beliefs that they held, the Templars continued to help people rather than fight the church, and the Catholics took advantage of that. On a fateful Friday the 13th, the church gathered knights, mercenaries, and warriors to sneak-attack the Templars, striking at their main fortress while some of their most powerful warriors were out helping commonfolk. It was the beginning of the end for them; some ran underground, most of them died at the hands of the bigots who used Jesus' name and death to gain in power.

But their downfall gave rise to new courage among the common people. Protestants like Martin Luther suddenly stood up for their own beliefs, someone even going so far as to nail Martin Luther's protests to the doors of a Catholic church. The Protestant movement gained power, the Church of England at the forefront of the movement. The Catholics were dealt a heavy blow, and had they not started to make reformations within the church right then, they would have probably lost almost everything.

But the Protestant movement turned sour, too. Today, fundamentalist Protestants are no better than the old Catholics. They cling to the books that a corrupt church wanted to use to hold sway over the public...and now the fundies are doing the same thing with those same books. They scream at the tops of their lungs that they have the truth. They are arrogant enough to use a few passages from here and there in the Bible, taken out of context, to prove that they know more than everyone else about religion. They make claims such as that the Bible is the "truth", but only the books of the Bible that the Council of the 4th century approved, and only the books that Catholic Popes didn't ban through the following ages. They use these same books and passages to threaten everyone else with visions of Hell, if everyone doesn't conform to their brand of hatred. Are these fools Protestants, or Catholic whores in disguise?

EDIT: The Protestants have also done at least as much damage to the Bible as the Catholics have... Because of the Protestant movements (with strong emphasis on the plural forms), in addition to the old translations of the original Hebrew texts (in Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, and Latin, all before the Catholic Church came into power), we now have, easily, half a hundred more versions of the Bible. There's the King James Bible, the New Giddeon's Bible, many varied forms of Children's Bibles, and more that I couldn't name off-hand... Each one of these Biblical versions has slight differences between their interpretations of each passages, and these variances, seemingly minor, can have all the difference in the world.

To anyone reading this who is Catholic, I apologize for making it sound like your religion is still wholely corrupt. I know that the church has made amazing steps forward, especially in the lifetime of the late Pope John Paul II (may he find the peace and joy everlasting that he worked for his whole life). It's the church's old ways, ways that the fundamentalists of every Judeo-Islamic-Christian "believer" wants to go back to, that I condemn.

Ron Caliburn wrote:Face it, the life and death of Christ is probably one of the world's oldest conspiracy theories. Other than the basic facts, nobody seems to agree what exactly happened.

Agreed. Noone has yet brought up that people who were crucified in those days weren't buried, or why it's odd, therefore, that Jesus supposedly had a tomb to rise from after three days of being dead. It also more than a little infuriates me that people who call themselves Christian (both Protestant and Catholic) only focus on Christ's death, that darkest moment in the religion's history when Jesus suffered tremendously, both physically and spiritually. They glorify it, make it into major motion pictures, and squabble about who he *really* died for.

The hypocrites dare to say that he died for everyone's sins, but that only they have exclusive rights to get into Heaven, and everyone who doesn't agree with their unique brand of hate and Bible-thumping deserve to go to Hell eternally.