The Gospel of Judas Iscariot

The Gospel of Judas will have little to no impact on Church doctrine. Most of Christianity denies all of the gnostic gospels as truth, and the Gospel of Judas is just another text the Christian church will add into the gnostic category.

As for it's authenticity, it probably wasn't written by Judas. But then, the names Matthew-Mark-Luke-John are only the supposed authors of those texts. Church men hundreds of years later decided to name these texts what they're called now. Plenty of non-gospel NT text is also attributed to be written by a certain person but the dates don't match up. So, the point is that authenticity doesn't matter when it comes to scripture. Judas may not be legitimate, but neither is most of the NT scripture. Of course, authenticity has never been needed to produce truth.

Actually, the most interesting message in the Gospel of Judas is how it uplifts the Jewish people of the area. It can be documented that the older the text in the New Testament, the more anti-Jewish the author is. Earlier texts start off saying that the roman authority was mostly in control of Jesus' crucifixion. Later dated texts say it was the roman authority AND the Jewish masses who condemned him. Finally the latest texts place most the blame on the Jews. This was due mostly to the Christian message being spread throughout the Roman empire, and what better way to get on the Roman's good side than by romanticizing Pilot's role ("I wash my hands of his blood") and condemning the Jew's role.

So what's interesting about the Gospel of Judas is that it now creates 2 interpretations of Judas. The traditional condemn-Judas-and-Jewish people already exists, but now we find that there were other churches, probably existing right after the death of Christ, who believed Judas was actually the beloved disciple and was following orders. Remember, history - Christian history - was complied by the winners (aka those who Canonized the Bible). A gnostic scripture is invaluable, in that it shows the other beliefs of other churchs in the early days of Christianity.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by Jerrica

FallDragon, I'm wondering if you read ANY other posts in this thread before hitting "Reply." I gots my doubts.

I looked over them, and didn't see the word "gnostic" anywhere, so I thought to add that perspective of looking on non-canonized scripture. Please reply to me with something meaningful next time.

Originally Posted by SuperBobby

All Christian and 99% of NON Christian scholars and historians are NOW in FULL agreeance that the earliest Gnostic Gospel was written NO earlier then 150 AD...which would be approx 120 years after Jesus rose to heaven.

This is incorrect. In the book "Lost Christianities" by Bart Ehrman, he quotes "1 Clement" being dated ca. 98, "The Didache" ca. 100, the "Epistle of Barnabas" ca. 135. 9 other texts he dates to "Early 2nd c.", as opposed to Mid or Late, which implies 100-133 AD range, I would assume. So no, you are wrong, or else provide proof.

Originally Posted by SuperBobby

All Christian and 99% of NON Christian scholars and historians also AGREE that the 4 Gospels that are in the Christian bible were all written beforee 95 AD..and the only one written that late was the Gospel of John, yet it WAS written by him because he lived to a very old age and also wrote revelation.

It's amusing how you say "EVERYONE AGREES ALL 4 WERE WRITTEN BEFORE 95 AD... except John <.<"...

---------
From Wikipedia:
Estimates for the dates when the canonical Gospel accounts were written vary significantly; and the evidence for any of the dates is scanty. Because the earliest surviving complete copies of the Gospels date to the 4th century and because only fragments and quotations exist before that, scholars use higher criticism to propose likely ranges of dates for the original gospel autographs. Conservative scholars tend to date earlier than others while liberal scholars usually date as late as possible. The following are mostly the date ranges given by the late Raymond E. Brown, in his book An Introduction to the New Testament, as representing the general scholarly consensus in 1996:

Mark: c. 68–73
Matthew: c. 70–100 as the majority view; the minority of conservative scholars argue for a pre-70 date, particularly those that do not accept Mark as the first gospel written.
Luke: c. 80–100, with most arguing for somewhere around 85
John: c. 90–110. Brown does not give a consensus view for John, but these are dates as propounded by C K Barrett, among others. The majority view is that it was written in stages, so there was no one date of composition.
----------

Yes, the 4 gospels date back later than most gnostic/non-canon scripture. But keep in mind, most gnostic/non-canon scriptures were BURNED AND DESTROYED by the later-to-be Catholic church since the churches were competing for followers. Comparing dates isn't an appropriate way to judge "truth."

Originally Posted by SuperBobby

Even most NON Christian Scholars and Historians will publicly say that the bible is bar-none....one of the BEST sources of History we have for the Middle East.

That's because it's one of the only existing sources. It wins by default, not by being an amazingly accurate document.

Originally Posted by SuperBobby

Non Christian Scholars will agree too. This is not something they argue about.

Yes, the Bible talks about things that happened, congratulations. But sometimes, the dates and order of events don't match up. It's amazing how you've provided no evidence for anything you've posted so far. Are you trying to imitate God, in that faith in your rants is necessary for belief instead of evidence?

Originally Posted by SuperBobby

2 Timothy 3:16
(All Scripture is "God-breathed" and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness)

Well, from the viewpoint of the author, "scripture" meant Old Testament scripture, not what he was writing. He was saying "The Ancient Jewish Texts are God-breathed etc..." This doesn't credit the NT as being God-breathed. Well, unless you believe the New Testament was meant to be understood only from our present-day perspective; an error than many Bible-thumpers make in their supposedly unbiased interpretation.

Originally Posted by SuperBobby

Even the most skeptical Non Christian Scholars admit the Gospel is 99.6% (approx) pure and athentic.

What this translates to: I make shit up, and then claim it to be true, so I'm not worth debating.

Originally Posted by SuperBobby

It is unquestionable that revelation and john are written in 2 different formats.

It doesn't matter what you think. What matters is that during the canonization of the Bible, the church fathers almost didn't include the text because of what it says. This means the canonization of the Bible was up to the discretion of men, not the discretion of God. Which then means, the message of the Bible may or may not be what God intended, since it was decided by MAN what the "correct" message would be.

There's nowhere I can't reach.