Ancient Script Says Jesus Asked Judas to Betray Him

Dr. Dilznick

Experimental Member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Posts
1,640
Media
0
Likes
4
Points
183
Age
46
Sexuality
No Response
http://articles.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20060406105909990005&cid=2194

WASHINGTON (April 6) -- Perhaps it wasn't history's greatest betrayal after all, but a simple act of obedience.

Judas turned Jesus over to the high priests, not for money, but because Jesus asked him to do so, according to a newly translated ancient Coptic document.

The "Gospel of Judas " tells a far different tale from the four gospels in the New Testament. It portrays Judas as a favored disciple who was given special knowledge by Jesus -- and turned him in at Jesus' request.

"You will be cursed by the other generations -- and you will come to rule over them," Jesus tells Judas in the document made public Thursday.

The text, one of several ancient documents found in the Egyptian desert in 1970, was preserved and translated by a team of scholars. It was made public in an English translation by the National Geographic Society.

Religious and lay readers alike will debate the meaning and truth of the manuscript.

But it does show the diversity of beliefs in early Christianity, said Marvin Meyer, professor of Bible studies at Chapman University in Orange, Calif.

The text, in the Coptic language, was dated to about the year 300 and is a copy of an earlier Greek version.

A "Gospel of Judas " was first mentioned around A.D. 180 by Bishop Irenaeus of Lyon, in what is now France. The bishop denounced the manuscript as heresy because it differed from mainstream Christianity. The actual text had been thought lost until this discovery.

Elaine Pagels, a professor of religion at Princeton University, said, "The people who loved, circulated and wrote down these gospels did not think they were heretics."

Added Rev. Donald Senior, president of the Catholic Theological Union of Chicago: "Let a vigorous debate on the significance of this fascinating ancient text begin."

Senior expressed doubt that the new gospel will rival the New Testament, but he allowed that opinions are likely to vary.

Craig Evans, a professor at Acadia Divinity College in Nova Scotia, Canada, said New Testament explanations for Judas ' betrayal range from money to the influence of Satan.

"Perhaps more now can be said," he commented. The document "implies that Judas only did what Jesus wanted him to do."

Christianity in the ancient world was much more diverse than it is now, with a number of gospels circulating in addition to the four that were finally collected into the New Testament, noted Bart Ehrman, chairman of religious studies at the University of North Carolina.

Eventually, one point of view prevailed and the others were declared heresy, he said, including the Gnostics who believed that salvation depended on secret knowledge that Jesus imparted, particularly to Judas.

In Cairo, the editor of the Coptic weekly "Watani," Youssef Sidhom, did not want to make an immediate judgment on the manuscript.

"However," he said, "this will not greatly affect the central belief that considers Judas as a traitor, but there is an old school of thought that says one should not persecute Judas because his role was to complete the prophecies. It seems that the new manuscript will support this point of view -- that Judas ' role was pivotal to completing the prophecies."

The newly translated document's text begins: "The secret account of the revelation that Jesus spoke in conversation with Judas Iscariot."

In a key passage Jesus tells Judas , "You will exceed all of them. For you will sacrifice the man that clothes me."

This indicates that Judas would help liberate the spiritual self by helping Jesus get rid of his physical flesh, the scholars said.

"Step away from the others and I shall tell you the mysteries of the kingdom," Jesus says to Judas , singling him out for special status. "Look, you have been told everything. Lift up your eyes and look at the cloud and the light within it and the stars surrounding it. The star that leads the way is your star."

The text ends with Judas turning Jesus over to the high priests and does not include any mention of the crucifixion or resurrection. National Geographic said the author believed that Judas Iscariot alone understood the true significance of Jesus' teachings. The author of the text is not named in the writings.

Discovered in 1970, the papyrus was kept in a safety deposit box for several years and began to deteriorate before conservators restored it. More than 1,000 pieces had to be reassembled.

The material will be donated to the Coptic museum in Cairo, Egypt, so it can be available to all scholars said Ted Waitt of the Waitt Institute for Historical Discovery, which helped finance the restoration.

In addition to radio carbon dating, the manuscript was also authenticated through ink analysis, multispectral imaging, content and linguistic style and handwriting style, National Geographic reported.
The whole Judas thing baffled me even as a kid going to church. How is Judas free if his actions were predetermined? And how is he "evil" if what Judas did actually saved the world? No betrayal = no crucifixion, no redemption for the world.
 

Pecker

Retired Moderator
Joined
Mar 5, 2002
Posts
54,502
Media
0
Likes
322
Points
283
A thousand years from now an archaeologist will dig up a partial, decomposing copy of The Da Vinci Code and its translation will also cause a sensation.

Just because somebody wrote something long ago doesn't make it Gospel.
 

JustAsking

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2004
Posts
3,217
Media
0
Likes
33
Points
268
Location
Ohio
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Its obvious in the accounts that Jesus knew what was going to happen to him as he got closer to the time. He spent the night preparing for it and was waiting to be arrested. His asking Judas to expedite the situation doesn't really conflict with that. So if this manuscript is genuine and accepted, it won't change much at all.

The only people who might have a problem with it is those who don't accept that everyone, including the disciples all betrayed him in the end. Everyone fell away. Nothing surprising about that, since we would all do the same thing and we do it every day.

The amazing thing about the Passion story is that there is nothing remarkable about it up until after Jesus dies. Everyone's actions are exactly what you would expect. The Sanhedrin's motives are to get rid of a loose cannon subversive agitator, maintain stability, and keep their power in place. They use the clueless mob to wedge Pilate into a corner. The mob is celebrating and having a good time and are easy to incite. Pilate makes his decisions like the bureaucrat governor that he is, just doing his job of efficiently governing a client state and maintaining order while staying within budget. Its so typically mundane that people often miss the fact that the mundanity is one of the most important points of the account.

Judas carrying out Jesus' instructions is no big deal.

JustAsking
 

Dr. Dilznick

Experimental Member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Posts
1,640
Media
0
Likes
4
Points
183
Age
46
Sexuality
No Response
Pecker said:
Just because somebody wrote something long ago doesn't make it Gospel.
Obviously.

JustAsking said:
His asking Judas to expedite the situation doesn't really conflict with that. So if this manuscript is genuine and accepted, it won't change much at all.
This is what the Gospel of Judas states: Jesus takes Judas aside in secret and appoints him as the "betrayer." So why does he get so scared when he dies? He knows he's gonna pull through, resurrect and be with his Father.

http://www9.nationalgeographic.com/lostgospel/_pdf/GospelofJudas.pdf
 

hottxboi16

Experimental Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2006
Posts
176
Media
0
Likes
2
Points
236
Sexuality
60% Straight, 40% Gay
Gender
Male
Hum....the entire bible and every religous manuscript for that matter are composed of writings by people from "long ago"...so Id have to disagree with you there..

and in reference to the da vinci code segement, I also have to disagree. Record keeping from the days of Jesus and the 3rd millenium will be a smidgeon different.


Pecker said:
A thousand years from now an archaeologist will dig up a partial, decomposing copy of The Da Vinci Code and its translation will also cause a sensation.

Just because somebody wrote something long ago doesn't make it Gospel.
 

JustAsking

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2004
Posts
3,217
Media
0
Likes
33
Points
268
Location
Ohio
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Dr. Dilznick said:
Obviously.

... So why does he get so scared when he dies? He knows he's gonna pull through, resurrect and be with his Father.

Dil,
Thats a really good question and part of a larger one. He is scared for the same reason you are of death, even if you have a really strong faith in your own life after death with the Father. Jesus is God become Man. Christian theologians call it Kenosis, which means something like a voluntary self-emptying of power.

Best said by Paul writing to the Phillipian Church:

Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:
Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,
but made himself nothing,
taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
and became obedient to death—
even death on a cross!
- Phillipians 2:5-8

He is obedient to his fate, but not without doubt and anxiety.
 

Dr Rock

Experimental Member
Joined
Jan 11, 2005
Posts
3,577
Media
0
Likes
23
Points
258
Location
who lives in the east 'neath the willow tree? Sex
Sexuality
Unsure
Pecker said:
Just because somebody wrote something long ago doesn't make it Gospel.
most of the new testament as you know it was written significantly later than 300AD. what criteria would you suggest christians use to determine which items of religious literature were "authentically" imparted to their authors by jesus or god, and which were not?
 

solong

Just Browsing
Joined
Feb 28, 2006
Posts
180
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
161
Gender
Male
Pecker said:
A thousand years from now an archaeologist will dig up a partial, decomposing copy of The Da Vinci Code and its translation will also cause a sensation.

Just because somebody wrote something long ago doesn't make it Gospel.

Totally smack on, Pecker! Old doesn't mean "Good." And as far as the "Gospel of Judah" is concerned-- what they aren't telling you is a WHOLE BUNCH!. For instance, Tertulian, and before that, the Bishop Iraeneus of Lyon, back about 180AD wrote treatises "Against Heresies" and referred to the so-called "Gospel of Judas."

Here's the laugh:

The GJ was referred to by both of them as coming from whom they called, "The Cainite Gnostics." That's because he referred to Cain as his real leader. "What's wrong with that," you ask?

The so-called gospel of Judas quoted as the original ancient manuscript refers to "SETH" as their gnostic leader.

In other words, whether that GJ is true, false, or a combination of the two, it no longer matters, when his own contemporaries, critiquing his "gospel," both call them Cainite Gnostics, and this so-called "Ancient" original copy is all about Sethite Gnostics.

Now for the money line. Dan Brown's "hero" is named Robert Langdon. The name translates "Brightly shining Long Dong." Whooeee! So I think we should demand proof! Either that, or get your money back!
 

CUBE

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
May 28, 2005
Posts
8,563
Media
13
Likes
7,755
Points
433
Location
The OC
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
I saw the show on the National Geographic Channel. I really enjoyed it. To me, it made the events more human and less "all about the devil in the room" so to speak. Interesting the "well known" clergy of today just kind of toss it off. I found it ironic that to not take in the full information of historical account, and just to toss it off, really is the act of speaking against Jesus. Kind of another form of a, if you will, "being a Judas." Don't want to make anyone mad...just what I took from it.
 

b.c.

Worshipped Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Nov 7, 2005
Posts
20,540
Media
0
Likes
21,784
Points
468
Location
at home
Verification
View
Gender
Male
Dr. Dilznick said:
http://articles.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20060406105909990005&cid=2194

The whole Judas thing baffled me even as a kid going to church. How is Judas free if his actions were predetermined? And how is he "evil" if what Judas did actually saved the world? No betrayal = no crucifixion, no redemption for the world.

There are many of us (Catholics) who have long since concluded that Judas was in fact pretty much a pawn in a "game" much larger than he.
 

Freddie53

Superior Member
Gold
Joined
Nov 19, 2004
Posts
5,842
Media
0
Likes
2,611
Points
333
Location
Memphis (Tennessee, United States)
Gender
Male
I'll have to disagree with Dr. Rock on the date of most of the gospels in the New testament. What is true is that in the Counsel of Niciea, the leaders of the church decided which ancient manuscripts would be included in the canon o the Bible and which would not be included. The ones that made it all have one thing in common. They all are written by people who believed in orthodox Christianity. the Gnostics has a total different view of Jesus and the doctrines of the church. None of the Gnostic Gospels made it into what we presently know as the Bible.

At that same time, the "Apostles' Creed, which tradition says the Apostles themselves were the author, was enlarged into was is now known as the Nicene Creed which in short form gives the basic tenets of orthodox Christianity. Orthodox here does not refer to the Orhtodox Church but rather to the doctrines that are in the books that made it into the book we know as the New Testament. All other ancient manuscritps that taught Gnostic doctrines were declared heritical.

There is also a Gospel referred to a the Gospel of Thomas which also differs in places from the four Gospels that made it into the canon of the New Testament.

About Judas, even orthodox Christianity differs on the role of Judas. Some mainline Christians today already believe that Judas had no choice. Other Christians believe that Judas had a choice.

I fall into the second group. I bleieve in the free will of man. Judas had a choice. Whether or not what he did was sinful or not, Judas had a choice. We all do. Being human is about choices. The idea that we have no choices not only goes against what I bleieve the Bible teaches but it alos goes against what we know today about humans.

I do agree with those who say that even if Judas was doing what Jesus asked him to do, it doesn't change the rest of the story.
 

JustAsking

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2004
Posts
3,217
Media
0
Likes
33
Points
268
Location
Ohio
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Freddie53 said:
I fall into the second group. I bleieve in the free will of man. Judas had a choice. Whether or not what he did was sinful or not, Judas had a choice. We all do. Being human is about choices. The idea that we have no choices not only goes against what I bleieve the Bible teaches but it alos goes against what we know today about humans.

I agree on the lack of significance of Judas' cooperation, but I must respectfully disagree on the significance of free will. I must say "very respectfully", because this is a long standing controversy, and also because I have only recently come to believe that the Bible is not so big on free-will. Surely it does say that free will sets man apart, but the NT (esp. Romans) is pretty clear about what we know about humans. And that is that our free will is quite compromised by our needs and desires.

As Paul points out in the beginning of Romans, our free will is as broken as the rest of creation. We can't help being rat-bastards. So yeah, we have free will, but its the kind of free will of a drug addict, bound to make destructive and self-destructive decisions without some kind of intervention from the outside.

I don't bring this up to be argumentative. I have come to believe that this is perhaps the central point of the NT. I have been interested in the free will question for quite a while, and having only recently "switched sides" on the issues, I am always interested in a discussion about it.
 

solong

Just Browsing
Joined
Feb 28, 2006
Posts
180
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
161
Gender
Male
Dr Rock said:
most of the new testament as you know it was written significantly later than 300AD. what criteria would you suggest christians use to determine which items of religious literature were "authentically" imparted to their authors by jesus or god, and which were not?

Matter of fact, most of the New Testament was being written, continuously, on papyrus and so far we've found 5210 copies of it (magiscules, miniscules, and partial copies too), retrieved from every nation on earth, including many found in China, all of which have minor variances of less than 2% among all of them, and no doctrinal or interpretive anomalies or footnotes, or arbitrary changes. It's called the Textus Receptus, and there's no question that it's consolidated text is 100% correct. I do NOT say that there is such a thing as an inspired translation, but in the original Greek, there's no question at all which text is right, and which are fudged.

The most eggregious verse in the NT is 1JO 5:7-8, called the Johannie Comma, strictly a forgery from the Latin Vulgate by Erasmus at the behest of the Pope, but since the Bible is dual and self-checking, it rejects these attempts, itself. No real scholar accepts these verses, including the ones who believe the overall doctrine. They all admit it was added. And then you have the word Easter, added from the Greek word pascha (meaning Passover, not Easter).

The 3 Egyptian copies, Vaticanus B, Siniaticus Aleph, and Byzantium are older, simply because they were so well "protected" and in vellum, but so spurious that they are a translator's dream, since he can accept or reject whatever he thinks makes for better copy, there's over 3000 blatant differences in just the gospels, alone! The Siniaticus was found in a monastery trash can, ready to help heat the furnaces. It's corrections, footnotes, erasures, scribbled-in "improvements, and editing continued for 5 centuries, till 585 AD, when they got tired of messing with it and tossed it. We have actual photographs of these "originals," and you can find pictures of its pages. You don't have to guess, as to how "authentic that piece of trash is.

So "Older" is not necessarily better, but consistency, perfect harmony, self corroboration, and verification with the Masoretic Old Testament nails it down. All the other versions can only say, "Well, we're almost as good."
 

JustAsking

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2004
Posts
3,217
Media
0
Likes
33
Points
268
Location
Ohio
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Dr Rock said:
most of the new testament as you know it was written significantly later than 300AD. what criteria would you suggest christians use to determine which items of religious literature were "authentically" imparted to their authors by jesus or god, and which were not?
I think you are confusing the date of authorship with the date of the oldest known manuscripts. The authorship is much earlier. For example, all of Paul's Epistles, (at least the ones which are directly attributable to Paul) were written in the latter half of the first century. Paul was aquainted with many eye-witnesses to Jesus' life. This has been established through historical scholarship. It is not just church tradition.

Dr Rock said:
what criteria would you suggest christians use to determine which items of religious literature were "authentically" imparted to their authors by jesus or god, and which were not?
It took a few hundred years to accomplish this. Canonization Criteria
 

ben11

Experimental Member
Joined
Mar 12, 2006
Posts
80
Media
0
Likes
4
Points
153
I apologize in advance for the ramble to follow.

I really enjoyed reading these posts. I am not being critical, but this does add a little variety from "the how big are you soft" and "recipes for tasty cum" postings.

I follow the teachings of Christ as well as other religions to help direct my moral compass and to find peace with how I live my life. However, as much as I want to, I cannot get to the "faith thing". I've come to accept that is just the way I am.

Though much of the gospel was written 30 to 70 years after Christ died, that was still plenty of time for stories about his life to evolve pretty far away from reality. Just think about all the books that have come out that revisit the founders of this country. Ben Franking could be an ass and was a womanizer. Jefferson had a black slave for a mistress, Lincoln may have suffered from severe depression, and George really didn't chop down a cherry tree.

I think of what would happen if somehow future generations had to rely on archeological discoveries to try and piece together what happened during our time. What if they discovered a segment of the O'Reilly Factor, A Michael Moore Film and The Daily Show? Where would they go from there?


I do find it so fascinating how all societies search to understand why we are here. I doubt my dog or the coyote who has been howling down the hill from my house spend much time pondering those things. Though I struggle with the faith thing, I also struggle with understanding how we were able to make such an amazing jump from other living things.
 

Freddie53

Superior Member
Gold
Joined
Nov 19, 2004
Posts
5,842
Media
0
Likes
2,611
Points
333
Location
Memphis (Tennessee, United States)
Gender
Male
JustAsking said:
I agree on the lack of significance of Judas' cooperation, but I must respectfully disagree on the significance of free will. I must say "very respectfully", because this is a long standing controversy, and also because I have only recently come to believe that the Bible is not so big on free-will. Surely it does say that free will sets man apart, but the NT (esp. Romans) is pretty clear about what we know about humans. And that is that our free will is quite compromised by our needs and desires.
Actually we agree. It is our understanding of the term free will that we may not have the same understanding. You are very correct in the New Testament understanding that man on his own is not capable of rising out of his sinfulf nature and needs a Savior.We have a choice to accept salvation from Jesus or to reject Jesus. I think Judas had that choice just as anyone else. I don't believe that he was created just for that purpose and had absolutley no choice in the matter. If Judas had not betryaed Jesus, Jesus would have found a way to be fouind. Jesus kenw what he was to do. If necessary, he would have walked right in and surrendered himself.

Peter denied Jesus and cursed Jesus. We know for sure that that wasn't an act of obedience. But Peter repented and became one of the most imporant Christian leaders of all time. Judas could have repented as well. He also could have become a great Christian leader. It was Judas's choice to not repent, and instead hang himself. I don't believe Jesus rejects anyone, it is we who reject Jesus. I believe Jesus died for EVERYONE'S sins. It is our choice to accept or reject Jesus.

I know some people believe that some people were chosen from the beginning to be Christians and others were created to reject Jesus and that Jesus only died for the sins of part of the human race. This is called a "Limited Atonement." I have a hard time accepting the doctrine that someone could pray and plead for salvation and to become a Christian and Jesus say that he was sorry but they weren't chosen before they were born. That they ween't included in the group of people that Jesus died for. Tough.

True. Humans are by nature sinful. And according to Christian doctrine are not capable of ridding themselves from this sinful nature. Therefore, they need a Savior. That is the central theme of the New Testament. Jesus is the Savior for those who wish to be saved. This is Theology 101.
 

JustAsking

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2004
Posts
3,217
Media
0
Likes
33
Points
268
Location
Ohio
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Freddie,
Absolutely eloquent. And if you add that the offer stands for each of us for eternity, then I say you are preaching the pure Gospel. All else is just noise.

JustAsking
 

Freddie53

Superior Member
Gold
Joined
Nov 19, 2004
Posts
5,842
Media
0
Likes
2,611
Points
333
Location
Memphis (Tennessee, United States)
Gender
Male
JustAsking said:
Freddie,
Absolutely eloquent. And if you add that the offer stands for each of us for eternity, then I say you are preaching the pure Gospel. All else is just noise.

JustAsking
Yes, I agree. And thanks for the compliment. I will add though that Jesus said that he and he alone will judge each of us. We may know what a person said out loud. But we don't know what was said between Jesus and the person before death or even at the point of death.

To me this is the message. I leave it in God or Jesus' hands to determine the fate of everyone. Even people like Adlolf Hitler. We don't know what communication was held between he and God and when. Only they know.

All I know for sure is the gospel is open to every person in some form or fashion. Jesus meets everyone face to face. All are invited. Some will decline the invitation. It is a personal matter between each person and God (Jesus).

We know that Jesus met Paul on the Damascus Road. And Jesus did it all by himself. I'm not saying that we aren't supposed to spread the Gospel. I am saying that Jesus has a way to reach every person who wants to live in his house for eternity.

Sounds like you know you theology very well.