Ancient Script Says Jesus Asked Judas to Betray Him

Discussion in 'Et Cetera, Et Cetera' started by Dr. Dilznick, Apr 14, 2006.

  1. Dr. Dilznick

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2005
    Messages:
    1,662
    Likes Received:
    1
    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.
     
  2. Pecker

    Pecker Retired Moderator
    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2002
    Messages:
    83,922
    Likes Received:
    34
    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.
     
  3. rawbone8

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2004
    Messages:
    2,864
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    4
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Toronto (ON, CA)
    hmmmm

    let's hope this doesn't give comfort to the religious zealots eager to bring on the rapture
     
  4. JustAsking

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2004
    Messages:
    3,249
    Likes Received:
    3
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Ohio
    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
     
  5. Dr. Dilznick

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2005
    Messages:
    1,662
    Likes Received:
    1
    Obviously.

    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
     
  6. hottxboi16

    hottxboi16 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2006
    Messages:
    184
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.


     
  7. JustAsking

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2004
    Messages:
    3,249
    Likes Received:
    3
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Ohio
    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.
     
  8. Dr Rock

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2005
    Messages:
    3,696
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    who lives in the east 'neath the willow tree? Sex
    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?
     
  9. solong

    solong New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2006
    Messages:
    184
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    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!
     
  10. CUBE

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2005
    Messages:
    7,331
    Albums:
    2
    Likes Received:
    1,177
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    The OC
    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.
     
  11. b.c.

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2005
    Messages:
    9,278
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    1,678
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    at home
    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.
     
  12. Freddie53

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2004
    Messages:
    7,285
    Likes Received:
    61
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    The South, USA
    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.
     
  13. JustAsking

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2004
    Messages:
    3,249
    Likes Received:
    3
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Ohio
    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.
     
  14. solong

    solong New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2006
    Messages:
    184
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    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."
     
  15. JustAsking

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2004
    Messages:
    3,249
    Likes Received:
    3
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Ohio
    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.

    It took a few hundred years to accomplish this. Canonization Criteria
     
  16. ben11

    ben11 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2006
    Messages:
    96
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  17. Freddie53

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2004
    Messages:
    7,285
    Likes Received:
    61
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    The South, USA
    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.
     
  18. JustAsking

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2004
    Messages:
    3,249
    Likes Received:
    3
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Ohio
    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
     
  19. Freddie53

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2004
    Messages:
    7,285
    Likes Received:
    61
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    The South, USA
    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.
     
  20. Love-it

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2005
    Messages:
    1,884
    Likes Received:
    2
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Northern California
    No good comes from arguing about religion. Live it and/or leave it alone.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted