Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

A Swiss foundation and National Geographic magazine are planning to publish translations of the The Gospel of Judas, an ancient Coptic text found in Egypt during the 1970s which may portray Judas as closer to a hero than a heel.
It appears that Judas was working at the behest of God when he betrays Jesus as part of the divine plan. Had Jesus not been crucified, he would not have been subsequently resurrected to save humanity.

The translator of the Gospel of Judas is Rodolphe Kasser of the University of Geneva, the world' s leading Coptic scholar.

The original document, a papyrus, dates from the 4th century and was made available for sale to collectors in the United States and Europe for many decades after its discovery in Egypt' s Al-Minya region. It was recently identified as part of the prestigious collection of the Maecenas Foundation in Basle, Switzerland. Controversy also surrounds the origins of the text, with some scholars arguing that it was not written by Judas, but to be more likely the creation of a group of his followers.

The translation is set to be released after Easter.

To be continued...

The Gospel of Judas has already been translated.

Interesting to see what they'll come up with. Keep us updated?

Okay, well, here is what I found in an article today (April 7, 2006)

By RANDOLPH E SCHMID

National Geographic magazine yesterday unveiled an ancient manuscript that may shed new light on the relationship between Jesus and Judas, the disciple who betrayed him.

The papyrus manuscript was probably written around 300 AD in Coptic script, and was a copy of an earlier Greek manuscript.

It was discovered in the desert in Egypt in the 1970s and has now been authenticated by carbon dating, and studied and translated by biblical scholars, National Geographic announced.

Unlike the four gospels in the Bible, this text indicates that Judas betrayed Jesus at Jesus's request. The text begins "the secret account of the revelation that Jesus spoke in conversation with Judas Iscariot".

The key passage comes when Jesus tells Judas that "you will exceed all of them. For you will sacrifice the man that clothed my body."

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

The manuscript was first mentioned in a treatise around 180AD by a bishop, Irenaeus of Lyon, in what is now France.

The bishop denounced the manuscript as differing from mainstream Christianity and said it produced a fictitious story.

There were several gospels in circulation at the time in addition to the four in the Bible.

When those gospels were denounced, it was thought that believers hid them away.

The Gospel of Judas was kept by a group called the Gnostics, who believed that the way to salvation was through secret knowledge given by Jesus to his inner circle.

National Geographic said the author of the Gospel of Judas believed that Judas Iscariot alone understood the true significance of Jesus's teachings.

The Bible is a very edited work, and I'm not surprised this was left out.

Originally posted by Dreampanther
Now isn't that an interesting twist....Of course it would be left out if it didn't comply with what the church wanted EVEN if it was Judas that knew Jesus personally.

Another update -

The voice of Judas
Churches are braced for the explosive publication of Lost Gospel, which could threaten the basis of Christian teaching, write Ian Gallagher and Sharon Churcher
April 8, 2006 Edition 1

By Ian Gallagher and Sharon Churcher

The Gospel of Judas - said to be one of the greatest archaeological discoveries of modern times - is about to be published amid explosive controversy, The Mail on Sunday can reveal.

Scholars have translated 26 pages of a crumbling ancient text that purports to tell the story of Jesus's last days from the perspective of Judas Iscariot, a man reviled for almost 2 000 years.

Sensationally, the manuscript portrays him not as a villain but as a hero and Christ's favoured disciple. And it claims to repeat conversations between the two men and shows that in betraying Christ, Judas was fulfilling a divine mission.

The Mail on Sunday has interviewed experts involved in the project and has established that, according to the Gospel, Christ instructed Judas to betray him with the words: "You will become the apostle cursed by all the others.

"Judas, you will sacrifice this body of man which clothes me."

In another hugely significant section of the manuscript, Jesus tells Judas: "You will become the13th, and you will be cursed by the other generation - and you will come to rule over them."

The papyrus document dates back to the 4th Century, but is believed to be a translation of a Greek text written in AD 187. Most Biblical gospels are thought to have been written between 50 and 80 years after Christ's crucifixion.

Some sources have indicated that as well as conversations between Christ and Judas, the Gospel also contains another "surprise" which will be revealed when the full contents of the manuscript are unveiled in Washington on April 6.

Some sections of the Church fear it will challenge many of Christianity's most deeply held beliefs. It has already been labelled "dangerous" by one Vatican scholar.

Written in Coptic, the ancient language of the Egyptian Christians, the document was apparently discovered in a crumbling limestone tomb in Egypt in the late 70s.

Since then it has passed through the hands of various antique dealers - many of whom were unaware of its true significance - and for 16 years lay disintegrating in a bank vault on Long Island, New York. Tests have shown its authenticity as an ancient text is beyond doubt.

But controversy will focus on the reliability of the account it presents. Some experts see the artefact as an attempt by an early Christian sect to revise the reputation of Judas. A Swiss arts foundation acquired the document in 2002.

Since then it has engaged a team of experts to translate and piece together the badly damaged papyrus.

The foundation struck a deal with National Geographic magazine to publish the translations. But the decision to do so just before the holiest week in the Christian calendar has prompted accusations of deliberate sensationalism.

The unveiling of the text - and the publication at the same time of a book telling the story of the quest for the lost Gospel - comes just a month before the release of the film version of The Da Vinci Code, the worldwide bestselling book which makes unfounded claims about Christ's life.

National Geographic also plans to screen a two-hour film about the Gospel on its satellite TV channel tomorrow. The words attributed to Jesus in the manuscript overturn the traditional view that Judas was driven by deliberate evil when he identified Jesus to Roman soldiers in the Garden of Gethsemane in return for 30 pieces of silver.

Although National Geographic has made strenuous efforts to kept the manuscript a closely guarded secret, some copies and photographs of it have circulated among theologians and art dealers. Some translated photographs of the document even made it on to a website.

One part of the leaked text says: "And they went to Judas and told him: 'Although you are bad at this place, you are Jesus's true disciple. And he answered them as they wanted him to. And Judas received the money. And he surrendered him. This is the end of the Gospel of Judas'.

Elsewhere, Jesus says to the man whose name would become synonymous with treachery: "Step away from the others and I shall tell you the mysteries of the kingdom. It is possible for you to reach it, but you will grieve a great deal."

While academics have rushed to judge the document, the mainstream Christian churches appear to be nervously awaiting its unveiling and have so far been extremely reluctant to commit their feelings publicly or discuss how the manuscript may affect their teaching.

The Mail on Sunday was recently told by the Vatican that it was preparing a statement on the manuscript, only to be informed 24 hours later that no one could comment.

The Catholic Church in Britain also declined to discuss it. In January it was reported that a leading Vatican scholar, Monsignor Walter Brandmuller, head of the Pontifical Committee for Historical Science, was behind a campaign to rehabilitate Judas.

Intriguingly, however, he has since denounced the Gospel as "a product of religious fantasy which he insists will not get any support from believers".

There is no campaign, no movement for the rehabilitation of the traitor of Jesus, he said. A high-ranking Church of England figure who is familiar with the project told The Mail on Sunday: "Saying that Judas was a hero is not a generally accepted chain of thought, and to many in the Church it will be seen as heretical because it is ascribing to God an active role in the death of Christ, making God out to be a murderer."

But he said: "If National Geographic present this as an authentic historical document, the Protestant Church will have no problems with it.

"It is an important discovery since it is the first chance we will have to read a full copy of the original Gnostic manuscript, which until now we have only known about from mentions of it in early Christian writings.

"But if they are planning to peddle it as an exciting new truth about Judas and to hype it as a new gospel, that will upset not only a lot of theologians but a lot of laymen and I think there will be a lot of cancelled subscriptions to National Geographic."

Vatican theologian Giovanni D'Ercole has said it was "dangerous to re-evaluate Judas and muddy the Gospel accounts by reference to apocryphal writings. This can only create confusion in believers".

Respected biblical scholar James Robinson accused National Geographic of rushing out an incomplete text and giving it a misleading "sensationalist" spin.

Robinson, who has written his own book about the Judas Gospel, said: "National Geographic acquired these rights after the Swiss owners of the manuscript realised they could not sell the actual object because it had been illegally smuggled out of Egypt.

"National Geographic took the bait because they saw an opportunity to cause a sensation by coming out right around Easter and right before The Da Vinci Code movie with something that the prepublicity implies is a new gospel from the New Testament, when in fact it is a copy of a book originally written well over 100 years after the death of Christ."

The document was found in the mid to late 70s by Egyptian peasants - fellahin - in a cavern near the banks of the Nile at al-Minya where it had lain for centuries.

They sold it on to a middleman in Cairo, who could not read the script but realised it was valuable and sold it to an Egyptian antiquities dealer. In the early 80s the manuscripts were stolen and ended up in Switzerland before finding their way back to Egypt.

All the while they were deteriorating. The documents then journeyed to America where the Egyptian antiquities dealer tried unsuccessfully to sell them. Despairing, he put them in a bank vault on Long Island, where they continued to deteriorate, and returned home.

They were rescued 16 years later by a Swiss antiquities expert, Frieda Nussberger, who tried to sell them to Ohio-based art dealer Bruce Ferrini for a reported $2,5-million. At the same time their existence was finally made public.

...to be continued...

...
Art and antiquities dealer Michel van Rijn announced on his website that the purported long-lost Gospel of Judas Iscariot, "not seen for at least 1 800 years", was being peddled around two or maybe three continents. Van Rijn says of the Gospel's claims that Judas was a disciple of God: "Forget The Da Vinci Code. This is the real deal."

As an opponent of the illicit art trade, however, he says the purpose of the Internet posting was to make the manuscript unsellable. Because of its smuggled origins, he contends it can be owned only by Egypt.

In 2001, Ferrini sent American document expert Dr Charles Hedrick photographs of three leaves - six pages - of the Gospel. Hedrick says it was his understanding that the manuscript was in Ferrini's "temporary possession".

It is understood Ferrini then formed a partnership with Nussberger and Swiss lawyer Mario Roberty, whose Maecenas Foundation clinched the Geographic deal.

"Then there was a falling-out and Ferrini got the short end of the stick," Hedrick told The Mail on Sunday.

Roberty says the reason they have been so secretive about the forthcoming spectacular is that after word of the manuscript leaked to Christian fundamentalists, they picketed Nussberger's home and daubed slogans on its walls.

He also admitted that the manuscript is incomplete and badly damaged.

"It's an enormous job. It's absolutely in a mess.

"You must imagine it is split, or broken. There is the upper part of the pages which, thank God, are numbered. Then there is the lower part - about two-thirds of each page - which had been badly manipulated before we got the manuscript ... it has become very obvious that somebody tried to mess it up in order to be able to sell some fragments.

"When you start dealing with Judas, you have to accept whatever comes."

National Geographic responded to criticism of the release, saying: "It's ironic that this line of questioning apparently comes from James Robinson, who has, over the years, tried unsuccessfully to acquire this codex himself and is publishing his own book next month, despite having no direct access to the materials.

"National Geographic has done its due diligence and is working with an international team of experts on this arte- fact to save the manuscript before it turns to dust and is lost forever.

"Everyone involved believes the materials should be given to Egypt, and the Maecenas Foundation for Ancient Art has formally pledged to do so, to which the Egyptian government has responded positively.

"We'll be sharing the results of that work with the public within a few weeks and look forward to letting scholars and the public assess the manuscript's significance, once they have had a chance to see it."

Despite his infamous place in history, little is known about Judas Iscariot beyond the fact that he was one of the 12 apostles and came from Judea.

The Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John tell how Judas later returned the 30 pieces of silver - his "blood money" - and hanged himself or, according to the Act of the Apostles, "fell headlong and burst open so that all his entrails burst out".

In the traditional Gospel accounts, Jesus reveals to the disciples at the Last Supper one of them will betray him but does not say who.
He adds: "Woe to that man by whom The Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been better for that man if he had not been born."

But according to St Matthew he also said: "Friend, do what you are here to do" and added that the "prophecies of the Scriptures must be fulfilled".

Does anybody have more current info?

"...Christ instructed Judas to betray him..."

Clearly--now more than ever--this makes evident who is ultimately responsible for Jesus' death: not his fellow Jews, not Judas, not even the Romans, but Jesus himself.

Always thought the Gnostic's had it more together..........Whoa what a controversy...

nothing new here... the four everyday gospels don't call Judas a traitor... at the last supper, Christ says "one of you here will betray me..." he then goes on to add "before the cock crows, Peter, you will betray me..." So in Christ's view at least, Peter was the traitor, the one who would deny Christ... so that leaves Judas as very obviously the instrument of the lord.... a radio play broadcast in (I believe) the fifties on the BBC also portrayed Judas as the hero of the piece....

So apparently, the Gospel of John is wrong about Judas. I wounder what else it is wrong about.

Hold on a sec, let's not immediately jump into these conclusions. For one, the gospel of Judas was written 1700 years ago, which is 300 years after Jesus's death. That's why it's been rejected.

Don't be so quick into believing this gospel. I say it's a fraud more likely.

It would make sense though. Jesus apparantly had to die. God had planned it. It would be his symbolic way of taking away sin (instead of doing the the far more sensible thing of removing it without all the pain and death.) Ergo someone had to betray Jesus. Jesus knew Judas would betray him. God knew it. And it had to happen.

Makes one wonder why Judas was treated so badly then. He was an prime part in getting Gods' dirty work done. If it was for him Jesus might have lived, and the plan would have been ruined...

Back in Catholic school, I was always taught that Judas was bad. He was a traitor, and deserved to rot in hell....But I often asked myself- "If God is all knowing, then why would he allow such an evil man to be one of his Disciples? Why would he allow Judas the opportunity to betray him?"

This, in my own personal mind, makes sense....It might be a fraud, hell it might even be just a joke, but I can't help but agree with it....The four canonical Gospels don't call Judas a traitor, and Jesus at the last supper was ambiguous...Could be a scandal that needs to be swept under the rug in the Church's mind.

Pfff, I think the gospels of Thomas and Mary Magdoline are much more contraversial.

Originally posted by CosmicSurfer
Hold on a sec, let's not immediately jump into these conclusions. For one, the gospel of Judas was written 1700 years ago, which is 300 years after Jesus's death. That's why it's been rejected.

Don't be so quick into believing this gospel. I say it's a fraud more likely.

That copy was made 1700 years ago, the gospel of Judas was talked about in another document from 150 after Jesus's death. No one knows when it was first written.

I had a dream I was Judas once and everyone was throwing stuff at me or was that Jesus.......

Meh. Probably an ancient fraud. I'm guessing it also says that Jesus had three eyes, green skin, and his real name was Mork.

so every gospel not in the bible is automatically a fraud cause constantine's little council arbitrarily decided to accept a few as the real deal and ethnically cleanse the opposition?

You really can't take all the canonized gospels for fact when all we have of the originals are these fragments.

http://www.nobeliefs.com/DarkBible/darkbible2.htm

There's no knowledge if this thing is even canonical, or even written by Judas. Heck, it may be way off. Also, there is more than one Judas in the 12 Disciples of Christ.

This does actually interest me a great deal . After-all could Jesus have set his own death in motion by ordering Judas to pick him out of the many with a kiss ?



You are right though , the debate on it authenticity is currently underway. The main scrutiny is that although it seems to have been translated from a type of greek (what the original bibles were written in) their is no way to tell if it is what it says to be.

Also , their are more Judases ? I'm not very 'big' on the bible info but i thought judas was the only disciple to be named that.

Originally posted by Thunderstrike
There's no knowledge if this thing is even canonical, or even written by Judas. Heck, it may be way off. Also, there is more than one Judas in the 12 Disciples of Christ.

I think you should know that none of the New Testament was written by the apostles. Paul is the only literal author in the New Testament, and not only did he never meet Jesus in person, he never even hints at the existence of previous writings, much less the Gospel. Also, there were dozens of Gospels, not just four. Look up the name "Irenaeus of Lyon". Probably the most influential of the hundreds of thousands of editors of the Bible.

the word canonical here is pretty meaningless since the discussion is about coptic, gnostic, and apocryphal works. the only thing that separates canonic text from apocryphal is what a few rabbis and later preists decided at two meetings over the centuries. It's real easy to control what's canonical when you suppress supposed "heretics" like the arians, the gnostics, and the cathars with the edge of a sword.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
It's real easy to control what's canonical when you suppress supposed "heretics" like the arians, the gnostics, and the cathars with the edge of a sword.

Ironically, that's what the Jews did to Jesus, and now they are to blame for Christianity, really.

Jesus also had a brother named Judas.

Mark 6:3 reports that Jesus was "Mary's son and the brother of James, Joseph, Judas and Simon," and also states that Jesus had sisters

Of course. Jesus' mother was married. To think Joseph never got it on with his wife is ridiculous. Mary was only (alledgedly) a virgin when she had Jesus.

Either that, or she was just realllyyy sticking to her story.

"No, no I didn't cheat, I SWEAR! This is GOD'S CHILD!"

Here's a translation of the text, for anyone who cares.

Not all that interesting; if it had been found with the NH library, it wouldn't have been paid much mind by most people.

First, this "gospel" dates to between the third and fourth century. According to National Geographic's own website, "The results allowed lab experts to confidently date the papyruses to between A.D. 220 and 340." That is early. The only problem is, we have fragments from the gospel of John that are as much as 200 years earlier (using the higher end of NG's range). And, given that the other gospels are largely quoted by second century church fathers, they precede this new wonderful gospel by at least one hundred years.

Second, Judas would have to have been about 250 years old -- at the NG's low range -- to have written this copy of the gospel. Two possibilites exist, then: it is either Pseudepigrapha, a genre of literature that was understood by its nature to be less than facutal, or it was a copy of an early document. This is further borne out by the fact that the text was in Coptic; the New Testament writers wrote in Greek. The gospels of the New Testament were likely already being written and circulated by the time Coptic began to be used to write about matters of the New Testament church. Therefore, if it is Psuedepigrapha, it is likely fiction.

Third, while it is possible that this text is earlier, and what was found was a coptic copy of an earlier text, ask a simply question: "If, out of five eyewitnesses, one of them tells a widely divergent story about events, do you beleive the four, or the one?" Any cop, lawyer, judge, jury or reasonable thinker has an answer for that.

Which is exactly why the church might have ignored the "gospel", had it existed in the first century. Assuming it existed, they knew enough to reject it out of hand.

So why don't we? Why the fascination with this "wonderful discovery"? Why has every broadcast network done a news special on this text? I think the answer is fairly simple: it's more exciting to believe a text that, on its face (and with the media's help) seems to turn Christianity on its head. It is a repudiation of all that I have been told about a sovereign God, final judgment and eternal punishment. It frees me to do what I want, what I see as right "in my own eyes." It is the declaration of freedom, and a validation of self-determination. I LIKE THAT!

Here's the problem, though: approaching the claims about this text don't reasonably hold up under any scrutiny at all. Judas wasn't a hero, unless you want to believe one (possible) eyewitness over the four other earlier accounts (and the one writes from a position of self-interest, if you believe the authorship), or unless you want to believe a document that was more likely written a century or two later than the other gospels, by a person claiming to be someone else (that doesn't sound good for "truth," does it?), or unless you simply can't help but accept a document rejected by the church within a few generations of Jesus' sojourn on the earth.

But, then again, why would you?

^ it was a copy of an older book, and none of the gospels were written by the people who's names they bare.

Bits and pieces of fragments..........yep.........all the early fathers of the church are the ones who really influenced what the scriptures say....and only the most popular ones were used.....

http://www.nobeliefs.com/DarkBible/darkbible2.htm

Please read at your own risk!!

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
^ it was a copy of an older book, and none of the gospels were written by the people who's names they bare.

I'm well aware, of that. However the gospel of Judas simply holds the last supper and the Crucifixion. It entails little to no detail on the life and ministry OTHER than the fact that one detail changed. It holds no "inerrant truths" worth mimicking, and it is omitted from the other gospels not just because it is "blasphemous" but really it would be a waste of paper.

Besides, the image of Judas changes throughout all four gospels, not to mention Mary Magdalene, was never a prostitute, but that's for another time....

It was omited because it's theology--Sethian Gnosticism--was deemd heretical by the early church. I don't know what it matters that it doesn't speak on Jesus' life and ministry--neither do the letters of Paul, and no one's suggested that they should be ommited.

Originally posted by Arachnoidfreak
Ironically, that's what the Jews did to Jesus, and now they are to blame for Christianity, really.
the ROMANS killed jesus, god, i wish someone would punch mel gibson in the face

I frequently wish that very thing. Not because of The Passion, though. Just on principle.

Originally posted by AOR
I'm well aware, of that. However the gospel of Judas simply holds the last supper and the Crucifixion. It entails little to no detail on the life and ministry OTHER than the fact that one detail changed. It holds no "inerrant truths" worth mimicking, and it is omitted from the other gospels not just because it is "blasphemous" but really it would be a waste of paper.

Besides, the image of Judas changes throughout all four gospels, not to mention Mary Magdalene, was never a prostitute, but that's for another time....

All we really know is that there were all these books (~30) and someone, for what ever reason, picked some to keep, and some to get ride of. This choice had nothing to do with what really happened; it had to do with what people believed.

i say have another council, throw out revalations, and add jubilee, the infancy gospel of thomas, the gospel of mary magdoline, and the book of adam and eve.

Jesus was sort of a bastard in the Infancy Gospel, wasn't he? No real surprise that it didn't make it.

yeah, he was a little bratty dick in that one.

Interesting. They've been showing some programmes about this gospel on tv lately here in DK.
Appearantly theologians more or less agree, that the first gospels were not written until some 60 to 100 years after Jesus is said to have died.
There were countless texts in circulation in the early days of Christianity, and it wasn't until some couple of hundred years later that the so-called Church-fathers decided what gospels to put into the Bible and which ones to leave out.

By this time, obviously, ALL the Christian texts had been copied and rewritten countless times already. According to the tv-programme the gospel of Judas was left out for being too gnostic (that is, among other things claiming women could lead congregations just as well as men) and forthe claim that Judas "betrayal" was a little more complicated.
The same church-fathers smeared Mary Magdalenes reputation by MAKING her a sinner. Appearantly Mary Magdalene was not a prostitute, but since more than one Mary appeared in the Bible they were all mixed into one -

All of this should be of no concern to more open-minded Christians, only to those who take the Bible literally.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
the ROMANS killed jesus, god, i wish someone would punch mel gibson in the face According to the story the Jews picked Barabbas instead of Jesus to be let go, so it does really go to the Jews who is blamed...............Don't you remember in the movie they yelled "Barabbas! Barabbas! Barabbas!!....etc.".....

The "Gospel of Judas" and similar Gnostic texts were rejected by the early Christian Church not because of their unfavorable portrayal of Jesus of Nazareth, but because Church leaders knew they were not written by the original disciples, but fabricated much later by splinter groups, who incorporated heretical teachings and false historical claims into those documents. The content of the "Gospel of Judas" clearly indicates that its origin derives from second or third century Gnostic teachings, which incorporate both Greek mythology and Far East philosophy in an attempt to hijack Christianity's rising popularity. The theology in the "Gospel of Judas" is polytheistic, which is why it was labeled as heretical by early church leaders. Such aberrant theology was clearly outside the mainstream of both Christianity and Old Testament writings. The fact that the National Geographic promoted the "Gospel of Judas" manuscript as an authentic early Christian document testifies to their unscholarly attempt to discredit Jesus of Nazareth as worthy of worship.

Well the writings of Paul also mimic Mithra teachings that were going on at the same time period and earlier.

debbiejo: what verses do you base that on?

If you look at the teachings of Paul and study the teachings of Mithra, you see the similarities. Also, Paul lived at the same time period when Mithra worship was popular. There are many other religions also....

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcpa.htm
http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/mithras/index.htm

There is also the fact the earlier manuscripts of Josephus didn't mention Jesus. http://www.sullivan-county.com/news/paul/j_myth.htm#h2_2

It was later edited in....

hmm well I would need verses from the actual Bible.

You need to read and compare the teachings of Paul with Mithra and other god teachings that came earlier. Besides Paul taught against the OT god. What I mean is that he changed or contradicted what the OT god had said....This is why many Jews today accept Jesus as a teacher, but Paul as a heretic.

Originally posted by MARCMAN
The fact that the National Geographic promoted the "Gospel of Judas" manuscript as an authentic early Christian document testifies to their unscholarly attempt to discredit Jesus of Nazareth as worthy of worship.

The Gospel of Judas is an early Christian document. Christ, some people. It is

1) Early. Not first century early, or even second century early, but early.
2) Christian. What with all of the Jesus stuff and all.

When you have a text that is early, and Christian, what do you get? An early Christian document, of course. And the Gospel of Thomas was probably around before the Gospel of John, so there's no use pretending that Christian Gnosticism isn't an early movement--it existed before the "Jesus is God" movement was around.

But, some people are intent on being offended by every thing, I guess.

Oh God, why do you always keep your promise?

First, Lord Jesus Christ came to introduce to all men that you are the ONLY true God.

Now, things are coming clear. You're introducing to these men who Lord Jesus Christ really is.

After centuries of hiding the truth, true things always prevail.



Let all things be according to Your will, oh God.


After, Gospel of Judas, what's next?

Gospel of Philip?
Gospel of Bartholomew?
Gospel of Thomas?
Gospel of Jesus Christ Himself?

That would be cool.

Originally posted by Jury
Oh God, why do you always keep your promise?

First, Lord Jesus Christ came to introduce to all men that you are the ONLY true God.

Now, things are coming clear. You're introducing to these men who Lord Jesus Christ really is.

After centuries of hiding the truth, true things always prevail.



Let all things be according to Your will, oh God.


After, Gospel of Judas, what's next?

Gospel of Philip?
Gospel of Bartholomew?
Gospel of Thomas?
Gospel of Jesus Christ Himself?

That would be cool.

Um, is your post laced with Sarcasm, or are you being serious? Because with some people and religion, you really can't tel the difference.

But as of the Gospel of Thomas, I believe the bible should add it.

Why not?.....You would think he would have written at least one paragraph himself...One page, maybe even 2. Makes you wonder why doesn't?

It would make sense to me. I mean Jesus is the one person you would expect to write something down, and for it to be at the head of all gospels. I mean, after all, he was apparantly entrusting his divine message to mankind, and we know what they can be like.

Originally posted by Darth Macabre
Um, is your post laced with Sarcasm, or are you being serious? Because with some people and religion, you really can't tel the difference.

But as of the Gospel of Thomas, I believe the bible should add it.

If the Gospels were preserved in its entirety, we will all have different history. I also believe that if they are only complete and unedited up to this date, they should have been added to the modern day Bible.



Originally posted by debbiejo
Why not?.....You would think he would have written at least one paragraph himself...One page, maybe even 2. Makes you wonder why doesn't?

You didn't get my point. I am saying that these are not new. These are original history. History hidden in centuries by corrupt and useless Church officials of the second century.

Now, I am saying that these should have been included in the Bible for they are telling us who the Lord Jesus Christ really is, not the one almost every Christians believed to be.

These Gospels, plus other inspired Epistles, are telling us that Jesus is the Son of God, the Messiah... not the true God. For there is one true God - the Father.

Apostolic Fathers couldn't uphold this truth because of the persecution. They hid the truth that Jesus, the Christ, is not a true God.

As I was saying, God is making a way on how to restore this truth. As prophesied, the truth will be corrupted but it will prevail afterall.



It has been fulfilled. And yet, there are still a lot to fulfill.

Yes, the truth will prevail and this is what I am seeing going on now.........From my point of view of course which does differ from yours. Not insulting you btw.....

Originally posted by debbiejo
You would think he would have written at least one paragraph himself...One page, maybe even 2. Makes you wonder why doesn't?

Maybe he was illiterate. Most people of his class probably were.

Paul never contradicted the OT and was actually scholar of the OT, debbiejo. I would need to read about Mithra but even if they are similarities (not sure IF there are any) it still does not make the gospel of judas valid.

Originally posted by MARCMAN
Paul never contradicted the OT and was actually scholar of the OT, debbiejo. I would need to read about Mithra but even if they are similarities (not sure IF there are any) it still does not make the gospel of judas valid.

Time will be the judge.

The Gospel of Judas is divinely inspired, of course, any more than the other gospels. But it's just as "valid."

(Gnosticims was always my favorite early heterodox Christian doctrine)

I wonder what else the church has tried to hide.

Originally posted by MARCMAN
Paul never contradicted the OT and was actually scholar of the OT, debbiejo. I would need to read about Mithra but even if they are similarities (not sure IF there are any) it still does not make the gospel of judas valid. Well for one in the OT women were priestesses and Judges, but Paul told women they could not teach in the church........In the OT we are told to multiply, Paul said it is better to not be married. The OT said men, even those in your camps living with you, had to be circumcised, Paul said not everybody. .....Just a few examples.

Originally posted by Gregory
Maybe he was illiterate. Most people of his class probably were. Doubtful if he stood up in the temple and read the scrolls out loud.

Originally posted by MARCMAN
Paul never contradicted the OT and was actually scholar of the OT, debbiejo. I would need to read about Mithra but even if they are similarities (not sure IF there are any) it still does not make the gospel of judas valid.

Most beliefs about Jesus Christ are inspired by Mithra.....Why do you think christians celebrate Jesus' birth on Decemeber 25?

I posted a link about Mithra in this thread on the first page. I wonder if anyone will read it and compare...

Originally posted by debbiejo
I posted a link about Mithra in this thread on the first page. I wonder if anyone will read it and compare...

Probably not.....It's a shame really....Mithra was around way before Jesus.

It's a shame some people put so much stock into Mithra; Mithra never resurrected. Jesus Christ did! Mithra was a legend- a product of one's imagination. You can buy books about the story in the religious "fictional" section at most book stores. Jesus is historical truth, and their is tons of evidence to support that claim, even sources outside of the bible. Nobody cares about Mithra (ha ha ha)! Fact is, the resurrection of Jesus Christ was falsifiable, but nothing of the sort happened. All the Jews and Roman authorities had to do is produce the dead body of Jesus! They had all the power in the world to do so!! That would have been the end of Christianity. Some may say that the body was stolen? Well... if that is true, why did the Jews and Romans make other claims in addition to that theory? It's ironic, not one conspiracy theory ever stated that the tomb "wasn't" empty. Jesus's body was never produced, and then you have countless eyewitness testimony confirming that Jesus was seen alive. The gospels were circulated openly while most of the eyewitnesses were still alive. If they were not true, they would have been disputed, but they were not. How do you explain that? And how do you explain Christianity originating in Jerusalem? How do you explain Christianity consuming the Roman empire? People don't rise from the dead all the time; this should have been a no brainer. The resurrection must have happened! Regarding the Gospel of Judas? They church probably rejected it, not because they were bent on deceiving, but because it was written about 300 AD!! 300 AD (ha ha ha)! If someone wrote current, or near currrent literature about you, and someone came along 300 hundred years later making different claims, people wouldn't take that seriously. Oh... but give that skeptic a bible and associate him with the Christian church, then there is some kind of conspiracy going on. I don't understand all the fuss.

Prove it.

Josephus never even mentioned him!!!!!!!...........ONE PARAGRAPH was added at a later date, but not in earlier manuscripts.

Tricky church..........control is everything...............

You talk about Christianity.........how about it was really the Gnostic's that were the ones that were persecuted.....possibly?......the church would also edit that also...........the church at that time was very controlling and evil. We all know that, don't we????...It would be ignorant to not think so....It was all about power, land and control.

Originally posted by ushomefree
It's a shame some people put so much stock into Mithra; Mithra never resurrected. Jesus Christ did! Mithra was a legend- a product of one's imagination. You can buy books about the story in the religious "fictional" section at most book stores. Jesus is historical truth, and their is tons of evidence to support that claim, even sources outside of the bible. Nobody cares about Mithra (ha ha ha)! Fact is, the resurrection of Jesus Christ was falsifiable, but nothing of the sort happened. All the Jews and Roman authorities had to do is produce the dead body of Jesus! They had all the power in the world to do so!! That would have been the end of Christianity. Some may say that the body was stolen? Well... if that is true, why did the Jews and Romans make other claims in addition to that theory? It's ironic, not one conspiracy theory ever stated that the tomb "wasn't" empty. Jesus's body was never produced, and then you have countless eyewitness testimony confirming that Jesus was seen alive. The gospels were circulated openly while most of the eyewitnesses were still alive. If they were not true, they would have been disputed, but they were not. How do you explain that? And how do you explain Christianity originating in Jerusalem? How do you explain Christianity consuming the Roman empire? People don't rise from the dead all the time; this should have been a no brainer. The resurrection must have happened! Regarding the Gospel of Judas? They church probably rejected it, not because they were bent on deceiving, but because it was written about 300 AD!! 300 AD (ha ha ha)! If someone wrote current, or near currrent literature about you, and someone came along 300 hundred years later making different claims, people wouldn't take that seriously. Oh... but give that skeptic a bible and associate him with the Christian church, then there is some kind of conspiracy going on. I don't understand all the fuss.

Jesus was not resurrected because he did not die on the cross. Many accounts of people surviving crucifixion can be found in the historical records. Crucifixion was not a form of execution; it was a form of punishment. If the Romans wished you dead, they would cut your stomach open.

Besides, people don't die in 3 hours on the cross..

Debbiejo, Christians didn't have power at the origins of Christianity. Remember? They were the ones being killed! The resurrection, however, did have power. And no one (not even the worst of skeptics) could refute it! Jesus Christ's resurrection birthed the Christian church, not the apostles bent on power. How can you even say that?? The crucifixion was a form of punishment. Your right Shaky! But, you forgot to mention that is was punishment by death; it was death by suffocation. Whether it took 5 minutes or 5 hours for Jesus to pass is irrelevant. Jesus died on the cross, then He was buried. Then He rose from the dead defeating sin. It's a gift for you and I for crying out loud. Jesus is not the enemy.

Oh ushomefree.............let me buy you dinner....eat
lol

Besides, it's only medical and physiology.

Really? Your not going to poison it are you (ha ha ha)!? Take care.

NO, Jesus is not the enemy....It's what the church did to him that is..........I feel Jesus was sent with a message to us...........damn church screws with things for control of us all.........At the time it was for money and control of land and people, today, it's money and control of the masses...........hmmm

Not to get into specifics, but I agree with the latter half of your statement.

This part?

At that time period it was all about control...........they thought "How could we control the people"....Is this nothing new in politics............Shape the people minds and you have control of them.....Set up monasteries everywhere.............have you seen the ancient maps of it?......They set their churches every damn where.....and I mean like you were always watched......Did you know that Ireland was already a follower. but the Roman church stepped in and edged them out, or others moved away, because of the pressure of the Roman Church?.They installed Easter, Christmas, Saints days which were alway to be taken seriousssssssssly.........you were asked ok, lets say tested....................Do you realize that god works in mysterious ways not always known to us, and that religions say that if it is not understood that it is of Satan?....Do you know that hell in OT teachings means only death in the original language?

Originally posted by ushomefree
It's a shame some people put so much stock into Mithra; Mithra never resurrected. Jesus Christ did! Mithra was a legend- a product of one's imagination. You can buy books about the story in the religious "fictional" section at most book stores. Jesus is historical truth, and their is tons of evidence to support that claim, even sources outside of the bible. Nobody cares about Mithra (ha ha ha)! Fact is, the resurrection of Jesus Christ was falsifiable, but nothing of the sort happened. All the Jews and Roman authorities had to do is produce the dead body of Jesus! They had all the power in the world to do so!! That would have been the end of Christianity. Some may say that the body was stolen? Well... if that is true, why did the Jews and Romans make other claims in addition to that theory? It's ironic, not one conspiracy theory ever stated that the tomb "wasn't" empty. Jesus's body was never produced, and then you have countless eyewitness testimony confirming that Jesus was seen alive. The gospels were circulated openly while most of the eyewitnesses were still alive. If they were not true, they would have been disputed, but they were not. How do you explain that? And how do you explain Christianity originating in Jerusalem? How do you explain Christianity consuming the Roman empire? People don't rise from the dead all the time; this should have been a no brainer. The resurrection must have happened! Regarding the Gospel of Judas? They church probably rejected it, not because they were bent on deceiving, but because it was written about 300 AD!! 300 AD (ha ha ha)! If someone wrote current, or near currrent literature about you, and someone came along 300 hundred years later making different claims, people wouldn't take that seriously. Oh... but give that skeptic a bible and associate him with the Christian church, then there is some kind of conspiracy going on. I don't understand all the fuss.

It's funny how you're so quick to put down Mithra, and Mithraism, saying that there's no proof.....When half of what you said was wrong.

Comparisons make one enlightened.

Originally posted by debbiejo
This part?

....Do you know that hell in OT teachings means only death in the original language?


Um is that like what it's like for adults at Chucky Cheese, cuz then I understand you.

Originally posted by debbiejo
Comparisons make one enlightened.

Uhh huh, compare Mithraism and Christianity, and you will have a feeling of De Ja Vu.

Originally posted by Soleran
Um is that like what it's like for adults at Chucky Cheese, cuz then I understand you. I said what I meant...........

Originally posted by Darth Jello
the ROMANS killed jesus, god, i wish someone would punch mel gibson in the face

Um..what? I didn't get that from Mel Gibson's movie, it's in the bible. the people(jews) cheered for Jesus' crucifixion and the freedom of barabas. pontius pilate does send jesus to herod, and herod cant figure out what to do with him, so pilate takes him back and lets the people decide what they want to do with him. the people being jews.

yes, roman guards escorted him and hung him on the cross, but that's a technicality. no roman officer ever ordered it directly, he left the decision to the people.

10 years of forced christianity is a *****.

Originally posted by Arachnoidfreak
Um..what? I didn't get that from Mel Gibson's movie, it's in the bible. the people(jews) cheered for Jesus' crucifixion and the freedom of barabas. pontius pilate does send jesus to herod, and herod cant figure out what to do with him, so pilate takes him back and lets the people decide what they want to do with him. the people being jews.

yes, roman guards escorted him and hung him on the cross, but that's a technicality. no roman officer ever ordered it directly, he left the decision to the people.

10 years of forced christianity is a *****. Well from what I've heard Mel, ()who is btw one of my fav, actor) Didn't take his movie on just scripture, but fom another source... out side the bible..........who knows....Some other outside writer......Keep in mind scripture was all edited for a purpose.....And Jews have been the scape goat for all centuries........What if this story isn't really true...............Shame on so many people for judging those ..........it could or not be true...........My god ....don't listen to Mel, even though I do like him........He's instituted his own church that only speaks Latin..............Strick Roman Catholic.............

Darth Macabre

What was incorrect about my statement?

"It's a shame some people put so much stock into Mithra; Mithra never resurrected. Jesus Christ did! Mithra was a legend- a product of one's imagination. You can buy books about the story in the religious "fictional" section at most book stores. Jesus is historical truth, and their is tons of evidence to support that claim, even sources outside of the bible. Nobody cares about Mithra (ha ha ha)! Fact is, the resurrection of Jesus Christ was falsifiable, but nothing of the sort happened. All the Jews and Roman authorities had to do is produce the dead body of Jesus! They had all the power in the world to do so!! That would have been the end of Christianity. Some may say that the body was stolen? Well... if that is true, why did the Jews and Romans make other claims in addition to that theory? It's ironic, not one conspiracy theory ever stated that the tomb "wasn't" empty. Jesus's body was never produced, and then you have countless eyewitness testimony confirming that Jesus was seen alive. The gospels were circulated openly while most of the eyewitnesses were still alive. If they were not true, they would have been disputed, but they were not. How do you explain that? And how do you explain Christianity originating in Jerusalem? How do you explain Christianity consuming the Roman empire? People don't rise from the dead all the time; this should have been a no brainer. The resurrection must have happened! Regarding the Gospel of Judas? They church probably rejected it, not because they were bent on deceiving, but because it was written about 300 AD!! 300 AD (ha ha ha)! If someone wrote current, or near currrent literature about you, and someone came along 300 hundred years later making different claims, people wouldn't take that seriously. Oh... but give that skeptic a bible and associate him with the Christian church, then there is some kind of conspiracy going on. I don't understand all the fuss."

How you can possibly say that Mithra is a legend, and Jesus Christ (son of God) is historical fact....That is wrong...Anything after that is complete and utter useless ramblings.

How??

Read it.

Originally posted by ushomefree
How??

Don't really understand what you mean by how? But if you mean how I think you mean it, then it's due to the fact you don't know much about Mithra. (It seemed in your posts. Don't know if it's true, just seemed like it. So don't take it as a personal attack on your intelligence.)

Just look at the life Jesus supposedly lived, compared to the "legend of Mithra" as you so eloquently put it....And you'll see the similarities.

Originally posted by Soleran
Um is that like what it's like for adults at Chucky Cheese, cuz then I understand you. Now I get it...........hahahahaha............I hate that place............It's like mental torment........kinda like hell................OH, THAT'S WHERE HELL IS!!!

Originally posted by ushomefree
"It's a shame some people put so much stock into Mithra; Mithra never resurrected. Jesus Christ did!
Thousands of years before Jesus, there was another passion story told about a God man, born of a virgin mother, in a stable. He travels about with his followers, preaching and performing miracles, including turning water into wine. Eventually, he incurs the wrath of the religious authorities, who are appalled that he refers to himself as a god. He allows himself to be arrested and tried for blasphemy. He is found guilty and executed, only to rise from the grave three days later, where the women weeping at his tomb do not recognize him until he assumes his divine form, as the God Dionysus.

So many religions in those times shared similar themes (rebirth, redemption, ...) with that usually the deities became melded together. Early depictions of Jesus show him holding the Lyre of Orpheus, or driving Apollo' s chariot. The Emperor Constantine, who legitimized Christianity in Rome, was a worshipper of Sol Invictus - an amalgamation of solar deities Mithras, Helios, and Apollo - and he recognized Jesus' place in that company almost immediately. Christianity' s oldest known mosaic depicts Jesus as a triumphant Helios, complete with chariot.
Of course, later Christians were terribly perturbed by these similarities to Pagan religions.

Excellent Storm..............excellent!

And at that time period there were people that knew the similarities and complained and were persecuted for speaking about it.

After discovering that people were more reluctant to give up their holidays and festivals than their gods, they simply incorporated pagan practices into Christian festivals.

"The Church did everything it could to stamp out such 'pagan' rites, but had to capitulate and allow the rites to continue with only the name of the local deity changed to some Christian
saint' s name."
- Religious Tradition and Myth. Dr. Edwin Goodenough, Professor of Religion, Harvard University -

If you really look with unbiased eyes, you will find amazing parallels with many ancient traditions. Jesus is merely a "new" version, built from old ideas.

I'm waiting for ushomefree to break out the Diabolical Mimicry argument. Because that would be awsome.

Originally posted by ushomefree
Darth Macabre

What was incorrect about my statement?

"It's a shame some people put so much stock into Mithra; Mithra never resurrected. Jesus Christ did! Mithra was a legend- a product of one's imagination. You can buy books about the story in the religious "fictional" section at most book stores. Jesus is historical truth, and their is tons of evidence to support that claim, even sources outside of the bible. Nobody cares about Mithra (ha ha ha)! Fact is, the resurrection of Jesus Christ was falsifiable, but nothing of the sort happened. All the Jews and Roman authorities had to do is produce the dead body of Jesus! They had all the power in the world to do so!! That would have been the end of Christianity. Some may say that the body was stolen? Well... if that is true, why did the Jews and Romans make other claims in addition to that theory? It's ironic, not one conspiracy theory ever stated that the tomb "wasn't" empty. Jesus's body was never produced, and then you have countless eyewitness testimony confirming that Jesus was seen alive. The gospels were circulated openly while most of the eyewitnesses were still alive. If they were not true, they would have been disputed, but they were not. How do you explain that? And how do you explain Christianity originating in Jerusalem? How do you explain Christianity consuming the Roman empire? People don't rise from the dead all the time; this should have been a no brainer. The resurrection must have happened! Regarding the Gospel of Judas? They church probably rejected it, not because they were bent on deceiving, but because it was written about 300 AD!! 300 AD (ha ha ha)! If someone wrote current, or near currrent literature about you, and someone came along 300 hundred years later making different claims, people wouldn't take that seriously. Oh... but give that skeptic a bible and associate him with the Christian church, then there is some kind of conspiracy going on. I don't understand all the fuss."

Or Jesus didn't die on that cross in the frist place. Funny how all who were crucified are left on their cross to rot, but Jesus was taken down after 12 hours. Then he was laid to rest with herbs and spices(medicine maybe?), and was seen walking around with scars. Hmm...

ALL of the gospels were written at least 100 years after Jesus' death.

Your points are moot.

Originally posted by Arachnoidfreak
Or Jesus didn't die on that cross in the frist place. Funny how all who were crucified are left on their cross to rot, but Jesus was taken down after 12 hours. Then he was laid to rest with herbs and spices(medicine maybe?), and was seen walking around with scars. Hmm...

ALL of the gospels were written at least 100 years after Jesus' death.

Your points are moot.

Just to make sure that Jesus died on the cross, a roman soldier speared him deeply on the right side of his body, where he bled profusely from the flesh wound. So I doubt Jesus survived the crucifixtion because of that.

Originally posted by CosmicSurfer
Just to make sure that Jesus died on the cross, a roman soldier speared him deeply on the right side of his body, where he bled profusely from the flesh wound. So I doubt Jesus survived the crucifixtion because of that.

The gospels were written some 60 to 100 years after Jesus was killed. That would be like one of us writing about the Kennedy assassination with no news media to keep us straight on the facts. If two people who see an accident can't even agree on what happened, how can you expect the writers of the gospels, to get it right?

Yes, kind of how some countries tried to change their history books so they didn't look so bad regarding wars and such.

Originally posted by debbiejo
Yes, kind of how some countries tried to change their history books so they didn't look so bad regarding wars and such.

lol That reminds me of an episode of Family Guy where Stewie and Brian go to Germany, and Brian speaks out saying that there's no information about Germany in 1939-1945.....The guy responds that everyone left to manage a dairy queen.

When Brian says that's proposterous, that Germany invaded Poland, the German responds "Nope, we were invited...Punch was served."


But for the topic.....Very Good post Storm.

Originally posted by Storm
Thousands of years before Jesus, there was another passion story told about a God man, born of a virgin mother, in a stable. He travels about with his followers, preaching and performing miracles, including turning water into wine. Eventually, he incurs the wrath of the religious authorities, who are appalled that he refers to himself as a god. He allows himself to be arrested and tried for blasphemy. He is found guilty and executed, only to rise from the grave three days later, where the women weeping at his tomb do not recognize him until he assumes his divine form, as the God Dionysus.

So many religions in those times shared similar themes (rebirth, redemption, ...) with that usually the deities became melded together. Early depictions of Jesus show him holding the Lyre of Orpheus, or driving Apollo' s chariot. The Emperor Constantine, who legitimized Christianity in Rome, was a worshipper of Sol Invictus - an amalgamation of solar deities Mithras, Helios, and Apollo - and he recognized Jesus' place in that company almost immediately. Christianity' s oldest known mosaic depicts Jesus as a triumphant Helios, complete with chariot.
Of course, later Christians were terribly perturbed by these similarities to Pagan religions.

So basically religion is survival of the fittest, and Christianity is the lion...

Originally posted by Darth Macabre
lol That reminds me of an episode of Family Guy where Stewie and Brian go to Germany, and Brian speaks out saying that there's no information about Germany in 1939-1945.....The guy responds that everyone left to manage a dairy queen.

When Brian says that's proposterous, that Germany invaded Poland, the German responds "Nope, we were invited...Punch was served."


But for the topic.....Very Good post Storm.

let's put it this way, if Osama Bin Laden or Saddam Hussein wrote about themselves, do you all think they'll portray themselves as pure evil men? I don't think so.

I think the Gospel of Judas is full of crap. It doesn't prove a damn thing that's why it was thrown out. It was written in the third century after christ.

Take a look at the Gospel of Thomas. According to this gospel, only men are allowed to go to heaven(sorry, ladies). This should deeply offend the female posters around here such as Debbiejo and lilbitchieness. That's why this gospel was deemed heretical as well.

I'm started to believe that most gnostic writings weren't really that inspiring and they sure as hell were questionable.

cry

Well actually in many gnostic writings it says that a woman must become a man. Now to me it could be taken as like the "Yin/Yang, or have some deeper meaning as being a "Total Person"...but yes, some of the Gnostic's are hard to understand. Maybe meant with a deeper meaning and more metaphorical...

Originally posted by debbiejo
Maybe meant with a deeper meaning and more metaphorical...

as is (allegedly) the entire bible. except, you know, for the parts that christians decide are literal. *ahemcreationcough*

Originally posted by debbiejo
Well actually in many gnostic writings it says that a woman must become a man. Now to me it could be taken as like the "Yin/Yang, or have some deeper meaning as being a "Total Person"...but yes, some of the Gnostic's are hard to understand. Maybe meant with a deeper meaning and more metaphorical...

Indeed, the Gospel of Thomas continues with, "For every woman who makes herself male will enter into the kingdom of heaven." But of a selective reading to get from "every woman (who does a specific thing) will enter the Kingdom of Heaven" to "women aren't allowed in heaven," don't you think, CosmicSurfer?

The Gospel of Thomas seems to me to treat women better then the Pastoral Epistles, anyway.

Originally posted by Gregory

The Gospel of Thomas seems to me to treat women better then the Pastoral Epistles, anyway. Yeah, where Paul teaches that women shouldn't teach, or be allowed to speak in some churches. At one time women had to sit apart from the men in a church. On the other side and be silent.

Originally posted by Gregory
Indeed, the Gospel of Thomas continues with, "For every woman who makes herself male will enter into the kingdom of heaven." But of a selective reading to get from "every woman (who does a specific thing) will enter the Kingdom of Heaven" to "women aren't allowed in heaven," don't you think, CosmicSurfer?

The Gospel of Thomas seems to me to treat women better then the Pastoral Epistles, anyway.

You got it all wrong.

The passsage you just presented, "For every woman who makes herself male will enter into the kingdom of heaven", clearly means that women in general are unworthy of spiritual teachings. It states that women who transform themselves as men become worthy of spiritual teachings. Highly sexist if you ask me. I don't understand how you came up with a different interpretation from this passage.

Here's another passage that proves my point:

Simon Peter said to them, "Make Mary leave us, for females don't deserve life." Jesus said, "Look, I will guide her to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every female who makes herself male will enter the kingdom of Heaven."

It's pretty self-explanatory, isn't it? Even you can't debate this. This gospel is full of allegations of sexism.

Sorry Debbiejo, you should just disregard this gospel. I think it's just as bad, if not worse than Paul's epistles.

But ... you didn't claim that the Gospel was sexist. You claimed that it said women couldn't enter Heaven. Which isn't true. Stop making false statements and then pretending you said something else when you're called on it.

........OH, I've never made a stance on this gospel of Judas.......I think it's interesting though....just as the gnostics are interesting though more metaphorical....and I hate Paul.....everyone knows that....hahahahaha......Jesus is ok though...........IT'S THE CHURCH, THE CHURCH, THE CHURCH that is evil..........

I don't think Paul's that bad, when you remember that he didn't write the Pastoral Epistles, and that the stuff about how women must remain silent in church was almost certainly a later addition (since earlyier in the letter, he talked about how women should dress when they prophesy ... outloud).

Originally posted by Gregory
But ... you didn't claim that the Gospel was sexist. You claimed that it said women couldn't enter Heaven. Which isn't true. Stop making false statements and then pretending you said something else when you're called on it.

You knew exactly what I meant. Don't kid yourself. It was obvious that it was sexist when I first said that women aren't allowed to go to heaven according to the Gospel of Thomas. I don't need to say it the first time. But you thought otherwise.

It's unfortunate that the early Roman Catholic church did so much editing of the scriptures...

Originally posted by debbiejo
........OH, I've never made a stance on this gospel of Judas.......I think it's interesting though....just as the gnostics are interesting though more metaphorical....and I hate Paul.....everyone knows that....hahahahaha......Jesus is ok though...........IT'S THE CHURCH, THE CHURCH, THE CHURCH that is evil..........


I was talking aboout the gospel of Thomas, but yeah, the gospel of Judas should also be disregarded as well.

Originally posted by CosmicSurfer
when I first said that women aren't allowed to go to heaven according to the Gospel of Thomas *unless* they become men.

You did not say this.

Originally posted by Gregory
You did not say this.

I edited my post above. Read that.

Okay. But you can't pretend that the Gospel of Thomas' take on women isn't a little more complicated then "females need to make themselved like males." For example,

"and when you make male and female into a single one, so that the male will not be male nor the female be female ... then you will enter ."

Actually, I think those are the only references to women in the Gospel, other then a comment about not having children. I don't know how one would reconcile them, and I believe that saying 114 is often thought to be a later addition, although I don't know on what evidence.

Originally posted by Gregory
Okay. But you can't pretend that the Gospel of Thomas' take on women isn't a little more complicated then "females need to make themselved like males." For example,

"and when you make male and female into a single one, so that the male will not be male nor the female be female ... then you will enter ."

Actually, I think those are the only references to women in the Gospel, other then a comment about not having children. I don't know how one would reconcile them, and I believe that saying 114 is often thought to be a later addition, although I don't know on what evidence.

Do you agree with me that the gospel of Thomas is obviously sexist? That's what I'm trying to tell you. That's the point I'm trying to get across.

I mean, c'mon, how could anyone dispute this? It's not the least bit complicated to understand at all. There is no hidden metamorphical meanings and what not. It's self-explanatory as far as gospels go.

Originally posted by CosmicSurfer
Do you agree with me that the gospel of Thomas is obviously sexist? That's what I'm trying to tell you. That's the point I'm trying to get across.

I mean, c'mon, how could anyone dispute this? It's not the least bit complicated to understand at all. There is no hidden metamorphical meanings and what not. It's self-explanatory as far as gospels go.

This is ironic. Gospels that attempt to bring a light and revelation; truth to ALL people, isn't accepted. But show them something sexist, and everyone agrees with it...

Sexist? I'd say so, yes. You probably won't find many completely non-sexist documents written in that area of the world 2000 years ago. All of Gnosticism has sort of sexist undertones--a perfect universe until the foolish woman (Sophia, Wisdom), went and screwed every thing up.

For what it's worth, it's less sexist than Plato, who thought women literally had to die and be reincarnated as men before they had a chance to enter Paradise.

But what's your point? You're surly not suggesting that sexist material can't be inspired, unless you're a very unorthodox Christian (since it would mean getting rid of several books from the NT).

Originally posted by Gregory
Sexist? I'd say so, yes. You probably won't find many completely non-sexist documents written in that area of the world 2000 years ago. All of Gnosticism has sort of sexist undertones--a perfect universe until the foolish woman (Sophia, Wisdom), went and screwed every thing up.

For what it's worth, it's less sexist than Plato, who thought women literally had to die and be reincarnated as men before they had a chance to enter Paradise.

But what's your point? You're surly not suggesting that sexist material can't be inspired, unless you're a very unorthodox Christian (since it would mean getting rid of several books from the NT).


To whom was that directed?

CosmicSurfer; you posted while I was composing it.

Originally posted by Gregory
CosmicSurfer; you posted while I was composing it.

Righto euro

Originally posted by Gregory
Sexist? I'd say so, yes. You probably won't find many completely non-sexist documents written in that area of the world 2000 years ago. All of Gnosticism has sort of sexist undertones--a perfect universe until the foolish woman (Sophia, Wisdom), went and screwed every thing up.

For what it's worth, it's less sexist than Plato, who thought women literally had to die and be reincarnated as men before they had a chance to enter Paradise.

But what's your point? You're surly not suggesting that sexist material can't be inspired, unless you're a very unorthodox Christian (since it would mean getting rid of several books from the NT).

Funny, I have unorthodox views of christianity. I really could careless if women became priests, or should I say priestess for that matter. It doesn't bother me at all. And no, I don't take the bible word for word as the gospel truth.

In other words, I'm not a fundamentalist. I was born as a Roman Catholic, but as I grew older, I started to look outside of my faith. I try to go back to the very roots of it all. But truthfully, I don't follow any organized religion. I'm really an agnostic at heart.

^^ Looking outside your faith and questioning things is the beginning of wisdom....Hmmm Sofia comes to mind....lol. I did the same.

Originally posted by debbiejo
^^ Looking outside your faith and questioning things is the beginning of wisdom....Hmmm Sofia comes to mind....lol. I did the same.

I hope you still do.

Funny though many churches in the first few chapters of Proverbs about wisdom being a she, and it is also taught in some churches that this was Jesus.....Always sounded confusing to me....Jesus having female attributes, but then again if you look at the Gnostic's and sofia being wisdom.....some of the proverbs could be gnostic....

That statement forced me to remember the line in National Treasures: And that'll lead to more clues, and more clues, and more clues.....strange

heh, the onion is great. its about the third one down from the top...

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/47374

i find it interesting that in each chronologically subsequent evangelical gospel, judas is depicted as more and more . . . evil. it's like the preceding gospel had an effect on the one that followed. that, or, ideas about judas changed somehow in the times between the writing of the 4 gospels.

in any event, this gospel of judas has raised some interesting issues.

Yeah.....!!!! Everything we've ever known from the bible is a lie...

Originally posted by debbiejo
Yeah.....!!!! Everything we've ever known from the bible is a lie...

A well crafted lie.

I agree, but the reason Judas is interesting is because it a different account. I haven't read it, but what I gleaned form CNN made its seem, in my opinion, that Jesus was simply a crazy fanatic that asked Judas to help him become a martyr.

I think thats refreshing.

Originally posted by Alliance
I agree, but the reason Judas is interesting is because it a different account. I haven't read it, but what I gleaned form CNN made its seem, in my opinion, that Jesus was simply a crazy fanatic that asked Judas to help him become a martyr.

I think thats refreshing.

It is probably closer to the truth. The 4 gospels in the bible have been edited and manipulated to give the church power.

True.

But I find the ultimate question to be, who wrote them. While htis is not a pertentant to M,M,L, and J (because of the editing). With Judas it is moreso.

Originally posted by Alliance
True.

But I find the ultimate question to be, who wrote them. While htis is not a pertentant to M,M,L, and J (because of the editing). With Judas it is moreso.

Mathew, Mark, Luke or John did not write any of the books. They were written some 60 to 100 years later by unknown writers. There is evidence that they were compiled from other books that are now missing. I bet they are all in the Vatican, hidden away.

You mean Q? Gosh yes, because two thousand-year-old books never just fade into obscurity; must be a Vatican conspiracy...

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Mathew, Mark, Luke or John did not write any of the books. They were written some 60 to 100 years later by unknown writers. There is evidence that they were compiled from other books that are now missing. I bet they are all in the Vatican, hidden away.

Oh yes I know, I was referring to the fact that we know that they have been altered so many times, knowing who originally wrote them is rather irrelevant now.

You ever wonder what the vatican has in its vaults?

I know!!! Nothing, otherwise they would open it up to support their view....

http://www.nobeliefs.com/DarkBible/darkbible2.htm

I don't know what the Vatican has in it's vaults, but if they really had documents that they didn't ever want to be revealed, there would be a much more logical solution than locking them up forever. The precise nature of this solution is top secret, so I can say only that it involves a match.

That's how they handled it in the first few centuries, anyway.

Very logical, but I get the feeling that they save it anyway. They seem very klepto.

Originally posted by debbiejo
Funny though many churches in the first few chapters of Proverbs about wisdom being a she, and it is also taught in some churches that this was Jesus.....Always sounded confusing to me....Jesus having female attributes, but then again if you look at the Gnostic's and sofia being wisdom.....some of the proverbs could be gnostic....

* inanimate objects are always identified with female pronouns... the Mother Nature, our countries, they are identified with female pronouns...

* Christ is the wisdom of God...

Originally posted by peejayd
* inanimate objects are always identified with female pronouns... the Mother Nature, our countries, they are identified with female pronouns...

I don't think thats true. There are rules, some things are femenine, some masculine. I don't remember the rules off-hand.

* nope...

3. Abstract Nouns

Abstract nouns are similar to inanimate objects in two ways. Firstly, as I
pointed out in the previous chapter, when some inanimate objects are
personified, it is the gender of the corresponding Latin word that
determines the pronoun used in English. That is also the case with most
abstract nouns. Secondly, the feminine pronoun she is more often used than
the masculine pronoun he.

The pronoun she is used when referring to abstract ideas such as
Nature, Fortune, Wisdom, Science, Liberty, Mercy and Peace. Zandvoort
points out that some of the abstract nouns referred to as she suggest
"ideas of gentleness" (1957: 132). As an example, he gives the nouns mercy
and peace.

The pronoun he is often used when referring to, for example, Love, Time,
Death and War (Zandvoort, 1957: 131). This is where we can find the nouns
that do not conform to the rule that Latin gender decides the pronoun used
in English, since both Death and War are feminine in Latin. Zandvoort
explains these exceptions by suggesting that death and war are "thought of
as something strong and terrible" (1957: 132) while the feminine abstract
nouns suggests, as I quoted above, "ideas of gentleness".

* an excerpt from http://www.uta.fi/~johanna.uusikartano/grammar.txt

* funny how you switched the subject just to defend yourself... i thought we are talking about the "WISDOM" in the book of Proverbs being depicted by a feminine pronoun? we are NOT talking about God... we are talking about "WISDOM"...

gospel of judas...

heh, might as well say "the gospel of some guys who dont like christians."

Originally posted by peejayd
* funny how you switched the subject just to defend yourself... i thought we are talking about the "WISDOM" in the book of Proverbs being depicted by a feminine pronoun? we are NOT talking about God... we are talking about "WISDOM"... I did not......I just look outside the bible which is a sign of Wisdom.....

Learn your history!

its good to look outside the bible, then you dont seem to be so dogmatically opinionated. but youll just end up in the same place you started, you might as well just read the NT for the real facts.

Originally posted by .pace Opera:.
its good to look outside the bible, then you dont seem to be so dogmatically opinionated. but youll just end up in the same place you started, you might as well just read the NT for the real facts.

How can you be so sure?

Originally posted by debbiejo
I did not......I just look outside the bible which is a sign of Wisdom.....

Learn your history!

* if you didn't, it's irrelevant to quote my post...

* learn to quote...

I am currently in process of getting hold of the book with the Gospel of Judas.

I read just a begining of it and it seems interesting. However there are places where there are up to 9 or more lines missing. In all the important places, ironically.

Originally posted by .pace Opera:.
its good to look outside the bible, then you dont seem to be so dogmatically opinionated. but youll just end up in the same place you started, you might as well just read the NT for the real facts.


Religion has Facts ?