Gospel of Judas???

I have not read or heard much about it beyond a commercial or a headline here and there. Tell us what you know.

 

here are a couple of questions I have about this "gospel", do you have any ideas
1. do we know whether or not it was really written by Judas?
2.What are the claims included in it that specifically contradict scripture?
3.How is it being received, is it influential?
4.What are the best ways we can respond to the objections it presents to our faith?

 

5. How can we get an english translation of it...

 

I think it is too early to answer 2-4 until someone comes out with a translation.

As for 1, it is to laugh! How could a dead Judas (which we know from the NT Gospels, always true) write anything? Unless someone can somehow prove that Judas, unlike the typical Baptist in the pew, took notes the whole time he was with Jesus, then wrote it all up before Christ died, and did not include the death of Christ in his gospel (because he died before Christ), then there is no way Judas wrote this.

 

When I googled "Gospel of Judas" this link returned:

Gospel of Judas chaps 1-4

There is a link at the bottom of the page for chapters 5-10.

One thing we must keep in mind is that Jesus Christ would never tempt anyone to sin.

 

</font>[/QUOTE]Keith, I can't get your link to work.

 

Here is a very recent report.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002916272_judas07.html

 

Anything can happen in the modern world of higher textual criticism. Then there is the Book of Mormon. God does not author confusion.

Selah,

Bro. James

 

Actually, Bro. James, not to be critical , but the so-called "Gospel of Judas" has nothing to do with textual criticism. And textual criticism is called "lower criticism," not "higher criticism." Higher criticism involves attacking the content of the text (for example, "Did Luke actually write the book of Luke?"), and lower criticism, or textual criticism, involves investigating the form of the text itself (for example, "Was the word "the" before 'Jesus' in that verse in the original manuscripts?).

 

try this: http://www.graveworm.com/occult/texts/judas1.html
http://www.graveworm.com/occult/texts/judas1.html

</font>[/QUOTE]Keith, I can't get your link to work. </font>[/QUOTE]

 

Thanks for the help, Richard.

I'm not sure what this is, but it sure doesn't look like the "Gospel of Judas" in the news now. And it is not the usual suspect for the "Gospel of Thomas," which you can find at: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/thomas.html

Thomas is sometimes called "Thomas Judas Didymus," as can be seen in the link I just gave, but this is a late name for him, and not used in the early church fathers (the Apostolic Fathers)--maybe even a Gnostic name for him.

 

Once again, some rarely let facts slow them down.

 

I think it is too early to answer 2-4 until someone comes out with a translation.

As for 1, it is to laugh! How could a dead Judas (which we know from the NT Gospels, always true) write anything? Unless someone can somehow prove that Judas, unlike the typical Baptist in the pew, took notes the whole time he was with Jesus, then wrote it all up before Christ died, and did not include the death of Christ in his gospel (because he died before Christ), then there is no way Judas wrote this. </font>[/QUOTE]This is the first thing I thought...how could Judas who betrayed Jesus and immediately went out and hanged himself after returning the silver even know what was going to happen to Jesus? Ths "gospel" of Judas is no different than the "gospel" of Phillip, etc. Books written hundreds of years after the death of Christ with an apostle's name thrown in for good measure, and to "authenticate" it as "gospel". This is the same false information that resulted in the Q'ran...writings hundreds of years after the death of Mohammed on what Mohammed said.

 

1. How can anyone who knows anything about the Bible even think there is such a thing that is authentic?

2. How dare anyonwe associate the Gospel with the author of anything as the Gospel by the son of perdition?

3. Hasn't anyone else in this world noticed the applause to the heretic writings being introduced by this ecumeniacl world?

4. The ecumenicalists are having their parody on the televison in a couple of days all about it.

5. Anything from the perspective of one totally consumed with the love of money isn't worth reading.

6. Don't you believe the Bible?

 

It's a shame to see it all. The humanist liberals lap this stuff up. Never mind it's obviously not an authoritative document. Never mind that Irenaeus stated that 1800 years ago. It is something that challenges Christianity and therefore it is to be extolled as a major find. The liberals have decided that they donot believe the Bible - and they're quick to jump on any bogus document to say "I told you so."

 

The History/NationalGeo channels have both been running programs lately questioning scripture, complete with "professors" of "theology".

It appears to be some sort of cooperative effort to discredit scripture, expecially among the "simple minded" secular.