The Gospel according to Judas?

[lemondiesel]

I would like to discuss its message rather than its authenticity

Now, in 180 AD it was banned heresy by the church.

Why? Because it has one critical difference than the other Gospels.

According to the Gospel of Judas, Jesus asked Judas to turn him in. This would flip our entire view of Judas, from a betrayer of Jesus, to a fulfillment of his requests.

This would also mean that the serpent in the garden was actually Good temptation.

I would like to get thoughts about the message, because this gospel was actually found with the credited author of Judas, where the other Gospels are not given names until later.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

I would like to discuss its message rather than its authenticity

Now, in 180 AD it was banned heresy by the church.

Why? Because it has one critical difference than the other Gospels.

According to the Gospel of Judas, Jesus asked Judas to turn him in. This would flip our entire view of Judas, from a betrayer of Jesus, to a fulfillment of his requests.

This would also mean that the serpent in the garden was actually Good temptation.

I would like to get thoughts about the message, because this gospel was actually found with the credited author of Judas, where the other Gospels are not given names until later.

The problem is, you want to dismiss the authenticity issue out of hand. That isn’t kosher.

And the so-called gospel does not have ‘one critical difference’ for which it was declared heresy. It has quite a few diferences (including that it never ever mentions the crucifixion and resurrection!).

Why would you want ‘thoughts’ on a message which totally contradicts Christian teaching? The message is gnostic–that Jesus needed to be ‘released from his body’ (typical gnostic "flesh is evil, spirit is good’ trash), that Judas got the 'secret knowledge (another gnostic ploy). That the ends of salvation were justified by the means (Judas’s betrayal).

It was humbug when St. Ireneus condemned it through the guidance of the Holy Spirit. . .and it’s still humbug.

 

[Eloi]

It was necessary to separate the book from Apostolic Tradition, or else it would have nothing to stand on; hence Jesus’ explanation of the vision of the fornicating priests where He says “The cattle you have seen brought for sacrifice are the many people you lead astray.”

It is certainly very gnostic in tone, giving Jesus no human faculties beyond laughter, and this always condescending. The “secret knowledge” aspects are also intrinsic to the book: "[Judas] You will become the thirteenth, and you will be cursed by the other generations—and you will come to rule over them. In the last days they will
curse your ascent [47] to the holy [generation].”

The book is quite incomplete, so it is hard to follow the thought-line precisely, but it is clear that the book consciously went contrary to the Apostolic Tradition.

 

[Pieman333272]

Well Lemondiesel, as an earlier poster mentioned, there are more in it than that one point which contradict the 4 Canon Gospels (Matt, Mark, Luke, John, I presume you meant). It also rejects the resurrection and possibly the crucifixion, it’s been a while since I researched it. What I find most interesting is that it contradicts the other gnostic Gospels and teachings too! For example, a common gnostic view on Jesus was that he was an illusion - because matter is evil, and he is perfect, his existence on earth was an immaterial illusion, not “word made flesh” as we see in John. But if he was a spiritual illusion (remember I’m a little rusty on the topic), why on earth would he need to die to be freed? If he was never flesh according to gnosticism, he could beam himself away, back to that Abraxas or Demiurge guy, anytime he wanted!

Ah, but of course, these are just some contradictions I notice off the top of my head. A thorough isolation and study, from the Christian POV, of this book is done by N.T. Wright in Judas and the Gospel of Jesus, if you want to see more contemporary Christian studies on this. Just some recommended reading.

 

[lemondiesel]

There are what, around 30 Gospels actually recovered or known? All I want to discuss is Judas’ role.

As you go from the first Gospel through the last in the four of the Bible, Judas is gradually illustrated worse and worse. I understand this to be because he betrayed Christ, but we never really hear or know much about him.

 

[Pieman333272]

There are what, around 30 Gospels actually recovered or known? All I want to discuss is Judas’ role.

As you go from the first Gospel through the last in the four of the Bible, Judas is gradually illustrated worse and worse. I understand this to be because he betrayed Christ, but we never really hear or know much about him.

We see, if we take the 4 canon Gospels as sources on him, that he seemed not to really be in it for the love or to get saved but for the money. He is made the treasurer and uses his status with Jesus to get $$$. If Jesus did, in fact, ask him to crucify him, or give him secret knowledge (which is oddly different from Thomas’ secret knowledge and Philip’s secret knowledge and Mary’s secret knowledge), then the Gospels which depict him otherwise probably have a slant. You do have a point that he is a more obscure apostle, but I think we can see a bit of his greed and other views by reading between the lines.

 

[lemondiesel]

(which is oddly different from Thomas’ secret knowledge and Philip’s secret knowledge and Mary’s secret knowledge)

If you interpret the Gospel of Judas as I do then you would understand why it makes sense. It is another thread topic, but I can show parallels to Jesus’ messages and the message of Buddha.

What does this have to do with the Gospel of Judas you are probably asking yourself.

Well, the moment Siddhartha become enlightened was when he realized the gift of grace. He realized that we cannot do it on our own, and that nirvana is always present. It is desire that brings nirvana (true reality) to what we know, otherwise known as the unreality.

If the Gospel of Judas is somehow accurate, we can then see the parallel. Jesus has Judas use this gift of grace, because Jesus alone can not spread his message. It shows that Jesus knew true happiness can not exist, without some despair. We must be reminded once and awhile how good we all have it.

I have meditated on this subject, and I have come to several indications.

1. Jesus and Buddha came to the exact same conclusions on what causes suffering in the World
2. This conclusion also describes a time before the Fall of Man.
3. The garden of Eden symbolizes that women give into temptations of desire, while men give into the temptations of their loved ones.
4. Judas could have been the only one that Jesus knew would fulfill his request
5. The request was allowing Jesus’ message to remain forever, allowing all of us to look back and remember; basing our lives of him.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

If you interpret the Gospel of Judas as I do then you would understand why it makes sense. It is another thread topic, but I can show parallels to Jesus’ messages and the message of Buddha.

What does this have to do with the Gospel of Judas you are probably asking yourself.

Well, the moment Siddhartha become enlightened was when he realized the gift of grace. He realized that we cannot do it on our own, and that nirvana is always present. It is desire that brings nirvana (true reality) to what we know, otherwise known as the unreality.

If the Gospel of Judas is somehow accurate, we can then see the parallel. Jesus has Judas use this gift of grace, because Jesus alone can not spread his message. It shows that Jesus knew true happiness can not exist, without some despair. We must be reminded once and awhile how good we all have it.

I have meditated on this subject, and I have come to several indications.

1. Jesus and Buddha came to the exact same conclusions on what causes suffering in the World
2. This conclusion also describes a time before the Fall of Man.
3. The garden of Eden symbolizes that women give into temptations of desire, while men give into the temptations of their loved ones.
4. Judas could have been the only one that Jesus knew would fulfill his request
5. The request was allowing Jesus’ message to remain forever, allowing all of us to look back and remember; basing our lives of him.

Ummm. … . epic fail.

First: Jesus and Buddha did not come to the ‘same’ conclusion (exact same is a redundancy. Same means exact).
Second: Since you’re already wrong in your conclusions on Christ’s conclusions, the fact that suffering did not exist prior to “the Fall” is moot.
Third: Pure and simple assumption. So, no women give into the temptations of their loved ones, eh? And men don’t give into temptations of desire?
Fourth: Well, at least you say, “could”. . .of course, since this is all speculation again it doesn’t mean a thing. Gee, The Grinch COULD have dumped all the Whos’ toys from the top of Mt. Crumpet but. . .he didn’t. The speculation about the Grinch is actually MORE verifiable than your assumptions about Judas, because we SAW what Dr. Seuss had the Grinch do (and we had Dr. Seuss among us and could ask him questions too) whereas you’re going on an incomplete parchment from centuries ago that wasn’t even accepted by people who were a LOT closer to the ORIGINAL message and would have KNOWN if this had been authentic teaching, being close to original sources etc.
Fifth: Oh, so somehow we are supposed to work for Nirvana by considering remembering Jesus? When Buddha had been around for 500 years before already? At least the Buddhists have been CONSISTENT in their teachings. But by your logic --Christians, OTOH, haven’t taught YOUR ‘assumptions’. So if the idea was that Jesus was gonna REINFORCE BUDDHA, it DIDN’T WORK. Even with the super Judas helping!!

Above all, and with respect, why SHOULD we interpret the gospel “as you do?” What gives YOU the authority to make the CORRECT interpretation?

 

[Pieman333272]

If you interpret the Gospel of Judas as I do then you would understand why it makes sense. It is another thread topic, but I can show parallels to Jesus’ messages and the message of Buddha.

What does this have to do with the Gospel of Judas you are probably asking yourself.

Well, the moment Siddhartha become enlightened was when he realized the gift of grace. He realized that we cannot do it on our own, and that nirvana is always present. It is desire that brings nirvana (true reality) to what we know, otherwise known as the unreality.

If the Gospel of Judas is somehow accurate, we can then see the parallel. Jesus has Judas use this gift of grace, because Jesus alone can not spread his message. It shows that Jesus knew true happiness can not exist, without some despair. We must be reminded once and awhile how good we all have it.

I have meditated on this subject, and I have come to several indications.

1. Jesus and Buddha came to the exact same conclusions on what causes suffering in the World
2. This conclusion also describes a time before the Fall of Man.
3. The garden of Eden symbolizes that women give into temptations of desire, while men give into the temptations of their loved ones.
4. Judas could have been the only one that Jesus knew would fulfill his request
5. The request was allowing Jesus’ message to remain forever, allowing all of us to look back and remember; basing our lives of him.

Interesting conclusions you draw. I was never surprised or fazed by the parallels between Jesus and Buddha in teaching. I mean, think about it. Maybe God, should you be like me and attribute morality and wisdom to him, chose to offer other societies the wisdom without the divinity of Jesus. Maybe not.

I do disagree Jesus needed to be “betrayed” (the quotes present due to the hypothesis TGOJ offers) and have an epic death for his teachings to be remembered. Possibly his divinity as we know it, but not his teaching. Remember, Muhammad didn’t die epically, and we still have his teachings, and Lao Tzu and Kong Fu Zi only survived in highly obscure writings by them for a few decades/centuries.

You may be interested in Gnosticism. I enjoy reading about it, though I disagree with it (the modern is based on the ancient and IMO the ancient was destroyed by the Church Fathers, intellectually), and you can find a lot of stuff online about it at gnosis.org.

 

[lemondiesel]

First: Jesus and Buddha did not come to the ‘same’ conclusion (exact same is a redundancy. Same means exact).

To explain this, we must take out the afterlife and the Kingdom of Heaven messages that Jesus teach us. These, yes I agree, are not something Buddha teaches. However, Buddha does not acknowledge an afterlife or creation because it is irrelevant to the Buddha. Life is about the Now, not about the past or future.

Why must we take out the God aspect of Jesus? Here is something I typed into another thread.

“I view the human side of Jesus to resemble ways of how to live in society. His God aspect is how we can live in society and pass away with true happiness, knowing we were friends to all. Both of these are expressed simultaneously in Jesus’ teachings. This is the “perfect ideal” I wish to achieve. The term “God” to me is nothing more than our rational conscious, but sometimes we need to be reminded of how to use it properly.”

Now, when we look at the human aspect of Jesus we will find many similarities to Buddha’s conclusions.

1. Love comes with pain and suffering, which both make up desire. We must guide desire in the right direction in order to live True Happiness.
2. Yet before Desire (love and suffering) we must first have Compassion. We can see this throughout Jesus’ parables.
3. Yet Compassion needs something prior. Grace is the key, because everyone cannot do it on their own.

Second: Since you’re already wrong in your conclusions on Christ’s conclusions, the fact that suffering did not exist prior to “the Fall” is moot.

Please look at the above and pin point exact problems. I will gladly continue to explain further. Suffering existed when Man was given Woman, to love, and to become one entity with.

Third: Pure and simple assumption. So, no women give into the temptations of their loved ones, eh? And men don’t give into temptations of desire?

This is just the interpretation I get from reading, I never said I agreed with it. Remember, this is during a time when women are viewed as property in the household.

whereas you’re going on an incomplete parchment from centuries ago that wasn’t even accepted by people who were a LOT closer to the ORIGINAL message and would have KNOWN if this had been authentic teaching, being close to original sources etc.

Fair enough, as I sense some hostility with my simple questions. Had this Gospel been true, your set of beliefs would be far different today.

Fifth: Oh, so somehow we are supposed to work for Nirvana by considering remembering Jesus? When Buddha had been around for 500 years before already? At least the Buddhists have been CONSISTENT in their teachings. But by your logic --Christians, OTOH, haven’t taught YOUR ‘assumptions’. So if the idea was that Jesus was gonna REINFORCE BUDDHA, it DIDN’T WORK. Even with the super Judas helping!!

No, no one can teach you Nirvana. The main point Nirvana shows us is that you must lose everything, in order to gain everything. Nirvana asks for constant dedication, which Jesus also asks when he says “I am the Way, The Truth, and the Light.” We must live like Jesus for True Happiness.

Nirvana can be paralleled to the “City of Heaven” in Saint Augustine’s writings. Both are already present, but are a state that must be worked for. If we choose to do evil, then this State becomes “Hell” and moves away from Nirvana or the City of Heaven.

I said we must remember Jesus because in order to be enlightened we must know that it is obtainable. When an individual is on his quest for enlightenment, he will go through the worst suffering and pain of his life. We look back on lives, like Jesus, which allow us to continue on. The reward is too great to quit.

No, the purpose was to show that there are links within religions. Have you ever asked why, for example, so many religions have a Great Flood story? or a Fall of Man story? Many conclusions have been similarly achieved.

Above all, and with respect, why SHOULD we interpret the gospel “as you do?” What gives YOU the authority to make the CORRECT interpretation?

I ask the same question to the Pope. Why must I interpret the gospel from a position started by Saint Peter, who denied Christ three times?

 

[lemondiesel]

Interesting conclusions you draw. I was never surprised or fazed by the parallels between Jesus and Buddha in teaching. I mean, think about it. Maybe God, should you be like me and attribute morality and wisdom to him, chose to offer other societies the wisdom without the divinity of Jesus. Maybe not.

Yes, but we must also take in geological locations when discussing the parallels. Buddha, was in a much more secluded location. His enlightenment is based on the present Now, and the quality of the moment. Jesus, in the Mediterranean World, was influenced by already existing religions that had afterlife beliefs, Creator, and a battle of Good and Evil.

I do disagree Jesus needed to be “betrayed” (the quotes present due to the hypothesis TGOJ offers) and have an epic death for his teachings to be remembered. Possibly his divinity as we know it, but not his teaching. Remember, Muhammad didn’t die epically, and we still have his teachings, and Lao Tzu and Kong Fu Zi only survived in highly obscure writings by them for a few decades/centuries.

Would your view of Jesus change knowing that He had himself condemned? Would you as any Apostle, fulfill his request if he asked you?

You may be interested in Gnosticism. I enjoy reading about it, though I disagree with it (the modern is based on the ancient and IMO the ancient was destroyed by the Church Fathers, intellectually), and you can find a lot of stuff online about it at gnosis.org.

I am actually an Initiate to the Mysteries, which contains many Buddhist’s teachings, yet existed long before Buddha, at the time of the Great Pyramids and the Great Sphinx, at 4000 BCE.

 

[Pieman333272]

Yes, but we must also take in geological locations when discussing the parallels. Buddha, was in a much more secluded location. His enlightenment is based on the present Now, and the quality of the moment. Jesus, in the Mediterranean World, was influenced by already existing religions that had afterlife beliefs, Creator, and a battle of Good and Evil.

I agree, we should take in cultural context when investigating a teacher. But from this, you seem to believe that Jesus’ teachings, actions, and claims are all easy to uproot from the second-temple Jewish world and to apply to a Universal truth of some type, which he shares with Buddha (amongst others). That, I disagree with. His teachings could possibly point to some Universal Truth, but he also deeply-rooted them in his Jewish beliefs and made claims and did works consistent with the Old Testament and views at the time, too much so to be easily uprooted.

Would your view of Jesus change knowing that He had himself condemned? Would you as any Apostle, fulfill his request if he asked you?

No, my view wouldn’t. As far as I’m concerned, he did have himself condemned. He knew it was coming, he had multiple opportunities to escape, but he didn’t. The question at hand is whether Judas did this on his request, with the gnosis, or not. If he asked me to “betray” him, it would depend on the circumstances before I did it.

I am actually an Initiate to the Mysteries, which contains many Buddhist’s teachings, yet existed long before Buddha, at the time of the Great Pyramids and the Great Sphinx, at 4000 BCE.

Well, nice to know you’re interested. Have a good night.

 

[rivera01]

Lemondiesel, I am curious, are yout trying to find a way to debunk Christianity all together, with gnostic gospel? It seems that we are not going to be able to persuade you at all becuase your opinions seems very grounded in the fact that there is a “secret” message that only gnostics are aware of and only a privliged few know about. To me, it just seems that you are trying to convince us that Christ is anything but God and He was just some great guy with some nice teachings on how to live a good life.

 

[lemondiesel]

He knew it was coming, he had multiple opportunities to escape, but he didn’t.

No, the question now becomes, Was Judas created for a purpose? If his betrayal was for seen, then He was created to be damned.

 

[lemondiesel]

Lemondiesel, I am curious, are yout trying to find a way to debunk Christianity all together, with gnostic gospel? It seems that we are not going to be able to persuade you at all becuase your opinions seems very grounded in the fact that there is a “secret” message that only gnostics are aware of and only a privliged few know about. To me, it just seems that you are trying to convince us that Christ is anything but God and He was just some great guy with some nice teachings on how to live a good life.

Quite the opposite actually, and sorry if my post give that vibe.

Buddhism is limited to this World, and an afterlife and a creator are irrelevant. Deep within me, I find this hard to believe. Perhaps true Buddhism is incomplete, and Jesus Christ found the answers. He teaches a similar message as Buddha, which is learned by living in the physical World. Yet Christ existed prior to becoming Jesus of Nazareth.

I am not asking to be persuaded, because this “secret message” is something that I have personally come to obtain. I am not claiming to be enlightened, I am just claiming understanding.

My beliefs follow the message of Buddha and Jesus, but my beliefs also call for higher planes of conscious, and our modified beliefs are that Jesus obtained this, whether he be God or not.

 

[Pieman333272]

No, the question now becomes, Was Judas created for a purpose? If his betrayal was for seen, then He was created to be damned.

He was undeniably created for a purpose. Saving Humanity by causing Jesus’ death on the Cross. You are jumping ahead a little. Before we ask or say “was Judas created to be damned”, we must ask “was he damned, and what for”. The Church has neither declared him a Saint nor certainly in Hell, so it’s open to debate. What is your opinion? Was he damned, and why?

 

[DCNBILL]

No, the question now becomes, Was Judas created for a purpose? If his betrayal was for seen, then He was created to be damned.

Note that just as Peter was sorry for betraying Christ and was forgiven so too could Judas have repented and would also have been forgiven.

 

[lemondiesel]

He was undeniably created for a purpose. Saving Humanity by causing Jesus’ death on the Cross. You are jumping ahead a little. Before we ask or say “was Judas created to be damned”, we must ask “was he damned, and what for”. The Church has neither declared him a Saint nor certainly in Hell, so it’s open to debate. What is your opinion? Was he damned, and why?

Personally, if I was a Christian, I would avoid using the statement “Saving Humanity by causing Jesus’ death on the Cross.” This as I said, suggests that before Judas was even born, he was already destined to betray Christ.

Do I believe He was damned? Not at all. If we go by the definition of God’s All Knowing power, then his fate was already predetermined. Does this mean God damned Him? I believe God blessed him, because Judas was the only one that possessed the ability to betray something so* pure*. Judas was and is the key to Christ’s sacrifice.

“was he damned, and what for” suggests that Judas existed prior to his existence. If you ask this, are you implying that Judas was somehow a damned angel? (or something along those lines)

Note that just as Peter was sorry for betraying Christ and was forgiven so too could Judas have repented and would also have been forgiven.

I believe Peter did not betray Christ, he **avoided **him. He was afraid of his own life, which shows true selfishness. Judas on the other hand, was needed. Would you repent if you betrayed Christ, the Son of God?

 

[DCNBILL]

I believe Peter did not betray Christ, he **avoided **him. He was afraid of his own life, which shows true selfishness. Judas on the other hand, was needed. Would you repent if you betrayed Christ, the Son of God?

The Gospels teach us that Peter denied he even knew Jesus not once, not twice but three times the evening that Jesus was arrested. He went as far as cursing at the people that said he was a companion of Jesus. This was not avoidance but clear betrayal.

Note that every time that I sin I feel that I am betraying my Lord and Savior. I must repent and do.

 

[DCNBILL]

I believe Peter did not betray Christ, he **avoided **him. He was afraid of his own life, which shows true selfishness. Judas on the other hand, was needed. Would you repent if you betrayed Christ, the Son of God?

The Gospels teach us that Peter denied he even knew Jesus not once, not twice but three times the evening that Jesus was arrested. He went as far as cursing at the people that said he was a companion of Jesus. This was not avoidance but clear betrayal.

Note that every time that I sin I feel that I am betraying my Lord and Savior. I must repent and do