Philosophy Judas Iscariot, betrayer, or not?

Article
Editorial

There are more and better articles I could probably link, but these are the first two I found. Obviously this is a more religiously inclined topic, please try and be respectful about beliefs that may be expressed in this thread?

Anyway, to sum it up, an ancient text that was recently translated tells that Judas did not actually betray Jesus, but that he was following an order that he had been given, by Jesus himself.

Assuming this text is true, how does it change the gospel and the meaning of it, and the story of Christ?

Discuss.

 

I suppose, if the text is true and accurate and assuming that the Scriptures, namely the New Testament, are changeable, appropriate corrections or revisions are to be made wherever Judas is written or observed as a "villian." So, a new "reformation" of the Bible teachings about Judas would be slightly modified in such a way.

 

Ah, the media. Don't we love sensationalism?
The gnostic gospels are nothing new, there's tons of them in public libraries. So why the heck is the public so fascinated with another one? Oh yeah. It's a NEW one, and since it's NEW, it MUST be true!

Some thoughts:

* It's not proven that whoever wrote that gospel was in touch with the apostles, or Judas.
* It's not proven that the gospel contains Judas' true words
* And even then, how the heck do we know he wasn't lying?
* Finally, the gospels say that the devil entered Judas before he betrayed Jesus, so how do we know (assumming it is authentic) it wasn't Satan himself who wrote that "gospel"?

Let me be straightforward. There are MANY "gospels". The difference between them and the ones in our Bible is that the bishops of the Church decided that only certain books were inspired by God. So whether a new "gospel" appears or not, it is IRRELEVANT. It wasn't mentioned in the councils of Rome, Hippo or Carthage, so it CANNOT belong to the Bible.

Additionally, I'd like to say that the gnostics were a known 2nd century cult, against which apostle John (and his disciples) spoke. The gnostics deny the divinity of Christ, and the epistle of John speaks clearly against this heresy in particular. Iraeneus of Lyons, Christian Bishop (disciple of Polycarp, who was himself disciple of apostle John) writes against the gnostics in his work entitled Adversus Haereses ("Against Heresies"), I:29 and III:15.

So, no, this "gospel" won't challenge the christian faith at all. The problem is the gullible people who believe everything in the news and are easily to fool with conspiracy theories. As someone said, "every minute an idiot is born"

 

And if he was?

And if it does?

What if he wasn't?

And what if it wasn't?

My question to you, luvweaver, is not whether it's plausible or true, or what have you, but rather, what if it is? On the assumption that it is true, what does it mean?

I'll admit my theological knowledge is too limited to provide any actual discussion, I can still try to get you thinking.

 

If we were to suppose that the text is true and accurate, and if the Scriptures do not agree with that text, then the Scriptures [ are ] supposed as false. The dilemma would be that either that text is true or the Scriptures are true, not both at the same time and place, since the information they give about Judas are incompatible. How should we answer this problem? Perhaps by the believer appealing to a mysterious and indescribable faith in the Scriptures rather than that text, the Scriptures are saved; here, the text is maintained to be false? Is that text not credible enough? Perhaps appealing some sort of independent or scientific and rational source, such as the text analyzer, would be sufficient to support its legitimacy.

 

Are the scriptures truly inviolate though? Although I haven't read a bible in several years, aren't the gospels more or less an account of events based on one person's point of view?

And by that note isn't it possible that the writers might not be aware of something that another is? The apostles were as fallible as the rest of us, and so were the bishops, the gnostics, and surely no matter who wrote the bible, it was written by man, and man is fallible.

So, who's to say that some of it may be incorrect or incomplete in that not all information was gathered when it was compiled?

And who's to say how it may have changed through the ages and through its translation? All works become abriged, in time. I don't believe the bible to be inviolate, nor do I believe it to be unaltered, it's simply illogical.

 

If you believe in the Bible you believe it's inspired by God, and ergo, infallible. If you don't believe in that, then there's no point in believing in the Gospels, all the Bible could be fake.

Anyway, my post was directed at those who do believe in the Bible. As to answer Ragnarok, if the gospel of Judas is true, then by consequence, we should follow the gnostic religion.

Perhaps the problem is that people could confuse the AUTHENTICITY of a scroll with the VERACITY of its contents. Very different things, indeed.

 

The dilemma would be, if a person were a believer of the religion, whether to follow the text or the Scriptures, perhaps not both. By the discovery of the text and supposing that it is true and accurate, the text could undermine the word of the Scriptures about Judas. Does this text make a believer question other points in the Bible? What does it matter to a nonbeliever?

Yet, some are ardent believers, who put all of themselves in the Bible, and these human beings, no matter how fallible they might be, would have little or no concern for the findings of the text; some are conditioned to the Scriptures, and some would justify their words by a “magical” and indescribable force within them called faith. The option, then, would be to continue tolerance, no?

 

Haha, yeah, the gnostic gospels have been around for quite a while. They were probably a little too mystical for most people to handle. The Gospel of Thomas is another recently popular one that was declared hersey by the Catholic Church, and also helped inspire the movie Stigmata. Sigh, I love that movie.

The Bible is a collection of books by many different authors spanning the centuries. Books were picked based on how well they served those currently in power's agenda and other factors. You can pick and choose what you want to believe in, no harm in that, and if there is, I'll keep you comapny in hell.

Being an avid fan fo Jesus Christ Superstar, I already like and sympathize with Judas, so this doesn't really upset my personal beliefs. Now if it makes you feel better, you can think he is getting his head chewed off by Satan in the lowest circle.^_^

 

Luvweaver wins my support. Because it's new, it was a topic flocked to. =/ That doesn't make it true boys, not even close.

 

Answering Dusk and BoticelliLover:

Yes, since school we were taught that history is carved in stone. Later we were taught that history is written by the victors. However, this new case shatters our mindset and teaches us a new lesson:

There's no concensus. There are opposing sides (or even third parties) in authentic historical documents from the same age. There will ALWAYS be opposing sides. And it's up to YOU to decide which side to believe. Whichever your belief is (catholic / protestant / muslim / esoteric / buddhist / etc), there comes a point where you have to analyze your own personal beliefs, mindset and traditions you were taught, analyze them to the bottom and decide which side is the most logical. Perhaps you will find that there's no belief in sight that will be 100% concordant with the Truth. There's no easy solution, the world can't be split into "good guys and bad guys". Trying to oversimplify history into "good / evil" or overcomplicate it with conspiracy theories (it's THEM! They want to wipe all evidence!), is just irrational.

No, it's not an easy task. But personally I can tell you from experience that the search for the Truth is a wonderful and exciting journey. Some people will find a new "home" at the end of the journey. Others will keep walking that journey for all their lives, constantly fighting their own prejudices or reanalyzing past experiences. And others, will find that they were home already and didn't even know it.

But whatever road you take, as long as you search for the Truth, it'll be the right road.

 

Reply to: luvweaver

Suppose a person lives in a society, and this person grows up with most, if not all, of the knowledge acquired from the teachings of that community. If this person were given the chance to decide his or her own path in life and did made such a decision, then his or her decision would be in part, if not entirely, based on the teachings of that community.

Suppose the teachings of that community are from the Scriptures, and the person (and his or her family and peers) lived and followed the Word as taught by religious leaders/teachers, and given the teachings were within a consensus of Bible interpretation. If the person made any decisions, he or she would consult the Bible for inspiration and confidence. Over a certain amount of time, the person would have trust in the Word and pledge the Bible to be the absolute Truth.

Would this person feel a need to sit down and take time to analyze the Bible? Lest [ he or she ] were condemned by the community, this person would not be likely to do a serious analysis of the Bible. Would this person be fit to make his or her own decisions on his or her beliefs? Does this person even have a chance to explore new beliefs? His or her being intertwined with the Bible in this way does not seem to yield a freedom of choices/beliefs. There is not always an unfenced road for him or her, and the fence is his or her upbringing that is the only thing this person knew day after day.

Where is the Truth? To this person, it is nowhere else to be found but confined in the Scriptures. What would he or she think of the discovery of that text about Judas? Nothing of it?

Edit/Addition: According to Ragnarok's "Article" link, consider A link under More Religion Headlines. Is the source not reliable?

 

That's exactly my point. We MUST analyze our beliefs and not be afraid of what the community tells us.

Edit: I read the link, but frankly I don't care much about it. I've come to believe in the gospels (not because i was taught to, but because i've decided myself to believe in them). As I said before, the authenticity of the document in question is irrelevant for my faith.

 

Perhaps analyzing our own beliefs is not as easy as claimed, because the supposed person would be influenced by so many variables, i.e., his or her learned attitudes, background education, feelings towards friends and family, and pride in his or her own faith that grew with him or her.

===

However, anyway, let us suppose a person were to analyze the Bible. How should this person begin? Should he or she first consider whether the Bible is authentic? Yet, considering the authenticity of the Bible would be very relevant for faith in the Bible. If this were not the case, why would anyone have faith at all in something that has not shown authenticity?

Clearly, the text about Judas does show more authenticity than the current Bible by appearance/condition and language. The text exhibits a rather ancient past in material and writing, whereas the Bible lacks such exhibition. We ought to wonder about the original Bible. How does the original Bible compare with this text? Then, we could appropriately determine where our faith is to be placed. As long as there is no clear way to show the Bible’s authenticity to compare with the text, we ought to question our faith in the Bible.

 

I believe the best course of action here is simply to read it and judge it's authenticity for yourself, no? It's the same with all of history. Learn what you can and decide on your own what is real. Am I wrong?

Should we not also wonder how the original bible compares with the current bible? Through the centuries it's existed it's undergone many re-printings and translations, to be sure. As with everything, is it not possible it's been changed somewhat in translation, or that the written words may have been changed, or have adopted different meaning? Language drifts in time, and there is almost always bits and pieces that are lost in the translation (just watch me try and hold a conversation in Spanish, for example. )

To some the bible may be immutable, but to others it is not. I think as far as faith is concerned, use your own eyes and read it for yourself, then decide what you want to believe.

This is yet another reason why I stopped going to church- I'd rather find my own faith then listen to another man's beliefs.

 

An issue with individual interpretation, namely, of beliefs, is whether, if ever, we are capable of making our own decisions. The course that we would take depends on what we have learned and chosen to follow. In this way, our decided course would be as limited as our education. From here, our own judgments do not give us certainty whether we have made the appropriate decision. That is to say, our own judgments are limited/clouded by the knowledge we have acquired. Then, will we ever have the necessary knowledge and experience to make an informative decision? I think not, because now we have an information deficiency, specifically about the true and accurate origin of Bible itself. My preference is rationality to spirituality, and by rationality, (scientific or natural) authenticity is the way to go about analyzing the Bible; yet, we have not enough information or facts.

Why are we so inclined to fill in the missing gaps in justifying our beliefs? What gives us so much certainty as to maintain our faith? Doesn’t our limited knowledge discourage us from being so adamant or definite about the direction that we are heading? In effect, we’re diving into our beliefs if we don’t have a sense of how limited we are. Therefore, perhaps we ought to proceed with caution, not with all our hearts, because there is indeed a sense of persuasion or command involved in faith. I find this sense in the words that allure believers. :sad:

 

OH ho ho ho! Are people so afraid of their beliefs being weak, that they deny all possibility of analysis?

I think the problem with christianity today is that we were taught that the Bible SOMEHOW fell from the heavens as it is. So the moment you stop believing in that, you find yourself in some jungle and don't know where to go.

Well, for instance, we could ask the SCHOLARS. Where did the Bible come from?
I recall reading about a college course entitled "The Bible as literature". Again, we have to remember that the Bible is divided into New Testament (christian writings) and Old Testament (jewish writings). Both halves have a very different history, and the different books were written by many different people.

Does that make them false? Not necessarily. And yes, there have been many translations of the books of the Bible. Does that mean it could have been tampered at some point? Again, not necessarily. There were many copies of the new testament books, and we have the United Biblical Societies (was it the name? I don't remember) to tell us about the authenticity of these books.

The New Testament existed first as a collection of scrolls written in hebrew and greek. They were lated translated into latin by St. Jerome, the result was what we know as the Latin Vulgata. The rest, well, you can look it up in Google

History is a very interesting subject.

 

I actually saw this on the history channel the other day and found it quite interesting. The fact that there is writing that "may" prove the Bible wrong was something I needed to see, being a Christian and all. But there is somethign I do have to point out. As far as I know, the bible wasn't written/published for a hundred years or so after the death of Jesus Christ, though I could be wrong. When they carbon dated the document, it said it was written somewhere around 200 A.D. possibly. Now Judas is mentioned in the book of John, yet that was wriiten about 40 years or so before the incident, as far as my research shows. So the question is actually which is more accuarate. One that was wriiten before the incident, or after it.

(Most of this is based on my research and knowledge of the bible so forgive me if I'm wrong.)

 

In no particular order, Bibles:

- Old Testament (Hebrew, Aramaic)
- New Testament (Greek)
- St. Jerome’s Vulgate (Latin)
- Bishop’s Bible (Anglican version)
- Geneva Bible (Puritan version)
- King James’ Bible (Protestant, Authorized Version)
- Revised Standard Version of King James’ Bible
- Douay Bible (Catholic)
- Good News Bible

Now, with what little we know about the origin (what came before the Old Testament), could we with certainty pour all of ourselves, our beliefs, into any of these? Would it be reasonable for us to blindly favor some over others? So, which is the true and accurate Bible? If translations and revisions are made to the Bible, how could we tell whether they hold true and accurate? In this manner, the text of Judas seems to be the most authentic writing since the Old Testament.

 

Let's remember that the Bible isn't the only christian writing. The early christian bishops wrote epistles, too, they're known as the "ante-nicene fathers", some of them describe historical events that happened after the the events described in the Bible. There's the writings of Polycarp, Justin Martyr, Ignatius of Antioch, etc.

Something that we forget is that there WAS a Church. In the times after Christ, there were shepperds appointed by the apostles, and they celebrated "the Lord's Supper". If the apostles (and their successors) had a Church, their authority is above other writings. In fact they were the ones who determined which books were inspired by God.