Gospel of Judas

[Quahom1]

maybe that is YOU & maybe you do all the things Judas did, but STOP calling me and everyone else a Judas.

where does the scripure declare Judas is forgiven? chapter & verse please.

i have done looked in the mirror & acknowledged I am sinner years ago & i do my best to to walk the walk every single day i live.

Judas was never forgiven, for the same things we do, every day, according to the Bible...

I wouldn't put myself over Judas so quickly...nor anyone else. Sounds alot like a Pharasee in prayer on the corner...

"See Oh Lord how I follow every law, I'm so much better than they..."

 

[Bandit]

Judas was never forgiven, for the same things we do, every day, according to the Bible...

I wouldn't put myself over Judas so quickly...nor anyone else. Sounds alot like a Pharasee in prayer on the corner...

"See Oh Lord how I follow every law, I'm so much better than they..."

well you go right on & judge me if that makes you feel good.

 

[Quahom1]

well you go right on & judge me if that makes you feel good.

What?

That is so mistaken. This is a discussion...not a god *(^( pick all. Now I am ticked.

 

[Bandit]

What?

i know what you are doing. this is typical of christians trying to put guilt onto people for things they do not do.

feel free to classify yourself as a Judas & a devil & a betrayer for money & son of perdition - but do not put me into that category.

 

[Quahom1]

i know what you are doing. this is typical of christians trying to put guilt onto people for things they do not do.

feel free to classify yourself as a Judas & a devil & a betrayer for money & son of perdition - but do not put me into that category.

Fine.

 

[Bandit]

What?

That is so mistaken. This is a discussion...not a god *(^( pick all. Now I am ticked.

it does not sound like a discussion. it sounds like you are making accusations & calling me a Judas & a pharisee.

you get yourself ticked over nothing. so. be ticked.

 

[Bandit]

Fine.

ok Fine.
i still love you, brother

 

[Quahom1]

ok Fine.
i still love you, brother

I'm glad for that...

 

[wil]

Only one gospel indicates Judas left before the wine....although I think he did, only one indicates it...

and in Mathew 26:50Jesus replied, "Friend, do what you came for."

Then John 13
26Jesus answered, "It is the one to whom I will give this piece of bread when I have dipped it in the dish." Then, dipping the piece of bread, he gave it to Judas Iscariot, son of Simon. 27As soon as Judas took the bread, Satan entered into him.
"What you are about to do, do quickly," Jesus told him, 28but no one at the meal understood why Jesus said this to him. 29Since Judas had charge of the money, some thought Jesus was telling him to buy what was needed for the Feast, or to give something to the poor.

Who was going to betray? the one I give the bread to..(prior to that no one was given the task to betray)

When did 'Satan' enter Judas? As soon as Jesus gave him the bread...and he took it.

So Jesus selected Judas, and instigated the the thought of what he must do, and utilized the devil to assist in the process, and then was told to do what you must do, quickly...and the others sitting there did not understand...

and in Mathew, before the kiss, as Judas approached 26:50Jesus replied, "Friend, do what you came for."


Without Judas where would Christianity be, without the cross, without the resurection...Judas truly performed an amazingly difficult task...Who of us would have taken that role?

Metaphysically Judas means life...for without him the concept of everlasting life would have not been revealed...

 

[Quahom1]

Only one gospel indicates Judas left before the wine....although I think he did, only one indicates it...

and in Mathew 26:50Jesus replied, "Friend, do what you came for."

Then John 13
26Jesus answered, "It is the one to whom I will give this piece of bread when I have dipped it in the dish." Then, dipping the piece of bread, he gave it to Judas Iscariot, son of Simon. 27As soon as Judas took the bread, Satan entered into him.
"What you are about to do, do quickly," Jesus told him, 28but no one at the meal understood why Jesus said this to him. 29Since Judas had charge of the money, some thought Jesus was telling him to buy what was needed for the Feast, or to give something to the poor.

Who was going to betray? the one I give the bread to..(prior to that no one was given the task to betray)

When did 'Satan' enter Judas? As soon as Jesus gave him the bread...and he took it.

So Jesus selected Judas, and instigated the the thought of what he must do, and utilized the devil to assist in the process, and then was told to do what you must do, quickly...and the others sitting there did not understand...

and in Mathew, before the kiss, as Judas approached 26:50Jesus replied, "Friend, do what you came for."


Without Judas where would Christianity be, without the cross, without the resurection...Judas truly performed an amazingly difficult task...Who of us would have taken that role?

Metaphysically Judas means life...for without him the concept of everlasting life would have not been revealed...

That is not what scripture says. Jesus making Judas a "scapegoat". Jesus working with the Devil would be putting Jesus in league with the Devil...

Wil, that is a dangerous precedence you are considering.

Please consider what you are saying...

v/r

Q

 

[lunamoth]

Only one gospel indicates Judas left before the wine....although I think he did, only one indicates it...

and in Mathew 26:50Jesus replied, "Friend, do what you came for."

Then John 13
26Jesus answered, "It is the one to whom I will give this piece of bread when I have dipped it in the dish." Then, dipping the piece of bread, he gave it to Judas Iscariot, son of Simon. 27As soon as Judas took the bread, Satan entered into him.
"What you are about to do, do quickly," Jesus told him, 28but no one at the meal understood why Jesus said this to him. 29Since Judas had charge of the money, some thought Jesus was telling him to buy what was needed for the Feast, or to give something to the poor.

Who was going to betray? the one I give the bread to..(prior to that no one was given the task to betray)

When did 'Satan' enter Judas? As soon as Jesus gave him the bread...and he took it.

So Jesus selected Judas, and instigated the the thought of what he must do, and utilized the devil to assist in the process, and then was told to do what you must do, quickly...and the others sitting there did not understand...

and in Mathew, before the kiss, as Judas approached 26:50Jesus replied, "Friend, do what you came for."


Without Judas where would Christianity be, without the cross, without the resurection...Judas truly performed an amazingly difficult task...Who of us would have taken that role?

Metaphysically Judas means life...for without him the concept of everlasting life would have not been revealed...

Hi Wil, I don't think Christ selected Judas and instigated him to betrayal. Knowing ahead of time what is going to happen is not the same as making it happen.

2c,
lunamoth

 

[wil]

That is not what scripture says. Jesus making Judas a "scapegoat". Jesus working with the Devil would be putting Jesus in league with the Devil...Wil, that is a dangerous precedence you are considering.

Then John 13
26Jesus answered, "It is the one to whom I will give this piece of bread when I have dipped it in the dish." Then, dipping the piece of bread, he gave it to Judas Iscariot, son of Simon. 27As soon as Judas took the bread, Satan entered into him.
"What you are about to do, do quickly," Jesus told him, 28but no one at the meal understood why Jesus said this to him. 29Since Judas had charge of the money, some thought Jesus was telling him to buy what was needed for the Feast, or to give something to the poor.

This is what scripture says...

But again this defines the breadth of Christianity. I believe where Jesus told us look high nor low the kingdom of heaven is in our midst... Heaven and Hell and Satan are human constructs...As scripture was written by humans, dozens of them, and then untold hundreds more rewrote, translated and/or edited...while I don't believe that everyone of these editors was divinely inspired ( I believe some of them had some 'satanic' motive (negative aspect, earthly ego based judgement) to them.

And then of course, back to the actual nature of this thread...the gospel of Judas says...as Jesus tells Judas, regarding his assisgnment...

“But you will exceed all of them. For you will sacrifice the man that clothes me."

 

[seattlegal]

bowing to someone is not the point & being perfect is not the point either.
trying to say everyone is a Judas is the point.
are you sure you know the whole story? there is not one good word written about him. if there is, please show me.
<...>
9)While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled.

no. not everyone is a Judas.

Interesting!

THE COSMOS, CHAOS, AND THE UNDERWORLD
“The multitude of those immortals is called the cosmos— that is, perdition—by the
Father and the seventy-two luminaries who are with the Self-Generated and his seventytwo
aeons.

 

[seattlegal]

And then of course, back to the actual nature of this thread...the gospel of Judas says...as Jesus tells Judas, regarding his assisgnment...

“But you will exceed all of them. For you will sacrifice the man that clothes me."

Compare to the vision earlier in the Gospel of Judas where followers of Jesus were sacrificing their sons in Jesus's name, and that they were in error. Perhaps “But you will exceed all of them. For you will sacrifice the man that clothes me." might be a prophecy instead of an assignment, and the way that Judas "exceeds all of them" is in Judas's error? {just a thought}

 

[Thomas]

But you will exceed all of them. For you will sacrifice the man that clothes me.

This, to my mind, goes against the whole grain of Christian thougth, it is utterly dualistic in its meaning – Christ's prayer was that two become one, as He and his Father are one, in Unity - the relation of Son and Father, man and God, speaks of this very Union and is foundational to Christian theosis, as exemplified in the Resurrection, and explained in detail by St Paul who spoke out expressly against philosophical dualism.

If the death of the man frees the God within, then man and God are always and irrevocably two. The extinction of the one (man), as the document expresses it, denies the reality of Union - one cannot have 'a union of one', rather it is a return of God to God, of the Alone to the Alone, and in so doing denies any purpose, and metaphysically any reality, to the cosmos.

It expresses, on the other hand, the Hellenic notion of an extreme Platonism in which creature and Creator can never be reconciled.

It denies the Resurrection as a concrete reality - which Jesus Himself insisted on proving - and renders it a psychospiritual resurrection only, and not even resurrection, but at best a recovery of one's true or original form.

If nothing else, the Incarnation affirms the reality and essential goodness of creation, by manifesting that good in corporeal terms. If the world was not made good, then Jesus Christ is not its Logos.

This is the meaning of the Transfiguration. Jesus did not shed his skin atop Mount Tabor, He illuminated it from within. At His side stood Moses and Elijah, signifying the Law and the Prophets (according to Maximus - His rainment is Scripture) - the Word of God the Father was inscribed as Law upon two tablets given to Moses. (Two stones symbolise the two halves of the heart, and the atrium and the ventricle within each.) The Word of God the Spirit was upon the tongue of the Prophets - Elijah the exemplar.

And between them Jesus Christ, the Word made Flesh.

If we accept the account according to Judas, then the reality of the Christian Incarnation is denied, and if corporeally denied, then truth becomes myth, the cloak of a truth which cannot manifest itself in this world.

And the notion of 'Union', for man, becomes meaningless.

Thomas

 

[wil]

But you will exceed all of them. For you will sacrifice the man that clothes me.

This, to my mind, goes against the whole grain of Christian thougth, it is utterly dualistic in its meaning – Christ's prayer was that two become one, as He and his Father are one, in Unity - the relation of Son and Father, man and God, speaks of this very Union and is foundational to Christian theosis, as exemplified in the Resurrection, and explained in detail by St Paul who spoke out expressly against philosophical dualism.

If the death of the man frees the God within, then man and God are always and irrevocably two. The extinction of the one (man), as the document expresses it, denies the reality of Union - one cannot have 'a union of one', rather it is a return of God to God, of the Alone to the Alone, and in so doing denies any purpose, and metaphysically any reality, to the cosmos.

It expresses, on the other hand, the Hellenic notion of an extreme Platonism in which creature and Creator can never be reconciled.

It denies the Resurrection as a concrete reality - which Jesus Himself insisted on proving - and renders it a psychospiritual resurrection only, and not even resurrection, but at best a recovery of one's true or original form.

If nothing else, the Incarnation affirms the reality and essential goodness of creation, by manifesting that good in corporeal terms. If the world was not made good, then Jesus Christ is not its Logos.

This is the meaning of the Transfiguration. Jesus did not shed his skin atop Mount Tabor, He illuminated it from within. At His side stood Moses and Elijah, signifying the Law and the Prophets (according to Maximus - His rainment is Scripture) - the Word of God the Father was inscribed as Law upon two tablets given to Moses. (Two stones symbolise the two halves of the heart, and the atrium and the ventricle within each.) The Word of God the Spirit was upon the tongue of the Prophets - Elijah the exemplar.

And between them Jesus Christ, the Word made Flesh.

If we accept the account according to Judas, then the reality of the Christian Incarnation is denied, and if corporeally denied, then truth becomes myth, the cloak of a truth which cannot manifest itself in this world.

And the notion of 'Union', for man, becomes meaningless.

Thomas

Did this vision not occur prior to the crucifiction? I'm confused at the reference. But of course I am confused at the concept of walking around in this skin at some point in the future, in some space called heaven.. As I understand it the kingdom of heaven is here, in our midst, within...and this 'new' revelation doesn't diminish or contradict what it is rerported Jesus said in the cannonized works...

 

[Thomas]

Did this vision not occur prior to the crucifixion?
Yes, but the Revelation is One - the understanding of any individual element in word or act can only be understood against the background of the whole.

But of course I am confused at the concept of walking around in this
skin at some point in the future, in some space called heaven...

There are two issues at play here:
a - precisely what form the body will take (we can safely assume it is a material body) when it is raised 'incorruptible' - I would assume the whole cosmos is likewise raised, rather than one element within it ... we can but speculate ...
b- we can assume that whereas now the soul is 'subject' to the body, in the future the body is subject to the soul, ie the inversion of the right relation will be rectified.
What does this mean? I don't know, but the fact that the Resurrected Jesus could pass through material objects, be seen and not seen, is a pointer.

Of course one need be careful of assumptions. We are bodies subject to the material realm, in the future we will be bodies but not subject to the material realm ... but yet not simply angels, either, which would make us less then than we are now...

As I understand it the kingdom of heaven is here, in our midst, within...and this 'new' revelation doesn't diminish or contradict what it is rerported Jesus said in the
cannonized works...
I believe it does, the gnostic vision denies the union of inner and outer. Thus Judas 'kills' the outer material form so that the inner spiritual form might be realised - or 'freed' or 'released' ... This denies the Transfiguration which Christ revealed Himself as the Union of Spirit and Matter without the intervention of Judas or anyone else.

Thomas

 

[Thomas]

Here's another view -

Jesus in his humanity knew 'instinctively' what the future held, but not chapter and verse, so to say. He was, in his humanity, neither omniscient nor omnipotent, and if we assume He can step in and out of his divinity, as it were, then his humanity really is something of a sham.

In light of this, the miraculous element of his ministry was accomplished by the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is who Christ speaks of as 'one who shall come who is greater than I', and who shall accomplish more than He, but who is eclipsed, as it were, by the physical Presence of Jesus among the disciples.

This is why I argued that Jesus did not learn - and if we were true to our nature we would not learn either, we would simply act. Learning is subsequent to action, and what we learn is the difference between what we intend, and what we achieve ... whereas if we were perfect in act, we would need to learn nothing, everything would be instinctive.

When Jesus speaks there is a prophetic sense in what He says, and what He says might be as 'new' to him as they were to his audience. He did not know precisely when and what was going to happen, as the Passion testifies.

There is a whole discussion here on the role of the Holy Spirit in the incarnation. It is a mistake to assume the Holy Spirit was absent, or inactive. Jesus Christ 'emptied himself' of his Divinity, but He never denied it, and so the communion with the Holy Spirit was a constant presence in everything He did - it is the Holy Spirit who accomplished the miracles at Christ's word.

When He went up to Jerusalem the disciples were pretty sure what the outcome would be. Thomas said words to the effect of 'let us all go that we might die with him'.

If Jesus 'caused' Judas to betray him, even if He conspired with Judas in the betrayal, then God is inescapably the author of an evil act, especially since Judas would have no free say in the issue, which refutes the whole notion of God as Good, and renders Judas innocent of any accusation laid against him. The ends, as they say, do not justify the means.

Philosophically, God would be the 'active agent' of sin - and metaphysically speaking, not just this sin, but all sin.

When Jesus told Peter he would betray him three times, was Jesus the author of the betrayal? Did the will of Jesus over-ride the free will of Peter? Or did Jesus simply have a foreknowing of what would happen? If so, why did he not say to Peter, 'whatever happens, stay away from the courtyard tonight.'

Similarly, I think perhaps Christ had no idea of who was going to betray him, until the betrayer revealed himself, as it were.

In John 13:27 "And after the sop Satan entered into him. Then said Jesus unto him, That thou doest, do quickly" could be read as Jesus talking to Satan, not Judas, or at least the satanic aspect in man.

Luke 22:48: "But Jesus said unto him, Judas, betrayest thou the Son of man with a kiss?" - ie talking now to judas, not Satan. In fact, bringing Judas back to his senses.

Christ knew He would be betrayed because man betrays his deiform nature all the time. It's almost a condition with us, and it's a condition that we try and present it as a virtue, rather than a vice.

In closing, I will say there is something unwholsesome in these so-called gnostic texts. The G of Judas says Judas alone understood, the G of Thomas says Thomas alone understood, the G of Mary says Mary alone understood ... each gospel puts forward its hero as the only one who understood, and discreetly negates anything the other gospels might offer - the orthodox gospels claim that no-one understood, until the Mystery was revealed...

Thomas

 

[lunamoth]

In closing, I will say there is something unwholsesome in these so-called gnostic texts. The G of Judas says Judas alone understood, the G of Thomas says Thomas alone understood, the G of Mary says Mary alone understood ... each gospel puts forward its hero as the only one who understood, and discreetly negates anything the other gospels might offer - the orthodox gospels claim that no-one understood, until the Mystery was revealed...

Thomas

I think you've put into words here what makes me also uncomfortable with the gnostic gospels. It suggests a secret elite which I think is not good news and very much in contrast to Christ's work to redeem the world. It appeals to our pride, rather than our humility.

2c,
luna

 

[wil]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thomas In closing, I will say there is something unwholsesome in these so-called gnostic texts. The G of Judas says Judas alone understood, the G of Thomas says Thomas alone understood, the G of Mary says Mary alone understood ... each gospel puts forward its hero as the only one who understood, and discreetly negates anything the other gospels might offer - the orthodox gospels claim that no-one understood, until the Mystery was revealed...

Luke- 3It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,
4That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.



John-
6There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.
7The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe.



When I think of my friends, my co-workers, my bosses, my parents, my siblings, my children....each and everyone of us have had individual conversations...and each of them would have individual accounts of what I said...just as I have a variety of accounts as to what they said...hence the variety/disparity in the four canonized gospels...