‘Gospel of Judas’ surfaces after 1,700 years, Jesus instructed Judas to betray him
‘Gospel of Judas’ surfaces after 1,700 years
29 thoughts on “‘Gospel of Judas’ surfaces after 1,700 years”
Comments are closed.
Thought-provoking commentary on life, politics, religion and social issues.
If this was true, it would definitely bring further insight to Jesus’ instruction for Judas “that thou doest, do quickly” (John 13:27).
But if it is true then why did Judas Commit suicide? If he was, indeed, doing as instructed? I am sure there is alot more to this then we know now.
Why would Christ have said
“The Son of man goeth as it is written of him: but woe unto that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! it had been good for that man if he had not been born.” (Matt 26:24)
I am taking this with a grain of salt.
How would you feel if you were indirectly responsible for Jesus’ trial and ultimately his death? I’m sure if it was me, I’d probably be fraught with depression.
You say that you’re taking it with a grain of salt. Why? Do you think the document is a fake? That it was forged or someone played a cruel 2,000-year-old joke?
Kim, you’ve offered a possible explanation for Judas’s suicide, but not for the words of Christ that Ray quoted from Matthew. You don’t think the Gospel of Matthew is a fake, forged by someone playing a cruel 2,000-year-old joke, do you?
If the Gospel of Judas is true, then I can only assume that the words Matthew reports Jesus as saying were said so that the other apostles would not realise that Judas’ actions were an assignment. Why would Jesus do that? I have no idea, but if the Gospel of Judas is authentic and accurate, it is the only explanation as to why none of the other gospels address this assignment; the writers did not know of it.
That being said, I didn’t say that I was taking the Gospel of Matthew with a grain of salt, ltbugaf.
Not sure I’m completely following you: The other gospel writers don’t address an “assignment”? What’s the assignment? How does Matthew address the assigment?
Sorry…I should have read more carefully before asking you to explain. I see the assignment you’re talking about.
So, if the “Gospel of Judas” is true, then Jesus was saying what he said in Matthew 26:24 as a way of throwing the other apostles off the track. He was deceiving them into believing that Judas was being evil, when he was really just following orders.
Intuitively, I just don’t find that very plausible.
I believe the Gospels but I am taking the Judas Gospel with a grain of salt. I am not saying it is false. But I am saying it brings up concerns that don’t make sense. So if Jesus told Judas to betray him he must have known the result. Why would Judas be given such a harsh judgement by Jesus like I quoted from the book of Mathew? We know what happens to those who are never born. Outer Darkness – with the 1/3 who voted for Satans plan. Will Judas be joining them? But why, if he was only following orders? You can see my delemma. Or am I missing something that every else understands but I don’t???
“So, if the “Gospel of Judas†is true, then Jesus was saying what he said in Matthew 26:24 as a way of throwing the other apostles off the track.”
Sure, but technically speaking, if the Gospel of Judas is correct, then Judas never betrayed Jesus and Matt 26:24 does not apply to him.
OK, but then Jesus would have been trying to fool the other disciples into thinking Judas was betraying him.
Like I said, This has alot of Repercussions.
If I told someone to do something that I knew would result in my death? Jesus Fooling the other desciples? This could ruin alot of people’s faith. Perhaps a real test of a persons testimony of The Savior.
“Jesus would have been trying to fool the other disciples into thinking Judas was betraying him.”
It does seem that way based on the information we have.
“If I told someone to do something that I knew would result in my death?”
I don’t see why this would be difficult to accept. I don’t see how Jesus could have been “brought as a lamb to the slaughter” (Isa. 53:7) if he sought out the chief priests and elders and surrendered to them. He needed to be apprehended, and needed someone other than himself to turn him in.
And imagine the faith it would have taken for Judas to turn in the Lord. If he asked me to do it and I knew it would end in his death, I am not sure I would have been as obedient.
“He needed to be apprehended, and needed someone other than himself to turn him in.”
That doesn’t mean it wasn’t sinful to bring about his apprehension. Adam and Eve needed to be tempted, too, but that doesn’t mean that Satan was really just acting under orders from God when he tempted them.
Because God knows all things from the beginning, he can use the sinful acts of men to serve his own ends.
“That doesn’t mean it wasn’t sinful to bring about his apprehension. Adam and Eve needed to be tempted, too, but that doesn’t mean that Satan was really just acting under orders from God when he tempted them.”
It would be sinful if he wilfully disobeyed God. God did not tell Adam and Eve to partake of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, so it’s not a true parallel; assuming of course that Jesus told Judas to turn him over to the authorities.
Examine it in terms of what Satan did, not in terms of what Adam and Eve did.
Anyway, I don’t think Jesus told the other disciples that Judas was his betrayer and that his betrayer would be better off never having been born, just to throw them off. I think Judas’ betrayal was sinful.
When did Jesus say that Judas betrayed (or rather would betray) him?
During the last supper Jesus said Verily I say unto you that one of you shall betray me this night. Each of the Apostles asked “Is it I” This, the “is it I” question is referred to as the Apostlic creed. Total Humility. From John 13 we read
24 Simon Peter therefore beckoned to him, that he should ask who it should be of whom he spake.
25 He then lying on Jesus’ breast saith unto him, Lord, who is it?
26 Jesus answered, He it is, to whom I shall give a asop•, when I have dipped it. And when he had dipped the sop, he gave it to Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon.
27 And after the sop aSatan entered into him. Then said Jesus unto him, That thou doest, do quickly.
Good find, Ray.
I have also heard that John 13:21 could be literally translated as “…will deliver me up”.
Of course, it’s possible to interpret Christ’s words as INSTRUCTING that one of the Twelve should betray him, his handing the sop to Judas as identifying him as the one who should do it (quickly). But that interpretation would be wresting the scripture, because Christ also said what was quoted in #2 above, and because “Satan entered into” Judas before he carried out the betrayal.
Kim, re: #18, the reading “deliver me up” needs to be understood in its context. Here, it means, “deliver me up to the men who will carry out my murder.” In that case, it’s not appreciably different from “betray me.”
“‘Satan entered into’ Judas before he carried out the betrayal.”
That is what John (or whomever the author is) wrote, not what Jesus had said.
“In that case, it’s not appreciably different from ‘betray me.'”
It is if Jesus had given Judas the instruction to deliver him up.
“That is what John…wrote, not what Jesus had said.”
True. Shall I give more credence to the Gospel of John than to the “Gospel” of Judas? I think so.
“It is if Jesus had given Judas the instruction to deliver him up.”
Which takes us right back to whether Christ was deceiving the other disciples when he told them, “woe unto that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! it had been good for that man if he had not been born.”
As I said, Alot of reprucussions on this subject.
Kim, I’m more and more puzzled by something you said in #21:
What difference does it make whether the scripture is quoting the words of Jesus or describing something else? Do we give more credence to the quotes than the other information? Do we believe that Christ gave the Sermon on the Mount because it’s a quote but doubt that he fed the multitude because it’s just a description of events?
It makes a difference because we have no way of knowing whether Satan really did take a hold of Judas, or whether that was what John was led to believe.
And we only know what the authors of the Gospels THOUGHT Jesus said. So why give the quotes more credence?
You’re kidding, right? Are you suggesting interpreting the motives of someone has equal validity as quoting what someone said?
I believe John was writing by revelation and inspiration when the Gospel of John was composed. So I find his words extremely reliable. When he says Satan entered into Judas, I believe him. He doesn’t need to be quoting Christ’s own words.
Saying that Satan entered into Judas is not the same as interpreting the motives of Christ.
No, I’m not kidding.
Given John’s special knowledge of these events, and his status as a revelator, I assume there is more to his comment about Satan entering into Judas than just an ordinary external observation.