Judas Iscariot - traitor or friend?

I have just recently finished reading a book on this topic. You might be aware that the scholar Bart D. Ehrman published a book which speaks in detail about the Gospel of Judas.

It's a very interesting book to read and it gives you a good idea about the underlying doctrines which are important for understanding the gospel of Judas. This gospel is considered to be apocryphal by orthodox Christianity, and for a good reason. It was written by Gnostics who held beliefs that were considered highly heretical by orthodoxy. To sum it all up, what scholars know about Gnosticism is that it was a branch of Christianity that believed that salvation lies in death, in escaping from the mundane and evil world of flesh. Some people are believed to have a divine spark since they actually belong to the realm of divinity (there are many gods in Gnosticism and they do not require worship).

According to the gospel of Judas, Judas was exactly one of these people. He had the spark and when he ''betrayed'' Jesus, it was as a service to him. Jesus' death was the only way in which he could truly live outside of the cage of materialism.

Obviously, any unbiased historian would not accept the premise of the gospel of Judas. In the 4 gospels one can see that there is definitely a lot of ill sentiments expressed about this Judas. Many scholars have noted that there was an increasing demonising of Judas from Mark until we get to John. Also one notices that Judas becomes a symbol for the Jewish people, their betrayal of the Messiah and lots of other negative connotations.

 For this reason many scholars think that Judas may not actually be guilty of betraying Jesus. One simply can't get the facts straight from a historical point of view.

 

There may be a lot of unauthorised scriptures, but they do tend to be included if they praise and fortify the positions of the Church, and then excluded when they don't.

Thanks for Baal for that example of the Gnostic beliefs possibly playing a role.

There is also the Gospel of Paul & Thekla (am I saying that right?)
Another book excluded, this time for more obvious reasons.


@Baal Melqart

I still just find it rather strange than if Jesus was Gnostic and wanted to die, that he went through the trouble to die in such a fashion as he did. Was there anything in the Gnostic beliefs about pain, or was it just death?

Originally posted by barcelonic There may be a lot of unauthorised scriptures, but they do tend to be included if they praise and fortify the positions of the Church, and then excluded when they don't. Thanks for Baal for that example of the Gnostic beliefs possibly playing a role. There is also the Gospel of Paul & Thekla (am I saying that right?) Another book excluded, this time for more obvious reasons. @Baal Melqart I still just find it rather strange than if Jesus was Gnostic and wanted to die, that he went through the trouble to die in such a fashion as he did. Was there anything in the Gnostic beliefs about pain, or was it just death?

Yeah the gospels of Paul and Thekla are very interesting to say the least. I can't remember but those two were not Gnostic. Thekla was excluded because it portrayed a woman as being more pious and above Paul, a man. Also, it taught that Christians should abstain from sex even if they were married.

Concerning the method of death, don't fret over it too much. Most Gnostics, if not all of them, believed in Docetism. The idea that Jesus wasn't ''really'' alive in flesh and blood. He only ''appeared'' to eat, drink and sleep. He was a mirage, a phantom. There were two doctrines in Docetism. One was that Jesus was literally a phantom, as in he did not live in the flesh. So he only appeared to die on the cross. The other belief was that Jesus existed in two forms: Jesus the man and Christ, the spirit. So when the man Jesus gets nailed on the cross, Christ simply gets out of the body. In some Gnostic gospels, Christ is portrayed as laughing above in the heavens whilst Jesus is getting crucified instead of him. What a sense of humor!


 

Originally posted by barcelonic Re your 2nd paragraph..... Lol i find that amusing actually since the modern Catholic devouts believe the blessed wine at their church is literally the blood of God and the bread his flesh. Quite a turnaround. But yes in relation to the no sex thing, I recall that also. Early Christianity was apparently torn over this issue and apparently even Jesus himself may have believed that - although it will likely never be known

Haha, yes it's quite amusing. Gnostics referred to YHWH as ''Saklas'' (which means fool in Aramaic) because they despised and denigrated his material world as being base and worthless. It's true that the other movement of Christianity which was not Gnostic didn't subscribe to Docetism. But that didn't stop them from bickering about the natures or Christ, both divine and human. It took Christians just as long to set the record straight on Miaphysitism as it took to decide what the New Testament ought to include or exclude. But I honestly think that this tradition about eating the flesh of Jesus is just a later extrapolation. The scriptures only allude to this metaphorically and this is quite obvious to the average reader. Eh well, what can you do!


By the way, I have no doubts that Jesus taught pure celibacy even for married couples. He was a messianic prophet who believed that the world was going to end within the generation of his disciples. If abstaining from sex was considered a virtue, then I would have expected him to have taught pure abstinence. Life was not going to last for long anyway, as he saw it.

Matthew 24:32-34 (NKJV) "Now learn this parable from the fig tree: When its branch has already become tender and puts forth leaves, you know that summer is near. So you also, when you see all these things, know that it is near; at the doors! Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place."

Regarding your second question, I'm not exactly sure. It's obvious that this idea evolved around the time the gospel of John was written. I'm certain it didn't exist when Mark was written. Not sure why it evolved but I like to hear what you have to say about this political compromise, what do you mean exactly?

@Baal

Well I mean to say that early Christianity even more divided than it is today, and yet it became this globally dominant religion, and for that to happen different groups of Christians with differing beliefs would have, at one point, had to either band together or at the very least put aside their differences.

Today we don't see intra-religion war amongst Christians; they aren't tearing at each others' necks like they once were. Granted, we're a little more civilised nowadays but things like religious festivals & the crucifix seem to unite most all Christians.

There have been many controversial debates for the Church to deal with over the years, but it seems none would have been as important as abstinence, and in particular, women - both married and virgins - declaring their abstinence of their own volition, as a direct result of their beliefs (some may have them may have even pretended to be Christian to avoid having to have sex with their husbands; the role of wife back then wasn't too dissimilar to a concubine).

Can you imagine if today in the Arab world women decided to be chaste for their devout Muslim husbands? There would be an uproar. I believe Islam has stunted the development of Arab countries and prevented any chance of either an industrial, or indeed, a sexual revolution taking place. The plight of women in these parts of the world is often as bad as anywhere in the world, often worse.

And back in the time of Christ the entire world bowed to this patriarchal model; this widespread subjugation & denigration of women.

It's of no surprise to me that the most controversial Gospel would have been the one detailing the - dare I say it - 'saintly' deeds of Thekla.
And it's equally unsurprising to me that the book never made the cut, so to speak.

:)

Thanks for the welcome back, Baal M.! But your words; "Firstly I would like to advise you not to use the term ''Mohammedanism'' because this may be seen as a derogatory term." Does not compute in my computer. That word, like Islam, or Saracen, etc., is a common determination of a religious section of the world. So, just who/whom would consider it "derogatory?", would those who follow the written words of the "Prophet Mohammed, PBTHN" consider it so? If not them, then whom/who?

Regards, Ron (a Southern Baptist by birth)

Edited by opuslola - 18-Nov-2013 at 22:30

@Baal - what I meant about them putting differences aside is that, initially they did not want to share the name Christians, but later they split into demoninations - you see in my view that is just what keeping the peace looks like.

And although yes I do think Christianity has adapted well, although slowly, if we are to only compare it with Islam in this regard it's not much of a feat, as we've both said lol.

However, a) it's adapted well to modern values but always took its sweet time doing it lol
b) I personally think Judaism has adapted quicker, if we are going to draw comparisons
c) The real question is how 'change-capable' are these three religions fundamentally, that is to say the doctrine on paper, and not simply in practise by humans who are influenced, in part, by entirely non-religious factors such as industrial development and the politics of modernisation.

If the scripture of the last super is carefully read, you will note the word sop is used to describe the bread that Jesus passed to Judas.

That sop is defined as a bribe or urging of a trusted friend.

You will also note that at that same last super, Jesus points specifically to Judas as the one who will betray him yet not one of the disciples does anything to intervene.

I think that those two things show that Christianity, as in many cases, has put the wrong slant to the story and they make Jesus look like a dunce who cannot even pick worthy disciples.

Someone also said that Gnostic Christians think that death comes before apotheosis or theosis. That is quite false.

Some of us have activated our pineal gland and have found the Godhead. It is just a Universal cosmic consciousness and not the genocidal son murdering prick that Christians love and honor.

Regards
DL