Gospel of Judas, Gospel of Mary Magdalene

[Red.Emano]

---

note: added some text.

[Gray_Fox]

i don't know about Mary's Gospel ( i didn't know she has a gospel. hehehe) but its a big NO to Judas' Gospel.

do you know that the books of the apostles were made after so many long years of Jesus death? everyone knows Judas died before Jesus died. so his gospel doesn't add up.

[Red.Emano]

The Gospel of Judas exists in an early fourth-century Coptic text, though it has been proposed, but not proven, that the text is a translation of an earlier Greek version. The Gospel of Judas is probably from no earlier than the second century, since it contains theology that is not represented before the second half of the second century, and since its introduction and epilogue assume the reader is familiar with the canonical Gospels. The original Coptic document has been carbon dated to 280 AD, plus or minus 60 years.

Listen to this:
according to a preliminary translation made in early 2006 by the National Geographic Society: the Gospel of Judas appears to interpret Judas's act not as betrayal, but rather as an act of obedience to the instructions of Jesus. This assumption is taken on the basis that Jesus required a second agent to set in motion a course of events which he had planned. In that sense Judas acted as a catalyst. The action of Judas, then, was a pivotal point which interconnected a series of simultaneous pre-orchestrated events.

[Gray_Fox]

hmm.. what kind of God is Jesus if he ask one of his children to die for Him? it's pretty clear that Judas was betraying Jesus. in The Last Supper - Jesus was talking about one of his apostles will betray Him and as predicted, Judas did. Imagine, your God called you a traitor when your intention is not to betray your God. pretty unfair huh?

bottomline is... who would want to write a gospel from a betrayer at that time?

[Red.Emano]

My friend, please do not draw illogical reasons. Keep in mind that we're talking about GNOSTIC Spirituality here, not conventional religion. Besides, your Jesus is different from the Jesus portrayed in Gnosticism.

[Hellblazer 2.1]

i have the two books and some other Gnostic texts. i have read the two of them and i find it interesting. it is quite natural for mainstream christians or catholics to dismiss the Gnostic view (because of their upbringing), but for an open-minded person like me, i find it interesting because, historically, it sheds more light to our dark past.

there's nothing blasphemous about the books. just different in some aspects, that's all. the early church supressed it because they view it as a threat to their authority. even a saint, bishop ireneaus, made reference to it but did not include it in the canonical gospels.

[Malic]

Is Jesus being portrayed as a mere human being in the Gnostic gospels?

[Hellblazer 2.1]

Is Jesus being portrayed as a mere human being in the Gnostic gospels?

yes. a man capable of divinity. but, just a man nonetheless.

read the book The Aquarian Gospel of Jesus the Christ. very interesting.

[Malic]

yes. a man capable of divinity. but, just a man nonetheless.

read the book The Aquarian Gospel of Jesus the Christ. very interesting.

No wonder the council excluded it from the canon.

The earliest gospel w/c is mark shows that Jesus is not divine but merely a man.

[Hellblazer 2.1]

No wonder the council excluded it from the canon.

The earliest gospel w/c is mark shows that Jesus is not divine but merely a man.

ever read "Jesus the Man" by barbara thiering? also interesting.