«Home

Gospel Of Barnabas: Judas Did Not Betray Jesus?

'Gospel Of Judas': Judas Did Not Betray Jesus Afterall!

WASHINGTON - An ancient manuscript rediscovered after 1,700 years takes a "contrarian" view of the relationship between Jesus and Judas, the disciple who handed him over for crucifixion.

Instead of portraying Judas Iscariot as a traitor, as the canonical gospels of the New Testament do, this document — the Gospel of Judas — indicates that he acted at the request of Jesus to help him shed his earthly body.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12186080/

Avatar
Newbie
112 answers

Gospel of Barnabas - According to Wikipedia

What do we know about the "Gospel of Barnabas"?

The Forgery of the Gospel of Barnabas

Barnabas and the Gospels: Was There an Early Gospel of Barnabas? by R. Blackhirst

Kuns,

Gospel of Barnabas, true?  No, it's false.

Paulus

0
Avatar
Newbie

Kuns,

The Roman soldiers carried out the sentence on Jesus Christ, not Judas; Judas committed suicide by hanging himself.  By the time of the common era, Roman soldiers had "perfected" crucifying people. Pilate did not want Caesar to know that he was "friendly" with another king. The Jewish Elders went along with the soldiers to insure that Jesus did get crucified.

Paulus

0
Avatar
Newbie

This goes to further illustrate that the bible is far from complete,

and basically people are being mislead into the be-lie-to-eve (believe) that Jesus died on a cross, when it was in fact Judas who was hung on the cross.

Just like the Most High save Issac and provided Abraham with a goat (scape goat), he did the same for Yashua (Jesus) by providing him with a scape goat who was Judas.

Go get the Gospel of Barnabas if you are a true seeker of truth.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Tell me something. If Oladipo Diya had succeeded in eliminating Abacha, or Mamman Vatsa , Babangida, would it have been at the request of the persons targeted for elimination? Even though the analogy is a little bit far-fetched, methinks that it is poetic justice to see the habitation of all betrayers become desolate and their offices taken up by other more trust-worthy people.

0
Avatar
Newbie

a spirit is the being inhabiting the body. it's the real you. and when you die, it leaves your body.

in astral travelling , diabolique people make their spirits leave their bodies and travel to various locations.

A friend of mine used to practise it. he said when his spirit left his body there was a long silver cord attached from his spirit to his body. That still connected him to the body. he told me that if the cord should cut , his body would die.

this silver cord is mentioned in ecclesiastes in the bible by King solomon.

The spirit never dies, it is immortal. Your body dies, but your spirit lives.

do you believe it

0
Avatar
Newbie

do you believe you have a spirit?

0
Avatar
Newbie

Logic and the scientific method suit me perfectly. Anything that is beyond that quickly becomes too intangible to call it more than speculation.

PS: I do not categorically exclude the divine, it just hasn't been very convincing uptill now.

0
Avatar
Newbie

very well said kimba.

it's a waste of time arguing with these peeps. Spritual things is foolishness to a carnal mind.

0
Avatar
Newbie

@jagunlabi, you've asked a very sane question, infact one that is scheduled as a seminar topic we've been assigned in our preliminary research for next week. I baulked out of it because there was insufficient material to gather for my paper at this time. But a few thoughts came to mind:

On what basis would the Gospel of Judas be accepted as a true representation of the event(s) that led to Jesus crucifixion? For one thing, the author of the Judas text has not been verified, and there are no pointers (besides the text itself) that Judas was a saint. If I have to look outside the NT sources and the OT prophecies of Jesus' betrayal (such as Zech. 11:12-13), there has not been a hint as far as I know that Judas proved to be anything than what the NT says of him.

There have been a few debates between theologians and among the Pontificate towards a possible consideration of a rehab of Judas. However, the latest I heard was that it is fast receiving a negative vote. Monsignor Walter Brandmuller, head of the Pontifical Committee for Historical Science, spearheaded the call for the Judas rehab; while Monsignor Giovanni D’Ercole, a Vatican theologian, opposes the rehab campaign. The latter claims it was "dangerous to re-evaulate Judas and muddy the Gospel accounts by reference to apocryphal writings. This can only create confusion in believers." ([url=http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,13509-1981591,00.html]see the article here[/url] and scroll down to see relevant section, or do a search yourself).

On the whole, it would be difficult for me as a Christian to view Judas as a saint if there are no independent sources yet to prove that he was not a thief or of questionable character as the NT says of him (see Luke 6:16 & John 12:6).

0
Avatar
Newbie

nferyn

you are so widely read, but i fear for you.

your search for truth has lead you so far from that which is true.

Never trust your intelligence, you're just a man and when you die you'll be forgotten like all men.

sit still he will come to you.

0
Avatar
Newbie

A question for all;

Should Judas - on the face of this new manuscript - be rehabilitated and be made a saint?

Quite a number of theologians have been fighting for his rehab for decades now,and there are rumours now that the pontificate is considering it.

What are your thoughts on this.

0
Avatar
Newbie

I could write a thesis on religion citing Nairaland users nferyn and welborn as references. Please continue.

0
Avatar
Newbie

@ welborn

Thanks for your prompt reply. Anyway, let me address the issues you raised. Most seem to stem from having different perspectives, rather than a disagreement on the facts. The premacy and role of the figure of Christ is indeed one of the fundamental elements which separate Christian Gnostics from orthodox Christians.

1. In many cases Gnostics did not regard Christ as a historical figure, but rather as a pure aetheral force that allows them to bridge the Gap between the divine and the material world. Earl Doherty in his J[i]esus Puzzle[/i] even goes that far to hypothesise that Paul's writings were gnostic in nature and that portrayals of Christ as a historical figure were later (deliberate) translation errors or insertions (unfortunately, I am in no position to judge the merits of his claim).

The way the New testament was codified (e.g. the struggle between Arius and Athaniasus over the divinity of Christ) shows that what actually ended up in the New testament was very much an outcome of political meandering and that the search for the divine inspiration in these writings was a very earthly matter.

In that context stating that knowledge of Christ made it possible to reach an understanding of the divine is very much a Christian gnostic point of view. Orthodox Christianity can label this as knowledge of self, but it is mainly a rejection of the position of the orthodox church as arbiter.

2. You talking about a recycled theory is a bit of the mark. When you take a position (Christ is a historical figure), you need to bring sufficient affirmative evidence. The evidence available for the historical existence of Christ does not meet contemporary standards of historical evidence. There is no archaeological evidence of Christ' existence and the secundary sources are highly dubious.

I really don't understand what standards you apply to consider infidels.org a priori a source of non erudite scholarship? Do you care to ellaborate on what your standards are and why you think they don't match your standards?

If you do have facts attesting to the historicity of Jesus, please do bring them to the table, I would be very interested to know about them.

3. You categorisation of Christian Gnosticism as less Christian is an a posteriori labeling based on who is the victor of the struggles between the different sects of early Christianity. I agree that they are less Christian in our current understanding of Christianity, but that does not lessen their claims to the message of Christ in their time. The fact that the orthodox Christians were persecuted prior to the adoptation of Christianity as state religion does not wipe away the fact that what remained of the gnostic movements were vigorously erradicated after the orthodox gained power. It is only relatively recently that many of the original writings of gnosticism have been rediscovered. Most copies were burned together with their owners.

4. No disagreement here. It's a matter of perspective.

5. Fully agree, it's only sad to see that the orthodox became persecuters themselves after they gained power.

6. It is probably impossible for us to really have a proper understanding of these gnostic texts in context. As our ways of thinking are so different from what was common at that time and because of the hermetic nature of these writings, we probably won't make much sense out of them, as long as not more source material surfaces.

Anyway, I very much enjoy your contributions. they always make you think deeper about your positions.

Best Regards

0
Avatar
Newbie

@ welborn,

Thank you for your insightful contributions, but you seem to be missing the the gist of my arguments because I did not provide a proper context.

1. Obviously I was talking about the Christian gnostics, not about the gnostics in other religious traditions, the fact that gnostcism predates Christianity is irrelevant, Judaism also predates Christianity.

2. I do not favor the gnostic interpretations over the orthodox interpretations. I find both equally unsubstantiated. There is no convincing evidence even for the mere existence of a historical Christ. The only contemporary source outside of the Christian apologetical literature that mentioned Jesus is Flavius Jospehus and it is not unlikely that these texts were doctored to suit an orthodox Christian political agenda.

3. My arguments only touch on the relative legitimacy of Chrsitian gnosticism in relation to orthodoxy. When people make it look like these documents originate in a fringe movement that is anti-Christian and has less right to be call Christian, they are categorically wrong. It's the same kind of reasoning that would label Catholicism non-Christian.

4. Christian gnostics did reject the authority of the pontificate and the premacy of Peter and his followers. It was diametrically opposed to their beliefs.

5. There is no justification for the relentless and violent persecution of the Christian gnostics, regardless of their beliefs. The main reason for this persecution is the challenge they posed to absolute autority of the orthodox church

6. When reading Gnostic texts, you cannot just treat them in a literal sense. The heart of gnosticism lies in the deep study and inner knowledge thus obtained. A casual, decontextualised reading of these texts really does not make sense, especially when you use the canonised texts as your yardstick (not that I'm interested in doing so, my interest is merely historical.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Gentlemen, it seems to me that for the mere sake of arguments you're polarised to believing what you neither know for certain nor understand, as long as they offer you the excuse of doubting the NT naratives in favour of the Gnostics. Let me amicably share some vital information that you seem to be ignoring.

Your assertion here is neither true nor based on a factual understanding of Gnosticism. I hesitate to quote wikipedia because the article there is amateur and quite limiting (see the disclaimer at top of that page). However, wikipedia agrees with standard sources that Gnosticism predates Christianity and is "a mixing of rites and myths from a variety of religious traditions, combining Occultism, Oriental Mysticism, astrology, magic, elements from Jewish tradition, Christian views of redemption, and even aspects of Plato's doctrine that man is not at home in the bodily realm." In one word, it is a mystical syncretism - a mixture of various opposing religious and occultic elements. Gnostics never believed that "salvation was only possible through knowledge of Christ" - whether as the intermediary to God, or anything else. The role of Christ in Gnostic interpretation does not go beyond esoteric interpretations in which He could save nobody but Himself, and others following His example could possibly save themselves through the same knowledge of themselves. . . which is not what Christ came to preach (see Matt.19:25-26).

Again, this assumption is not true because the Gnostics did not reject any authoritarian structure of the pontificate, but rather had their own structure. Most so-called Gnostic Christians do not base their authority or principles on Christ but rather on those purported to have been the founders or fathers of gnostic mystical teachings, such as Simon Magnus (who was thought to have been a magician), and Carpocrates (who encouraged the practice of free sexuality and taught reincarnation). Indeed, many gnostic teachings were surpressed by the Roman Christian leaders, such as Marcion's doctrine that the death of Christ on the cross was only a hallucination, since (he supposed) Jesus did not have a physical body; and also Marcion's rejection of marriage. You should understand that the Gnostics themselves contradicted one another on countless issues, which I'll share with you in just a moment.

Do the Gnostic Teachings Make Sense?

Among the now 34 gnostic materials that I've personally read, there are widely differing and contradictory ideas in them. Some people would like to assert that the gnostics alone truly understood Christ's message while other streams of Christianity are all wrong. But here's a sample of how the Gospel of Thomas purports to have recorded Jesus' view of women when Peter suggested that Mary should leave them:

"2 Jesus said, "Look, I will guide her to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit

resembling you males. 3For every female who makes herself male will enter the domain of Heaven."

(Gospel of Thomas, v.114).

So, according to the gnostic gospel of Thomas, no female enters into heaven unless she changes her sex and becomes a male! Does that make sense? There are quite a number of such mystical sayings in this manuscript that I'm surprised that those who count the NT as politically motivated and corrupted have not been able to iinterprete and make sense in the gnostic writings. Here's another of those mystic verses:

"Jesus said to them, 'If you fast, you will bring sin upon yourselves,

2and if you pray, you will be condemned,

3and if you give to charity, you will harm your spirits.

(Gospel of Thomas, v.14).

In order words, fasting is a sin, prayer brings condemnation, and giving to charity harms the spirit of the giver! Even if you don't believe in Christ or the Bible, there's only one spirit behind these sayings that is trying to stop people from fasting, praying, and being benevolent - it's none other than the devil! It does not surprise me that many people who say that the gnostics give the true interpretation of Christianity have not actually read the gnostics before they condemn the Bible. And that is the amazing thing about such prejudices. Let's talk as gentlemen who know the facts before making statements that are biased.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Fellow Christains,       

A saint (ST. Thomas de Aqunas)onced said '' Faith without Reasoning is hell'' Crictical reasoning of de bible does not make one a Sinner or Anti-Christain or whatever! Yes the bible was Inspired by God, but was written by man. And man has limitation and is subject to errors and mistakes. Based on the Topic of this thread''Judas betrayal to Jesus'',

The questions are 1. Was it Program That Jesus should be betrayed? If yes, Why should Judas be blamed when he was chosen to do that?

2.If Christ death on cross was to Redemed Mankind,Then Judas should be made Saint Cause he actually has a hand in Salvation?

3.Did God Programmed Christ Death on Cross? if yes, But he said 'thou Shall not kill'?

In my answers and Opinons to those issues are:

1. The bible or rather the scripts was altered to suit the teaching of early church by the Romans! Those scripts was compiled  before 15th century and was called Bible, Martin lurther Challenged some injuctions and some scripts and declared some uninspired

2. Christ death was not programmed rather he forsee what will happen as events moves on ( remember Man was giving free will) beside one can predicit what will happen as event moves on!

3. Judas was not chosen to betray Jesus,but with his lust for earthly things and Thinking that Jesus was to bring the jews out of captivity from the Roman Empirer ,also believing that with his divine power and popurality Jesus may escape death,when all this failed, he(Judas) felt guilty and hang himself!(he has a chance to repent)

4. Jesus was not program to died on cross and God did not Sanction or justified his killing, Rather What the jews did was Pure and Blue MURDER! YES Jesus Christ Was Murdered by the Jews! That is why is he prayed ''Father Forgive Them  For They Know Not What They Re Doing''.

GOD's Law is Pure , Perfect and Unchangeable'' Thou Shall not Kill''

Yes he death on cross brings about Salvation, because He (Jesus Christ) Stood Firmly on his Words and Teachings; and his acceptance to Died brings Convictions on his teaching and those who believes in his words and teachings and lived accordingly Is SAVED!

That was Christ work for Redemption and His blood on the cross did not cleanse the sins of the earth.

0
Avatar
Newbie

@jagunlabi, how many times do you have to contradict yourself in a day? "Judas did not betray Jesus afterall", and then "he did"? What are you saying? Okay, let us even give you your joke - what do you make of this in your statement: "Jesus himself asked Judas to betray him for a cause,which Judas did because he fervently believed in that cause"? So, afterall, he did - or afterall, he did NOT?

Even when you called it "induced act of betrayal", afterall you conceded it was a 'betrayal' of sorts, nevermind the dribbling between two opinions which you later called 'no betrayal.' I've taken the time to go through the thread and no one's called it an induced act of betrayal except you. Christians who defend the NT naratives are not dribbling between opinions - they clearly state it as 'betrayal' without your ambiguous adjectives. Bottom line: no harm meant, but you're confusing yourself all the more.

0
Avatar
Newbie

I don't think it really matters which book(of the Bible) was written before the other.The gospels were written by the inspiration of God,so the writers wrote what they where inspired by God to write.That 3 books recorded it and one did not is no reason to say it is not true,afterall 3 is more than 1.

0
Avatar
Newbie

The question is why?The gospel of Mark did not portray him as a traitor,either.

That Judas hanged himself is even questionable,if one should go by what was written in the NT.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Gnostics thought that salvation was only possible through knowledge of Christ as the intermediary to reach the innermost of the divine (God)

0
Avatar
Newbie

One thing you need/have  to know (believe it or not) is that the betrayal of Jesus by Judas is something that is meant to happen since the beginning of the world,it was prophesied 100s of  years before Jesus was even born so Jesus could not have told Judas to betray Him.

Have you asked yourself why Judas killed himself afterall?He himself repented of it and you are here trying to defend him.

The Gospel of Judas is just nothing but something that was written by anti-Christs to deceive people like you so just get over it.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Not accepting their stance at all!Quite on the contrary.It is you who have failed - or refused to see - the points of my post.

My guy,induced act of betrayal is no betrayal,not in the actual sense of the word,and neither in the same sense as depicted in the NT,kapish?Jesus himself asked Judas to betray him for a cause,which Judas did because he fervently believed in that cause.That is what makes the difference.

Whether you guys like it or not,Judas has most likely, been exonerated.

So,the question now is,what sort of "betrayal" would you term that

0
Avatar
Newbie

See who's talking about intelligence and analytical thinking. Your story says Judas did NOT betray Jesus afterall - whereas the NT apologists whose diction you could not analyse have variously defended the Biblical narative. At the end of the day, you're now slyly accepting that your own position was dead wrong! Otherwise, how else would you want to concede this in your postscript: "NB If Judas had refused to betray Jesus. . ." so you concede that Judas did not "refuse" to betray Jesus (as if there was any arrangements between them) and indeed the betrayal took place afterall. Your username says a lot about your scope of intelligence.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Has it ever occur to anyone of the NT apologetics here that without this socalled "betrayal" of Judas,there would be no saviour called Jesus Christ today,that modern day christians can hope on and worship?

What if Judas has refused to "betray" Jesus?How could he have ;

1)been captured

2)Judged

3)Crucified and died on the cross for the sins of mankind

4)Ressurected to become the christ

Jesus would not have been able to achieve all this without this Judas.He owed his present status to Judas.If Judas had refused to betray,you christian zealots wouldn't have a SAVIOUR today!You all need to think in this perspective for once.Switch on your intelligence and think independently and analytically about this whole thing.God knows i did the first day i read about this Jesus story,and that was why i have never ever considered Judas Iscariot to be a villain or a traitor,never.I guess i had been right,afterall.

JUDAS WAS AND IS A CHRISTIAN HERO!

NB

If Judas had refused to betray Jesus,that would've been the real BETRAYAL!Ironic,isn't it.

0
Avatar
Newbie

duh , plain blank

Judas betrayed Jesus Christ

He did it with a kiss

Shame

No achaeologist or whoever can re-write what has been written

It is the 1 and Holy Bible

They say things to decieve people

Beware

!!!!

1

Engineer Bola

0
Avatar
Newbie

I knew I was gonna provoke a new discussion by questioning the salvation claim of my2cents.

0
Avatar
Newbie

TayoD,

I believe that baptism does: Mark 16:16, Acts 2, Acts 19:5, Romans 6:3, 1 Corinthians 12:13 and Galatians 3:27. In particular, for the last scripture, if we put on Christ and at Antioch, we were first called Christians, wouldn't that imply that being baptized is what makes us Christians?

In the end, you can have faith, or as some say "be saved by grace (sometimes, by simply placing your hand on the TV screen), but yes, you need to be baptized.

By the way, thanks for not crucifying me (although you didn't end your last post with "*bless*" LOL. At least I am happy you understand where I came from

0
Avatar
Newbie

My2cents,

I will like to give you a scenario in answer to your curiosity about the date chosen for Christmas celebrations and Sunday worship.  In Nigeria today, I know that muslims now have Friday night vigils and Sunday meetings because of their desire to keep thier brethren from going to church.  This action doesn't mean they now worship Jehovah, rather, it is an effort to occupy the time of their faithfuls, who they consider in danger of going to church and getting saved, thereby negleting their faith.  Such deductive reasoning could well be extended to Christians.  Maybe a similar situation existed in the early church and having meetings on the same day as the others could have been seen as one way of keeping some weak christians from idol worship.

From all indication however, I believe sunday was chosen for Christian worship because Our Savior rose up from the grave on a Sunday.  As Paul said, our faith is in vain without the Resurrection of Jesus.  It follows then that we should worship Him on the day when our Faith was sealed.

The issue of Jesus being white or black is so trivial and unimportant that I don't even want to give it a reply.  White or black, yellow or green, it doesn't matter.  What matters is His blood that was shed.  Remission of sins is through the blood.  And in any case, have you noticed the colour of the blood of all races is RED?

Technical or not, celebrating His birth does not take anything away from Christianity.  We know that Angels were seen rejoicing on the day He was born.  And besides, I've never known anyone that complained of the Rice and Food Very Plenty that is available on Christams celebrations.  If you think about what it involved and how long it took for Jesus to come in the flesh, then you will know that the day is also worth celebrating.  The first prophecy of Jesus' birth came in Genesis and see how long it took for that Word to become Flesh.  Men of God had to keep saying it in prophecy over the years till the WORD fulfilled what God said, that it will never return to Him void.

Likewise today, we keep saying He is coming back a second time, and though He tarries, He will yet show up.  As said in the book of revelation "The Spirit and the Bride say COME".  Come O Lord Jesus.

0
Avatar
Newbie

I c u didn't spot the sarcasm.

I am for reason. I am for battling ideas out. In the end, we can agree to disagree.

So perhaps you should take it easy. It is interesting that some pple, when it comes to religion, wd rather jump off a cliff, than reason something out.

Now I can see you are pissed - u used to end your posts with ", bless, ". Now, it is "warm regards" LOL. Make God no bless me again? Na wa o!

0
Avatar
Newbie

You don't get it, do you? Once you begin to sport for a fight (wrestlemania and all that trash talk) - welborn doesn't partake. If you want to learn, re-read my post, sit back and ponder what I've said - then make some sense from it. Need some sane discussion, talk to me.

Warm regards.

0
Avatar
Newbie

did the bible say you should celebrate your birthday? why do you?

if you clebrate your own. i'll gladly celebrate my Lord's birth. when he was born angels sang, sheperds journeyed and worshipped. they definately celebrated his birth, so whether the bible says it or not theres nuthin wrong with it.

whatever colour you want to call Jesus, he wasn't black, which is what i thot you were refering to in your earlier post. jews are middle eastern, so whatever color they are thats obviously what he was. Not that i care.

whites use the bible to support slavery, if your history serves you right, then your probably right. but as for the rest ,

0
Avatar
Newbie

my2cents

nobody said Jesus was born on 25th december, the bible doesn't say that.

what you fail to realise is that christmas is not a celebration of Jesus birthday

it is a celebration of Jesus birth. so it can be on anyday. and 25th december was chosen. for whatever reason it was chosen doesn't matter, becuz God created all days.

Jesus was a jew are jews black.jews are white

and where did the whites use the bible to support slavery, rather i remember that the bible was used to abolish slavery.

0
Avatar
Newbie

@wellborn, kimba, nightrider and other Christians in here:

well done. you all have done a good job. i can't make some comments of mne right now because i don't have much time, but God bless you all and may he shine the light upon this unbelieving folks.

@ them scoffers: scoff on!!!! it was written already so i'm not suprised.

0
Avatar
Newbie

the bible says that

the bible says satan deceived eve. satan told her if she eats the fruit she will be like God. she went ahead to eat the fruit and instead death and destruction came to mankind.

the bible says satan did not just deceive judas isacariot , satan entered into him. so you can imagine the hgh level of deception.

satan must have told him all sorts of crap, which he believed in his mind and he went on to betray jesus. he ended up committing sucide. Satan must have given him beautiful promises which made him do what he did.

Jesus knew that judas would betray him. even king david said it. woe to the man who would betray him.

the betrayal of jesus had been foretold hundreds of year before he was born in the manuscripts penned by king david and he told of the doom that would befall the man. and its corroborated in the new testament, with the death of judas by sucide, hundreds of years later. Even unbelieving scientists have agreed that it would have been impossible for the old testament to so accurately describe what happened hundreds of years later in the new testament. Old testament prophets even foretold up to the piont where Jesus clothes would be cast for lots. how could they possibly have known that. like i said it has been proven that old testament was written hundreds of years before what occured in israel. so how did they know.

king davids grave is in israel today( so it's not fake) for those of you who don't believe in the bible

God is true , let every man manuscript be a liar

0
Avatar
Newbie

thanks for the article nightrider, it was really insightful.

0
Avatar
Newbie

i thought Kimba's reply was fantastic and i decided jagunlabi and co should read it again

WHAT ELSE WONT THEY SAY

Let the scoffers say what they want. They are nothing but a bunch of scoffers.

@jagunlabi

You make me laugh, o boy. You started the thread with a news article from msnbc.msn.com. Then you go on and say:

Quote

The real joke probably is that christians have been decieved all along,for millenia long.It is now that the truths are beginning to surface.

You know what: man reveals who he is through his words. I guess you must have been looking for these kind of Christianity-condemning-pro-antichrist topics on the web. The Bible even said in the Last days, Anti-Christs will arise. Even if you found it by mistake, at least something must have been leading you there. It would have been better if you took time to read previous posts on Nairaland about religious related topics, what people said, their opinions etc. You didnt actually need the msnbc comment to start trash-talking.

Mr. Jagunlabi

(1) Not everything that you see on the internet is 100% truth, allright? Learn to see beyond the news, see those writing it, see the financiers. I believe you wont be interested to see beyond the news, doing your own research as you are a ready proponent of such a wrong religious view.

Quote

I know some of those already.I know even some that will knock you off your feet.

Example: while some people are suing tobacco companies because cigarette gave them a cencer gift, some others are advertising it on TV, with a tender voiced warning, smoking is dangerous to your health, consult your doctor. Tell me that those people behind the tobacco industry don't know that cigarette is bad for health on a long run? tell me they don't know the difference between black and white. But hey, its what they are paid to do, right.

But, no shaking, i stand with @nightrider:

Quote

You'd have to knock Jesus of the cross and knock him back into the grave to knock me of my feet. The world can spin all the stories it wants. I'm standing on the rock.

I'm rather dissappionted with the stories, i expected the deception to be a bit stronger.

Satan can't even try it, not to talk of a mortal human like jagunlabi.

The truth is that the story on your msn weblink is quite LAME!!! Let me add salt and pepper: The truth is that there is someone that has to get a PhD in religion somewhere, and he/she has to cook up some news to shake the world. Thats ingenuity on its own. At least the major and ingenuous idea associated with Nigeria is 419, and we have received world-recognition for that. So, definitely, someone has to get into the lime-light by discovering the "gospel of Judas".

And is it not so silly, whoever is behind the discovery left the whole Old Testament, passed by the New Testament, passed by the Gospels, threw away all that Paul wrote, totally forgot the Revelation, picked out the disciples one by one and landed on Judas - saw his faithfulness, and his sincerity in following the Lord, and in Jesus' interest in Him to become the Betrayer.

----------------------

this is a small digression from the topic, but its worth reading:

You might have come across the Satanic Bible. If you don't know, now you do. There is a Satanic Bible, that some people in America and Europe read. They gather together (like Christians do) for "Satanic Worship". They sing and clap in "Satanic Praise". They even Preach their own "Satanic messages" and go our for evangelism - soul winning. Now, wont you be scared if someone came to you preaching Satan.? The info I have says their leader is the son of a Baptist pastor, and that some of his key leaders went to Bible school, Seminary, to study the Bible. Guess what thesis they came out with: The gospels according to Satan.

While a student in Univ, in the Library, i came across this nice looking hard covered Bible, and the cover just caught me off my feet. Lo and behold, twas a picture of Jesus with a ponytail, with earings and lipstick. I was like wow. I spent the next 5-hours reading to my dismay, what people would do for research in this world of ours. Just some intro: In Genesis, God is referred to as (she), and God created Eva. Eva named all the animals, asked God for a help meet, God made Eva to sleep, took out of her(Evas) ribs and created Adam. Eva sees Adam, and says, this is the bone of my bone, Eva is potrayed as the head of the family, because she received instructions from God and tells Adam what to do. In fact, twas Adam that got deceived by satan and now called his wife to eat the fruit. Their kids, Cain and Abel were the first 2-girls in the garden and Seth was the first boy, now should i continue?

Jesus in the new testament was a lady, i forgot what they said about mary and joseph, anyway, she(Jesus) had 12 lady disciples. Now imagine someone sitting down and from Genesis to Revelation wrote all such crap. I turned to the back to see the author, and twas a lady, who got a PhD in divinity(i think) with a major in God and woman relationship. Part of the info is that she goes around the world holding seminars and proposing her faith that the Bible is from a (she) perspective.

Ill look for her website and post it.

------------------------------------

back to the topic

The question is: Wasnt it prophesized in the Old Testament that the Son of God will be betrayed and woe betides whoever will betray the Lord?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12186080/

Quote

The newly translated document’s text begins: “The secret account of the revelation that Jesus spoke in conversation with Judas Iscariot.”

In a key passage Jesus tells Judas, “You will exceed all of them. For you will sacrifice the man that clothes me.” This indicates that Judas would help liberate the spiritual self by helping Jesus get rid of his physical flesh, scholars said.

“Step away from the others and I shall tell you the mysteries of the kingdom,” Jesus says to Judas, singling him out for special status. “Look, you have been told everything. Lift up your eyes and look at the cloud and the light within it and the stars surrounding it. The star that leads the way is your star.”

And to whoever believes in the above should please explain these verses from the Bible:

Quote

Luk 6:16 And Judas [the brother] of James, and Judas Iscariot, which also was the traitor.

Luk 22:3 Then entered Satan into Judas surnamed Iscariot, being of the number of the twelve.

Luk 22:47 And while he yet spake, behold a multitude, and he that was called Judas, one of the twelve, went before them, and drew near unto Jesus to kiss him.

Luk 22:48 But Jesus said unto him, Judas, betrayest thou the Son of man with a kiss?

If Judas did not betray Jesus, how did Satan come into the picture.

Do you mean Jesus, Judas and Satan planned together to hatch the plot?

Quote

Jhn 6:70 Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil?

Jhn 6:71 He spake of Judas Iscariot [the son] of Simon: for he it was that should betray him, being one of the twelve.

Jhn 13:1 Now before the feast of the passover, when Jesus knew that his hour was come that he should depart out of this world unto the Father, having loved his own which were in the world, he loved them unto the end.

Jhn 13:2 And supper being ended, the devil having now put into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon's [son], to betray him;

Quote

Jhn 12:1 Then Jesus six days before the passover came to Bethany, where Lazarus was which had been dead, whom he raised from the dead.

Jhn 12:2 There they made him a supper; and Martha served: but Lazarus was one of them that sat at the table with him.

Jhn 12:3 Then took Mary a pound of ointment of spikenard, very costly, and anointed the feet of Jesus, and wiped his feet with her hair: and the house was filled with the odour of the ointment.

Jhn 12:4 Then saith one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, Simon's [son], which should betray him,

Jhn 12:5 Why was not this ointment sold for three hundred pence, and given to the poor?

Jhn 12:6 This he said, not that he cared for the poor; but because he was a thief, and had the bag, and bare what was put therein.

Why should Jesus, the emblem of Love Himself call Judas(the Bible calls him a thief, someone that has no love anywhere in his heart) aside, give Him a vision and mission that He(Jesus) could not give to any member of His inner circle members(Peter, James and John), just so that woe will fall upon his (Judas) head, and for Him to fulfill the scriptures? What qualified Judas to "receive the mysteries of the Kingdom" that Peter could not receive? What made Judas so special?

And what agreement has Jesus with a thief

For such a mission as the one described on the weblink you provided(http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12186080/), i believe, Jesus should have chosen the best of His crew. At least, thank God, they(scholars) didnt say that Judas was forced to betray Jesus, meaning he betrayed Jesus on his own free-will.

And if Jesus and Judas planned it, why did Judas hang himself afterwards?

Quote

Mat 27:3 Then Judas, which had betrayed him, when he saw that he was condemned, repented himself, and brought again the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders,

Mat 27:4 Saying, I have sinned in that I have betrayed the innocent blood. And they said, What [is that] to us? see thou [to that].

Mat 27:5 And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself.

Mat 27:6 And the chief priests took the silver pieces, and said, It is not lawful for to put them into the treasury, because it is the price of blood.

Mat 27:7 And they took counsel, and bought with them the potter's field, to bury strangers in.

Mat 27:8 Wherefore that field was called, The field of blood, unto this day.

Mat 27:9 Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying, And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him that was valued, whom they of the children of Israel did value;

Mat 27:10 And gave them for the potter's field, as the Lord appointed me.

I believe if what Judas did was a "Jesus sanctioned assignment" Judas should not have said what he had said in Mat 27:4(Judas admitted guilt), isnt it. or is the part of Judas hanging himself part of the plan also? Is there any mystery of the Kingdom in the Bible that tells anyman to go and kill himself. Of what good would the death of Judas and the death of Jesus do to Christianity. Did Judas have to die? did he receive any reward for it? The Bible said someone was going to betray the son of God, but no names were mentioned. If Jesus had to go and personally commission Judas for the job, why wasnt Judas specifically mentioned anywhere. He gave his heart over to the devil.

Then Mr Jagunlabi, you should ask yourself where and when did Jesus take Judas apart for this special revelation? was there any writer in the Bible, any theologian, any historian in past or recent times that ever talked/suggested anything about the "closeness of Jesus and Judas"? How come he got a gospel to preach. So where did this new relationship between Judas and Jesus start from? Its only the author that knows, and unfortunately, he's not around now to back-up His script.

But you know the best part: God has been backing up His Word since Genesis, Jesus has been backing up His promises, the Holy-Spirit has been backing up the Believers. So theres no need to fall-prey to history that has no back-up.

@obong

Quote

its just an old cult, why is everyone so fascinated with tis xtianity stuff. its clear someone a long time ago decided what story would be told and what would not be, and today the same group is doing it again,. by diggin up old caves to find scrolls that were supposedly lost, just to further generate interest in this cult

Christianity is a way of Life. Christianity is not a cult. By the way, Obong, what do you believe in. Scientists tell us that man mortal man cannot claim to exist without a belief. So Obong, which cult are you in?

@slac

Quote

There are dark secrets hidden in christianity and i know the worst is yet to come.

As for me i don't believe in all that church stuff.

Believe in Jesus first, He'll explain all you need to know to you.

@jagunlabi

Quote

Who are we africans to debate what is true and what is false within a foreign,or to be more precise,european liturgy?Have we ever really,trully as black africans,studied the true history of this religion that we have so foolishly adopted as ours?Do we really know how it was formed?What dark,sinister secrets have been hidden from the rest of the world,including us, for thousands of years about this cult called christianity?Blind followership won't get us to paradise,as a lot of you guys have been decieved by indoctrinated brainwashing.

You all think that you know the true Jesus?How mistaken you all are!What you have today is a fake,corrupted,paganised Jesus,that is far far far removed from that Jesus, the jewish rabbi that walked the grounds of Palestine!Make una dey dia dey play ignoramus,and let yourself be decieved in this day and age of enlightenment!

Una never see anything yet,there are more stinko secrets to surface.So make una dress warm

Fine, Jagunlabi, we Africans are not in a position to verify debate anything, neither do we have the brainpower or resource to verify anything. Ok, so what? have you, on your own personal effort or anyone in nairaland ever spent 12 consecutive months verifying the identity of your own parents. who told you that what they looked at when you finally learnt to add 1+1 was what they looked at when you were born? what scientific steps have you taken to verify your own personal birth-certificate? is it really genuine? you should have had someone extra-ordinary to stand beside your mother to verify that you were the one that really popped out from her belly and you were not mis-placed or mis-appropriated in the Hospital to the wrong parent. All the scientific or art knowledge you know today, how many have you personally verified. How many of us here have actually disagreed with out math teacher when we found out that 1+1 wasnt equal to 2. And did you disagree with anyone when you left primary school that you wanted to change your name because you just found out that was not your original name? and then you went to high-school and university and believed all the science and art bull-rubbish that all the professors told you? and for those of us who graduated at the top of our class, did we get an award for believing a whole lot of errors/unverified theories we were told about, and which we had to "understand", memorize and recollect during exams for 4 or 5 long years, or was the award because we found out a whole lots of truths/course we took in college that our professors did not find out in their time as students, and for which they recognized that Yes, we were smart? please tell me,

and for those who don't believe in Jesus, when did that start? when you were one year old? of when you were 6 or 7 and reasoning began descending on you?

whatever you believe in today: is it a personal revelation/effort on your part. Let the Catholics tell me they had a personal revelation and their belief is different from others, let the Muslims tell me that there was a supernatural revelation before you decided for Allah, If i say im an aethist, i and a whole lot of other people are aethists, and what is the basis of our belief for us calling ourselves african aethists since we as Africans never heard any way of verifying anything(religion, science, art, facts, figures, technology, nothing), nothing about what we were told(that there is a God, or there is no God), or that there is one who doesnt give a damn about whats happening? Let someone tell us about his own personal research you have done, and what results you have gotten that are different from what others have or had gotten.

So Mr. jagunlabi, if your conclusion that African Christians are wrong in their belief in Jesus, since as you said they had no way of verifying the history of their faith, then the same is true for you that you(and all those who despise Christianity) are wrong in your disbelief in Jesus because you have not, as a person verified the root cause and history of what faith or faithlessness holds sway in your heart and mind. Its just two sides of the same coin, brother, an application of some logic.

Let me give you another problem to solve: do you know Mr Jagunlabi, that your two ears are not on the same level on your head? One is higher than the other. Take a mirror , and a tape-rule and a measure and measure the distance from center of your head downwards to your left and right ear. You might not notice the difference, but the difference is there. Now, what have you done as regards this discrepancy. But its truth. Perhaps, you might just be knowing for the first time.

Man ceases to exist when he ceases to belief in a supernatural being. There is an element of God in every human heart and soul, whether that person likes it or not. Its either we resist it, or accept Him. The greater truth is that the host of Heaven always back up the Bible. The Bible was one of the first references on science and medicine.

I'm not here preaching Christianity, neither am I despising it, im just trying to make you see the import of having a balanced view on things. And Mr Jagunlabi, what personal effort have you made to verify the genuineness of this Nairaland forum, and all the technology the internet offers us, I can conclude that yes, these things were imposed on you.

Naturally, common sense should make us to see the light, but its a pity tha what each of us is born with that is so common, is no more common.

@orikinla

Quote

On those calling Christianity a foreign religion, which religion is not foreign?

IFA?

Where did Oduduwa come from?

Historically from Iraq.

Where did Abraham come from?

Historically from Iraq.

Where did the Father and Founder of the Hausas come from?

Historically from Iraq.

Even IFA Divination pointed to Jesus Christ.

For even Satan knows the truth.

And i wonder how many Nigerians have gone to Iraq to go and verify the roots of their Faith, yet Ifa divination is now on the intenet.

should i end now?

Mr Jagulabi and his likes:

If the Bible is what you don't believe in, NairaLand is not the best resource for you to prove your disbelief or find your faith.

0
Avatar
Newbie

whats this judas story all about

0
Avatar
Newbie

@Zahymaka, I've had a very busy day so could not post what I had for you last night, so here it is as a rejoinder to where we left off. As a friend I'd like to help strengthen your faith in Jesus Christ (assuming that you're indeed a Christian) when you can see the difference that trusting the Bible makes. I'll do this in two parts with regards to your concerns:

The Paganised Sunday Issue

First, from whatever source(s) you're reading or quoting, they have the same connotation for every single day of the week:

  Sunday         -   official day of worship of the Sun god (Mithra) by Roman pagans and other ancient cultures.

  Monday        -   day dedicated to the worship of the moon or moon god.

  Tuesday       -   'Tiu', also 'Tiw', was associated with Mars who was the Roman god of War.

  Wednesday  -   associated with Odin the god of war, wisdom, agriculture and poetry; also regarded as

                           the god of the dead.

  Thursday      -   ascribed to 'Thor', the god of thunder (hence, aka 'Thunderday')

  Friday           -   in ancient Rome named 'dies Veneris' as having been dedicated to the goddess Venus

  Saturday      -   'Dies Saturni' (Latinised) meaning the 'Day of Saturn' (Saturn [Roman] was also

                          called Kronos by the Greeks).

So, if you're inclined to believe the hoo-ha on the net about the paganised Christian adoption of Sunday, in fair exchange be open minded, at least, to believe as well that your preference for Saturday as a day of worship was paganised from the Greeks who dedicated it to Kronos.

You see, what is happening is that some 'scholars, authorities and researchers' are trying to short-change you with only one aim in mind - to take your eyes off the Bible. Discovering the gnostic documents and other artifacts is not new; what is interesting is that some people will easily fall for the fraudulent assertion that these gnostic 'gospels' are the 'emerging truths' that are to replace the NT Gospels. Have you ever asked yourself if anyone of these 'authorities, scholars or researchers' have applied the teachings of these gnostic documents in their own lives? Yet, they want you to throw your Bible away and believe the 'truth' of gnosticism that they themselves have no iota of faith in.

Quoting from one of the links you recommended, this is what has been giving most people the migraine:

       "Contrary to popular belief, there is not the slightest indication in the Bible that Sunday

        observance may have originated with Christ or the apostles."    quoting your weblink

"'Not the slightest indication in the Bible"'? Are these fellows serious, or have they been reading another Bible? Any careful reader of the Scriptures knows at least that Saturday is the seventh day of the week, and that our calendar Sunday is the first day. From the two scriptures I quoted earlier, there is clear indication in the Bible itself that Sunday was quite the normal day of Christian worship - "And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight." (Acts 20:7) and "Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come." The first day of the week was not derived from Mithra worship - 'scholars' saying that are selling you a big propaganda. Sunday, the first of the week, was the day Christ rose from the dead, and that is what the disciples come together to celebrate in worship - Christ's victory in resurrection over death and Satan, and the establishing of a new covenant that promises a future to believers.

The same source quoted some so-called authorities as having written:

         "It [Mithraism] had so much acceptance that it was able to impose on the Christian world

          its own Sun-day in place of the Sabbath. . ."

and

          "The early Christians had at first adopted the Jewish seven-day week, with its numbered

          week days, but by the close of the third century A.D. this began to give way to the

          planetary week. . ."

Smoke screen. I'm amazed that the authority did not insinuate that the Jewish seven-day week was adopted from the worship of the Greek deity Kronos. I've personally done a check up on these quotes and it's sad to say that these authorities were making bogus claims that could not be authenticated. They were selling their armchair ideas, and even an honest skeptic would tell you that there's nothing scholarly in them.

It is bogus 'scholarships and researches' like these floating on the web that most people are inclined to believe - for the simple reason that they have not read the Bible for themselves, and they don't want to. When these half-baked scholars make assertions like "there is not the slightest indication in the Bible that Sunday observance may have originated with Christ or the apostles", you know who's been trying to blow a smoke screen in your face.

Second part follows shortly. With much love in Christ.

0
Avatar
Newbie

@my2cents

My bros, na true, why during easter. Abeg leave them, they'll rubbish themselves in the end!

0
Avatar
Newbie

@jagunalbi, you obviously ran out of steam to make any point and so it's understandable that you're backslapping nferyn. Prejudices apart, what I'd like to know is how you or nferyn know that his own version of his tales form the 'truth' of Christianity. For example, does nferyn really understand Jewish traditions before he could debunk the inspired authors of the NT on the basis of the trial of Jesus in front of the Sanhedrin? As for the advice to others to study mythology or history, some of us already do both and more - on the whole, it's a pity that most of the sources you might've been ferreting your ideas from do not represent scholarship at any level.

I'm open to read nferyn discuss what he really knows about Jewish tradition. It's not now a matter of clobbering the PC screen with weblinks - just you tell me what you know for yourself to be Jewish tradition - here or another thread: the choice is yours.

Blessing.

0
Avatar
Newbie

nferyn,

The book of Mark was written by a young protege of Simon Peter called Mark.  The fact that the book was written a generation or so after Jesus does not make it less authoritative because the information were very likely passed down to him through apostle Peter.  Besides, you neglect the revelation of the Holy spirit to each of these Writers.  Apostle Paul in 1 corinthians wrote about the Last super though he was not present there.  This should tell you that there is only One Author really - The Holy spirit.

The Books of matthew and John were written by the Disciples themselves.  Matthew was a former tax collector turned Disciple, and John was the oldest living of all these disciples and he is also the Author of the Book of Revelation.  He could well have been alive even later than 70AD as he was siad to have lived very long.

The Book of Luke was written by a Physician named Luke.  he was very likely a Gentile, and he is also the author of the book of Acts.  This means He lived during the times of Jesus and was around for a considerable length of time after Jesus Ascension.

I believe you are insecere by insinuating that the other Gospels were copied off the book of Mark.  The Authors are different individuals looking at the same events from different perspectives.  I would have been more sceptical of the Gospels if all the accounts were exactly the same. 

The book of Matthew seem to have been targeted more at the Jews as the Book of Luke seems to the Gentiles.  But in all, lie the truth of the events.

Why do you think the dead sea scrolls provide more accuracy than the New Testament as we know it?  Why not the other way round?  You've made up your mind that the Bible is all false, and any information that comes your way that provides some information that supports your prejudice must then be the truth by your standard.

There is nothing wrong with using the Bible to prove it's veracity. The Bible was not written by one author at one sitting in one fell swoop. Rather, it is a compilation of various writings from different authors, independently over time. These writings are complimentary of each other though they were not planned.

It appears to me that you seek a God that is intellectually acceptable to you. That is not new. Paul said the Gentiles always seek for Wisdom, while the Jews seek a sign, but Christ is the Wisdom and the Power of God. Your journey ends up in Him, no matter how much you may want to even deny His existence.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Owo,

What I am trying to accomplish here is what 2Cor5:11 says "It is because we know this solemn fear of the Lord that we work so hard to persuade others, "

Some on this forum are genuine seekers, and they could get some answers. Others will never be convinced even if God comes back in the flesh before their eyes. My persuasion is to help the former that may be in our midst.

Paul reasoned in the synagogues regularly, and we are told of others in Acts who do the same.

While the scripture you mention in Acts is true, I don't think it applies to this case.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Brother, we need more of this. It will stand for posterity. Its the case of the faintest ink being better than the best brain. These words will help lost men (and others under the spell of ungodly philosphies) to find their way.

It will also be the yardstick by which some will be jugded (or will judge themselves) because they cannot claim ignorance anymore having read these things.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Enough of this argurment. The bible said in Proverb that when you try to argue with a fool, he will make full of your wise saying so stop it

0
Avatar
Newbie

nferyn,

I am not just talking about the Gospels, I am talking also of the Epistles. All come together in harmaony.

0
Avatar
Newbie

TayoD,

So you are claiming that the canonical gospels were actually written by Jesus' disciples?

0
Avatar
Newbie

nferyn,

The yardstick is very simple.  At least, there were 11 disciples still alive after Jesus resurrected.  These were men of integrity whose word was their bond and who will die for what they believe in and witnessed.  Though they all wrote from different perspectives, their writings complement each other and were not contradictory.

God brought another man on the scene by the name of Apostle Paul who was gifted with more insight than others.  Apostle Peter witnesed to the veractiy of his write-up in 2 Peter 3:16 "As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction."

The Gnostics are diametrically opposed to the writings and witness of all these credible men.  Besides, the book of Colossians was basically targeted at Gnostism, and other Epistles testify to the fact that there exists other books and other sects who were trying to deceive people by the use of Christian terminologies and by their proximity with Christians.

0
Avatar
Newbie

@ youngies

Why are you asking? Why would I need to authenticate my birth certificate; I don't even know I have a birth certificate. And if I need one, I would go to the communal administration of my place of birth. What does my birth certificate have to do with all of this?

0
Avatar
Newbie
Your answer
Add image

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.