Muslims and Judas

There have been many posts already today about Judas and the new/lost Gospel, so i'm trying to do something a bit different.

What does this whole situation mean for Muslims and the Islamic faith?

Or does it adhere to what you thought anyway, as some Muslims believe Judas was the one crucified.

Orichalcum said:

There have been many posts already today about Judas and the new/lost Gospel, so i'm trying to do something a bit different.

What does this whole situation mean for Muslims and the Islamic faith?

Or does it adhere to what you thought anyway, as some Muslims believe Judas was the one crucified.

Click to expand...

My opinion is dotted around in said threads...I think that Allah Alim...but the Quran tells us that Jesus was definately not crucified.

I know this is going to upset a lot of people, but I have to say it eventually. I'm not only an "atheist/agnostic" whatever *boo hiss*... I don't believe there was ever a living man called Jesus Christ ... please no throwing of stones or other heavy objects.

So to me the whole debate over the gospel of Judas is pointless anyways... BUTTTT.... if I had to choose a side I would say it is a more likely candidate for the gospels than the ones in the Bible that are "accepted" as scripture. Simply because it was originally written in the correct time frame and we have no other known works written by ANYONE who was actually in close contact with Christ. Judas was.

Let the debate rage!

bunny1ohio said:

I know this is going to upset a lot of people, but I have to say it eventually. I'm not only an "atheist/agnostic" whatever *boo hiss*... I don't believe there was ever a living man called Jesus Christ ... please no throwing of stones or other heavy objects.

So to me the whole debate over the gospel of Judas is pointless anyways... BUTTTT.... if I had to choose a side I would say it is a more likely candidate for the gospels than the ones in the Bible that are "accepted" as scripture. Simply because it was originally written in the correct time frame and we have no other known works written by ANYONE who was actually in close contact with Christ. Judas was.

Let the debate rage!

Click to expand...

Hey, wait a minute, I said Jesus didn't exist first, you copycat! :149:

Well, i'm not actually sure of what I said, but what the hell.

Bunny, there is no evidence the Gospel of Judas was written by Judas. It was common back then for the author of a work to ascribe the work to some important person for artistic reasons, and also perhaps to give the work instant weight and creditablity.

What is the Gospel of Judas? A lost chapter in the Bible?

As Salaam Alaykum wa rahmat Allah wa Barakhatu Ya Zaza, Ahlan wa Sahlan illa RF!!!!

Its a gospel that has been discussed alot lately in the west.

Orichalcum said:

What does this whole situation mean for Muslims and the Islamic faith?

Or does it adhere to what you thought anyway, as some Muslims believe Judas was the one crucified.

Click to expand...

Judas is not mentioned by name in The Qur'an.

But this whole new story does not make sense (imo), as from a Muslim perspective God saved Jesus, peace be upon him, from that horrible death on the cross.

God made another person resemble Jesus, peace be upon him, and when this person was crucified people thought it was Jesus, but it wasn't him.

According to a leading Muslim scholar in the field of comparative religion, (Dr. Jamal Badawi), the person crucified was Judas himself, whom God punished for his betrayal of Jesus.

For further audio background, if of interest, type Judas in the search on this page:

http://www.islamonline.net/jamalbadawy/main.asp

Cordoba said:

According to a leading Muslim scholar in the field of comparative religion, (Dr. Jamal Badawi), the person crucified was Judas himself, whom God punished for his betrayal of Jesus.

Click to expand...

Yes, but this "book" alludes to the fact that Judas did not betray Jesus at all, but was merely doing what Christ asked him to do.

This idea is actually not new.... I read a book by John Dominic Crossan (I think) years ago and he proposed this very idea.... that Judas and Jesus conspired to have Jesus arrested... Judas, not understanding this would lead to his death on the cross, did what was asked of him.... when he later realized it would lead to Christ's death, that is why he returned the silver pieces and later killed himself.

This would seem to go against the opinion of Dr. Badawi... but who could know if this story is even close to being true?

God is great,
Scott

Hello Scott:

Logically-speaking, why would Jesus, peace be upon him, get involved in this alleged conspiracy?

That's what I don't understand.

His mission was to guide people to the path of God, and that was what he preached. Being arrested would prevent him from guiding people to the truth.

Cordoba said:

Hello Scott:

Logically-speaking, why would Jesus, peace be upon him, get involved in this alleged conspiracy?

That's what I don't understand.

His mission was to guide people to the path of God, and that was what he preached. Being arrested would prevent him from guiding people to the truth.

Click to expand...

I don't want to debate the theology behind it, but he may have done this (and again, I don't believe this book to be divinely inspired) to make sure he died on the cross.... because, as he says in the Bible, he came to do the "will of my Father".

Christ could just as easily have not have ridden into Jerusalem and hidden from the authorities to make sure he would continue "guiding people to the truth".... but he didn't.

Peace be with you,
Scott

If he didn't hide, why should he take part in the alleged conspiracy?

It simply does not make sense.

Peace be with you too, Scott.

All the best and Happy Easter.

Cordoba said:

If he didn't hide, why should he take part in the alleged conspiracy?

It simply does not make sense.

Click to expand...

It makes perfect sense.... he was sent to die for our sins.... not hiding and conspiring with Judas make perfect sense if he wanted to be caught and killed.

Not saying you should agree that was his intention or that he was killed... just saying that it falls in line with Christian orthodox theology.

All the best and Happy Easter.

Click to expand...

Thanks brother.

I think the words to hold to hear Cordoba here are the words of Jesus himself when he met the Magdalen regarding what occured to him, to which he said 'I have been Jonah in the Belly of the Whale'. The 'Judas Theory' is an old one, and does not rest on this new gospel, it is considered to be written even in the four gospels in the NT. I have briefly outlined in here in other places but will post it again. I have not looked up the specific points, tho I did many years ago, and the standard gospels while not conforming the theory certainly neither disprove it either.

This is paraphrased as I can't bothered with chapter and verse, a well versed Christian will know the relevant parts immediately. Jesus was not an only child, first born of Mary, yes, only child no. Jesus' brothers (James and some have it Judas, tho' Judas may have been a cousin) travelled with him during his ministry. Things get a little hairy and the hierarchy in Jerusalem have it in for Jesus, so a counter plan is formed using a double. When the heat get's too much the Temple guards are lead to Judas the daggerman (read bodyguard, lit. Sicarii) in [SIZE=-1]Garden of Gethsemane, who is kissed as thanks. Judas is 'hung from a tree', but does not die (i.e. spear of destiny already mentioned), he is brought down and reappears called brother (literally or figuratively depending what you believe), which gives us the character Thomas (lit. brother) formally known as Judas. Jesus meanwhile is as Jonah in the belly of the whale.[/SIZE]

The gospel of Judas, according to 'wiki' has a very interesting quote,


which in light of the semiotic construction of the very name of Jeheshuah (delineated elsewhere but can be posted here if anyone is interested) and with 666 often thought to represent the sun and thus solar rites and by implication the resurrection, it makes sense of the axiom 'Not risen as a Sun, risen as a star behind a cross'...

Nehustan said:

This is paraphrased as I can't bothered with chapter and verse, a well versed Christian will know the relevant parts immediately. Jesus was not an only child, first born of Mary, yes, only child no.

Click to expand...

There are a billion or so of us Roman/Orthodox Catholics who will disagree, but that's off topic.

Things get a little hairy and the hierarchy in Jerusalem have it in for Jesus, so a counter plan is formed using a double. When the heat get's too much the Temple guards are lead to Judas the daggerman (read bodyguard, lit. Sicarii) in

Click to expand...

Neat theory... but it renders Acts 1:15-26 as a lie/forgery (???)

Peter specifically mentions about Judas: "and falling headlong, he burst open in the middle, and all his insides spilled out." .... sounds pretty dead to me.

To consider Jeheshuah as a 'star' (in an Islamic perspective the parables of Sura 24:35-36 are key to 'lights in houses, i.e. Jeheshuah bin David HaJudah) one must consider the name Mary was instructed to name her son by Gabriel, and then the words mentioned fron 'Judas' have some more sense, i.e. the reference to the star and Judas, as with his prophet Jeheshauh....'not risen as a sun, risen as a star behind the cross.'

Surah An Nisa, 4:157​

Scott1 said:

There are a billion or so of us Roman/Orthodox Catholics who will disagree, but that's off topic.

Neat theory... but it renders Acts 1:15-26 as a lie/forgery (???)

Peter specifically mentions about Judas: "and falling headlong, he burst open in the middle, and all his insides spilled out." .... sounds pretty dead to me.

Click to expand...

Or as it seems that this new gospel hints at, that the majority of the disciples knew nothing of what happened. It is already obvious to anyone with a basic grasp of the Judaic faith of the time, and by extension the present, that what the disciples reported regarding Jesus' more scholastic discourses can not have been understood nor reported correctly (this fact born out by the issue that current Jews have with accepting Jesus as the messiah, I'm sure if they heard him speak with their own ears they'd be sold, especially with their current level of learning and literacy), the disciples on the whole were simple folk, more intune I'd imagine with parable that scholarly debate. In regard to the gospel of Judas I found this yesterday from St. Irenaeus...

"They declare that Judas the traitor was thoroughly acquainted with these things, and that he alone, knowing the truth as no others did, accomplished the mystery of the betrayal; by him all things, both earthly and heavenly, were thus thrown into confusion. They produce a fictitious history of this kind, which they style the Gospel of Judas."

Now unsuprisingly St. Irenaeus considers it a 'ficticious history', but I thought other parts of this interesting...particularly the wording 'the mystery of the betrayal'.

Nehustan said:

Now unsuprisingly St. Irenaeus considers it a 'ficticious history', but I thought other parts of this interesting...particularly the wording 'the mystery of the betrayal'.

Click to expand...

Why does it not suprise you that St. Irenaeus considerd it a 'ficticious history'?

Just pulled from Wiki to emphasise the Judas issue, lets just look at the characters which are considered 'different' people named Jude/Judas...

• Jude or Judas (יהודה "Praise", Standard Hebrew Yəhuda, Tiberian Hebrew Yəhûḏāh) was the name of several people in the New Testament. The original Greek text of the New Testament makes no difference between the names "Judah", "Judas" and "Jude", rendering them all as Ioudas; but in many English translations "Judah" is used for the Old Testament figure and the tribe named after him, "Judas" is used only for Judas Iscariot, and "Jude" for all other New Testament persons of the same name.

1. Judas the Zealot (Matthew 13:55; John 14:22; Acts 1:13), an apostle also called Thaddaeus or Lebbaeus (Matthew 10:3; Mark 3:18); the Decretum Gelasianum lists among texts accepted in the canon the epistle of "Judas the Zealot". Also known as Saint Jude, he is the patron saint of seemingly hopeless causes in the Catholic Church.
2. Judas Iscariot (Matthew 10:4; Mark 3:19);
3. The Judas called "the son of James" (Luke 6:16), may be the same with the Judas surnamed Thaddaeus. The only thing recorded regarding him is in John 14:22.
4. Jude Thomas, usually identified as Thomas, a brother of Jesus and James the Just. Eusebius records the fact he had two grandsons living in the time of the Emperor Domitian who shared a farm 10 acres (40,000 m²) in size worth 9000 pieces of silver.

If Judas is considered not multiple persons, but indeed one person, then the Judas theory, Islamic thought on the issue, and the above quoted Quranic ayat come to synthesis.

Scott1 said:

Why does it not suprise you that St. Irenaeus considerd it a 'ficticious history'?

Click to expand...

Because he, as you, adheres to the orthodoxy of the Pauline faith?