I think the subject matter was handled well. It falls into the sort of pseudo-Christianity which the Gnostics were branded heretics for. It's valuable for learning what that sect believed.
I am reminded of the movies "Last Temptation of Christ" and "DaVinci Code" - the latter also archaeologically false, as proved by DNA testing of known Merovingian rulers. They had no Hebrew DNA!
Interesting from a storyteller's POV, but damaging to those who have a desire to learn about Christian belief, historical Jesus, Judas, or simply ancient history. Surely there are better ways to write gripping movies than by contradicting one of the major religions with what they find offensive: heresy. And false premises, at that. Kinda puts a pall over the whole storyline, knowing there's an agenda.
I would like to put a more accurate archaeological and theological light on the contents of "Judas". I'm currently a graduate student researching the apostle Judas.
The Gnostics were an outcast sect that believed one could connect with the divine spark within oneself and get direct, secret knowledge, by reconnecting to the original source. This ability to get new revelations was reserved for the "special" few. Already, this is counter to Christian belief - God is accessible to anyone equally.
This makes any "gospel" they authored suspicious. There were other anti-Jesus beliefs, meaning contrary to his teaching.
The 4 gospels we have in the canon are corroborated with evidence from "hostile" witnesses in other documents of the time. In other words, they had nothing to gain by attesting to the same events depicted in the Bible. And may have preferred not to. Thus giving historical support for the material, lacking in Gnostic accounts.
Remember, Gnostics have "personal" secret knowledge, so we can't prove it is true! The problem is if it sounds plausible, it perpetrates errors.
It was early Christian leader Irenaeus who ousted their bogus "gospels" from the official accounts that make our familiar Bible. Constantine came much later, and as a Roman of Pagan roots, was not above doing what his mother wanted him to do, as per changing Christianity to suit her anti-semitic beliefs. For example, initiating the Sunday "sabbath" to avoid worship on the "Jewish" Sabbath.
The Judas Gospel was found in a burial cave, in a stone box, in 1978. Scholars have not made much fuss about it till relatively recently. It may be a "real" document, in that it is on old papyrus, and may have been written by a Gnostic. Historically it cannot be true, because that would make the other 4 Gospels lies. One cannot have 2 contradictory truths. Also, Jesus would have lied in calling Judas "a devil", if he were beloved and trusted. We are told he stole from the common money bag. In fact, he died before Jesus did, so could not have had any experience of the crucifixion events.
Of course Jesus had to send Judas out to betray him at that time. It was the only way to fulfill all the prophecies that confirmed the Messiah, and allowed him to finish what he came to do. Any other time would not have been "timely". We are told clearly that Jesus didn't want to die.
Although it would be nice to believe Judas was forgiven, we are not told this in the Bible. We only know "he repented" before killing himself. And the 11 drew lots to replace him after the Acension, according to another prophecy his fall fulfilled.
He remains a tragic character, and a mysterious one, worthy of a historically accurate retelling with a sympathetic eye. Not a masking attempt via Gnostic fallacies. Of course, it is up to the viewer to weigh the evidence for either account, and then to decide who has the stronger case - not just a more romantic tale. Watching the documentary "the Gospel of Judas" should help.
I am reminded of the movies "Last Temptation of Christ" and "DaVinci Code" - the latter also archaeologically false, as proved by DNA testing of known Merovingian rulers. They had no Hebrew DNA!
Interesting from a storyteller's POV, but damaging to those who have a desire to learn about Christian belief, historical Jesus, Judas, or simply ancient history. Surely there are better ways to write gripping movies than by contradicting one of the major religions with what they find offensive: heresy. And false premises, at that. Kinda puts a pall over the whole storyline, knowing there's an agenda.
I would like to put a more accurate archaeological and theological light on the contents of "Judas". I'm currently a graduate student researching the apostle Judas.
The Gnostics were an outcast sect that believed one could connect with the divine spark within oneself and get direct, secret knowledge, by reconnecting to the original source. This ability to get new revelations was reserved for the "special" few. Already, this is counter to Christian belief - God is accessible to anyone equally.
This makes any "gospel" they authored suspicious. There were other anti-Jesus beliefs, meaning contrary to his teaching.
The 4 gospels we have in the canon are corroborated with evidence from "hostile" witnesses in other documents of the time. In other words, they had nothing to gain by attesting to the same events depicted in the Bible. And may have preferred not to. Thus giving historical support for the material, lacking in Gnostic accounts.
Remember, Gnostics have "personal" secret knowledge, so we can't prove it is true! The problem is if it sounds plausible, it perpetrates errors.
It was early Christian leader Irenaeus who ousted their bogus "gospels" from the official accounts that make our familiar Bible. Constantine came much later, and as a Roman of Pagan roots, was not above doing what his mother wanted him to do, as per changing Christianity to suit her anti-semitic beliefs. For example, initiating the Sunday "sabbath" to avoid worship on the "Jewish" Sabbath.
The Judas Gospel was found in a burial cave, in a stone box, in 1978. Scholars have not made much fuss about it till relatively recently. It may be a "real" document, in that it is on old papyrus, and may have been written by a Gnostic. Historically it cannot be true, because that would make the other 4 Gospels lies. One cannot have 2 contradictory truths. Also, Jesus would have lied in calling Judas "a devil", if he were beloved and trusted. We are told he stole from the common money bag. In fact, he died before Jesus did, so could not have had any experience of the crucifixion events.
Of course Jesus had to send Judas out to betray him at that time. It was the only way to fulfill all the prophecies that confirmed the Messiah, and allowed him to finish what he came to do. Any other time would not have been "timely". We are told clearly that Jesus didn't want to die.
Although it would be nice to believe Judas was forgiven, we are not told this in the Bible. We only know "he repented" before killing himself. And the 11 drew lots to replace him after the Acension, according to another prophecy his fall fulfilled.
He remains a tragic character, and a mysterious one, worthy of a historically accurate retelling with a sympathetic eye. Not a masking attempt via Gnostic fallacies. Of course, it is up to the viewer to weigh the evidence for either account, and then to decide who has the stronger case - not just a more romantic tale. Watching the documentary "the Gospel of Judas" should help.