 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Book of Judas
|
|
|
Subject: BS: Book of Judas From: beardedbruce Date: 06 Apr 06 - 02:06 PM WASHINGTON (AP) -- National Geographic unveiled an ancient manuscript Thursday that may shed new light on the relationship between Jesus and Judas, the disciple who betrayed him. The papyrus manuscript was written probably around 300 A.D. in Coptic script, a copy of an earlier Greek manuscript. It was discovered in the desert in Egypt in the 1970s and has now been authenticated by carbon dating and studied and translated by biblical scholars, National Geographic announced. Unlike the four gospels in the Bible, this text indicates that Judas betrayed Jesus at Jesus' request. The text begins "the secret account of the revelation that Jesus spoke in conversation with Judas Iscariot." The key passage comes when Jesus tells Judas "you will exceed all of them. For you will sacrifice the man that clothed me." http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/04/06/gospel.judas.ap/index.html |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Book of Judas From: Peace Date: 06 Apr 06 - 02:12 PM "The Passover Plot" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Book of Judas From: Big Al Whittle Date: 06 Apr 06 - 02:32 PM 300 years after , why would the writer of that know, any more than I know about Charles 1? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Book of Judas From: MMario Date: 06 Apr 06 - 02:34 PM the 'Book of Judas" is mentioned in surviving documents as early as 180 AD - presumably the 300 AD scroll is a copy. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Book of Judas From: Rapparee Date: 06 Apr 06 - 02:36 PM Yeah, Gnostics.... There are other Gnostic writings. Humans seem to have a remarkable need to believe in some secret method of achieving things.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Book of Judas From: MMario Date: 06 Apr 06 - 02:42 PM Though in recent years the role of Judas has been re-evaluated by many theologians - and many contend he was a much pre-destined as was Christ. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Book of Judas From: Les in Chorlton Date: 06 Apr 06 - 02:54 PM I feel sure I will regret this but ................ Either you go with the general Jesus of the four Gospels plus 2000 years of generating Christianity or you go for the accademic study of the honestly historic Jesus. If you keep dodging back and forth it will all end up arses and elbows won't it? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Book of Judas From: MMario Date: 06 Apr 06 - 02:57 PM *grin* at 2000 years distance it pretty well will end up that way anyway, won't it? especially filtered through decidedly prejudical twists and turns along the way. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Book of Judas From: TheBigPinkLad Date: 06 Apr 06 - 02:58 PM or you go for the accademic study of the honestly historic Jesus ... which would necessitate the conclusion that there wasn't one. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Book of Judas From: Rapparee Date: 06 Apr 06 - 02:59 PM Try the work of the Jesus Seminar. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Book of Judas From: Anonny Mouse Date: 06 Apr 06 - 03:07 PM It's apocryphal--trust me. As is "the Gospel of Thomas," "The Gospel of Peter," and many other writings from that era. There's good scholarly and archaelogical reasons such were excluded from the Canon. There IS evidence, however, that ol' Judas was highly trusted by Jesus and his fellow disciples as he was "treasurer" of whatever pittance these guys lived on. Also, the more "sympathetic" Gospel interpreters would say it was "NECESSARY for Judas to be who he was" in order to aid in the ultimate disposition of the man known as Yeshua ben Joseph. Holy week is nearing...pick your side. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Book of Judas From: Les in Chorlton Date: 06 Apr 06 - 03:13 PM 'There IS evidence' This is dangerous talk. I quite like the idea of the Gospel according to Garry. I seem to remember in another thread the idea of the Holly Mate. S/he would be added to the holy trinity as a more yoof friendly being who would build bridges with young people and so on and on ........ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Book of Judas From: beardedbruce Date: 06 Apr 06 - 03:14 PM apocryphal just means that it was not selected as supporting the views of the early Church fathers. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Book of Judas From: MMario Date: 06 Apr 06 - 03:18 PM who were as politically motivated a bunch of guys as any seen today. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Book of Judas From: Rapparee Date: 06 Apr 06 - 03:20 PM Exactly, bb. The Catholic Church recognizes the book of Tobiat; the Protestant churches do not -- to cite but one example. And I really don't think it's necessary to "take sides" about "Holy Week." Goes completely against the ideas of Yeshua of Nazareth.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Book of Judas From: Little Hawk Date: 06 Apr 06 - 06:06 PM 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, the 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." The text ends with Judas turning Jesus over to the high priests and does not include any mention of the crucifixion or resurrection. National Geographic said the author believed that Judas Iscariot alone understood the true significance of Jesus' teachings. The author of the text is not named in the writings. Fascinating stuff! I have long suspected that Judas did exactly what Jesus had instructed him to do. Jesus' oddly passive behaviour both before, during, and after the arrest certainly would appear to support that. He wanted the arrest and his death to occur...he needed someone to play the role of "traitor" in the drama...Judas did so. This implies that Judas had a higher degree of trust than any other apostle. It would have been in the interest of the other apostles, subsequently, to put the whole blame on Judas, thus exonerating themselves in some measure for running away and not having the courage to stand beside Jesus in his time of trial. I hope Leon Rosselson gets to hear this theory and get really ticked off about it. ;-) It would royally screw the premise of his "Judas, hero of the working class" song. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Book of Judas From: Rapparee Date: 06 Apr 06 - 06:16 PM Have you read The Book of Mary [Magadalene]? In it Peter cuts her up (orally) because Yeshua supposedly entrusted to her things that he didn't entrust to the men. And she is defended by Thomas. Makes you wonder who the "dearly beloved" Apostle was.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Book of Judas From: Little Hawk Date: 06 Apr 06 - 06:52 PM Uh-huh. It has also long been my suspicion that Mary Magdalene (and women in general) had a far more important place in Jesus' following than was indicated by the highly edited gospels that the church fathers sought later to make the only accepted official version. And they succeeded too! That's power. Guess how many died that they might succeed in that unholy objective. They created a male-dominated church with a celibate clergy. That's two idiotic abominations right there. They further promulgated grotesque notions such as "original sin" and "eternal hellfire"....two notions that might have sprung from the mind of a demon, not a genuine spiritual teacher. I doubt that anyone's teachings in history have been done more harm by the mainstream churches founded in his name than those of Jesus. The apostles appear to me to have been a fairly competitive bunch, jockeying for power and prestige in the church they were founding. That's not unusual. For them to make Judas the official black sheep was the perfect way to distract attention from their own rather conspicuous failings. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Book of Judas From: bobad Date: 06 Apr 06 - 06:58 PM This information has piqued my curiosity, does anyone know how much historical evidence, that is not Bible derived, exists for the existence Jesus. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Book of Judas From: Little Hawk Date: 06 Apr 06 - 07:08 PM Oh...there's been just a tad of debate about that around here already... (grin) It strikes me as funny, because the Bible itself comprises about maybe 10% of all the useful information I've personally found out there about Jesus. You have to ask yourself, though, will YOU be remembered 2,000 years from now? And will there be historical evidence to confirm it? No? Why not????? What's wrong with you? Hell, I have a hard time even believing you exist, to tell the truth. ;-) Not much damn evidence for it, as far as I can see. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Book of Judas From: Little Hawk Date: 06 Apr 06 - 07:15 PM Tell you what, though, if you succeed in living a life that inspires a world religion that affects the lives of billions of people for over 2,000 years....then I will be prepared to admit that, yeah, you probably existed. Most likely. At least a good chance. (Even if we can't find a set of your old sneakers or a dog-eared 2,000-year-old issue of US News and World Report with your photo on the cover, I will still give you the benefit of the doubt on this one.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Book of Judas From: John O'L Date: 06 Apr 06 - 07:18 PM There is very little non-biblical evidence for his existence, but if he did not exist, there was a very comprehensive hoax put in place very early and very effectively. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Book of Judas From: bobad Date: 06 Apr 06 - 07:18 PM I guess YOU are not able to answer my question. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Book of Judas From: bobad Date: 06 Apr 06 - 07:19 PM That last post was aimed at LH. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Book of Judas From: Donuel Date: 06 Apr 06 - 07:23 PM Wait until they release the book of The Abraham Prophesies where it is written that a future evil grandson by the name of Mohammed... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Book of Judas From: John O'L Date: 06 Apr 06 - 07:26 PM To me, the most compelling piece of information is contained in the gospel of Thomas, and it is intriguing that this gospel was not included in the canon. In it Jesus names James The Just as his chosen successor. After his death all the others raced off to Antioch, Rome, Babylon etc to convert the gentiles to Christianity, while James The Just remained in Jerusalem and continued the work of Jesus, which had been the reformation of Judaism. Around 60AD James was stoned by the pharasees for the same reason Jesus was alledgedly crucified. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Book of Judas From: Little Hawk Date: 06 Apr 06 - 07:48 PM There are people who would love to answer your question, bobad, but I am completely fed up with that particular question by now, as I think you can guess from my sarcasm. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Book of Judas From: Tig Date: 06 Apr 06 - 08:16 PM If he hadn't been crucified, who would remember him? The Badger |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Book of Judas From: Little Hawk Date: 06 Apr 06 - 08:29 PM Buddha was not crucified. Neither was Zoroaster. Nor Krishna. They are remembered. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Book of Judas From: Little Hawk Date: 06 Apr 06 - 08:34 PM There were also thousands and thousands of other people crucified by Rome. With the exception of Jesus and Spartacus, they are not remembered. Rethink your logical premise on this one. Jesus and Spartacus were remembered, not because they were crucified, but because they were both remarkable people and they each had a profound effect on the people of their time. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Book of Judas From: Arne Date: 06 Apr 06 - 08:56 PM Is it true? Will Leon Rosselson's "Stand Up For Judas" now start to receive air time on fundie radio stations? Will miracles never cease?... Cheers, |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Book of Judas From: Little Hawk Date: 06 Apr 06 - 09:07 PM I know and loathe the Rosselson song, because I consider it to be an aberration that totally misses the spiritual point of both Jesus and Judas, although it rightly criticizes the hypocrisy of the Christian church...but whatever you think of his reasoning his proletarian passion is certainly evident. Marx or Lenin would have loved that song. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Book of Judas From: catspaw49 Date: 06 Apr 06 - 09:27 PM "There is nothing more negative than the result of the critical study of the Life of Jesus."................ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Book of Judas From: Arne Date: 06 Apr 06 - 09:59 PM Little Hawk: I know and loathe the Rosselson song, because I consider it to be an aberration that totally misses the spiritual point of both Jesus and Judas, although it rightly criticizes the hypocrisy of the Christian church...but whatever you think of his reasoning his proletarian passion is certainly evident. Marx or Lenin would have loved that song. I had no illusions that Rosselson's song would actually gain favour with the fundies (nor do I have any illusion that the fundies will change their minds about Judas with this new [perhaps too "new"?] material). Yes, it does miss a fair bit of the good parts of the teachings of Jesus (as recounted), although it does make a few points about the nature of passivity in the face of injustice being not always conducive to the best situation in the here-and-now (not to say that the alternatives don't sometimes have their ethical drawbacks as well). That's a matter for each to decide themselves. And Rosselson does really attribute to the teacher some of the sins of the church that followed ... not entirely fair to visit the sins of the son on the father, you know what I mean. I don't think that Rosselson was even remotely trying to portray the life and thoughts of Judas accurately; rather, I think he used the "Judas" character as a counter-point, a foil to the character traits of Jesus that he wanted to portray ... and as a bit of provocation. And I'll admit that my post was a bit of a provocation too. Imagine that; I never do such things here on the 'Cat normally.... Yes, there's definitely a pinko Commie tinge to the song. Strangely enough, though, there's those that say that Jesus was one of the world's first socialists (but more accurately, he was probably an Essene ascetic). Rosselson's brand of communism is more pro-active and more radical. The "redemption" of Judas in the "Book of Judas" (or "Gospel of Judas") is not at all what Rosselson was about. As I understand it (but know little much of substance), the theory is that Judas had to betray Jesus, and that Jesus in fact wanted this (or at least facilitated it). This brings to mind one form of common hatred for the Jews amongst Christian extremists; that the Jews were responsible for "killing" Jesus. But, thinking about it logically, if the crucifixion and resurrection were necessary to provide the substitutional atonement, you'd think that Christians ought to be glad that Jesus was crucified, and hope that if they had been there themselves, they would not have tried to stop it. Not to mention that God set it up that way, and being fore-ordained, it couldn't have happened any differently. So, by this token, this rehabilitation of Judas is just another page from the same book. But that's if you buy that stuff in the first place. I, personally, am probably more in line with Thomas Jefferson's thinking in these respects, in which case the crucifixion had most usefulness as a learning experience ... and an object lesson in human stupidity and cruelty. Have I pissed enough people off yet? ;-) Cheers, |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Book of Judas From: catspaw49 Date: 06 Apr 06 - 10:10 PM You mean there is some possibility the Jews didn't kill Christ? I can't buy that. A friend of my cousin Hermie's ex-wife named Morton Feldstein committed suicide and left a note that said: Yes, I did it. Signed, Morty I always figured that was proof right right there!!! Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Book of Judas From: Little Hawk Date: 06 Apr 06 - 10:13 PM I'm pretty much of a socialist myself, Arne, but I find Rosselson's brand of socialist rhetoric self-righteously naive and embarrassing. He sounds like one of those earnest fanatics who ends up executing innocents at the guillotine, all supposedly in devoted service to the suffering proletariat. That kind of socialism gives me the creeps. There may be another reason entirely for why Jesus saw the crucifixion as necessary (I've never bought the thing about him atoning for the sins of others)...and it is this: he may have wished to demonstrate to his disciples in the most dramatic way possible that the death of the body is not the death of the true self, which is spirit. The only way he could do that was to die in front of them and then confront them later AS a living spirit (in a reanimated body or not). Therefore, the main point of the exercise would not have been the suffering on the cross, or the atonement of sins, but the resurrection...proof positive to those who witnessed it of the eternal life of the soul. Is not the resurrection a far more significant matter than the manner of his death? I am simply presenting that as a possible different interpretation. The church, for their own reasons, chose to focus much attention on the crucifixion. That may have been partly because his disciples were eaten up with guilt about it, not having rescued him, and projected their own guilt on the entire faith that followed...or it might be because it was a handy way of whipping up resentment against the Jews...a frequently used tactic in Christendom when you needed to distract a frustrated public and direct their anger toward another target than their rulers. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Book of Judas From: Little Hawk Date: 06 Apr 06 - 10:20 PM That guy may have been a cousin of Tonto Goldstein, Spaw. Tonto always felt bad about selling out old Kimosavay too in the end, that day they got surrounded by 500 Indians("Whaddya mean 'us', white man?), and he finally shot himself dead in the late 70's with a bow and arrow. It's not that easy to do. You have to really want to. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Book of Judas From: catspaw49 Date: 06 Apr 06 - 10:29 PM JESUS? Yeah Boy, I knowed Jesus......I remember when the boy got killt......Was on a Friday down by the rail road depot. I tried ta' warn the nigger.....I said, "Boy, doncha' go down there fuckin' with them Jews without no money." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Book of Judas From: Little Hawk Date: 06 Apr 06 - 10:32 PM It's more fun than fart stories... ;-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Book of Judas From: catspaw49 Date: 06 Apr 06 - 10:35 PM Possibly true!!! I'm just adding some other folks versions in here as y'all go along. Luvya' Hawk Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Book of Judas From: Arne Date: 06 Apr 06 - 10:56 PM LH: I'm pretty much of a socialist myself, Arne, but I find Rosselson's brand of socialist rhetoric self-righteously naive and embarrassing. Sounds like me and my brother with his Marxism. ;-) I'm a "non-denominational socialist" myself. But I will take Rosselson over "Cause The Bible Tells Me So" in warbly treble harmony by little tykes that don't even know what they're singing. I think my favourite Rosselson is "World Turned Upside Down" (with a nice nod to the 'Cat on the link there). But I think Gaughan does the best rendition. There may be another reason entirely for why Jesus saw the crucifixion as necessary (I've never bought the thing about him atoning for the sins of others)...and it is this: he may have wished to demonstrate to his disciples in the most dramatic way possible that the death of the body is not the death of the true self, which is spirit. The only way he could do that was to die in front of them and then confront them later AS a living spirit (in a reanimated body or not). Therefore, the main point of the exercise would not have been the suffering on the cross, or the atonement of sins, but the resurrection...proof positive to those who witnessed it of the eternal life of the soul. Perhaps. But that ain't the song the churches sing nowadays (certainly not the fundamentalist ones; substitutionary atonement is one of the Five Fundamentals). Is not the resurrection a far more significant matter than the manner of his death? Did you misspell "less believable", perchance? ;-) Just my take on it.... Cheers, |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Book of Judas From: catspaw49 Date: 06 Apr 06 - 11:00 PM I had atonement once. When you bit into it, it made a ceacking noise that was a perfect A-flat. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Book of Judas From: Little Hawk Date: 06 Apr 06 - 11:03 PM Whether it's believable or not is another matter. That depends on what you are able to find believable, and that varies tremendously from one person to another, doesn't it? I consider it a distinct possibility that he did resurrect, but I can't say for sure, can I? And neither can anyone else. I'll take neither Rosselson nor the wee tykes, by the way.... ;-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Book of Judas From: Little Hawk Date: 06 Apr 06 - 11:06 PM Hey, Spaw...BITE THIS! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Book of Judas From: heric Date: 06 Apr 06 - 11:14 PM Something seems a little strange about this and I don't know if anyone has the background. It seems that after 1,700 years, this writing had still not made it into the public domain. The guy who's owned the publishing rights for the past twenty odd years has been trying to gather $3 million dollars, unsuccessfully, all that time. He finally broke down and sold the rights to National Geographic for $1 million. Thye have a special on it next month, hence all the publicity over this grand "discovery." Sure seems a bit whacky that the substance of writings from antiquity can be owned, sold, and locked away like that. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Book of Judas From: heric Date: 07 Apr 06 - 12:07 AM Well now here's strange web page hanging out there in google-land. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Book of Judas From: Arne Date: 07 Apr 06 - 12:31 AM heric: Sure seems a bit whacky that the substance of writings from antiquity can be owned, sold, and locked away like that. I dunno. But did you know that if you gathered all the extant wood from the cross, you'd have enough lumber to build Noah's ark? The Catholic Church was quite tight-fisted about the Shroud of Turin for many years for some reason ... but nonetheless, some non-Church-sanctioned investigators managed to do some analysis, and critiquing of the positive reports, and the "mystery" dimmed just a bit.... Cheers, |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Book of Judas From: Arne Date: 07 Apr 06 - 12:41 AM LH: I consider it a distinct possibility that he did resurrect, but I can't say for sure, can I? Well and fine, but which would you say is more believable (or more probably true): The crucifixion or the resurrection? That was my point. And neither can anyone else. Quite true. Can we agree that it's unsettled? I've no problem with that. I'll take neither Rosselson nor the wee tykes, by the way.... ;-) Well, it depends on what kind of mood I'm in. DeDanaan's Hibernian Rhapsody may appeal to me more on some days, or some Freighthoppers, House Band, Mangsen and Gillette, or Gordon Bok, just to name a few. Really, depends, but Rosselson (or Rosselson by Gaughan) seems to hit the spot when I'm finished with the newspaper nowadays. ;-) Cheers, |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Book of Judas From: Bert Date: 07 Apr 06 - 01:31 AM ...will YOU be remembered 2,000 years from now?... Of course, people will still be singing "Size doesn't Matter" *GRIN* |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Book of Judas From: Little Hawk Date: 07 Apr 06 - 01:38 AM The crucifixion, naturally, is totally believable. We know it could be done and was done frequently in those days. I never said it wasn't believable, I just said that I think it was a far less significant matter, spiritually speaking, than the resurrection in terms of the symbolic messages involved, and that its meaning has possibly been misconstrued by the Christian churches. (this is all assuming the resurrection did in fact occur, and we have no way to know if it did or not at this point) The resurrection remains in the area of speculation. If it did occur, it was a much bigger deal than the crucifixion, in my opinion. He could have just as well died in any variety of ways...but to rise again...THAT gets a disciple's attention! If you can do that, they know you're for real and it wasn't all just a bunch of wonderful talk and some impressive hands-on healings that could have just been...uh... "the power of suggestion?" ..."spontaneous remission?" ...whatever... ;-) I think he may have arranged it partly because it was the ONLY way to get some of those apostles to really believe what he was telling them, and so they could break through to a higher level of awareness. It would be shocking. If you saw it, you would simply never see life and death the same way again afterward. I've known people who've been clinically dead on the operating table or elsewhere, and then revived...and some of them had spiritual experiences that left them changed for the rest of their lives...much for the better, I might add. Typical effects: they lose their fear of dying, they no longer think of death as "the end", they become more loving, more accepting, happier, and less judgemental. Those sound like Christ-like qualities, don't they? |
