BS: Book of Judas

Subject: RE: BS: Book of Judas
From: Les in Chorlton
Date: 08 Apr 06 - 01:09 PM

Ok, who was just childishly hanging around waiting for 100?

Subject: RE: BS: Book of Judas
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Apr 06 - 01:12 PM

Nobody. That fad seems to be dying off lately.

Subject: RE: BS: Book of Judas
From: Wilfried Schaum
Date: 08 Apr 06 - 01:36 PM

What's new, Pussycat? A new copy of the gospel according to Judas found? Who cares.
We know more gospels and other letters of the apostles than the ones canonized A.D. 1546 by the Concilium Tridentinum.

Subject: RE: BS: Book of Judas
From: GUEST,AR282
Date: 08 Apr 06 - 01:54 PM

>>Facts we know---birth and death of Jesus.<<

Really? Perhaps you could be kind enough as to list them for our benefit.

Subject: RE: BS: Book of Judas
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 08 Apr 06 - 02:21 PM

Little Hawk - "However, it does state that Mary conceived a child "in the normal way", and that the term "immaculate" indicated something about her innate spiritual nature, that is, her consciousness."

Thats what I always believed, too. It wasn't until I was twelve or thirteen that I found out that most people thought there was a physical component involved.

BTW - Have you heard about the guy who believes that Jesus was buried in his family tomb and that he has found it? He also thinks Mary was impregnated by a Roman soldier.

I'm also curious about what it really means when we are instructed not to take Jesus' name in vain. I've always thought it had something to do with conceit. If so, somebody should give GWB and the Christian Fundamentalists a clue.

Subject: RE: BS: Book of Judas
From: Les in Chorlton
Date: 08 Apr 06 - 02:26 PM

So, vigin birth or not?

Subject: RE: BS: Book of Judas
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Apr 06 - 03:18 PM

No, Les, no virgin birth. Immaculate conception refers to Mary's state of consciousness being immaculate, not her physical self never having had sex. There is nothing non-immaculate about sex, per se. It is, like other physical matters, neutral in itself. It's the consciousness that makes use OF a physical matter that is crucial in a moral sense, as always. Spiritual writings are usually highly symbolic, and they are metaphors for consciousness. Everything that makes a person good or bad, worthy or unworthy, constructive or destructive, resides in his or her consciousness, not in the body. The body is a neutral tool of consciousness.

There will always be simplisticly minded religious people, not given to thinking very deeply about the matter, who will assume it meant "virgin birth" and there will always be similarly simplisticly minded anti-religious people who leap on that misunderstanding with glee in order to discredit ALL religious thought whatsoever, in regards to Jesus and Mary, at least. It's a case of the foolish criticizing the other foolish for being equally foolish.

Subject: RE: BS: Book of Judas
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 08 Apr 06 - 04:00 PM

Dianavan said:

I'm also curious about what it really means when we are instructed not to take Jesus' name in vain. I've always thought it had something to do with conceit.

In the 10 commandments, it was said not to take the name of the Lord Thy God in vain.

I take it that believers have extended that to cover Jesus, also.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Book of Judas
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 08 Apr 06 - 04:10 PM

I think you're right about the original source, Dave, but what does it mean?

Subject: RE: BS: Book of Judas
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Apr 06 - 05:04 PM

Well, it's potentially a bit harmful to say anything in vain, is it not? Seems like common sense to me...

Subject: RE: BS: Book of Judas
From: Arkie
Date: 08 Apr 06 - 06:24 PM

Having read a few excerps from the Book of Judas, I cannot imagine that it will provide any insight into the historical Jesus.   The concept about Judas obeying the will of Jesus is not new and being so heavily immersed in Gnostic terms may offer no real insight into that idea either. It could offer some insight into Gnostic thinking and some factions of 2nd & 3rd century Christianity.

Subject: RE: BS: Book of Judas
From: GUEST,AR282
Date: 08 Apr 06 - 06:35 PM

>>It isn't a question of win or lose, Guest. We were just talking about that. This is not a competition here between Jesus and Judas, okay?<<

There is clearly a hierarchy of suffering. To deny this is to admit that anyone--anyone--could be hailed as the savior of humanity if the amount of suffering didn't matter. It clearly matters or otherwise Christians could have simply had Jesus die of old age for all the difference it makes. In fact, early Christians did believe just that and you can see how long that view hung around.

So, clearly, he who suffered more for humanity is obviously the savior of humanity. Just today I drove passed a church where the little billboard read, "Jesus Could Have Saved Himself But Then Where Would You Be?" Christians obviously believe the amount of suffering matters.

Judas is therefore the savior of humanity. Judas went to hell for eternity, folks, so that you could be assured passge to heaven. All Hail Judas--the Greatest Man That Ever Lived! The True Savior whose day has finally arrived to take back his rightful title from that ungrateful little usurper who stole all his credit.

Subject: RE: BS: Book of Judas
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Apr 06 - 07:01 PM

"There is clearly a hierarchy of suffering." (in Christianity)

Yes, there is for a lot of people, but I don't see it that way at all. Nor do a fair number of others. The "hierarchy of suffering" you refer to is, as far as I'm concerned, a woefull and unfortunate misinterpretation of the life of Jesus, and it's led to a lot of trouble all through the development of Christian civilization.

I don't buy it. He was not about suffering to me. He was no sacrificial lamb to me. What's important to me about his teachings is the ideals of human nature and consciousness that are embodied in them. That has very little to do with suffering, although in life we all do suffer. No question about that. And we need to learn how to best deal with it when it comes.

The Buddha said: "Life is suffering." He had a rather ascetic outlook, didn't he? ;-)

Well, that's one way of looking at it. ;-) Vedantic scholars from the Indian tradition mostly assert that the world is an illusionary experience in which the average person oscillates between pleasure and pain (suffering), but fails to rise above both of them into what is termed enlightenment. Enlightenment is said to be a state of joy and expanded awareness that is way beyond pleasure or pain, and it encounters them both with equanimity.

That equanimity has been spectacularly displayed by some of the greatest saints in history, even when they were subjected to extreme suffering.

This discussion, ultimately, is not just about Jesus and Judas. It's about all saints, prophets, and enlightened people. There have been many of them, and they weren't all in the Christian pantheon.

To be a spiritual teacher anyway supercedes religious denominations, in my opinion (if one really IS a spiritual teacher). It's the followers who usually go about later setting up the denominations after the fact, and in so doing they often screw up the message which is a universal one.

Subject: RE: BS: Book of Judas
From: Bill D
Date: 08 Apr 06 - 07:24 PM

gee...even as a non-Christian, I have known for many years that Virgin Birth and Immaculate Conception were not to be confused. Some groups believe in both, some in just one.

One problem was that there seems to have been a mistranslation of the word taken to mean 'virgin'. In the ancient texts, I think Mary was referred to as just a 'young woman'. As to whether Joseph was the father, there is simply rampant speculation...helped by such things as "The Cherry Tree Carol".

I've been watching programs on archeology and document restoration lately, and what it all seems to be indicating is some additional evidence for the historical characters named in the Bible....but LOTS of variation and contradiction in stories of what they did....as we might expect in old manuscripts where the scribes were not the witnesses.

   Church doctrine, however, changes s-l-o-w-l-y, because denominations get emotionally and theologically committed to various details. New evidence is not always convenient.

Subject: RE: BS: Book of Judas
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Apr 06 - 08:05 PM

Eggggggzackly, Bill. ;-) That is the problem in a nutshell.

I betcha there are a lot more people than you realize who have confused "virgin birth" with "immaculate conception", and I bet half of them aren't even believers. I bet Homer Simpson is confused on this one, for example. ;-P D'oh!

Subject: RE: BS: Book of Judas
From: John O'L
Date: 08 Apr 06 - 08:32 PM

Uncle DaveO -

Sorry for the delay, it's only just morning here now. (How sad is that?)

I wasn't trying to defend the notions I mentioned, as far as I know Immaculate Conception didn't even raise its head until the 18th century, but it is nevertheless an important part of Roman dogma and lots of people regard it as being as important as the crucifiction. By the way, I might be wrong, but I think it actually refers not to the conception of Jesus, but Mary.

Your next post I agree with entirely. I have never been able to see the logic in blaming the Jews for the death of Jesus.

Subject: RE: BS: Book of Judas
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Apr 06 - 08:35 PM

I think the blaming of the Jews for that was usually just political opportunism on the part of various rulers...and they could easily whip up an ignorant populace around such an issue.

Subject: RE: BS: Book of Judas
From: catspaw49
Date: 08 Apr 06 - 08:37 PM

I 'member that Immaculate thingy from the 70's. Wasn't that where that there Steeler runnin' back, Franco Harris I believe, caught some deflected pass just barely above the ground and then ran the sucker in for a touchdown? Shur seemed real enough to me. And as far as that virgin birth stuff goes, well shitfire Bub.....Ain't we all virgins at birth?

Spaw

(This whole thread is an exercise in rhetordick an sum of y'all got awful shortchanged on the dick part)

Subject: RE: BS: Book of Judas
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Apr 06 - 08:48 PM

I was. And for some time afterward, I might add.

Subject: RE: BS: Book of Judas
From: GUEST,AR282
Date: 08 Apr 06 - 08:50 PM

>>Having read a few excerps from the Book of Judas, I cannot imagine that it will provide any insight into the historical Jesus.<<

And why do you think that is?

Subject: RE: BS: Book of Judas
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Apr 06 - 08:51 PM

You don't have a clue whether Jesus existed or not, nobody can prove it one way or another, and your opinion won't change anything.

Subject: RE: BS: Book of Judas
From: GUEST,AR282
Date: 08 Apr 06 - 09:08 PM

The Immaculate Conception, btw, is a masking of the truth about what modern Christianity descended from: adoptionism. Jesus wasn't born son of god but was adopted as his son at a certain moment. An early form of adoptionism said after his death but a later form of adoptionism said at his baptism.

There was no virgin birth or wise men or guiding stars or slaughter of innocents or teaching people in the temple at age 12 or any of that. Jesus had an ordinary birth and was an ordinary man who was adopted by god at some point.

The Immaculate Conception shifts this adoption from Jesus to Mary and from corruption to conception. Mary was essentially adopted by god at her conception. But what the Church can't hide are the clear traces still left in the Canon indicating unmistakably that it was Jesus that was adopted and that Mary doesn't even matter because she isn't Theotokos. Jesus was born an ordinary man in early Christianity and the Immaculate Conception serves to obscure that little fact.

Subject: RE: BS: Book of Judas
From: John O'L
Date: 08 Apr 06 - 09:09 PM

So then, should we refrain from discussing it should we?

By order?

Subject: RE: BS: Book of Judas
From: John O'L
Date: 08 Apr 06 - 09:13 PM

Sorry AR282, cross-posted.

Subject: RE: BS: Book of Judas
From: GUEST,AR282
Date: 08 Apr 06 - 09:31 PM

>>You don't have a clue whether Jesus existed or not, nobody can prove it one way or another,<<

Oh, but we have many clues. What you have been repeatedly asked for but have totally failed to supply are your sources for your spurious claims that there are thousands of historical references to Jesus made in his day. This is utterly false. There isn't ONE, sir, not a single solitary reference. To prove me wrong please feel free to produce it.

And it isn't merely the breadth of the silence concerning Jesus in his day, it is the depth to which that silence reaches. By saying no one of his time or the generation after him wrote of him, we're talking Claudius, Livy, Tacitus, Suetonius, Philo, Josephus, Pliny, Seneca and so on. That's a pretty damning silence concerning someone for whom the entire earth supposedly went dark upon his death (because Christ is the sun as I said before) because that little episode isn't mentioned by any of them. In fact, almost nothing about Jesus other than the religious beliefs current at that time were mentioned by these men.

>>and your opinion won't change anything.<<

You have no more idea of that being true than anyone else. Who knows who might read what I just wrote and decide to check it out for themselves? There was a time when I took for granted that Jesus must have existed even if not as demigod. But once certain writers got through to me that there was no evidence of a Jesus of Nazareth (or a Paul for that matter) anywhere but in Christian literature, it awakened something in me without a doubt. So I wouldn't say I might change something. I don't expect the entire Christian edifice to tumble into a heap but my words could have some effect. That all I can reasonably hope for. I don't want anyone to believe me. Check it out. Let us know what you learn.

Subject: RE: BS: Book of Judas
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 08 Apr 06 - 09:41 PM

Dianavan:

Taking God's (or Jesus's) name in vain, to me, is essentially using the "power" of his name for one's own ends, unrelated to what one would call a valid religious use. Remember that in many strains of Judaism names are taken to have what one might call "mystic power" in themselves. Thus a Jew does not pronounce the NAME of YHVH (even in a reverent manner), but refers to "The Master of the Universe" or some equivalent
circumlocution.

To use His name in vain is to throw it around lightly, as it were. For instance, it's clear, I think, that that Commandment would proscribe the exclamation, "God, I hate beets!" or Germans, or bloated plutocrats or whatever, just for example. The fact that "God" is not His NAME is irrelevant, because it's clearly being used as a direct equivalent to that unutterable name.

And of course the proscription of "swearing" is really no such thing. The Commandment prohibits FALSE swearing--that is, calling on God to witness the truth of what the person knows to be false. In a court of law, taking the standard oath to testify the truth is okay (in most people's eyes) because (a) it's not taking the name of God lightly, but solemnly; and (b) if the testimony then given is true, it's not false swearing.

Then (though not, I think, dealt with in the 10 Commandments, there's "cursing". It's verbally calling down grievous consequences on the person cursed: "May you go to Hell!"

Then there's other "bad language" that people sometimes call swearing, but which is merely vulgarisms such as shit, fuck, and the like.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Book of Judas
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Apr 06 - 10:09 PM

My "spurious claims that there are thousands of historical references to Jesus made in his day"????

When did I claim that? I know of no such references, and haven't heard of such.

I simply think it is very likely that he existed, that's all, and that he was a spiritual teacher and healer whose teachings had a dramatic effect on a relatively small group of followers in Judea at the time he was alive and immediately after, and that some of those followers then tried to launch a reform movement in the Jewish faith, failed in that, and instead ended up launching a new religion which eventually found favor in Rome. I am not aware of these thousands of historical references from his day that you claim I alluded to. Never have I heard of them.

If you think I did, you have misunderstood something I said earlier.

Yes, Christ (as presented in the sacred literature) is symbolic of "the sun", as well as "the son"...and that is probably why they say that the sun went dark at his death...not because it literally did, but because it's an allegorical statement of the type that spiritual texts are absolutely full of. Spiritual texts in those days were not written for the common people, who mostly couldn't read. They were written for adepts, people who had studied such matters most of their lives, and were familiar with the kind of allegory and metaphor used in the writings.

It's only in relatively recent historical times that the Bible became a book read by the masses of common people, and taken literally by many or most of them.

Did you ever hear of the "mystery schools" in Egypt? Spiritual adepts studied at those schools in Jesus' day, and they learned to interpret symbols that would have been utterly opaque to the masses, and would have been taken literally. Those passages were symbolic.

I think the authors you mention were people on an emotional crusade. They wanted to believe Jesus never existed for their own personal reasons, for their own satisfaction, just like the people who leap on any thread such as this one any time they see it. Why they wanted to believe that would depend on their personal history, I suppose. It could be for a great many reasons.

It might be because they had a grudge against the church. It might be that they simply liked being "right" about something they thought most people were too stupid to have figured out for themselves. Every ego is highly drawn toward being "right" in that manner, because it feels soooooo good to know you're right and many, many others are wrong. It's really a great way of feeling extra special and "in the know". Very appealing indeed.

There were, I'm sure, a lot of other new spiritual teachers roaming around back then too, with their followers. (There always are. There are right now. There always will be.) Most of them have been forgotten by history, and you can find no reference to them anywhere, but not John the Baptist and not Jesus...they have been remembered bigtime. That suggests to me that they most likely did exist.

And my suspicion that they did exist is every bit as credible as your suspicion that they did not...more so, in fact, because you HAVE no evidence whatsoever, cultural or otherwise. You just have an outright denial.

I don't find that denial convincing of anything except the denier's own emotional need to be "right" about something that he doesn't like for some reason.

I'm not saying the gospel writers and Paul were accurate in everything they said, or even in half of it. I'm not saying they didn't change stuff and make stuff up. I bet they did. I am saying that they got the idea to write about Jesus in the first place because he had actually existed, and done some notable things in his time, and THAT's what GAVE them the idea to write about him! After that I'm sure they embellishend, invented, and put their own slant on a great deal of what they wrote.

So what? Would it really be that surprising that they screwed around some with the record of such a man's activities and exaggerated things or got things wrong?

Why WOULD the Romans have mentioned Jesus in their histories of his time? He meant nothing to them at that time. They couldn't have cared less. He was no apparent threat to Rome, only to the Jewish church of the time, in that he challenged the religious status quo.

Why would any Roman historian in the first 100 years A.D. have given it a moment's thought?

Subject: RE: BS: Book of Judas
From: John O'L
Date: 08 Apr 06 - 10:29 PM

If Jesus did exist, he was certainly unimportant outside of his immediate circle of friends & enemies, and probably not terribly important even to them.

The gospel writers beat the story up no end.

Subject: RE: BS: Book of Judas
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Apr 06 - 10:41 PM

Exactly my point, John. He would have been, as you say, "unimportant outside of his immediate circle of friends & enemies".

That is equally true of most spiritual leaders of a relatively similar type today, and there are plently of them. I could name a few, but I very much doubt you will have heard of them, and you won't hear about them on the 6 O'Clock News either. They are mostly known only to their immediate circle of friends and enemies.    Nonetheless, they are VERY important to their immediate circle of followers...and detractors.

So the one thing you say that I would disagree with is your assertion that Jesuse was "probably not terribly important even to that immediate circle". I think it would have been quite to the contrary.

But the Romans would not have given a toot about it at the time.

Subject: RE: BS: Book of Judas
From: GUEST,noor
Date: 09 Apr 06 - 01:57 AM

"you will exceed all of them. For you will sacrifice the man that clothed me."

This sentence suggests that someone else looked like Jesus and then was killed on the Cross.
This is similar to what is in the Quran:

"And for their unbelief, and their uttering against Mary a grave false charge, and for their saying, 'We killed the messiah, Jesus son of Mary, the Messiah of God"…yet they did not slay him, neither crucified him, only a likeness of that was shown to them. Those who are at variance concerning him are surely in doubt the following of conjecture; and they did not kill him of certainty…no indeed; God raised him up to Him; God is Almighty, Allwise. There is not one of the people of the book but will assuredly believe him before his death, and on the Resurrection Day he will be a witness against them." (An-Nissa 4:156-159)

http://www.saaid.net/islam/6.htm

Subject: RE: BS: Book of Judas
From: John O'L
Date: 09 Apr 06 - 02:27 AM

This is how there comes to be such disagreement. I read that completely differently.
'The man that clothed me' suggests to me a benefactor. 'You will sacrifice my benefactor'.
The passage from the Quran says to me that they crucified a lump of meat with a particular appearance, but the true Jesus continued to live.

Subject: RE: BS: Book of Judas
From: GUEST,AR282
Date: 09 Apr 06 - 10:37 AM

>>To be a spiritual teacher<<

AKA a worthless bum.

>>anyway supercedes religious denominations, in my opinion (if one really IS a spiritual teacher).<<

Right, if you're going to deceive and rip people off, you may as well broaden your scope to include as many as possible.

>>It's the followers who usually go about later setting up the denominations after the fact,<<

Which no spiritual teacher has the brains to prevent. How does he prevent it? By keeping his big mouth shut but he needs that little soapbox because he's an egomaniac with all the answers and the rest of us are too stupid to figure it out. Now if he knows this, he would know there is no point in trying to teach us anything and would just shut up because every time one of these turds opens his mouth, the blood of innocent people pours out of it.

>>and in so doing they often screw up the message which is a universal one.<<

That's your proof that there is no universal message. No two people see everything the same way. That's why we have all this fuss in the first place--we can't get through our thick skulls that there is no universal message.

Subject: RE: BS: Book of Judas
From: GUEST,AR282
Date: 09 Apr 06 - 10:45 AM

>>yet they did not slay him, neither crucified him, only a likeness of that was shown to them.<<

That was Simon of Cyrene. If you read Matthew and Mark carefully, he was crucified in Jesus' stead. In a Gnostic work called the Second Treatise of the Great Seth there is a statement supposedly by Jesus stating that his persecutors killed the wrong man and specifically says it was Simon.

The accounts in the gospels also indicate that Jesus survived the crucifixion by feigning death--something the early Church held as doctrine. I think two accounts that orignally had Jesus trick his executioners were combined together.

Then there is also the mystical interpretation that they killed his body but his spirit lived on. What they miss with that interpretation is that it then applies to all of us. We will all be slain in the flesh but we won't really die.

Pick your poison.

Subject: RE: BS: Book of Judas
From: GUEST,AR282
Date: 09 Apr 06 - 11:15 AM

>>>My "spurious claims that there are thousands of historical references to Jesus made in his day"????

When did I claim that? I know of no such references, and haven't heard of such.

I simply think it is very likely that he existed, that's all,<<<

I'm not going to hunt the thread down but anyone who read it knows that you claimed there were all kinds of evidence that Jesus Christ existed. You were called on by me and at least one other poster to produce a shred of this evidence and you never did and you still haven't.

>>that he was a spiritual teacher and healer whose teachings had a dramatic effect on a relatively small group of followers in Judea at the time he was alive and immediately after<<

Source please.

>>I am not aware of these thousands of historical references from his day that you claim I alluded to. Never have I heard of them.<<

I don't know if you said "thousands" but you did say there was a great deal of evidence and you failed and still fail to back that up.

>>Yes, Christ (as presented in the sacred literature) is symbolic of "the sun", as well as "the son"...and that is probably why they say that the sun went dark at his death...not because it literally did, but because it's an allegorical statement of the type that spiritual texts are absolutely full of. Spiritual texts in those days were not written for the common people, who mostly couldn't read. They were written for adepts, people who had studied such matters most of their lives, and were familiar with the kind of allegory and metaphor used in the writings.<<

This is an admission that no such person existed and would not need to exist to amass a following.

>>It's only in relatively recent historical times that the Bible became a book read by the masses of common people, and taken literally by many or most of them.<<

Including you. As soon as you tell me he existed without any proof behind such a claim you are just as much a literalist.

>>Did you ever hear of the "mystery schools" in Egypt? Spiritual adepts studied at those schools in Jesus' day, and they learned to interpret symbols that would have been utterly opaque to the masses, and would have been taken literally. Those passages were symbolic.<<

Exactly. Do you realize you are talking out both sides of your mouth? And here's your proof, your follow-up statement that now completely contradicts what you just wrote:

>>I think the authors you mention were people on an emotional crusade. They wanted to believe Jesus never existed for their own personal reasons, for their own satisfaction, just like the people who leap on any thread such as this one any time they see it. Why they wanted to believe that would depend on their personal history, I suppose. It could be for a great many reasons.<<

It could be because there is NO EVIDENCE of anything you are saying.

>>There were, I'm sure, a lot of other new spiritual teachers roaming around back then too, with their followers. (There always are. There are right now. There always will be.) Most of them have been forgotten by history, and you can find no reference to them anywhere, but not John the Baptist and not Jesus...they have been remembered bigtime. That suggests to me that they most likely did exist.<<

Sure and Santa Claus exists because millions of children believe in him and there's pictures of Santa everywhere you go. I'm sure other gift-givers existed but they aren't remembered so there is your proof Santa is real.

>>And my suspicion that they did exist is every bit as credible as your suspicion that they did not...more so, in fact, because you HAVE no evidence whatsoever, cultural or otherwise. You just have an outright denial.<<

No, sir, it is you who are in denail. I won't beat around the bush with you any longer. Here's the truth:

You, sir, are a Christian fundamentallist in liberal guise. Unlike other fundies, you formed liberal opinions. But like fundies, you have one core belief that cannot ever be admitted to be wrong: That there was a Jesus Christ who walked in Palestine at some point. This you are incapable of denying no matter what because. like a fundie, you have staked your entire belief system on it.

I'm sure you'll deny it but it was you who started posting me after I stated that Christianity is not believable if you study it closely enough. You, in fact, demanded that I explain it. If you were truly of a liberal mind of such things you would have shrugged it off. Instead, like a fundie, you argued it and argued it and argued it while talking through your hat the whole time.

For you, like a fundie, the absence of any reference to Jesus made by well educated writers of his time and the generation after doesn't prove he didn't exist because he was too obscure to be widely known. This flies in the face of the gospel story which clearly stated his name was spread far and wide and that many came to see him and the authorities wanted him dead. Then you need to explain how this obscure man that no one mentioned suddenly becomes the most important man in Western history some 300 years after he would have already died. You neglect to mention christianity was made into a big time religion by Constantine. When the emperor says you're going to be a Christian, you're going to be one. THAT is how christianity got so big. Nothing more.

When I brought up that Paul is the earliest Christian writer and mentioned nothing about the historical Jesus, your response was, "I don't like Paul." Well, I guess that takes care of that.

For all your new age univeral salvation bs, you are just another dogmatic fundie unable to let go of an historical Jesus to the point you're are now telling me he really lived but his followers wrote about him as though he was the sun and clothed everything he did in allegory. Then the whole thing is a lie--all of it, both the history and the allegory. You can't have it both ways. To insist you can, is to insist that Jesus was exactly who the fundies say he was. You can't get around it.

Subject: RE: BS: Book of Judas
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Apr 06 - 02:24 PM

I am totally 100% unaware of any documented historical evidence that would prove Jesus existed. I have never been aware of such evidence. Therefore, I could not have claimed any such thing as you say.

What I did assert numerous times was that the huge religious and cultural tradition built around the man's life makes it seem probable to me that he really existed. Very probable.

I am amused and astonished by your low assessment of spiritual teachers as "worthless bums". LOL!

You don't know shit about spiritual teachers. I gather you have no belief in anything spiritual whatsoever. Fine. I don't care. It doesn't matter.

I am not a Christian at all. Nor am I a fundamentalist. I belong to no religion. I respect all spiritual traditions and find some truth in all of them. I do not regard Jesus as the one and only "Son of God". I do not regard him as the one and only "personal saviour" of mankind. I do regard him as having been a genuine spiritual teacher of very high accomplishment, and worth learning a few things from.

Your life, I think, is simply based on philosophical assumptions so radically different from mine that we cannot discuss this subject without major misunderstandings arising.

I don't know that Jesus really existed. I just think it's very probable that he did. I think your degree of faith that he didn't is very similar to a fundamentalist's faith that he is the "only Son of God", and it's driven by the very same kind of righteous zeal. You think the same about me. Well...we could both be right about that.

Have a little humility. I know I'm fallible and I'm sure you are too. You're just another little human being who has strong opinions, but doesn't know. I know that I don't know. Do you?

Subject: RE: BS: Book of Judas
From: frogprince
Date: 09 Apr 06 - 02:47 PM

"You, sir, are a Christian fundamentallist in liberal guise. Unlike other fundies, you formed liberal opinions"

AR282, that is so patently absurd that it's hard to say whether it's sad or hilarious. Your own non-logic is as convoluted as anything I've ever heard from the furthest fringes of die-hard fundamentalism.
(No, that doesn't mean I have concluded that you're a "fundie"; but that would make every bit as much sense as your characterization of Little Hawk.)

Subject: RE: BS: Book of Judas
From: GUEST,Frank
Date: 09 Apr 06 - 02:49 PM

Judas said as much in "Jesus Christ Superstar". So nu?

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Book of Judas
From: GUEST,AR282
Date: 09 Apr 06 - 03:45 PM

>>AR282, that is so patently absurd that it's hard to say whether it's sad or hilarious.<<

How about true?

>>Your own non-logic is as convoluted as anything I've ever heard from the furthest fringes of die-hard fundamentalism.<<

But you can't provide a single example.

>>(No, that doesn't mean I have concluded that you're a "fundie";<<

Since I am neither Christian nor religious that would obviously be very foolish on your part not valiant so spare us the act.

>>but that would make every bit as much sense as your characterization of Little Hawk.)<<

And what did I say about Little Hawk that isn't true? This is a passive-aggressive individual who insults people but can't do it up front and he does this precisely because he does not know of what he speaks.

Subject: RE: BS: Book of Judas
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Apr 06 - 05:08 PM

What is it that you imagine I believe in? Tell me. I can use a good laugh or two.

Subject: RE: BS: Book of Judas
From: GUEST,AR282
Date: 09 Apr 06 - 09:47 PM

I'll tell you what I don't believe and maybe this will clear up a few misconceptions you and your supporters have.

When you argue or debate points and issues with someone, you stick to the facts that are presented. If you cannot trump them, you admit defeat.

What you don't do is ask this person, "How old are you, you sound like me when I was in my twenties." Translation: You're obviously immature because you disagree with me on this issue of which I feel strongly and, of course, I'm light years ahead of you and have discarded that way of thinking long ago." That wouldn't be so annoying if you could offer a decent rationale for having abandoned the view you claim you once held but you cannot. So your remark amounts to little more than an ad hominem attack. You can't debate the evidence so you question the other person's maturity as though they did something far more terrible than disagree with you and offer their evidence for taking that position.

And when someone is not religious and disbelieves Christianity it is entirely inappropriate to then accuse that person of lashing out because they were abused by their parents. I found that unbelievably callous and uncalled for. I disbelieve because I have a brain and it has reviewed the evidence and found it wanting. That is all there is to it. Please leave my parents out of it, they have nothing to do with my views.

We who disbelieve are not whining out of some gut emotional reaction as you claim but have thought our position through quite carefully. It is you going on emotion because you can't offer any intellectual rationale for the views you hold and when you do it is easily picked apart.

Such statements betray an inability to debate the evidence and an even bigger inability to admit defeat gracefully. Your response is then to attack the other person's character for having committed no bigger of a transgression than having disagreed with you and being able to offer evidence for why they did.

It is not only insulting, it is a waste of an intelligent person's time to argue with so childish and undeveloped a mind as yours hidden under a veneer of liberalism. The liberalism changes to suit your core message which never changes and is fundamentalist in nature.

Subject: RE: BS: Book of Judas
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Apr 06 - 10:18 PM

Fine....I understand your thinking on that. It sounds exactly as I once thought, when I described myself as an atheist. I don't think what age I was matters a whole lot. I was brought up as an atheist, so it was what I was familiar with, and people usually go with what they are familiar with as long as it isn't causing them a lot of pain...in which case they may go against it. (that happens with a lot of people brought up in religious households, and they either turn against religion altogether...or they turn to a completely different religion than that of their parents) I experienced no pain from being brought up as an atheist. I gradually begin to be attracted to spiritual ideas in my 20's, and I think the main reason for it, initially, was that my favorite singers (Buffy Sainte-Marie, Joan Baez, Bob Dylan) all appeared to believe in God. That made me wonder, because I admired them more than I did anyone else at the time. I figured, "Well, they're not stupid people. Maybe they know something I don't." That's what started me investigating the whole thing.

I am not a Christian. (as I've said before) But I do believe in "God"...but...I do NOT think of God as a super being of some kind who judges, condemns, casts into hell, rewards and punishes, or demands prayer or ritual or anything else from people. I don't believe in God as a separate being of some kind. (I would regard such a belief as primitive and foolish.)

It would be foolish for either one of us, you or me, to underestimate the other's intelligence or maturity on mere supposition.

I object to the same thing you do...being treated without respect, merely because our beliefs differ in some way.

Now, a few responses to what you said...

When you argue or debate points and issues with someone, you stick to the facts that are presented. If you cannot trump them, you admit defeat.

We were discussing whether or not Jesus might have existed. I am not aware that there ARE any verifiable facts that can be brought to bear on the argument. There are just a bunch of books written by various people some time after his (presumed) death. Those are interesting, they strongly suggest that he might have existed, but they are not proof, and I know it. How do we "stick to the facts" when, as far as I can see, there are no indisputable, verifiable facts we can find about it?

All we can do is express an opinion based on probabilities, and our own guesswork. I think it's probable he existed. You clearly don't. Fine. I can live with that. It's all guesswork anyway.

You go on at some length about "reviewing the evidence". What evidence? I am not aware there is any evidence either for or against the idea that Jesus existed. There are simply opinions about it.

I think he did. You think he didn't. Neither one of us knows for sure.

I think people have immortal souls. You probably don't think so. Neither one of us knows for sure.

I think people probably reincarnate. I imagine you don't think they do. Neither one of us knows for sure.

What you are objecting to, it seems to me, is that I don't take you seriously. Well, that's the same thing I find objectionable in you.

As for arguing from gut emotional reaction...I honestly think that everybody does that, once they are involved in an argument. They get more and more wrapped up in defending their position. That's an emotional reaction. That's what keeps you and me returning to this thread, day after day, when we could be doing any number of far more useful things with our time, I can assure you! ;-) This thread is a bunch of hot air. It can be fun to talk, and that's why I do it, it gives me something to think about. If someone comes into the conversation and treats what I say with absolute contempt, ridicule, and hostility...well, I'm human too, and I tend to give them some of their own back. And around and around it goes, forever and a day.

I am capable of laughing at myself for doing it, and I am capable of recognizing my weakness in that sense. If I point out the same weakness in you, is that so terrible? We all do it.

Subject: RE: BS: Book of Judas
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 09 Apr 06 - 10:59 PM

Modern 'Christians" are deluded in believing that they are followers of Christ - they really are only believers in "Paulianity" - 'The Pauline Conspiracy' as modified by a Pagan Roman Emperor - Constantine!

:-)

'Historians are often myth destroyers'

Subject: RE: BS: Book of Judas
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Apr 06 - 11:27 PM

Well, if it makes you happy...I really don't care one bit for Paul's slant on things, Foolestroupe. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Book of Judas
From: Kweku
Date: 10 Apr 06 - 11:46 AM

Does anyone remember the 60 minutes interview several years back with a man who was on the panel of scholars continuing to study the Dead Sea Scrolls? [the dead sea scrolls-remember them? they were found over time 1947-56--why has nothing yet been published?] The man was part of the next generation of scholars, as the first bunch has been dying off.   I have not been able to forget his remarks. He said that if & when the dead sea scrolls are published, it will blow modern christianity as we know it out of the water.

the truth is like fire and not everybody can handle. today the story of Yesu Christo is like the story of Africa;boring and confusing.

Subject: RE: BS: Book of Judas
From: number 6
Date: 10 Apr 06 - 12:10 PM

Does anyone recall the scene in Martin Scorsese's documentary 'No Direction Home' ... where Bob is playing that concert in Newcastle, or Glasgow or wherever on that British 1966 tour ... anyway, back to the point of this post .. someone call's to Bob 'Judas', to which Bob retorts 'Liar'.

well, anyway ... that's my 10 cent contribution to the subject of this thread.

sIx