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."................
..........."Whatever the ultimate solution may be, the historical Jesus of whom the criticism of the future, taking as its starting-point the problems which have been recognised and admitted, will draw the portrait, can never render modern theology the services which it claimed from its own half-historical, half-modern, Jesus. He will be a Jesus, who was Messiah, and lived as such, either on the ground of a literary fiction of the earliest Evangelist, or on the ground of a purely eschatological Messianic conception.

In either case, He will not be a Jesus Christ to whom the religion of the present can ascribe, according to its long-cherished custom, its own thoughts and ideas, as it did with the Jesus of its own making. Nor will He be a figure which can be made by a popular historical treatment so sympathetic and universally intelligible to the multitude. The historical Jesus will be to our time a stranger and an enigma."

...........Albert Schweitzer in The Quest of the Historical Jesus

A pretty brilliant man wrote those words and I am simply the dumbass passing them on. The question is what can you know and how do you know it. Remember Folks......

HISTORY, whether of wars and cultures or simply of the ideas and philosophies of the ages is written and passed down to future generations by the Winners.

I said that. Try not to argue too much over the truly unknowable.

Spaw

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."

............Richard Pryor, "Sunday Morning Wino"

Aren't you guys a bit tired of writing faux history?(:<))

Spaw

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?

Subject: RE: BS: Book of Judas
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Apr 06 - 02:32 AM

Yes, evidence for the existence of Jesus exists outside of the bible.

As mentioned above, there's the Gospel of Thomas, etc.

This is just more evidence that he did exist.

The Book of Judas informs us that Judas was not a traitor but part of the divine plan.

P.S. I'm not a Christian (not even baptised) but I believe Jesus existed. I'm not his follower. I happen to think we walk side by side. I also think that what passes for Christianity today is a shame.

heric - Where did you find such a strange communication? Can you imagine what has been lost (stolen) in Iraq?

Subject: RE: BS: Book of Judas
From: heric
Date: 07 Apr 06 - 03:31 AM

I believe it was originally presented by the author of this unusual web page.

Subject: RE: BS: Book of Judas
From: John O'L
Date: 07 Apr 06 - 03:59 AM

That's a very interesting place, heric.

While tooling around various pages, I found this:

"Last night I was at this dope ass club getting my buzz on, when two fine ass bitches walk right by me. A player has got to play so it was time to spin some game. I darted in and within minutes the ladies were totally digging my shit. Then, out of nowhere, comes Jesus. JC pulls his water into wine shtick, totally name drops that his dad is God, and the next thing I know the skanks are heading back to his crib. No lie, I am going to fuck his shit up real soon."

Subject: RE: BS: Book of Judas
From: Paul Burke
Date: 07 Apr 06 - 04:01 AM

Wierd lot, you Christians. All this banging on about which was more important, the nativity, the crucifixion, or the resurrection, and not one mention of the sermon on the mount.

If Jesus existed, it's his teachings that make him one of the world's greatest teachers, not human sacrifice (which as I've said before was no sacrifice at all if he was a god).

Subject: RE: BS: Book of Judas
From: akenaton
Date: 07 Apr 06 - 04:15 AM

arne...Personally I find the song you posted much more inspirational than any of the gospels.

Nearly four hundred years and we've learned nothing.
The land still being exploited by the rich to the detriment of the poor...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Book of Judas
From: Kweku
Date: 07 Apr 06 - 05:03 AM

i thought judas wrote the book himself,apparently it is somebody else.

National Geographic said the author of the gospel of Judas believed that Judas Iscariot alone understood the true significance of Christ's teachings.http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/A641817E-B5C1-48C6-9960-1FA06AB27654.htm

If Jesus existed, it's his teachings that make him one of the world's greatest teachers, not human sacrifice (which as I've said before was no sacrifice at all if he was a god).

Subject: RE: BS: Book of Judas
From: Pied Piper
Date: 07 Apr 06 - 05:18 AM

Jesus' name survives because a crumbling empire required Christianity to get the Bureaucracy and the Army pulling in the same direction.
Little niggle LH; Buddha, Zoroaster and Jesus were almost certainly real people ware as Krishna is a mythical entity.

PP

Subject: RE: BS: Book of Judas
From: John O'L
Date: 07 Apr 06 - 05:31 AM

That's your opinion, Paul. The sermon on the mount was just a regurgitaion of the ten commandments. Jesus reaffirming his Jewishness. Re-enacting his bar mitzvah perhaps, I dunno.

Some say the Crucifiction is what it's all about, others read more into the resurrection, and yet others see the immaculate conception of his mum as being the cucial element.

When he lobbed in Jerusalem he was saying that each person has their own individual relationship with God, and I don't see that he ever deviated from that essential stance. I think that is what was important about him, but that kinda makes the church hierachy redundant. That's why the Pharisees had to get rid of him and that's why Rome had to re-invent him with mythology.

Subject: RE: BS: Book of Judas
From: Arne
Date: 07 Apr 06 - 07:25 AM

LH:

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?

Yeah, perhaps. But we know little about what Jesus was like after the resurrection (the Gospels describe him before his little tete-a-tete with the Romans). Why would such a person ned resurrection to effect such a change? Or did he instead change for the worse after his ordeal?   ;-)

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: Book of Judas
From: Kweku
Date: 07 Apr 06 - 09:29 AM

It is unfortunate that a few bunch of hoodlums and rogues, have defamed christianity so much to the extent that, men donot believe in the divinity of Yesu Christo. I remember the time that I decided never to believe in the bible again because of its controversies.

My advice to everyone is "donot condem or mock christianity but seek a close relationship with your Almighty. It might be the God of the Israelites or Israelis,or from Asia. the choice is yours.

Subject: RE: BS: Book of Judas
From: the one
Date: 07 Apr 06 - 12:14 PM

go do what have to, then satan entered into him.

Subject: RE: BS: Book of Judas
From: TheBigPinkLad
Date: 07 Apr 06 - 12:37 PM

It is unfortunate that a few bunch of hoodlums and rogues, have defamed christianity so much to the extent that, men donot believe in the divinity of Yesu Christo.

The hoodlums are the bastards that poison children with mythical bollocks and damn them to a life of servitude.

Subject: RE: BS: Book of Judas
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Apr 06 - 02:09 PM

But Big Pink... What happens to your children if you teach them
      to be self serving? Will they come back crying to every time
      life doesn't go their way? Historically speaking, I can't
      think of a better role model then Jesus. Whose had a bigger
      influence and what does it say about man for 2000 yr.s?

         Roanoke

Subject: RE: BS: Book of Judas
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Apr 06 - 03:15 PM

Pied, you are a very literal-minded person. Yes, Krishna as he is now depicted in Hindu art, etc, is clearly a mythological god figure. However, I suspect that there was a real such physical person in ancient times in India who got the ball rolling, so to speak, by being a pretty remarkable teacher (like Buddha, Jesus, Mohammed, and all the others) and then the embellishments and mythology about Krishna were gradually added on and enlarged upon after the fact by the next however many generations of his followers. THAT is what I mean when I assert that Krisha existed. He most probably did, but I don't mean that he had blue skin or whatever other extraordinary stuff you see written about him in the Hindu legends...

Paul Burke - NEVER make the mistake that people who like to talk about Jesus and are impressed by his teachings must necessarily be Christians. That is not so. Jesus is tremendously respected and revered by a great many people who are not Christians at all, but are independent thinkers, or people in any variety of non-Christian traditions, specially those of the East. Muslims, by the way, also highly respect Jesus. He's one of their most important prophets, but not as important in their view as Mohammed, obviously.

If your past has filled you with anger or contempt for the Christian church (as it has many), then that will obviously skew your views and reactions every time the subject of Jesus comes up, won't it? That's what's called having a chip on your shoulder. We've all got a few of those.

Subject: RE: BS: Book of Judas
From: TheBigPinkLad
Date: 07 Apr 06 - 03:15 PM

What happens to your children if you teach them to be self serving?

In order to answer that, I'd have to teach them to be self-serving, make observations and then get back to you.

Will they come back crying to every time life doesn't go their way?

ditto previous answer.

Historically speaking, [?]I can't think of a better role model then Jesus.

What sort of twat takes a stick to moneylenders and whithers a fig tree because the fruit is not to his liking?

Whose had a bigger influence and what does it say about man for 2000 yr.s?

(a)Jethro Tull, Alexander Flemming, John Crapper, (all real too I might add) ... (b) "you can fool some of the people all of the time ..." etc.

Subject: RE: BS: Book of Judas
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Apr 06 - 03:18 PM

What sort of twat interprets every ancient religious tale as literally as he would interpret an instruction booklet for assembling a refrigerator? ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Book of Judas
From: akenaton
Date: 07 Apr 06 - 03:23 PM

I don't think humanity has improved much in 2000 yrs .
I think I agree with Big Pink most of what is passed on is destructive mythology.
Christ was just a philosopher in a long line of philosophers.
The difference is that Christs ideas were taken over by the poowerful and used as a means of control.
It continues to this day all over the world, great wrongs carried out in the name of god. Doesn't much matter which one....Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Book of Judas
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Apr 06 - 03:29 PM

Or in the name of profit?

Or "democracy"? (ha ha)

Or "freedom"? (whose freedom?)

Or patriotism?

Or "success"?

Subject: RE: BS: Book of Judas
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Apr 06 - 03:34 PM

We have improved some in 2,000 years...in regards to ethical matters such as slavery, universal suffrage, the status of women, our grasp of science and medicine, and any number of other areas.

The primary way in which we find ourselves in a worse condition than 2,000 years ago is that the world population has grown enormously and our technological prowess has badly damaged global ecology, and spawned terrible weapons. Morally, we've probably improved overall, but materially we face unprededented problems.

Subject: RE: BS: Book of Judas
From: akenaton
Date: 07 Apr 06 - 03:52 PM

Status of women improved?   motherhood and the nurturing of children now despised!
Universal sufferage ...Don't make me laugh, we all have the vote but can only vote for one thing!
Science and medicine ...we create new "plagues" almost weekly ,medical research is now a gold ruch for the drug companies.

But there you go I'm the eternal optimist.

I look forwardc to the day when we move back to our holes in the ground ...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Book of Judas
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 07 Apr 06 - 03:59 PM

Attempts at interpretion are futile unless one is is familiar with classical languages and has researched biblical history. Most of what is readily available is spin, to use a modern term; pre-digested to support a particular synthesis of fact and fiction. As such, the new testament and its contributed material is interesting reading, but scarcely fact.

I remember some discussions from early school days; A Jewish friend regarded Jesus as a rabble-rouser and probable early communist (this was the late 1930's). Not Jewish myself, but the little I have read since could support this interpretation. Perhaps if I was cognizant of Jewish and Roman writings of the period, my opinion might be worthy of consideration.

Subject: RE: BS: Book of Judas
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Apr 06 - 04:01 PM

Well, they're all debatable matters aren't they, ake? Would you really rather live in Judea in the year 10 BC? If I had a time machine, I could grant you that wish.

You know, I think that most of us argue not because we are so devoted to "truth" as we like to imagine, but just because we get caught up in the game. It's like ping pong. You hit the ball over the net...BAP!...it comes back...WHAP!....you hit it again.

These threads are like that. All of them.

It's silly. I end up feeling contempt for all of us after awhile, myself included. Just a bunch of big mouths raving on to infinity, with no other purpose than to "win" by hitting the last ball over the net.

Subject: RE: BS: Book of Judas
From: TheBigPinkLad
Date: 07 Apr 06 - 04:06 PM

21 - 10 ... OK, best of three?

Subject: RE: BS: Book of Judas
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 07 Apr 06 - 04:23 PM

Universal sufferage

I don't know if that's a typo. Anyway it's a pretty good variant that sums the system up pretty well.

As for this "Judas Gospel" - remember, they had writers like Dan Brown back in the old days as well.

Subject: RE: BS: Book of Judas
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Apr 06 - 04:31 PM

I prefer to play ping pong without keeping score, BPL. ;-)

(seriously...I do...it's a wonderful game when you play just for the fun of playing, and never keep score at all)

I don't like win/lose situations much. If I lose I feel bad...if I win I feel bad for the other person. Either way, it sucks.

Subject: RE: BS: Book of Judas
From: akenaton
Date: 07 Apr 06 - 04:32 PM

I know what you mean LH, I feel like that too at times.

Is the internet just a toy designed to torment us on our impotence?
You're a nice guy George ...Good luck to you..Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Book of Judas
From: GUEST,AR282
Date: 07 Apr 06 - 04:39 PM

Judas must be the greatest human ever, according to Christian logic. Without Judas there would have been no crucifixion and therefore no atonement. Then for saving humanity, Judas spends eternity in hell while Christ only had to spend three days there. So, who, really is greater?

Subject: RE: BS: Book of Judas
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Apr 06 - 04:44 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?

Subject: RE: BS: Book of Judas
From: Bill Hahn//\\
Date: 07 Apr 06 - 06:30 PM

I have nothing to add to this discussion other than I happened on it and also the news articles re: Judas Gospel.   

In thinking about it I can only say---who knows. After all in criminal and civil litigation we find that eye witness accounts are not always that accurate. The Gospels were not even eye witness to anything.

Given today's science even DNA would not help in these circumstances because it cannot devolve motives and meanings---only facts. Facts we know---birth and death of Jesus. Though it would be nice to have some DNA history there to put things into some perspective.   

Sorry if this sounds a bit sacrilegious---but everyone seems to be looking for truth here.

Bill Hahn

Subject: RE: BS: Book of Judas
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Apr 06 - 06:52 PM

Truth in itself is a good thing. Truth that is lit by the inner light of a powerful meaning is even better.

That is to say, one can amass facts about anything...but how useful are those facts when no meaning or purpose can be ascribed to them?

Subject: RE: BS: Book of Judas
From: catspaw49
Date: 07 Apr 06 - 06:57 PM

I think I covered the truth angle..........There isn't any that is completely verifiable which is why I tried to diffuse this sucker awhile back but alas, we just love to argue about religion and the unknowable. I suppose it is because there is no way to bne proven right...we simply claim it to be!

I won't quote Schweitzer again, just myself:

HISTORY, whether of wars and cultures or simply of the ideas and philosophies of the ages is written and passed down to future generations by the Winners.

It is impossible to ascribe any truth to most of the wonderful tales in the Bible so why would I believe this new find......especially when you consider where it has been and what it has gone through.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Book of Judas
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Apr 06 - 07:03 PM

There's no way to be proven wrong about it, either.

Why does anyone have to prove any of it? Does everything worth discussing have to be proven? Or is that just a way of making fun of people who like discussing something that you don't happen to be in sympathy with for some reason?

(the "you" I am referring to is not Spaw...it's a generalized "you")

Schweitzer speaks wisely. He has compassion for us fallible humans with our fickle and arbitrary opinions.

Subject: RE: BS: Book of Judas
From: bobad
Date: 07 Apr 06 - 07:22 PM

"Why does anyone have to prove any of it? Does everything worth discussing have to be proven?"

One reason may be to protect the gullible (usually the least educated and the poorest members of society) from the hucksters and charlatans who are are only too eager to separate them from their money by making claims that are unproveable.

Subject: RE: BS: Book of Judas
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Apr 06 - 07:31 PM

If I may paraphrase Jesus, "the gullible will always be with us". ;-)

If they weren't buying religion, they'd be buying soft drinks, sunscreen, viagra, an illegal war, or diet drinks.

You're not in this to help the gullible! You're just in it to push your own favorite point of view, bobad. Admit it.

There are lots of things that CAN'T be proven right now (like whether Jesus existed or not), may never be provable, and they are entirely worth discussing, regardless. To discuss them favorably does not necessarily indicate that one believes in the Rapture, the immaculate conception, eternal hellfire, or various other strange stuff like that which is believed by some christians (and not all of them by any means).

Your mistake, I think, is to assume that "religious people" are all, unlike you, thoroughly gullible and easily misled. Ha! If only life were that simple.

Subject: RE: BS: Book of Judas
From: catspaw49
Date: 07 Apr 06 - 07:45 PM

Ya' know Hawk, that's a tough choice......Sunscreen or Religion.......................Gimmee the sunscreen in case the religious folks are right and I wind up in hell.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Book of Judas
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Apr 06 - 07:50 PM

Yeah, I knew that would really tax your powers of decision, Spaw... ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Book of Judas
From: Kaleea
Date: 07 Apr 06 - 08:35 PM

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.

Subject: RE: BS: Book of Judas
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Apr 06 - 08:54 PM

And no harm in that, I'd say. It might stimulate some new thought on the matter.

Subject: RE: BS: Book of Judas
From: bobad
Date: 07 Apr 06 - 09:04 PM

God knows it's needed.

Subject: RE: BS: Book of Judas
From: Bobert
Date: 07 Apr 06 - 09:07 PM

Well, the way I see this this has beena bad day for the fundamentalists who believe strongly that there has to be a boogie man to hate...

Jesus told His disciples of the future... How could the "future" come about had it not been for Judas???

This part of the story is more consistent with my Faith, based on a loving God, than one that has to have a boogie man in the equation...

And this may sound wierd, but I have never had any ill-fealings toward Judas... I mean, as a follower of Christ, I have tried to put myself in Judas's shoes during my life time and this was the only conclusion I could come up with... I mean, all of the disciples loved and believed deeply in Jesus...

Yeah, I hope this very important manuscript will get those who have grown up in Faith based on having to have someone to hate to rethink the basis of their Faith...

In the name of Jesus, long live Judas...

Just MO....

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Book of Judas
From: John O'L
Date: 07 Apr 06 - 09:07 PM

I think it's interesting that the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Nag Hamadi scrolls were found at virtually the same time. (And what a time it was!)

Coincidence?
Of course, how could it be other?

Subject: RE: BS: Book of Judas
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Apr 06 - 09:56 PM

This news is gonna kill Chuck Heston.

Subject: RE: BS: Book of Judas
From: Les in Chorlton
Date: 08 Apr 06 - 03:13 AM

It is time for the writing of an appropriate spoof. The Gospel according to ............................. St Wayne.

After all Waynes World was a truly inspirational movie.

Please, The Life of Brian was another truly inspirational movie but it was not about religion it was about far left politics

Subject: RE: BS: Book of Judas
From: John O'L
Date: 08 Apr 06 - 04:02 AM

"What this Jesus doesn't understand is that it's the meek who are the problem..."

Subject: RE: BS: Book of Judas
From: akenaton
Date: 08 Apr 06 - 04:35 AM

:0)

Subject: RE: BS: Book of Judas
From: Donuel
Date: 08 Apr 06 - 08:24 AM

Katie Couric: We are on the phone with his infalliable holiness, Pope Benedict Arn.. umm the XVI. Hi Benny, so how is the war against secular humanists going?

Pope Benedict XVI: Very good Kaytee and how are you?

Katie Couric: Just Peachy. Could you explain what this new crusade is about?

Pope Benedict XVI: "Hamanism, which is the starting point of this secularist mentality, becomes a kind of dogmatism that believes it has reached the definitive stage of awareness of what human reason really is and must be crushed so that the son of God may reign for another 1,000 years."

Katie Couric: That sure sounds like great fun Popi, Have you heard about the new Judas gospel?

Pope Benedict XVI: "It is nothing but a tissue of lies and a 2nd century forgery."

Katie Couric: We are coming up on our break so could you tell us in one word , what you would say to the countless millions of Jews who have been persecuted by Christians for killing Christ - IF in fact these new Judas Gospels are for real ??

Pope Benedict XVI: "Oopsie?"

Katie Couric: Thank you, we'll be right back with Brittany Spears new song and baby...

Subject: RE: BS: Book of Judas
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 08 Apr 06 - 11:46 AM

John O'Lennaine commented, in part:

Some say the Crucifiction is what it's all about, others read more into the resurrection, and yet others see the immaculate conception of his mum as being the cucial element.

Now, I can't say I'm a biblical scholar, so I guess I might be wrong here, but I don't recall that the immaculate conception of Mary is even mentioned in the Bible. It's a much later idea, is my understanding.

Am I wrong? Tell me where the Bible mentions immaculate conception.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Book of Judas
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 08 Apr 06 - 12:03 PM

Frankly, I don't understand the connection that several here have referred to, connecting the supposed guilt of Judas to antisemitism. After all, they were ALL Jews--all the other disciples, Jesus, and the Pharisees too.

The wrong if any, the conspiracy again Jesus, if you will, on the one hand, and Jesus's "support group" and followers on the other were all Jewish. So how can one assign a great guilt, capable of lasting millennia, to the Jews as a people?

The great wrong, if indeed it occurred, was a sort of intramural political clash, seems to me.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Book of Judas
From: Bill D
Date: 08 Apr 06 - 12:04 PM

here is a semi-official explanation of immaculate conception.

It is quite a hodge-podge of theological analysis based on a few scriptural passages and translations.

Subject: RE: BS: Book of Judas
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Apr 06 - 01:04 PM

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.

Hurrah, hurrah, hurrah! That is what I have been saying it meant for what?....years now on this forum. Yet people will continue to blithely assume that the "immaculate conception" means Mary got pregnant without having sex with anyone...which interpretation suits the absurd straw man they have set up to attack their idea of "religion" to a "T" doesn't it?

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