36 replies to this topic

[Dying Seraph]

Mr Walker, on 28 September 2012 - 12:19 AM, said:

It is impossible for god to know the future absolutely because it doesnt even exist yet, in actuality or in the minds of men and ther is no fixed or one future TO know

Greetings Mr. Walker,
The Bible seems to convey otherwise. The general concensus as far as the common statements given by believers are that God works through people and nations and is Alpha and Omega etc. etc. etc. That said I certainly suspect it would depend on freewill, predestination or whatever other stance the individual takes and just how literal one takes the Bible.

Quote

However, certainly I agree with the point that both these people contributed to christianity. I 've never thought much about pilate. Basically he was just doing his job, but certainly it has seemed strange to me that judas was villified. He was obviously guilt ridden and hanged himself, but without him christianity would never have occured. Perhaps he can be judged on his heart and actions, apart from the consequences of them. Ie the reasons WHY he betrayed jesus speak to the nature of the man. But christ forgave him. It seems odd that others villify him, but that also speaks to the hearts and minds of those who do.

Never thought much about the man who had a hand in the death of the "Messiah" to the masses? To each their own.
Is it really so obvious? Did he hang himself out of guilt? Or did he jump off a cliff and his bowles burst (supposedly as part of divine prophecy) as Acts mentions? I suspect there is too much inconsistency to say something is obvious.

There is again an issue with "betrayal." Mark, the earliest account does not imply betrayal at all. Judas hands Jesus over. No connotation is implied that Judas is a traitor until later gospels.

Quote

Ps if people were/are mere instruments of god or acting in a divinely predestined way, then they cant be either critcised or praised for their actions. They are neither villians nor heroes, but mere agents, who are not responsible for anything they do.

Indeed if everything is set in motion by God and if all are instruments of God, (for better or worse) there are no heroes or villains only pawns.

meryt-tetisheri, on 28 September 2012 - 01:04 AM, said:

The Coptic Church does not venerate Pilate at all, it is rather the Abyssinian (Ethiopian) Church which canonized him; I think he is commemorated on June 25. The reason for the canonization has nothing to do with the role he played in the crucifixion of Jesus, rather he is believed to have converted to Christianity and was subsequently martyred. This belief is derived from the 4th century apocryphal gospel of Nicodemus: Acta Pilati and Epistola Pilati
http://www.earlychri...lnicodemus.html

Pilate's wife, Claudia Procula, is believed to have testified to the Messiahship of Jesus by Orthodox churches, and is commemorated on October 27 in the Greek Synaxarion. For both, veneration is based on conversion and not for being agents or instruments of God.

Greetings meryt...,
Many of my sources say Egytpian Coptic Christians indeed did venerate Pilate. You've certainly given me something to look further into. Thank you!

I was aware of why Pilate became venerated. Although many do imply that even in the Bible Pilate has potential by supposedly seeing the divinity in Christ and in John, Pilate states to a degree that he sees no guilt in Jesus. The story's you mention certainly postdate the Bible but further convey what I personally believe. That the authors were aware of Pilate on the Gospel of John and in seeing as how Pilate would recognize the divinity of Christ would go on to "convert" or supposedly become a believer before being taken off from his position (for a massacre he causes elsewhere after the debacle with Christ) in disgrace and killing himself in Roman official fashion.

The Gremlin, on 28 September 2012 - 10:47 AM, said:

Do they vilify Judas?

How?

I agree with the earlier point that although he was part of God's plan etc, his motives perhaps reveal his deficient character.
Unless he was instructed by Jesus that is, pulled aside and told to snitch.


Either way, im not sure he minds.

Greetings The Gremlin,
The Gospels of Luke and John very much villify Judas.
As presented before in Luke the author implies that the devil is working through Judas. In John the author conveys that Judas is in league with the devil. I'd say that's villification. Considering how imbelished the tale seems to be by the time the author of John gets to Judas.

We do not know Judas's intend! Mark only conveys that Judas handed Jesus over. It's possible that Judas was introducing Jesus to the local high priests and something went wrong. It's possible the later authors had it write in Judahs's intentions all along. In Mark we get that he recieved 30 pieces of silver. Then later Matthew playing on that conveys that Judas did what he did out of greed and hence the notion of betrayal starts to creep in.

SINcerely,

[Mr Walker]

Bling, on 28 September 2012 - 08:23 PM, said:

The bible says that god does know the future - the beginning and the end. Alpha and Omega.

And so? The bible says a lot of things about how to treat women, slaves, and homosexuals. It tells me the earth was created in 6 days. Should I take  all these things as "gospel truth"?

Im not a bible literalist.

It is quite likely, having some communications with god my self   that a human chronicler would ASSUME God has omniscience and omnipotence, but god is real. NO real creature can know the future, although advanced ones can predict and extrapolate potential futures with increasing accuracy .

God often shows me "my future" (actually the one i will enter if i continue present actions), and then shows me how to alter it and create a better one. While some of the bible writers attribute onmiscience to god, probably because of his very clear powers and abilities compared to humans of that era, the stories and accounts of god within the bible actually show a god who often has to resort to plan B, and even plan C,  when humans do not do as he hoped they would.

God never knew, nor wanted, for example, mankind to fall from grace within the bible story. That's  not what he planned or hoped for us in that story. He didnt know satan /lucifer would revolt against him, and in turn come to tempt humanity to turn against god. He left us to our free willed choices (as he still does) and thus could not/can not, know how we will act. (Because this is never decided more than a few milli seconds  in advance )
Today god may present me with a variety of alternative futures for me, through words, visions or imparted knowledge, but it remains up to me to act in a way which will select one of those futures from the alternatives. While it is helpful to know tha t one action will kill me, and another save me, (as extreme examples) I still have to decide and act in a disciplined and consistent way for a period of time to shape the  most positive future god presents for me, (and being human I do not always do so, even knowing the less than optimal outcomes laziness, or lack of discipline, or giving in to human desires, will produce)

[meryt-tetisheri]

I think there is some confusion persisting among some sources between the Egyptian Coptic and the Ethiopian Churches. The latter is a ‘daughter church’ since 328 AD when Pope Athanasius of Alexandria consecrated Saint Frumentius as the Bishop of Axum, thus the first bishop of Ethiopia. This continued to be the case until 1974 when formal relations between the two churches were halted.
Though Pilate was regarded as a martyr in the Coptic Church from the 6^th to the 14^th centuries, this tradition has gradually but totally died out. Below is a link to the official site of the church and its Synaxarium, there is no mention of Pilate. I should add that I am a Copt (ethnically and by baptism), close members of my family are active church members, and I have never come across the veneration of Pilate in any form in the contemporary Coptic Church. I will try to ask a church official about the history and reasons why Pilate was suppressed, but that will take time.

http://www.copticchurch.net/topics/synexarion/index.html

As for traditions concerning the fate of Pilate, there exist several versions in which he converted and was martyred; was banished and committed suicide in Rome; was executed and his body disposed of in lake Lucerne, Switzerland; retired and lived a tower in Tarragona. According to the Ethiopian ‘Mazmura Krestos’, written in 1582, Pilate was sent into exile in Andalusia by Tiberius.

In  a fifth century Syriac version of Acta Pilati, Pilate is presented as remorsefully praying on his way to execution by the hands of Albius following the orders of Tiberius who was enraged that Pilate crucified the just Christ. His prayers were answered by a voice from heaven promising that Pilate will be blessed by all generations and families of nations because under him all prophecies concerning Christ were fulfilled, and that he will be a witness of Christ’s judgment of those who denied him during his second coming. When Pilate’s head was cut off an angel appeared and received it, Pilate’s wife gave up the ghost at the same moment.

There seems to be two distinct traditional, not historical, depictions of Pilate: either as a cynical killer of Jesus who is eternally condemned, or as a remorseful convert and martyr who was forgiven. This is a line of division running between Western and Eastern & Southern churches. Among the latter it seems that his veneration is dependent on his remorse and conversion, not just that he played a predesignated role chosen for him by God.

[libstaK]

Dying Seraph, on 28 September 2012 - 08:50 PM, said:

Greetings libstaK,
It's something that has long been puzzling. If Jesus is set free and as many believe his death fulfills the tole or pays for all sinners...then how can either Pilate or Judas not be seen in at least a more sympathetic light by many? If indeed everything is part of God's divine plan that is. Of course each gospel has their own intentions for the time period of the writings to consider and that may certainly be why alterations or additions were made in regards to the temperaments or personalities of Pilate and Judas. But it's long baffled me particularly those quick to embrace the Gospel of Luke where the "devil" works through Judas and in John where by this time Judas is in league with the devil himself.

I think the "devil" is our own self will or ego - our attachments and desires making our decisions for us.  Jesus stood firm against the world as it had it's way with him according to each participants attachments and desires which blinded them to the truth at the time.  Does this mean Judas and Pontius Pilate are "guilty"?  No more so than any of us who allow ourselves to be led around by the nose by our material desires, we ALL crucified Christ that day.  We ALL were forgiven as one of his final acts that day too.

I think, if you are key to that "play" then God knows very well the level to which you are a victim of your desires when the pawns are all placed in their allocated positions - aka: cause and effect made the outcome inevitable OR the causes that would place Pontius Pilate and Judas in the right place at the right time were known to God.  It possibly tells us that God may have wanted our weaknesses and internal battles with evil to be made obvious to us and considering the power the crucifixion has had in the world since then - it was a well or divinely placed effort that strikes a chord in the hearts and minds of millions continuously.

The devil himself is material desire for Judas who thought the payment of 30 silver pieces could silence that part of him that knew what he was doing was wrong.  For Pontius Pilate it was love of power in that he allowed the Jews to crucify a man he knew had committed no crime to ensure peace and maintain control in his own little kingdom.  He knew deep down the blood was on his hands and symbolically tried to wash it away, he failed to fool himself or anyone with that act.  I am sure he knew it was a weakness inside himself where his power base was threatened and he wished to save that more than doing the right thing by his fellow man and suffered as all men who compromise their principles suffer but try to pretend they do not.

[eight bits]

Judas is an interesting. John has the most detail about him.

I think it's funny that John includes the remark that Judas' interest in the perfumed oil, the subject of his fatal argument with Jesus, was that Judas wanted to steal the proceeds. That may be a great example of a scribal insertion.

If it is in the original text, that Judas regularly stole from the group's purse which he kept, then why is the witness telling us? Why not tell Jesus, who could do something about it? Then again, why would the witnesss need to tell Jesus? Is this yet another "psychic fair cancelled due to unforseen circumsatnces"?

Anyway, the falling out between Jesus and Judas is in the immediate aftermath of the Lazarus raising. That incident begins with Jesus deciding to cross back in Judea to visit the ailing Lazarus, even though Jesus and the gang have just escaped yet another posse, and are hiding out across the border.

The disciples try to talk Jesus out of returning, but of course he insists.

So Thomas, called Didymus, said to his fellow disciples, "Let us also go to die with him." John 11: 16

Judas went, to go and die with Jesus. That's maybe two weeks (?) before Judas turned Jesus in.

Tricky business, this betrayal stuff.

Edited by eight bits, 29 September 2012 - 11:07 AM.

[Dying Seraph]

meryt-tetisheri, on 29 September 2012 - 12:48 AM, said:

I think there is some confusion persisting among some sources between the Egyptian Coptic and the Ethiopian Churches. The latter is a ‘daughter church’ since 328 AD when Pope Athanasius of Alexandria consecrated Saint Frumentius as the Bishop of Axum, thus the first bishop of Ethiopia. This continued to be the case until 1974 when formal relations between the two churches were halted.
Though Pilate was regarded as a martyr in the Coptic Church from the 6^th to the 14^th centuries, this tradition has gradually but totally died out. Below is a link to the official site of the church and its Synaxarium, there is no mention of Pilate. I should add that I am a Copt (ethnically and by baptism), close members of my family are active church members, and I have never come across the veneration of Pilate in any form in the contemporary Coptic Church. I will try to ask a church official about the history and reasons why Pilate was suppressed, but that will take time.

http://www.copticchurch.net/topics/synexarion/index.html

As for traditions concerning the fate of Pilate, there exist several versions in which he converted and was martyred; was banished and committed suicide in Rome; was executed and his body disposed of in lake Lucerne, Switzerland; retired and lived a tower in Tarragona. According to the Ethiopian ‘Mazmura Krestos’, written in 1582, Pilate was sent into exile in Andalusia by Tiberius.

In  a fifth century Syriac version of Acta Pilati, Pilate is presented as remorsefully praying on his way to execution by the hands of Albius following the orders of Tiberius who was enraged that Pilate crucified the just Christ. His prayers were answered by a voice from heaven promising that Pilate will be blessed by all generations and families of nations because under him all prophecies concerning Christ were fulfilled, and that he will be a witness of Christ’s judgment of those who denied him during his second coming. When Pilate’s head was cut off an angel appeared and received it, Pilate’s wife gave up the ghost at the same moment.

There seems to be two distinct traditional, not historical, depictions of Pilate: either as a cynical killer of Jesus who is eternally condemned, or as a remorseful convert and martyr who was forgiven. This is a line of division running between Western and Eastern & Southern churches. Among the latter it seems that his veneration is dependent on his remorse and conversion, not just that he played a predesignated role chosen for him by God.

Greetings meryt...,
Thank you for aiding in clarification and informative response.

Indeed there are many traditions regarding Pilate...as it stands admittedly I'm inclined to believe, considering Pilates, somewhat contempt for Jews (ie if it's true that Pilate states in the gospels to the effect, "Am I a Jew?" "Take him and crucify him your selves.") and his missunderstanding of them that the Gospel of John is skewing things up a bit perhaps to ease the blame of Rome in having a hand in the death of Christ? And furthermore I'm inclined to believe that a massacre happened that indeed Pilate was held responsible and after being banished in disgrace commited suicide as was fashionable by Roman nobility.

I suspect you are on to something in regards to the division of traditions/beliefs in various demographics.

libstaK, on 29 September 2012 - 01:11 AM, said:

I think the "devil" is our own self will or ego - our attachments and desires making our decisions for us. Jesus stood firm against the world as it had it's way with him according to each participants attachments and desires which blinded them to the truth at the time.  Does this mean Judas and Pontius Pilate are "guilty"?  No more so than any of us who allow ourselves to be led around by the nose by our material desires, we ALL crucified Christ that day.  We ALL were forgiven as one of his final acts that day too.

I think, if you are key to that "play" then God knows very well the level to which you are a victim of your desires when the pawns are all placed in their allocated positions - aka: cause and effect made the outcome inevitable OR the causes that would place Pontius Pilate and Judas in the right place at the right time were known to God.  It possibly tells us that God may have wanted our weaknesses and internal battles with evil to be made obvious to us and considering the power the crucifixion has had in the world since then - it was a well or divinely placed effort that strikes a chord in the hearts and minds of millions continuously.

Greetings libstaK,
What you said so eloquently reminded me of one of my favorite quotes from a movie. coincidently it coincides so much in what you are conveying. "Eckhart saw Hell too. He said: The only thing that burns in Hell is the part of you that won't let go of life, your memories, your attachments. They burn them all away. But they're not punishing you, he said. They're freeing your soul. So, if you're frightened of dying and... and you're holding on, you'll see devils tearing your life away. But if you've made your peace, then the devils are really angels, freeing you from the earth."--Excerpt from the movie "Jacob's Ladder"

Interestingly enough if one accepts (and I suppose to what degree) "prophecy" we can look at Isaiah and his prophecy that Jesus was "without beauty, without majesty, with no looks to attract our eyes; a thing rejected and despised by men." -Isaiah 52 or 53?
That is again pending I suppose on if one accept "prophecy" and to what degree. But interesting that if Jesus is indeed a rather unatractive person all the more he'd appeal to the more down trodden and outcasts and why perhaps was rejected by those with wealth would he not?

Even "Paul" attests to a degree what you are saying. In Romans 8 Paul declares to the effect that God handed his son over for us all.
Of course elsewhere Paul states in Galations 2 to effect that Jesus loved Paul so much that Jesus handed himself over for Paul (narcissicm much on Paul's part? ).

Quote

The devil himself is material desire for Judas who thought the payment of 30 silver pieces could silence that part of him that knew what he was doing was wrong.  For Pontius Pilate it was love of power in that he allowed the Jews to crucify a man he knew had committed no crime to ensure peace and maintain control in his own little kingdom.  He knew deep down the blood was on his hands and symbolically tried to wash it away, he failed to fool himself or anyone with that act.  I am sure he knew it was a weakness inside himself where his power base was threatened and he wished to save that more than doing the right thing by his fellow man and suffered as all men who compromise their principles suffer but try to pretend they do not.

There is also an issue with the 30 pieces of silver. And this is where things get skewed. Indeed it's implied 30 pieces of silver was involved when Judas handed Jesus over. However this appears to be an issue of attempting to add "prophecy" into the mix. IMO it certainly seems feasible this likely did not happen. To this degree I am inclined to accept the view of William Klassen who first introduced me to the view I'm about to present in his book Judas: Betrayer or Friend of Jesus? Klassen maintains the view that it certainly is likely that Judas handed Jesus over but that it wasn't meant to be in betrayal. Klassen believes it feasible that Judas perhaps intended to introduce Jesus to the local proper authorities so that Jesus could present his vision of "the kingdom" and perhaps by doing so attempting to prevent some outbreak of violence with radical new beliefs emerging from Jesus, and it is likely that something went incredibly wrong resulting in the death of Jesus.

Klassen wrote his book before the Gospel of Judas surfaced, only relying on the Bible and Klassen outlines 5 conclusions that Marvin Meyer in his book on Judas points out.  
1. Judas appears to have gotten together with the high priets in order to arrange a meeting with Jesus.
2. Klassen in this case theorizes that ALL PARTIES wished to avoid hostility and any trouble.
3. Judas may have appealed to the policy of Jesus himself in such issues of discussion and potential disagreement, that the best recourse is direct encounter with the issues and the people representing the issues.

(Bearing in mind that Judas was the one who managed the finances of the group) Klassen argued that "If Judas was indeed a disciple concerned about financial matters, he would've been sensetive to the financial needs of the Temple in a way that Jesus might not have been. He may have thought that by meeting the authorities, Jesus could become better disposed toward the traditional way in which changes were made in the Temple and that Caiaphas could get a better understanding of the reform program Jesus had in mind for the renewal of Israel."
4. By acting in this manner Judas would've been following accepted Jewish practice, and doing the 'right' thing by letting the high priest know what Jesus was teaching, especially about the Temple.
5. Jesus tells Judas to "go do what you must do quickly." This may give an implication that Jesus was in with Judas on what was planned.

All that said it is just as speculative as we can get but with those facts before considering the Gospel of Judas...along with the fact that Judas appears to have had a prominant role, (as handling finances, as being close enough to kiss Jesus and dip his bread, and as close as being able to intimately kiss Jesus and identify him).

SINcerely,

Edited by Dying Seraph, 01 October 2012 - 11:29 PM.

[Dying Seraph]

eight bits, on 29 September 2012 - 11:06 AM, said:

Judas is an interesting. John has the most detail about him.

I think it's funny that John includes the remark that Judas' interest in the perfumed oil, the subject of his fatal argument with Jesus, was that Judas wanted to steal the proceeds. That may be a great example of a scribal insertion.

If it is in the original text, that Judas regularly stole from the group's purse which he kept, then why is the witness telling us? Why not tell Jesus, who could do something about it? Then again, why would the witnesss need to tell Jesus? Is this yet another "psychic fair cancelled due to unforseen circumsatnces"?

Greetings 8 Bits,
Not only that, why would he be able to be close enough to Christ to dip his bread, or to kiss Jesus and identifying him? Why would Jesus and the 12 allow Judas to maintain a position of prominence if they knew he was being scandelous (especially if Mark in the group was a tax collector already)? Certainly seems to appear that history and tradition just didn't look too favorably on poor old Judas. And indeed WHY would the witness need to tell Jesus. Certainly John's Jesus has everything planed out himself.

Quote

Anyway, the falling out between Jesus and Judas is in the immediate aftermath of the Lazarus raising. That incident begins with Jesus deciding to cross back in Judea to visit the ailing Lazarus, even though Jesus and the gang have just escaped yet another posse, and are hiding out across the border.

The disciples try to talk Jesus out of returning, but of course he insists.

So Thomas, called Didymus, said to his fellow disciples, "Let us also go to die with him." John 11: 16

Judas went, to go and die with Jesus. That's maybe two weeks (?) before Judas turned Jesus in.

Tricky business, this betrayal stuff.

You just presented something I have long considered!! Thomas Didymus (Twin) and Judas Didymus Thomas? Can it be that as the Gospel of Judas conveys...and as certain implications in the Bible convey, that Judas all along was indeed the closest to Jesus?

Certainly is tricky to turn someone in when they're dead. This presents another issue: What is your take on the whole handing over scenario? While Mark implies that Judas handed Jesus over, Paul makes no mention specifically but uses the same term Mark does (the Greek verb paradidoni) describing the act of handing over or give over? Paul makes no mention of a specific indididual handing Christ over. Is Paul in his writings following "facts" or writing on and expanding in his writings looking back on tradition? The question arises because Paul presents that Jesus handed himself over, that God handed Jesus over and Paul even gets cocky enough to say that Jesus loved Paul so much he died for him.

SINcerely,

Edited by Dying Seraph, 01 October 2012 - 11:57 PM.

[libstaK]

Dying Seraph, on 01 October 2012 - 11:28 PM, said:

Greetings libstaK,
What you said so eloquently reminded me of one of my favorite quotes from a movie. coincidently it coincides so much in what you are conveying. "Eckhart saw Hell too. He said: The only thing that burns in Hell is the part of you that won't let go of life, your memories, your attachments. They burn them all away. But they're not punishing you, he said. They're freeing your soul. So, if you're frightened of dying and... and you're holding on, you'll see devils tearing your life away. But if you've made your peace, then the devils are really angels, freeing you from the earth."--Excerpt from the movie "Jacob's Ladder"

Interestingly enough if one accepts (and I suppose to what degree) "prophecy" we can look at Isaiah and his prophecy that Jesus was "without beauty, without majesty, with no looks to attract our eyes; a thing rejected and despised by men." -Isaiah 52 or 53?
That is again pending I suppose on if one accept "prophecy" and to what degree. But interesting that if Jesus is indeed a rather unatractive person all the more he'd appeal to the more down trodden and outcasts and why perhaps was rejected by those with wealth would he not?

Even "Paul" attests to a degree what you are saying. In Romans 8 Paul declares to the effect that God handed his son over for us all.
Of course elsewhere Paul states in Galations 2 to effect that Jesus loved Paul so much that Jesus handed himself over for Paul (narcissicm much on Paul's part? ).

And greetings to you Seraph,
Thank you for your kind words - I have read a little of Eckhardt, however my understanding comes more from buddhist and gnostic teachings - which Eckhardt echoes in many ways.  Eckhardt has the capacity to expound these matters in a way accessible to even those who have no knowledge in these areas, I like his efforts in that regard.

That quote you supplied which I have highlighted struck a very deep chord, particularly "a thing rejected and despised by men".  Hmm so much is in just those few words if we equate that "men" are equal to the physical body or ego but not the soul.  The material man seeks stimulation of his 5 senses and makes choices based on these stimulations.  The soul has no such distractions and it is implicit that it would rather be the soul that recognises wisdom and truth not the will of "man".

LOL at Paul's narcissism, yes it is a little transparent to say the least and makes him an annoying and for me, difficult to respect espouser of the "word" but in the matter of God handing over a precious son to the will of "man" out of love for us all, he at least understood something of the depth of the gift and it's opportunity.

[Mnemonix]

My thoughts exactly. I never bothered to ask the question, though.

[Neognosis]

Man, people REALLY REACH on this forum every day just to find something to slam Christianity about.

It seems that everyone that starts these threads thinks that they are shedding some new and interesting introspection on christianity, but honestly, I think it's almost always pretty silly and petty.

[Bling]

Neognosis, on 02 October 2012 - 04:15 PM, said:

Man, people REALLY REACH on this forum every day just to find something to slam Christianity about.

It seems that everyone that starts these threads thinks that they are shedding some new and interesting introspection on christianity, but honestly, I think it's almost always pretty silly and petty.

Maybe it's because they feel so strongly about the negative influences religion, christianity included, has upon people and the world around. It seems to be ok for christians to state their beliefs but when an atheist does it you think it's silly and petty. All we're doing is debating our beliefs.

[Neognosis]

I think both are silly and petty. I won't click on another one of these threads again.

I think both sides are ridiculous and should live and let live. This reaching (on both sides) seems obsessive by people (on both sides) and is more a problem than the original religion or no religion problem.

[Dying Seraph]

Neognosis, on 02 October 2012 - 04:15 PM, said:

Man, people REALLY REACH on this forum every day just to find something to slam Christianity about.

It seems that everyone that starts these threads thinks that they are shedding some new and interesting introspection on christianity, but honestly, I think it's almost always pretty silly and petty.

Neognosis, on 02 October 2012 - 06:26 PM, said:

I think both are silly and petty. I won't click on another one of these threads again.

I think both sides are ridiculous and should live and let live. This reaching (on both sides) seems obsessive by people (on both sides) and is more a problem than the original religion or no religion problem.

Greetings Neo...,
It's really quite simple. You don't like it, don't particilpate and ignore the topic. The fact that you feel the need to come on here and cry foul speaks volumes of yourself not willing to discuss what you take to issue with. Feel free to ignore the thread and resolve your own issues. Thank you.

SINcerely,

[eight bits]

Hi, DS

Quote

  that Judas all along was indeed the closest to Jesus?

That would be the way to bet, in my opinion.

Quote

  Is Paul in his writings following "facts" or writing on and expanding in his writings looking back on tradition?

It's intriguing, isn't it? We have so little Paul, probably just the seven genuine letters, and a lot of them are a response to mudane problems in his far-flung network of churches. And this rare glimpse at Paul teaching something from Jesus' biography, it seems to be there to refresh the congregation's memory of the Lord's Supper re-enactment ritual, something they already know.

But what do they know? There's no "Gospel" in the sense we know it for them to consult; maybe there's a "Passion Narrative," now either lost or incorporated into the canonical Gospels.

Here's a heretical thought: some in Paul's audience might know more about the biographical details than Paul does. Paul complains that other teachers with different Gospels are repeatedly showing up. Maybe all Paul knows, apart from what he gets in his visionary interviews with Jesus, is what he picked up when he was persecuting the Way.

I do love this stuff.

[seishin]

The problem is such that if Judas is to be seen as an instrument of God (not vilified for that reason), surely one would have to argue that Hitler was also an instrument--all people for that matter.

I would reason that that's exactly the point of the New Testament; saved by the blood... yadda.

Well, to any extent, it appears to be quite the paradox.

However, as with the nature of religion, the true meaning is never as clear as the lie being propagated.