Judas: A True Blue Hero

[Chief Fox]

Sweet! But there are some who say he is a she. Any thoughts on that?

Impossible! Who ever heard of a bearded, female, carnival side show savior? The idea is completely ridiculous.

[Anthony]

"now im not saying your guilty of this but it really is a shame most christians dont know the history of their own bible or religion."

I honestly agree with you 100%. But, think about it, how widespread would a religion (any religion) actually be if all of it's followers had to be historians (the point is to get you to heaven not to get you to write a book). Religions would be inaccessible to the illiterate or people without means. People have to work, raise children, etc. As far as any religion is concerned, to follow it's tennets, as simply as you learned them, should be enough to give your life meaning. Maybe fables serve this purpose better than fact upon fact. Like Gene said, Biblical history really intrigues me as well but time really doesn't permit me to read everything I can so I'm not an expert either.

"This debate wouldn't be worth having since neither side can be proven or disproven.

This is why I don't get too involved in Religious discussions. I'm not the best Catholic by a long shot so I don't like to get on a high-horse and say this or that. I can't speak for everyone but Religion does give my life more meaning (helps you cope with death, or tragedy, etc.) than the mundane/boring work, pay-bills, exercise, watch TV, go to a bar, etc. You hear a good sermon on a Sun. and you feel better when you come out. If your not religious you don't get this part of it. It's all a matter of facts for you. It's easy to make jokes when you've never experienced it.

"Personally, I think that the Bible is not the whole story, just the whole story the church wanted its followers to know."

You can take this 2 ways. One is to assume the Church is evil and wants to rule the world (which most people seem to do right off the bat) or, another, is to assume that what is in the Bible is all that the Church thought people needed to know to be good Christians.

"At this point it is a matter of faith and personal belief. No one will ever know the truth until they're dead. "

That's as good as anything I've ever heard. I mean I make moral choices based on Religion (in part). If I turn out to be wrong at least I can say I did what I thought was best.

[SanHeChuan]

Gospel or no, I have never though Judas a bad guy, and I have never thought him a betrayer. What needed to happen, happened. How can you fault a guy who was pivotal in the greatest occurance in Christian history. Stupid Church I don't need a gospel to tell me the obvious. Ask you self what would have happen if Judas didn't play his part. Would there even be a Christianty?

[FuXnDajenariht]

This debate wouldn't be worth having since neither side can be proven or disproven. Personally, I think that the Bible is not the whole story, just the whole story the church wanted its followers to know. It is one of the most grand pieces of manipulation out there. The church used guilt and fear of persecution to keep the peasants at bay and the church in power. The Bible was pruned to do just that and continues to be "translated" in different forms.

Your right. There isn't much proof for either side. Thats why historians are doing what their doing today. It has to be debated one way or another. Their trying to find some proof to show people the truth. I dont think we should cop out and let fundies like Pat Robertson spout off any nonsense that they want based on lies and manipulation. Give people all the facts and let them deicide for themselves. Thats exactly the choice church fathers didn't allow people to make 2000 years ago and people are trying to fix that now. The true betrayers of Jesus weren't Jews or Judas but some of his so called "followers".

[FuXnDajenariht]

Pretty much.

The Gnostics departed -wildly- from what was commonly believe by the early Christian communities.

They were, in all respects, a different religion.

This is what i mean...

No they were not of a different religion. They were a different sect that has as much or maybe more claim to call themselves Christians than any Orthodox. Look it up.

[KC Elbows]

This is what i mean...

No they were not of a different religion. They were a different sect that has as much or maybe more claim to call themselves Christians than any Orthodox. Look it up.

Exactly. Considering that the gnostics set, as a goal, achieving the path of Jesus(recognizing God in themselves, etc), it would be hard to call them anything other than christians.

[Anthony]

KC Elbows and FuXnDajenariht (or anyone else who posts here), could I ask if you guys are Catholic? I'm not trying to make a point or anything, just curious to know who is commenting.

If you don't mind, also, what is the extent of your religious education? Mine is all through grade school and college.

Thanx.

[SevenStar]

"now im not saying your guilty of this but it really is a shame most christians dont know the history of their own bible or religion."

I honestly agree with you 100%. But, think about it, how widespread would a religion (any religion) actually be if all of it's followers had to be historians (the point is to get you to heaven not to get you to write a book). Religions would be inaccessible to the illiterate or people without means. People have to work, raise children, etc.

although that sounds plausible, go talk to a muslim. Not only will he know the koran inside and out, he will also likely know the bible better than you will. If they can learn in such depth, why can't a christian?

You can take this 2 ways. One is to assume the Church is evil and wants to rule the world (which most people seem to do right off the bat) or, another, is to assume that what is in the Bible is all that the Church thought people needed to know to be good Christians.

both ways seem to boil down to control of some sort...

That's as good as anything I've ever heard. I mean I make moral choices based on Religion (in part). If I turn out to be wrong at least I can say I did what I thought was best.

according to the bible though, that's not good enough...

[SevenStar]

Gospel or no, I have never though Judas a bad guy, and I have never thought him a betrayer. What needed to happen, happened. How can you fault a guy who was pivotal in the greatest occurance in Christian history. Stupid Church I don't need a gospel to tell me the obvious. Ask you self what would have happen if Judas didn't play his part. Would there even be a Christianty?

That doesn't mean he wasn't a bad guy - that simply means that his wrong doing was manipulated for a good cause in the long run. It was part of the plan.

"The Lord said unto my Lord, sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool".

[Sal Canzonieri]

But you guys are missing one important thing.

these 'artifacts' of ancient documents are of "stories" about
this character we call Jesus Christ.
They aren't historical events they are writting about.
They are the equivalent of fables.

It's been proven by researchers that Jesus never existed.
The essenses wrote about a Christ in their docuements,
it wasn't until after the year 200 that Christian church leaders
named this Christ "jesus. The original Christian church are all
from the followers of Paul (Saul), who originally persecuated Jews
who were believing in the Christ of the Essenes.

There is an ex-priest that is suing the Catholic church in Rome
for defrauding the people, after 70 years of research.
You can read all the court deposition translations at this site:

http://www.luigicascioli.it/dueprove_eng.php

http://www.luigicascioli.it/home_eng.php

He clearly explains when and how the idea of a coming Christ messiah
changed into a present Christ into a crufied Christ into a Jesus Christ.
he also shows when the forgeries were done at various times to try to
create this Jesus Christ.
There is no historcial document from the time he was to have existed anywhere
that ever mentions him in any way.

Only John the Baptist is mentioned in various histories written during the time period.

There was a John, and his brothers and their followers (who have the exact same names as the apostles), who was a rebel against Rome and was executed.
The process of playing telephone and mixing this factual historical figure and events with essense Christ messiah ideas that Paul created the early Christian church from.

Read it all at that site and see for yourself.
Many well known bible scholars have read his research and concluded with him.


Do you need a Christ to believe in God?
No.

[Judge Pen]

The concept of faith based salvation makes Christians lazy. They don't have to know the history or be able to articulate why they believe something. They just have to believe.

As for Judas, he gets a bad wrap, but I think I read somewhere that there are some Orthodox sects that have his as one of the Saints.

As for the humanity/divinity of Christ: I've always believed that he was both 100% divine and 100% human. He never sinned, but he had doubts, fears and frailty like any man. It would discount what he did if it were any other way.

[mantis108]

I agreed with JP to a certain extend.

The concept of faith based salvation makes Christians lazy. They don't have to know the history or be able to articulate why they believe something. They just have to believe.

Faith based salvation might seem as an easy way out but that doesn't change the fact that there is courage to accept suffering involved. It may not be a "smart" thing to do but experiencing "God" or divine through emperical means can not be deemed as "easy". Personally, it takes discipline and lots and lots of discipline. Given the intelligence and education level of the past. Well, faith base may well be a viable option. It's not my cup of tea but to each their own.

As for Judas, he gets a bad wrap, but I think I read somewhere that there are some Orthodox sects that have his as one of the Saints.

Well, there is always 2 sides to a story. It good to know about both sides for sure.

As for the humanity/divinity of Christ: I've always believed that he was both 100% divine and 100% human. He never sinned, but he had doubts, fears and frailty like any man. It would discount what he did if it were any other way.

Isn't there a film "Jesus Christ Superstar"? Rome culturally has always worshipped "heroes" much like modern day North American culture. Just look at UFC today, they are curcifying the Saint of BJJ - Royce and also Icon of toughman Ken Shamrock. These are the once upon a time heroes of UFC. Now, they are the scarifical lambs on the alter of UFC paving the way for business progress. So Rome was smart to make Jesus a star in order to have the Cross as the coat of arms iconic symbol to sell monarchism . Market economy, my friends, market economy. This can never happen without a faith based salvation mass. Without industrial military complex what would the world be? We may not like it but that's where technology advancement mainly came from. So...

Mantis108

[Shaolinlueb]

i may have lost you, but read that book i posted. at least the 2nd half. its pretty interesting. talks about jesus being form egypt origianlly and such.
and the bible was only the bible since like 400ad or so. 327 maybe is the exact day the guys met to form it. there are a ton of gospels not in publication and the church or peter is fairly new, there was a church of another disiple that was more popular but there was a abomination or something. I can look it up when i get back. christianity in the day of jesus was very different to what it is today.

[Judge Pen]

i may have lost you, but read that book i posted. at least the 2nd half. its pretty interesting. talks about jesus being form egypt origianlly and such.
and the bible was only the bible since like 400ad or so. 327 maybe is the exact day the guys met to form it. there are a ton of gospels not in publication and the church or peter is fairly new, there was a church of another disiple that was more popular but there was a abomination or something. I can look it up when i get back. christianity in the day of jesus was very different to what it is today.

There's also a theory that Jesus traveled extensively along the silk trade routes prior to his Gospel and that explains many of his teachings bearing a striking resemblance to Buddhist teachings.

[KC Elbows]

KC Elbows and FuXnDajenariht (or anyone else who posts here), could I ask if you guys are Catholic? I'm not trying to make a point or anything, just curious to know who is commenting.

If you don't mind, also, what is the extent of your religious education? Mine is all through grade school and college.

Thanx.

Raised Catholic, attended Catholic private schools for some time. Not the best source for opinions on gnosticism, though. Catholic sources are pretty biased about groups like that. I don't necessarily see the ommission of the gnostic texts as some plot, gnosticism would be a hard religion to get mass appeal for because of the work involved.

I am not a catholic now, and view biblical scholarship as something that can yield fruit, or red herrings. People get so caught up in what the "proper interpretation" is that they sometimes get swept into explaining as theology story elements that clearly serve a function for the storytelling and not the theology, or even blunt the message(imo). An example of a place where I think the message got blunted was the return of all of Job's stuff. I think it uglies up the book.

I'm no scholar, just periodically join in discussions.