Thought this might interest you guys

[CharlieDontSurf]

I doubt I'll watch this but I thought I'd post a link in case any of the religion posters were interested.

Gospel of Judas (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060407/ap_on_re_us/gospel_of_judas;_ylt=ApkzAu2hIB_IW02vUahJtAcPLBIF; _ylu=X3oDMTA5aHJvMDdwBHNlYwN5bmNhdA--)

[PoBoy321]

I'm not sure I get the point of this post. Apocryphal gospels (http://wesley.nnu.edu/biblical_studies/noncanon/gospels.htm) are old news. They're full of all kinds of crazy [censored].

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure I get the point of this post. Apocryphal gospels (http://wesley.nnu.edu/biblical_studies/noncanon/gospels.htm) are old news. They're full of all kinds of crazy [censored].

[/ QUOTE ]

Not any crazier than the [censored] in the traditional Gospels. Just because the Romans found the traditional gospels more suitable for controlling the masses doesnt make them any less crazy.

[guesswest]

I think the apocryphal gospels are fascinating, and I've never understood why they haven't ended up closer to the mainstream. And I can't think of any instance where their content is any more crazy than the content of the accepted gospels. Had missed this story completely - thanks for the post charlie.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
I think the apocryphal gospels are fascinating, and I've never understood why they haven't ended up closer to the mainstream. And I can't think of any instance where their content is any more crazy than the content of the accepted gospels. Had missed this story completely - thanks for the post charlie.

[/ QUOTE ]

Im surprised you missed it...its been all over the talk show circuit for a while. The timing of the release of some "new gospels" (or maybe just Judas) along with the movie of the DaVinci code has had them buzzing.

Its the first time I had heard about the influence the Romans (I guess they werent the Vatican yet) had on choosing which gospels made it into the Bible and which didn't. There are apparently many historians who feel that the history written by the "new Apostles" (if I a remembering how they were described correctly) is more accurate but not as politically viable for Rome as what made it into the Bible.

[guesswest]

No TV is probably why I missed it - keep meaning to get one.

The idea that the division between what ended up making the bible and what became known as apocrypha was largely influenced by roman politics isn't new - but certainly no less valid for that. And if any political body sees utility in presenting history a certain way - well, makes sense that the presentation might be more likely to depart from the truth than what gets left out. Anyways, very interesting stuff and haven't followed it in quite a while, will have to do some reading.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
No TV is probably why I missed it - keep meaning to get one.

The idea that the division between what ended up making the bible and what became known as apocrypha was largely influenced by roman politics isn't new - but certainly no less valid for that. And if any political body sees utility in presenting history a certain way - well, makes sense that the presentation might be more likely to depart from the truth than what gets left out. Anyways, very interesting stuff and haven't followed it in quite a while, will have to do some reading.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didnt mean to imply it was new..just new to me. As a heathen Ethical Culturist, my religious education didnt extend to the politics of 1st/2d century Rome.

However, it made perfect sense in the context of the opinion I formulated over the years that Chritianity was indeed, opiate for the masses. (yes, I know Marx said "of the masses", the distinction is intentional) /images/graemlins/heart.gif

[Peter666]

Your whole philosophy and understanding of human nature is BS. Pagans would naturally take much greater delight in torturing, killing, and raping Christians than applying their anti-hedonist beliefs to "control the masses".

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
Your whole philosophy and understanding of human nature is BS. Pagans would naturally take much greater delight in torturing, killing, and raping Christians than applying their anti-hedonist beliefs to "control the masses".

[/ QUOTE ]

What do pagans have to do with it? Though I guess that depends on your use of "pagans", which probably has different meaning for you than for me.

If you are using it to refer to non-Christian Romans in general, by the time Constantine I officially recognized Christianity rampant persecution had already subsided signficantly. He was nothing if not a pragmatist, and had seen the value in taxing Christians double the standard rates. He also saw the power that the bishops held over their minions. By promoting them in society and controlling them he indirectly usurped their power for himself.

[Peter666]

Why would anyone want power the "Christian" way when the consequences to oneself are ascetic?

In other words, why have Christianity when you can have wanton gluttony and sex?

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
In other words, why just have Christianity when you can have wanton gluttony and sex too ?

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP. luckyme

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
Why would anyone want power the "Christian" way when the consequences to oneself are ascetic?

In other words, why have Christianity when you can have wanton gluttony and sex?

[/ QUOTE ]

When you control the church and the power to tax its members you have the power and wealth, and do not forgo the gluttony and sex.

[Peter666]

And yet the vast majority of Church leaders, with some notable Medival and Renaissance exceptions, were devout men. Especially after the Protestant revolt and Council of Trent, there would not be any signifigant monetary gain to get involved in the Church hierarchy.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
And yet the vast majority of Church leaders, with some notable Medival and Renaissance exceptions, were devout men. Especially after the Protestant revolt and Council of Trent, there would not be any signifigant monetary gain to get involved in the Church hierarchy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because they presented themselves as devout men doesnt make it so. A con man doesnt approach you and describe his scam before he tries to fleece you.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
Because they presented themselves as devout men doesnt make it so. A con man doesnt approach you and describe his scam before he tries to fleece you.

[/ QUOTE ]
You're raising the issue of 'how would we know?' when I read the comment it struck me that 'devout' would be presented as a positive, or more specific to the previous comments - why it would exclude the other issues.
"He was devout" .. ok, so what. that reaction.

luckyme

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Because they presented themselves as devout men doesnt make it so. A con man doesnt approach you and describe his scam before he tries to fleece you.

[/ QUOTE ]
You're raising the issue of 'how would we know?' when I read the comment it struck me that 'devout' would be presented as a positive, or more specific to the previous comments - why it would exclude the other issues.
"He was devout" .. ok, so what. that reaction.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure what you are asking, or saying here.

Most often, when someone claims to be, or claims someone else to be "devout" in the context of religion, they are claiming they are genuinely devoted to their religion, to the exclusion of other motives.

I think you may be agreeing with me, that the appearance of "devout" (by that definition) may not be the reality of the situation, but to me that contradicts that they are truly devout.

[r0uJe]

Lost Gospel Revealed; Says Jesus Asked Judas to Betray Him (http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread202360/pg1)

[DougShrapnel]

I had thought it was well know that Jesus asked Judas to Betray him. Don't the books in the bible make it perfectly clear that Judas was to betray Jesus at his demand?

[guesswest]

It's been a while since I read it - but my understanding is that, according to the bible, Jesus 'predicted' Judas would betray him not 'requested'

[DougShrapnel]

A long time myself but wasn't there an argument.
Jesus: You will betray me.
Judas: No I won't master.
Jesus: Yes you will, my friend. You will see it is right when the time comes.

[guesswest]

Are you sure you're not intermixing Judas with Peter here? My understanding is that Judas betrayed christ by taking a roman bribe, identifying him with a kiss, after christ had predicted to all his disciples grouped together that one of them would betray him. May well have remembered that wrong though....

More than happy to defer to someone with more expertise on the actual language used here - especially think I have a feeling it might be further complicated by translation.

[DougShrapnel]

I just realized I was thinking of the movie "The last temptation of christ". I got a chuckle that a movie might end up being more accurate than the actual texts people study.