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

[PoBoy321]

I'm not sure I get the point of this post. Apocryphal gospels 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 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) [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]

[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?