Harry Bosch

Since American Indians did not know of the Christian god until the 1700's or so, are we innocent of Jesus's death?

No Robots

The evil does not lie in the murder of Christ's body. Rather, the evil is in the murder of the spirit within that body. And every time we sneer at art, philosophy, and mysticism, we participate in the murder of that spirit.

Mageth

That's some weak-ass spirit there, if 'lil 'ole me "sneering" at a Warhol piece, Rand's Objectivism, John Edward, or Carlos Castaneda murders a bit of it.

Woops...I just realized I may have murdered a bit of Jesus' weak-ass spirit by "sneering" at your post...

What the hell is "sneering" supposed to be, anyway?

And what do you mean by the "spirit within that body"?

No Robots

Hey, go ahead and sneer (I think you do know what that means) at Rand, Edward, and Castaneda. Hell, I'll help ya. But don't try it with Plato, Mozart, or Rumi. They'll bury ya. In the end, you can't murder the spirit in the great geniuses of the spirit. You can only repress it in yourself, and in those who are struggling to make the spirit flourish in themselves.

Mageth

I, like you apparently, practice selective sneering. Plato, Mozart and Rumi (yes, I've read, and appreciate the beauty in, Rumi) are not on my "sneer list".

The three you listed, which I suppose you would consider "great geniuses of the spirit", are, obviously, all quite dead. So I'd have to agree that I can't murder anything like a "spirit" in them.

Sounds rather like a virus, the way you describe it.

Anyway, I have an appreciation for fine art, an interest in philosophy, and even a bit of a fascination with mysticism and the mystics (which I certainly find far more interesting than, say, mundane theistic religiosity). And I certainly would not want to repress such budding interests in others. But note that I personally do not attribute the source (or appreciation) of art, philosophy, mysticism, etc. to any nebulous, numinous, dualistic, or similar notions of "spirit".

I also seek understanding, and knowledge, and truth, and the dualistic notion of "spirit" as something *separate from* the body, if that is what you are referring to when you say "spirit" (as in when you say that "sneering" somehow contributes to "murdering" the spirit of Christ that was within the body of Christ) simply does not pass the rational/philosophical tests that would be necessary for it to do for me to hold to such a belief.

Again, I ask you what you mean by "spirit". We seem to be talking on different planes.

jakejonesiv

Hi Boro Nut,

What a great OP! "Who killed Jesus?"

In the Pauline epistles, Jesus is being obedient to God, and his actions are voluntary. There is no need for a betrayer, or to specify any particular executioner. In 1 Cor. 2:6-8 the Lord of Glory is crucified by unspecified “Archons of the Aeon.”

In the Pauline epistles, there is little indication of a betrayer. The only arguable instance is 1 Cor. 11:23. This is a late catholic interpolation, besides which the Greek word paradidOmi means delivered, not necessarily betrayed. The same word is used twice in the text.

“For I have received from the Lord that which also I delivered (paradidOmi) unto you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which he was betrayed (paradidOmi) took bread:”

But every story needs a good villain, and the meta-text (how the story changes from one text to another) of the crucifixion story evolved to provide one. We need a Judas.

So let’s turn to the gospels. The concept of Jesus’ sacrifice being a unitary act is retained.

But soon, in a theoretical earlier version of urMark, the betrayal by Jesus is by the group of disciples as a whole. Jesus is surrounded and ambushed by his own disbelieving disciples.

According to R.Price, in Deconstructing Jesus, hints of this remain.

In the garden, Jesus is surrounded by armed men. But surprisingly, the disciples are armed, and are the ones to actually use the weapons (Mark 14:47).

Then there is Jesus’ surprising admonition,
Mark 14
48And Jesus said to them, "Have you come out with
swords and clubs to arrest Me, as you would against a
robber?
49"Every day I was with you in the temple teaching,
and you did not seize Me; but this has taken place to
fulfill the Scriptures."

WTF? Every day they were with him? This means Jesus' companions. That could only be Jesus' disciples, not the crowd of henchmen. Etu Petrus?

The crowd of henchmen were created to take away the collective guilt of the apostles. Please note that the armed crowd of v. 43 is allegedly only “from the chief priests, scribes, and elders.” These worthies do not deign to accompany their thugs in the dirty work.

This only strengthens the argument that Jesus, in an earlier version, was admonishing his captors, the disciples. Perhaps Caiaphas the high priest and Cephas aka Simon Peter are mimetic doubles, and Peter responsible for killing Jesus.

This makes all twelve disciples the mimetic doubles of Jesus, which explains in the next twist of the story why Jesus had to be singled out from his “be alikes” with a kiss. They were all dopplegangers.

But every good story needs a specific villain, and soon Jesus splits into two characters, the single betrayer and the betrayed. In an early strata of the betrayal story in GMark, the betrayer is unnamed, he is merely “he that betrayed him” (Mark 14:44). By identifying a specific disciple as the villain, the guilt of the twelve as a whole is mitigated.

Hence, the Judas Goat evolves and takes on a life of its own. It is noteworthy that Judas is a late
addition to the gospel story. (What is the earlist mention of Judas in the Church Fathers?) The Judas character is likely derived from Judah (Gen 37:26) and his brothers’ betrayal of Joseph. One possible explanation (there are others of course) for the name Judas Iscariot is a conflation of the brothers Judah and Issachar, so listed consecutively in Genesis 35:23.

Again, we see the theme of the betrayal by a brother named Judah/Judas.
Just as Judah was one of twelve brothers, so Judas was one of the twelve disciples (another garbled grab bag of contradictions added late to the Jesus story).

Indeed, in GMark, Judas is never mention outside the context of the twelve. He is listed (Mark 3:19) in the ordination (Mark 3:14) of the twelve; and the betrayal scenes added to the arrest story, Mark 14:10, 43. That is it for Judas in GMark.

In GMatthew, we can see the mimetic process at work. Matthew creates a brother of Jesus named Judas (Matt 13:55. Matthew introduces the thirty pieces of silver (Matt 26:15), and a complimentary death was invented for the mimetic double: Judas was hanged (Matt. 27:5)
even as Jesus was hanged. It is worth noting that the thirty pieces of silver is Matthew’s innovation; the specificity of the money is not mentioned by Mark or even the recently published Judasevangilum.

When we turn to Luke, we see that she now has two disciples named Judas!
“Judas the brother of James, and Judas Iscariot, which also was the traitor.” Luke 6:16.
Ah, the Judas character has split again. It appears that a redactor didn’t like the implication in
Matt 13:55 that Judas was Jesus’ brother. So the new Judas is still the brother of Jesus and James (cf Matt. 13:55) and a disciple, but not the traitor. Redactor fatigue is evident in Luke 22:47, where Judas is again merely “one of the twelve”, which is no longer a unique designation.

It should be noted that while Matthew was somewhat sympathetic to Judas (he was remorseful and returned the money), in Luke Judas is pure evil, possessed by Satan (Luke 23:3). Satan is the monstrous double of Judas, a tertiary scapegoat to shift some measure of the blame as sacred executioner from Judas.

The author of the gospel of John wished to place even more distance between Judas and Jesus. The author invents a father for Judas, with the name of the ubiquitous Simon (another mimetic double) and harps on the point the first four times Judas is mentioned (6:71; 13:4; 12:2; 13:2) , so the reader is sure to get the point.

This reaches laughable extremes, when the other Judas is described as “Judas saith unto him, not Iscariot, Lord, how is it that thou wilt manifest thyself unto us, and not unto the world?” Nothing subtle here, just “Judas not Iscariot.” The awkward phrasing suggests the hand of a redactor.

Still the problem of separating the betrayer from his other doubles (bother, disciple etc) remained. In Acts (quite a late work) we find that Judas “falling headlong, he burst open in the middle, and all his guts gushed out.” Acts 1;18. A satisfying end to the scoundrel so that the other Judas /Jude could proceed without taint. However Eusebius claims, through the doubtful testimony of Papais, that Judas was run over by a chariot.

Judas is the twin of Jesus. These are the secret sayings that the living Jesus spoke and Didymos Judas Thomas recorded.
And he said, "Whoever discovers the interpretation of these sayings
will not taste death." Thomas 1.
Thomas means twin in Aramaic, as does Didymus in Greek, so the full name here is Twin Judas Twin. This can only be the twin of Jesus. Judas is the twin brother of Jesus, his living
oracle. Eusebius, Church History 1.8.10 also identifies Judas with Thomas. “ Judas who is also
called Thomas …”

The Book of Thomas and The Acts of Thomas identify Thomas as the Twin of Jesus. “for I know that thou art the twin brother of the Christ.”

Enter Angel Jesus Nassieni.

Some traditions have it that Judas dies on the cross in place of Jesus; i.e.. Abu Ja’far al-Tabira (d. 923 CE). Price, DJ, page 189. “It is striking that such Christian docetism survived log enough in remote areas for Muhammad to have picked it up from Christians when they converted to Islam. And so here is a Christian tradition according to which Judas’ mimetic rivalry with his Lord came to an ironic fruition.” Robert Price, Deconstructing Jesus, page 190.

"They slew him not, nor crucified him, but it appeared so unto them." Qur’an 157. How this ws allegedly accomplished is not stated, but Islamic tradition suggests that one of Jesus’ (Isa's) followers betrayed him (that is, Judas) and came to the Jews to guide them to him, and went with them to take him. God caused him to appear like Isa and he was taken and crucified.

According to the medieval Gospel of Barnabas 216,
“Judas entered impetuously before all into the chamber
whence Jesus had been taken up. And the disciples were
sleeping. Whereupon the wonderful God acted
wonderfully, insomuch that Judas was so changed in
speech and in face to be like Jesus that we believed
him to be Jesus. And he, having awakened us, was
seeking where the Master was. Whereupon we marvelled,
and answered: 'You, Lord, are our master; have you now
forgotten us?'
And he, smiling, said: 'Now are you foolish, that know
not me to be Judas Iscariot!' And as he was saying
this the soldiery entered, and laid their hands upon
Judas, because he was in every way like to Jesus. We
having heard Judas' saying, and seeing the multitude
of soldiers, fled as beside ourselves. And John, who
was wrapped in a linen cloth, awoke and fled, and when
a soldier seized him by the linen cloth he left the
linen cloth and fled naked. For God heard the prayer
of Jesus, and saved the eleven from evil. “

Ah, we have come full circle! "Judas was so changed in speech and in face to be like Jesus that we believed him to be Jesus." The twin and the Saviour are again identical.

Returning to DJ, Price writes “It only remains to tie up a surprising loose end. If the panicky words of Judas quoted by Ibn Ishaq (“I am not one of his companions!”) should remind one of Peter’s denials (Mark 14:66-71), this may be no accident because Peter and Judas seem to be doubles of one another too.” Ibid, page 191. Simon is the other double that is often though to have taken the place of Jesus on the cross, i.e. Simon of Cyrene, Simon Magus; who is also the mask of St. Paul!

Jake Jones IV

No Robots

I use "spirit" in its old Jewish meaning of "spirit of inspiration". It is that which drives the thought of the artist, philosopher and mystic.

Mageth

Well, I certainly don't "sneer" at that!

So I don't think I'm guilty of murdering bits of spirit, in that sense.

No Robots

So, just one question then: do you recognize that Christ is animated by a spirit of inspiration similar to that of, say, the great mystic Meister Eckhart?

jgibson000

And just what was the "spirit of inspiration" that "animated" Meister Eckhart?

JG