Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 03-12-2007, 12:49 PM

Reading Judas: The Gospel of Judas and the Shaping of Christianity (or via: amazon.co.uk)

Quote:

Pagels, author of the classic Gnostic Gospels (2004), teams with translator extraordinaire King for a compact reader's guide into the heart of the new gospel. The Gospel of Judas can be a convoluted, even bizarre, reading experience, but the combination of King's translation, which appears at the end of the book, and Pagels' text will help general readers get past the difficulties and into the fascinating message, which emphasizes spiritual rather than physical resurrection for both Jesus and his followers. Pagels also shows why this message was so noxious to church leaders and explains how the gospel fits into the body of noncanonical literature.

Early Christianity's Martyrdom Debate TIME magazine

Quote:

Do you think that the writer of the Gospel of Judas was familiar with the idea the Jesus died for our sins?

Yes — the earliest writing we have about Jesus, from the apostle Paul, says that Jesus "died for our sins," and many insisted that Jesus had voluntarily died a sacrificial death. But others asked, What kind of God are you talking about? If God would not allow Abraham [in the Hebrew Bible] to offer his son Isaac as a human sacrifice, but told him to offer a ram instead, would God then sacrifice his son Jesus? Doesn't this suggest that God is some kind of monster, instead of the loving God of whom Jesus spoke? Would God refuse to forgive human sin apart from human sacrifice?

Do you yourself have any affinity for that last question?

I think it's worth asking, and long overdue for those who haven't asked it.

Koyaanisqatsi · 03-12-2007, 02:48 PM

Has anyone stopped to ask whether or not "he died for our sins" actually means "he offered himself as a human sacrifice to God," because human sacrifice is, of course, pagen and not Jewish, which would tend to prove (yet again, IMO) that Mark's fiction is nothing more than poorly misinterpreted Roman anti-Judaism propaganda?

After all, "he died for our sins" could just as easily mean that he was caught and killed because someone in the group fucked up and not that he died to literally "pay" for their sins, especially since, as above, there was no such Jewish ritual of human sacrifice that I'm aware of.

Toto · 03-12-2007, 02:58 PM

Here's another take: Forbidden Gospels blog says this gospel is a "Gnostic critique of mainstream Christianity, using the Judas story to do so. It's a rather sophisticated argument that the Gnostics are developing, and one that we easily miss because we aren't on the "inside" of the Gnostic world. This is a text that only makes sense if you are a Gnostic."

Koyaanisqatsi · 03-12-2007, 03:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Here's another take: Forbidden Gospels blog says this gospel is a "Gnostic critique of mainstream Christianity, using the Judas story to do so. It's a rather sophisticated argument that the Gnostics are developing, and one that we easily miss because we aren't on the "inside" of the Gnostic world. This is a text that only makes sense if you are a Gnostic."

Is that Gnostic for, "fuck off all Christians who think Paul didn't have his head up his ass?"

Toto · 03-12-2007, 03:29 PM

Gnosticism is not noted for clear understandable language, but I don't think so.

Solo · 03-12-2007, 06:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Here's another take: Forbidden Gospels blog says this gospel is a "Gnostic critique of mainstream Christianity, using the Judas story to do so. It's a rather sophisticated argument that the Gnostics are developing, and one that we easily miss because we aren't on the "inside" of the Gnostic world. This is a text that only makes sense if you are a Gnostic."

In Volker Schloendorff's 2004 classic The Ninth Day , a Catholic priest is freed on a leave from Dachau concentration camp to convince a holdout Luxembourg bishop to collaborate with the Nazis (after all the Holy Father signed the Concordat). The Gestapo handler (a former seminarian himself) uses a rather sophisticated argument to get the stubborn ascetic priest to renounce his self-imposed suffering in imitatio Christi and sever his link with his fellow Dachau comrades. To the priest's objection that the Nazis want him to become a Judas to Christ, the handler cooly explains that Judas treachery "made" Christ the martyr he was and therefore Judas was the enabler of the faith and the best friend Christ had. The movie is brilliant and moving and deep; nothing is made simple, or black and white. If this is agitprop for Benedict XVI. thesis of the plague of moral relativism, it could not have been done better.

So perhaps you don't quite have to be a gnostic to get the GJudas idea. Perhaps a Nazi would be enough. At any rate, see the movie.

Jiri

Koyaanisqatsi · 03-12-2007, 07:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Gnosticism is not noted for clear understandable language, but I don't think so.

Well, that's what exegesis is for.

Johnny Skeptic · 05-23-2007, 11:41 AM

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl.../findrelig.DTL

Toto · 05-23-2007, 12:33 PM

I'm going to merge this with the last thread on the gospel of Judas.

I haven't been keeping up with gJudas, but I thought that there were revisionists attacking this interpretation already.

Chris Weimer · 05-23-2007, 01:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Koyaanisqatsi

Has anyone stopped to ask whether or not "he died for our sins" actually means "he offered himself as a human sacrifice to God," because human sacrifice is, of course, pagen and not Jewish, which would tend to prove (yet again, IMO) that Mark's fiction is nothing more than poorly misinterpreted Roman anti-Judaism propaganda?

Romans stopped practicing human sacrifice long ago. Moreover, Jesus is called the lamb, which is distinctly Jewish. The Romans used bulls as their main sacrificial victim.

Quote:

After all, "he died for our sins" could just as easily mean that he was caught and killed because someone in the group fucked up and not that he died to literally "pay" for their sins, especially since, as above, there was no such Jewish ritual of human sacrifice that I'm aware of.

But you're ignoring Paul wholesale.

05-23-2007, 11:41 AM	#8
Johnny Skeptic Banned Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Florida Posts: 19,796	A must-read interview of Elaine Pagels about the Gospel of Judas http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl.../findrelig.DTL

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-12-2007, 02:48 PM	#2
Koyaanisqatsi Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Yes, I have dyslexia. Sue me. Posts: 6,508	Has anyone stopped to ask whether or not "he died for our sins" actually means "he offered himself as a human sacrifice to God," because human sacrifice is, of course, pagen and not Jewish, which would tend to prove (yet again, IMO) that Mark's fiction is nothing more than poorly misinterpreted Roman anti-Judaism propaganda? After all, "he died for our sins" could just as easily mean that he was caught and killed because someone in the group fucked up and not that he died to literally "pay" for their sins, especially since, as above, there was no such Jewish ritual of human sacrifice that I'm aware of.

03-12-2007, 02:58 PM	#3
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Here's another take: Forbidden Gospels blog says this gospel is a "Gnostic critique of mainstream Christianity, using the Judas story to do so. It's a rather sophisticated argument that the Gnostics are developing, and one that we easily miss because we aren't on the "inside" of the Gnostic world. This is a text that only makes sense if you are a Gnostic."

03-12-2007, 03:29 PM	#5
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Gnosticism is not noted for clear understandable language, but I don't think so.

05-23-2007, 12:33 PM	#9
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	I'm going to merge this with the last thread on the gospel of Judas. I haven't been keeping up with gJudas, but I thought that there were revisionists attacking this interpretation already.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.