http://moreaboutmen.com/artist/eagles/album/long-road-out-of-eden-cd1-/a130712/

http://moreaboutmen.com/artist/eagles/album/long-road-out-of-eden-cd1-/a130712/

http://moreaboutmen.com/artist/eagles/album/long-road-out-of-eden-cd1-/a130712/

Ice Queen, There is only 1 god. Not a billion. God is a loving and carring God. He has never sined and he never will. We are the sinners. Judas did betray Jesus but as we all know but God does for give us no matter what we do. Some people say that you can only be forgiven once for the same sin. That is not true. Once you have an open heart he will forgive you. Judas didn't swore allegiance to Jesus. Jesus asked him to follow him in his ministry, to lead people to God and his everlasting Kingdom, whiched he promised to Abraham. The prophesy had to be fufilled.

Hi all, i gone to all of your above posts.In some post i find some preciouse thought.But only in one words i would say Isalam is not a religion Islaam is religion of devils.So girls n guys please don't share the beleief of Muslims what do they say or not
Thanks

Dante, I think, makes Judas the worst sinner and Giudecca the deepest point of Hell. He interprets Judas' sin as Treachery to his Lord, thinking of this as the kind of act which would shake the feudal order at every point of its fabric. Once you have sworn allegiance, you are not permitted any change of mind. If you attempt to switch allegiance your new supposed friends have no reason to trust you, neither has anyone else. This may not have been exactly how the writers of the Gospels would have seen things.

uqkyna zcnmwuad aqpefly pjmvhif dctsbye qzuompkfn zoxwnjgd

m846k

Dr. Pagels,

I am a pastor in the United Methodist Church and I offer two points of historical interest. First, however, let me associate myself with the excellent comments of the Lutheran pastor LABECH (posted April 26, 2007 9:04 PM). I too see no reason why Judas' should be singled out as "unforgiveable" and I applaud LABECH's judicious observation that none of the ancient creeds do so. Since the canonical gospels are not indisputably clear on this point, we are in the realm not of ecclesiastical doctrine but of exegetical opinion – whether it be Origen or Dante.

(1) Now, for my first point: Although it is commonly asserted that Origen taught the salvation of Satan, it is far from certain that he actually did so. His Latin translator Rufinus (345-410), who knew Origen's writings better than anyone, vigorously denied it. Jerome's attack upon Rufinus' position is based not on Origen's writings, but on a transcript of a debate that Origen had with a Valentinian teacher and there are good reasons to doubt the accuracy of the transcription. On this question, see Henri Crouzel, ORIGEN: THE LIFE AND THOUGHT OF THE FIRST GREAT THEOLOGIAN, trans. by A. S. Worrall(San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1989), pp. 20-1, which I first read at Princeton Seminary in Dr. McVey's class on Origen.

Apparently, in this debate, Origen stood up against Valentinian determinism for the proposition that God could redeem Satan if Satan wanted to be redeemed. Origen sided with free-will in this hypothetical, but that is a far cry from saying that Satan would even want to be redeemed and ultimately would be saved. Origen's experimental theology "On the First Principles" -- in a portion extant only in Rufinus’ translation -- states that the last enemy to be reconciled at the restoration of all things is "Death"; not Satan. It seems to me, that the burden of proof lies with those who would say that Rufinus doctored this section in defense of Origen.

Finally, although I know of nowhere that he explicitly says so, it is likely that Origen did believe Judas would be included in the final restoration. But, this is because he interprets John 13:27 to mean that Judas had become a deluded pawn of Satan and so had not knowingly and decisively exercised his free-will against God -- this, of course, could not be said of a fallen angel like Satan. The posthumous condemnation of Origen's writings as heretical was based less on what Origen actually taught than what subsequent heterodox groups claimed that he taught. His theology was so rich and suggestive that both heretic and orthodox could take as their point of departure the letter of his teachings, even if the spirit of them was trampled upon in the process. In a polemical age, such ambiguities were not to be tolerated and it finally was deemed expedient to condemn Origen. I do not approve of this injustice, but in the context of the times, I do understand it.

(2) Now, my second, briefer point. You say, "Only one famous Christian teacher (i.e Origen), so far as we know, suggested that Judas could be redeemed and forgiven." I know that the word "famous" is a relative one, but I would think that it is may be justly applied to the great Methodist biblical scholar Adam Clarke (c. 1760-1832) whose commentary on the whole Bible was published in 1826 and is still in print. It is hard to overstate the impact that Clarke had upon the formation of Methodist scholarship and through Methodism upon the whole of the Christian world.

Growing up in a Wesleyan context, I heard preachers frequently cite Clarke on this very point and indeed I have done so myself. Clarke examined the whole question of Judas' forgiveness quite thoroughly in his commentary in an extended note at the end of Acts 1 and, on the basis of the Biblical evidence, he reached this conclusion:

"Judas was indisputably a bad man; but he might have been worse: we may plainly see that there were depths of wickedness to which he might have proceeded, and which were prevented by his repentance. Thus things appear to stand previously to his end. But is there any room for hope in his death? In answer to this it must be understood,
1. That there is presumptive evidence that he did not destroy himself; and,
2. That his repentance was sincere.
If so, was it not possible for the mercy of God to extend even to his case? It did so to the murderers of the Son of God; and they were certainly worse men (strange as this assertion may appear) than Judas."

This note may be found in full at http://www.godrules.net/library/clarke/clarkeact1.htm

Somebody or other summarized Mason Myatt's post above this way: "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion. No one is entitled to his own facts."

However, some of our discussion participants seem to think their opinions are the facts, with no background for judgment other than their "firm beliefs."

That might pass in a theological discussion, but it doesn't cut it when the discussion is founded on physical documents, especially our Christian documents. In the early 200s, Origen wrote, "Nowadays as is evident, there is a great diversity between the various manuscripts either through the negligence of certain copyists, or the perverse audacity shown by some in correcting the text, or through the fault of those who playing the part of correctors lengthen or shorten it as they please."

In the late 2nd century, Dionysius, Bishop of Corinth wrote, “As the brethren desired me to write epistles (letters), I did so, and these the apostles of the devil have filled with changes, exchanging some things and adding others, for whom there is a woe reserved. It is not therefore, a matter of wonder if some have also attempted to adulterate the sacred writings of the Lord, since they have attempted the same in other works that are not to be compared with these.”

One has to wonder if some of these personal opinions disguised as facts could be read as "adding" to scripture.

Not that it will matter to speed or her other detractors, but I have had several opportunities to talk to Pagels. As a matter of fact, she is a believer. She is Christian in terms of her ethics and background. Many of her earlier doubts about God were clarified when, in one year, she lost her son to a horrific illness and her husband, physicist Heinz Pagels, in a mountaineering accident.

The referencs to her work and the charges against her schoilarship here reflect a lot more about her detractors than about her work. Yes, she does write some of her books for the educated lay person in hopes that it will raise the level of understanding of early Christianity among non-specialists. She also has a large body of technical, scholarly writing reflecting her position as one of the premminent scholars in her field.

She has no more to do with the fiction works of Dan Brown than she does with Star Wars. He wrote a work of pure fiction which the Catholic Church and the Religious Right catapulted into the mainstream with their absurd attempts to challenge the "authenticity" of his work. Jesus! It was fiction not theology and not history.

Pagels is sometimes a popularizer of difficult topics for a public who cannot possibly do the work themselves unless they read coptic, Greek, Latin, Hebrew and Aramaic---as she does. Unless Speed and others here can read the Nag Hamadi texts, I wonder what the source of their contrary interpretation of the gnostics is. No doubt there may be errors in her work. She states no claim to inerrancy. But, after reading and noting the quality of the attacks against her it is more than clear that few of her challengers have the wherewithal to read, let alone critique, her work. It is also clear that the charges against her for the most part are borrowed from some other source that was critical of her. People who cannot produce a coherent argument---or sentence in some cases--are not equipped to take her on even when she may be in error.

We are all ignorant regarding any number of topics we have not studied. There is no shame in that unless we hold out as authorities on that topic. What is shameful is the tendancy of the most generally ignorant among us to fake their own expertise. It is sad because in their benighted state, they fail to understand that they are totally transparent and the rest of us are made to feel uncomfortable as we watch them inadvertently proclaim their inadequacy.

You do the same!

Good talking to you!

Hey Gaby: I agree that many believers/non-believers may not be honest with themselves about what they really believe. It is far easier to call someone else "WRONG" than to find out if if your own belief system has any merit.

I think many people are insecure. That is why there is so little dialogue and so much offense taken and given on a site like this. Sometimes, I just don't get it. For instance, why would I take offense to your feelings about who God is? You don't claim to be a Christian or believe in the God of the bible, so why should I be personally offended if your "truth" doesn't line up with mine? In fact, if my God, is God, does He really need me to win a debate against anyone on this site to prove He exists?

The Mormons I know are some of the nicest people I've had the pleasure of meeting. I read the book of Mormon once and did some research on the religion. Let's just say it was interesting.

Hey, make sure you enjoy some time outside today.

"The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands." Psalm 19:1

-GB

If people are truthful with themselves, both believers and non-believers, should say that they don't know. Because that is a fact. They don't know.

Personally, in my heart I feel there is a God. At the same time I can not believe in the God major religions ascribe to.

When I was younger I was looking for answers from other people. I looked into eastern religious cultures, liked some of what I saw rejected other things. For a while I studied with Jehovah's Witnesses. Hahahha! Now there is an intersting sect. Between them and the Mormons I don't know wich is stranger.

Then one georgeous afternoon, I my younger daughter and I were sitting in the yard and we looked at the clouds and told each other which shapes we saw in them. It was such a beautiful and peaceful moment in my life. After she left with friends, I continued to sit there absorbing the beauty of the day. The birds were singing, the sound of the waterfall at my pond, the slight rustling of the leaves in the Aspens, the bright blue sky with the big billowy clouds, and suddenly I knew I could stop searching.

I bet it would have been fun being in class with you. From the little bit of teaching I've done here or there, I always liked the students who asked more questions the best.

Besides the whole arc and creation thing, I wasn't as curious about the questions you raised. I figured that if Jesus was God and could rise from the dead, there was pretty much nothing He couldn't do. People don't just rise from the dead after 3 days you know. Of course, not everyone believes this and if one doesn't, I think it makes it pretty hard to put much stock in anything else. Don't you?

On another note, I wonder how many true agnostics there are these days. I wonder because people often say they "don't know" while in the same breath say that they are convinced that there is no God.

Oh, Ghostbuster, I questioned everything. The Virgin Birth, The Trinity, Walking on Water, the Bread and Fish story, Noah's Ark, where in Heaven God resides, etc. You name it.

He used to get quite furious and accused me of being a disruptive influence in class and creating doubt in other students. He almost refused to let me go to confirmation. My parents prevailed, however. Not necessarily because they were religious, but it was the "thing to do".

My father was agnostic. He used to always say "believing is not knowing".

Hey Gaby, It's kind of funny. I'm imagining your old pastor pulling his hair out right now. So I gather you must have gone to some kind of a christian school?

If I were a teacher, I'd rather have students ask me a bunch of questions than just see them sitting there there nodding there heads while not learning anything.

It's cool you know the difference btw being raised a christian and actually being one. I had a few friends who I grew up with in church who didn't actually become christians until many years later. I think they had unanswered questions too.

What were the questions that annoyed your pastor?

Pleasure chatting with you.

Ghostbuster,

No, I guess I never really was a Christian. When I was in school, I used to argue with my pastor about almost everything he tried to teach. I guess they tried to make me a Christian, but failed miserably.

Owlyone:

Sorry, that post about becoming not a Christian was by someone else. Forgive me, it's Monday.

Owlyone:

Welcome to the OnFaith threads.......tread lightly. :D

Also, I liked your post about how you came to not be a Christian anymore.

Can forgiveness of any hurt really happen by humans? Even when the person who hurt us doesn't "ask"? Maybe they killed or abused our child. Beat our sister to death right in front of us. Drove their car into our wife while street racing. Speculation on these issues is useless- I think you have to go to the people who have actually experienced the ultimate hurts and ask them. Were you able to forgive? Was there always restoration with the one who hurt you? The writings of people who have been there and succeeded in forgiving say the same thing- it wasn't in them to forgive. Corrie ten Boom put it well "I agreed I should (forgive) but I could not. I agreed I would (forgive) but I could not. Then, His power flowed into and down through me and my hand stretched out-- not by my power, I could not, but by His. Read the people who have experienced this ability to forgive the unforgiveable. It is always a process, we know it is better for us than bitterness and vengefulness but it is also beyond us to achieve.
Soja - I have appreciated your posts.
Dyedinthewoolskeptic- I used to be one and I understand your lack of understanding. MAYBE if there is one little area of your life where you would like some answers or to be able to forgive someone I could challenge you to ASK if God is and if He has any better answers than what you've found so far. You might be surprised. Genies grant wishes - God listens to prayers.
Speed123- You are pretty much equally rude to everybody aren't you?

Hello to "ALL" Peace of Christ.

Judas was not forgiven, because he didn't ask to be forgiven?...simple!! lots of people blame Jesus....Nope! If Judas could have gone and said what Peter said?...I am sorry my Lord, Judas could have been forgiven too.....but!! his fear, or guilt or...God knows what was that stoped Judas from doing it...Just like Pharo with Moses he didn't softed his heart...but!!! I do not know..God said...I will have mercy on whom ever I want.....

God Bless.............Brother James

Gaby: You said you were raised as a Christian. But, were you a Christian? If so, what did you believe?

Believer: I agree, this thread is dying out. I like to hang out on threads like these sometimes.

...thread, not threat

Believer,

I did not mean to attack or offend your or others' beliefs. I just stated my point of view.

I don't belief in the bible altogether because I do not think it is divinely inspired. It's a bunch of scriptures written by men for men, mostly to keep the masses in line. Again, that is only my opinion!

However, I also understand that there are many people who choose to belief in it, and that is their privilege.

A few posts above is an essay by Pamela from a different threat that pretty much lays out what I belief in in case you are interested.

Regards

Ghostbuster,

That is precisely why I quoted Pamela. After I read her essay, I knew that I would have a hard time describing my own set of beliefs, but she really hit the nail on the head.

I think that my god is both supernatural and natural, or I could also say both abstract and real. It is a universal conscience that exists in everything. It surrounds us like an invisible cloak. It doesn't have a physical body and never had. It is all spirit. It sees without eyes, hears without ears, moves without legs, thinks without a brain, yet knows and feels and sees all.

I wouldn't say I am 100% set in my believes, but to me it makes a lot more sense and gives me greater comfort that all the "religions" in the world. I am open minded to all kinds of stuff as long as people don't try cram their religions down my throat.

I was raised Christian, but never was able to reconcile that belief system with me. That does not mean that I do not respect everyone’s right to belief as they wish. It's when they say the "know" that the bible is the true word of god, or that they "know" that Islam is the one true religion and then try to push that faith on me, that I get a little testy. Worse yet, when they say that I'll be damned to everlasting hell for all eternity because I don't belief as they do.

Happy hunting in your quest for truth!

"Christ was created even if as an extension of the father."

Gaby, you can, of course, believe anything you want to. But it's neither fair nor reasonable for you to devise your own, personal understanding of Christ that's different from that of mainstream Christianity (i.e., that Christ and Satan are both equivalent, created beings), and then attack it as a way of discrediting Christian thought. Your line of reasoning is closer to Gnosticism than mainstream Christianity (and the line of attack you suggested is one reason that I don't find Gnosticism very convincing as a theology).

The concept of the Trinity is worth an entirely separate discussion (and this blog is getting pretty run down, anyway). But I would suggest that you're confusing being and person. As humans, we never have true unity between two persons, no matter how close they may be. That's why the analogies you suggest sound so silly - for humans, persons are always entirely separate, and if there is true unity, then of necessity only one person is involved. The New Testament view, though, is that there is true unity between the Father and the Son.

Challenging? Yes. Weirder than particle physics? Probably not.

Thanks for the answer.

It was pretty in depth. Maybe I'll meet this "Pamela" sometime. Time-Space-Dimensions, free will, physical vs conscience; do you believe in anything Supernatural or is everything Natural?

It would take me a few days to summarize my own beliefs into a write-up so comprehensive. Or a few lines maybe, who knows? I'm still learning. Are you 100% set in what you believe, or are you still open minded to some stuff?

Sometimes I try to figure out what I would believe (or not believe) if I didn’t believe what I believe in. Is that clear as mud? Anyways, when I see something posted that is a little different I want to know how the person got there.

Regards

Sorry, I copies Pamela's post inadvertently twice.

Ghostbuster,

I plagiarized a post from another thread by a commentor named Pamela. She expressed my vision of god with such eloquence that I would never be able to muster.

"PAMELA :
I've read the few posts with references to the conscience with great interest for that is my spiritual focus.
Although I regard myself a believer, I most often side with the views of atheists and agnostics. I think that believers of popular religions think that I'm an atheist trying to trick or confuse them by calling myself a believer and then bombarding them with a scientific viewpoint. I'm really not. I was an agnostic until I formed a god-theory that incorporates scientific method.
I know, I know. It doesn't matter if you are a believer of popular religion or an atheist, I know you're saying to yourself, 'Ridiculous!'. Believers say it because I call myself a believer, but in their eyes I'm a wolf in sheep's clothing and atheists say it because in their viewpoint science and religion is like oil and water, you can't mix the two due to the faith factor.
Yes, religion requires faith by definition. My belief has faith in the same way that Quantum Mechanics has faith, only the term used is 'Probability'. It is a science that does not allow certainty. You could say it is a faith-based science. ;)
There is a major difference between my God and those of other religions. My God is the collective conscience and although it is all-knowing via the contribution of all singular consciences, it is powerless in the physical world because it does not reside within physical dimensions and therefore it is something that we cannot discern with our five senses.
Okay, you might consider that statement to be a deal-breaker and your about ready to write me off as a kook, but before you go please let me say this - time resides in a non-physical dimension as well. We cannot discern it with any of our five senses either, but I haven’t found anyone willing to say they don’t believe in time. The three physical dimensions move through time (aka spacetime). They work in perfect concert and are meaningless without one another.
The concept of a dimension that houses the conscience, or Observer as I like to call it, is not a far stretch from the concept of a time dimension - especially if you are already familiar with the concept of time as a dimension.
To illustrate the concept, I envision all of the conscious beings that I know to exist and they are all right here on this planet - humans, dogs, insects, birds, whales, etc. For the sake of argument, let us say that Earth is the only place in all of creation that has such rare and wondrous creatures. Then one day, by whatever unfortunate event - BOOM! No more Earth.
All that is left is physical matter moving through time, but what are they worth without an observer? They are instantly meaningless. Just like matter is meaningless without time and time is meaningless without matter, both become meaningless if there is nothing – or no one – to observe them.
In my belief, the dimension of conscience, or rather the conscious dimension, is a cohesive member of this awesome realm and without it, there can be no concept of awesome, no concept of realm. No concepts at all.
As I stated in an earlier post, M Theory suggests as many as 11 dimensions. My belief is that the conscious dimension is one of them. Since only four dimensions are currently known, that still leaves room for further discovery.
Although my God in all-knowing, it is in no way powerful. Power is a physical concept and resides in the physical dimension. My God has no physical form and therefore no power over physical things. It can only observe via consciousness. All conscious beings (of which I'm aware) are limited in this way. For instance, we cannot move objects by thought. If we want to move something, we must move it by physical means within the physical dimensions. When we want to move something and then physically move it, we are making a ‘conscious effort’ (the physical manifestation of thought) which demonstrates our inter-connectedness to the physical dimensions and the conscious dimension.
Most of us are aware that we are inter-dimensionally connected to, and experience, time and physical matter cohesively. It is a small step to accept that we also experience conscience. Or rather, without conscience we cannot experience anything or prove that experience itself exists. A physical body devoid of conscience is, for all practical purposes, dead.
How could it be proven that ANYTHING EXISTS if there were no observer? This may sound like a stupid question, but a true thinker will lose sleep over it.
The human species has a mind-body combination that allows us to observe, question and experience our environment and communicate unlike any other earth species. Our distinctly human ability to convey complex ideas and concepts to one another using language in both verbal and written form differentiates, and separates, us from our other earthly brethren.
In my opinion, that is why we, the human species, don’t consider other species to have souls (or a conscience, as I prefer to refer to it). I disagree with that notion. Most other species have a monumental comparative disadvantage to humans due to physical and language limitations. If you compare our closest relative, the chimp, you’ll find that their major remaining disadvantage is lack of complex language. It is not that the chimp doesn’t want to speak, it can not speak due to the physical location of its voice box. However, for years now researchers have been successfully teaching chimps sign language. These chimps regulary communicate emotions - love, fear, anger, lonliness, etc. - the basis of conscience. And now those chimps are teaching sign language to the next generation of chimps. Granted, chimps may never make great tax accountants but it doesn’t make them any less a conscious being than you or I or any other species. They, as all conscious beings, are observers that participate and contribute their unique perspective of creation and existence.
Much has been written here about good and evil. These are human concepts attributed to physical acts after the fact. I cannot think of a single thing that is good or evil that is non-physical. We can think evil thoughts, but are we evil if we never commit the physical act? Someone once told me that intentionally starving someone unnecessarily would qualify because no physical act needed to be carried out, i.e. not bringing food is an evil non-physical act. I disagree. The ‘evil’ physical act is starvation which you’ve allowed to continue. This can be turned into ‘good’ by the physical act of bringing food to alleviate starvation. Acts, whether good or evil, require a ‘conscious effort’, of which my God is incapable – but we certainly are.
To that point, in my rationale, we are responsible for good and evil via free will. The blood of every heinous unnatural act in our history rests on human hands. The glory for every good deed is ours as well. My God cannot forgive, forget, reward or punish for any physical act. That is our responsibility and our burden.
We all experience our conscience and we all share similar conscious experiences. Our five incredible senses allow our conscience to appreciate the external physical world and it allows us to think, dream and experience emotions.
For me, there is no need to prove the existence of conscience. The conscience exists because without it, you could prove nothing else.
Peace!
PAMELA :
I've read the few posts with references to the conscience with great interest for that is my spiritual focus.
Although I regard myself a believer, I most often side with the views of atheists and agnostics. I think that believers of popular religions think that I'm an atheist trying to trick or confuse them by calling myself a believer and then bombarding them with a scientific viewpoint. I'm really not. I was an agnostic until I formed a god-theory that incorporates scientific method.
I know, I know. It doesn't matter if you are a believer of popular religion or an atheist, I know you're saying to yourself, 'Ridiculous!'. Believers say it because I call myself a believer, but in their eyes I'm a wolf in sheep's clothing and atheists say it because in their viewpoint science and religion is like oil and water, you can't mix the two due to the faith factor.
Yes, religion requires faith by definition. My belief has faith in the same way that Quantum Mechanics has faith, only the term used is 'Probability'. It is a science that does not allow certainty. You could say it is a faith-based science. ;)
There is a major difference between my God and those of other religions. My God is the collective conscience and although it is all-knowing via the contribution of all singular consciences, it is powerless in the physical world because it does not reside within physical dimensions and therefore it is something that we cannot discern with our five senses.
Okay, you might consider that statement to be a deal-breaker and your about ready to write me off as a kook, but before you go please let me say this - time resides in a non-physical dimension as well. We cannot discern it with any of our five senses either, but I haven’t found anyone willing to say they don’t believe in time. The three physical dimensions move through time (aka spacetime). They work in perfect concert and are meaningless without one another.
The concept of a dimension that houses the conscience, or Observer as I like to call it, is not a far stretch from the concept of a time dimension - especially if you are already familiar with the concept of time as a dimension.
To illustrate the concept, I envision all of the conscious beings that I know to exist and they are all right here on this planet - humans, dogs, insects, birds, whales, etc. For the sake of argument, let us say that Earth is the only place in all of creation that has such rare and wondrous creatures. Then one day, by whatever unfortunate event - BOOM! No more Earth.
All that is left is physical matter moving through time, but what are they worth without an observer? They are instantly meaningless. Just like matter is meaningless without time and time is meaningless without matter, both become meaningless if there is nothing – or no one – to observe them.
In my belief, the dimension of conscience, or rather the conscious dimension, is a cohesive member of this awesome realm and without it, there can be no concept of awesome, no concept of realm. No concepts at all.
As I stated in an earlier post, M Theory suggests as many as 11 dimensions. My belief is that the conscious dimension is one of them. Since only four dimensions are currently known, that still leaves room for further discovery.
Although my God in all-knowing, it is in no way powerful. Power is a physical concept and resides in the physical dimension. My God has no physical form and therefore no power over physical things. It can only observe via consciousness. All conscious beings (of which I'm aware) are limited in this way. For instance, we cannot move objects by thought. If we want to move something, we must move it by physical means within the physical dimensions. When we want to move something and then physically move it, we are making a ‘conscious effort’ (the physical manifestation of thought) which demonstrates our inter-connectedness to the physical dimensions and the conscious dimension.
Most of us are aware that we are inter-dimensionally connected to, and experience, time and physical matter cohesively. It is a small step to accept that we also experience conscience. Or rather, without conscience we cannot experience anything or prove that experience itself exists. A physical body devoid of conscience is, for all practical purposes, dead.
How could it be proven that ANYTHING EXISTS if there were no observer? This may sound like a stupid question, but a true thinker will lose sleep over it.
The human species has a mind-body combination that allows us to observe, question and experience our environment and communicate unlike any other earth species. Our distinctly human ability to convey complex ideas and concepts to one another using language in both verbal and written form differentiates, and separates, us from our other earthly brethren.
In my opinion, that is why we, the human species, don’t consider other species to have souls (or a conscience, as I prefer to refer to it). I disagree with that notion. Most other species have a monumental comparative disadvantage to humans due to physical and language limitations. If you compare our closest relative, the chimp, you’ll find that their major remaining disadvantage is lack of complex language. It is not that the chimp doesn’t want to speak, it can not speak due to the physical location of its voice box. However, for years now researchers have been successfully teaching chimps sign language. These chimps regulary communicate emotions - love, fear, anger, lonliness, etc. - the basis of conscience. And now those chimps are teaching sign language to the next generation of chimps. Granted, chimps may never make great tax accountants but it doesn’t make them any less a conscious being than you or I or any other species. They, as all conscious beings, are observers that participate and contribute their unique perspective of creation and existence.
Much has been written here about good and evil. These are human concepts attributed to physical acts after the fact. I cannot think of a single thing that is good or evil that is non-physical. We can think evil thoughts, but are we evil if we never commit the physical act? Someone once told me that intentionally starving someone unnecessarily would qualify because no physical act needed to be carried out, i.e. not bringing food is an evil non-physical act. I disagree. The ‘evil’ physical act is starvation which you’ve allowed to continue. This can be turned into ‘good’ by the physical act of bringing food to alleviate starvation. Acts, whether good or evil, require a ‘conscious effort’, of which my God is incapable – but we certainly are.
To that point, in my rationale, we are responsible for good and evil via free will. The blood of every heinous unnatural act in our history rests on human hands. The glory for every good deed is ours as well. My God cannot forgive, forget, reward or punish for any physical act. That is our responsibility and our burden.
We all experience our conscience and we all share similar conscious experiences. Our five incredible senses allow our conscience to appreciate the external physical world and it allows us to think, dream and experience emotions.
For me, there is no need to prove the existence of conscience. The conscience exists because without it, you could prove nothing else.
Peace!"

If I had a God, my God would look like Carmen Electra, and she'd do whatever I wanted.

Oh yea........now there's a heavenly relationship.

Ghostbuster,

You stated, more eloquently, what I was thinking too. Speed and I are far more in agreement than not.

Gaby: Can you tell me a little bit about your God?

Speed & Danny B.: I think you both have been indirectly making the same point about our argumentitive culture for the past week. Speed has been annoyed with the automatic discredit and of anything remotely Christian, Danny B points out the auto discrediting of anything remotely related to Islam. Does that sum it up pretty well? If so, it is good to see you both come to terms.

I don't think dialogue is IMPOSSIBLE with a stranger who thinks, or KNOWS that you or your belief system is ridiculous. It is just a bit more difficult to bridge the gap when speaking with a person like that I guess. One way to bridge the gap is with this weeks topic, forgiveness.

Sorry for straying off topic (yet again)

I know who was crucified that day!

Speed123,

Hard as I try, I am still capable of jumping to conclusions.

Your statement: "How can you have a discussion with a person if you reject their reasoning or ideas as foolish or evil? It inherently degrades that person and what they have decided to stand for whether it is faith or faith in science/atheism.

These conditions make dialogue untenable before you even begin that converstation that you say you are interested in.

You can keep your core beliefs and still have meaningful connection to those with different ideas - this is done through compromise and highlighting the value and common groud between the two sides."

I agree. Good point! Sorry about the Candide comment earlier.

"So Judas had free will, but God knew beforehand what choice he would make."

If God knows the outcome of EVERYTHING before it happens, then what is the point of putting His minions through the motions of life? Life itself becomes a charade - the inevitable conclusion to this particular point of view.

It never ceases to amaze me how utterly lacking in basic logic skills you God lovers are. The level of cognitive dissonance is astounding.

Mr. Mark, that was tight. So what should we call you now Marky Mark or M&M?

My teaching has always portrayed Judas to be a weak person. He was originally one of Christ's strongest supporters but later he grew disenchanted. He was led astray and revealed Jesus's location and identity to the Roman guards. Then Judas felt great remorse for what he did and committed suicide. Because Judas committed suicide, we know that he realized the mistake he had made, and therefore it is possible that he asked for and received forgiveness from God for the error. Whether he received forgiveness for the suicide is also unclear.

One problem many people have is that if it was prophecized that Judas would betray Jesus, then did Judas have free will? This was explained to me this way: if God knows you will select the chocolate pudding before you slide your tray in front of the dessert section in the cafeteria, that does not interfere with your decision to select chocolate or banana. So Judas had free will, but God knew beforehand what choice he would make.

Speed123

I assure you that I was not set up. I'm simplistic in my Christian faith. I'm always open to new ideas though, but I don't imagine something is closer to the truth simply because it sounds very complicated. You'd be surprised to know that the most complex things in the world can be explained in a very simple way, even in science.

I am open to the wisdom in all religions and atheism for that matter, and still remain a Christian by conviction at the same time. I look for what is good and true and beautiful in thought and values, no matter where I find it. That works as a good discernment tool for me.

As to DyedInTheWoolSkeptic, I "met" him (I presume he is male, but maybe I am wrong) before in Sam Harris' threads, "Selfless Consciousness without Faith" and "God's Hostages." He has an unusual communication style. I got used to it.

What does Professor JD Crossan, a On Faith panelist, think actually happened during those last days of Jesus' life?

"My best historical reconstruction would be something like this. Jesus was arrested during the Passover festival, most likely in response to his action in the "Temple. Those who were closest to him ran away for their own safety. I do not presume that there were any high-level confrontations between Caiaphas and Pilate and Herod Antipas either about Jesus or with Jesus. I have no doubt they would have agreed before the festival that fast action was to be taken against any disturbance and that a few examples by crucifixion might be especially useful at the outset_ And I doubt very much if Jewish police or Roman soldiers needed to go too far up the chain of command in handling a Galilean peasant like Jesus. It is hard for us to imagine the casual brutality with which Jesus was probably taken and executed. And those "last week" details in our gospels, as distinct from the brute facts just mentioned, are prophecy turned into history, rather than history remembered."

bottom line: Judas if he existed at all probably did not have anything to do with the capture of Jesus. All the NT passages regarding Judas' role lack proper attestation and time sequencing. See Professor Crossan's book The Historical Jesus for specific details.

DyedInTheWoolSkeptic

On 26 April 2007 8:21 PM you wrote: “Fascinating fairy tale. But what is even more fascinating is that you actually believe this is an accurate representation of reality. Sheer idiocy. Staggering lack of common sense Soja. Simply staggering. Have you no shame?”

I reserve the right to believe what seems reasonable to me DyedInTheWoolSkeptic. I was born in the world’s largest democracy (after it gained independence) and live in a Western democracy you know. As to whether my belief constitutes staggering lack of common sense - your definition of common sense means nothing to me. Have I no shame? Why should I, by your definition of shame? I might ask you the same question, “Have you no shame to imagine that you know it all, that all others who think differently from you are idiots, and you may impose your idea of common sense on everyone?”

In Battle, a soldier learns that the greater sin -thus requiring the greater forgiveness - is not in the pulling of the trigger, but is firmly on the head of the person who placed the weapon in the hands of the shooter.
Thus we see a rainbow-of-variants in the degree of FORGIVENESS.

The Judas gospel did not make the final cut when the New Testament was put together.
Either did the Gospel of Mary Magdeline. According to that one we can only sin against ourselves. We mar our own soul and make it "less". Judas did as he was told. His "sin" was not trusting that God would forgive him because he could not forgive himself.

“I believe the Bible is nspired.” “Why?” “Because it says so.” Would your anyone let that logic pass if it came from the followers of any other book or person? “I believe x is inspired because x says so.”

Fill in the blanks:
x=Pat Robertson
x=the ayatolloah Sistani
x=David Koresh
x=the Koran”

God as Creator of the universe is beyond good and evil. Evil is both the absence and destruction of good. Denying and destroying good is an act of created beings, both in the spiritual and human world, beings who have been given the gift of the free will. Jesus made references to the prince of darkness who has access to this world (and has no entry to heaven?). There is reference to powers and prinicipalies in the Bible, referring to the presence of evil also at a spiritual level. Buddhism also makes references to evil spirits.

As human beings we live in the world of duality, where there is good and evil, and we have the burden to choose our path. Those who have had deep spiritual experiences (through meditation for instance) experience a level of consciousness that is beyond good and evil because they experience union with God. But they speak foolishly and cause terrible moral confusion when they come out of that deep experience and explain that there is no duality (good and evil) at the human level of existence.

Thanks for your thoughts Labech. All Christians would do well to read the gnostic gospels and understand why they are not included in the canon. This is the only way they will be able to refute the slanted commentary of Ms. Pagels and other Jesus Seminar academics who question why the clerics at Nicea kept the best, most revealing stuff out of the Bible. Sorry, but if we only take basic literary quality as the standard, the gnostic texts don't measure up to the gospels included in the canon. (Google "gnostic gospels" and read them for yourselves.) More importantly they lack the lineage of authorship of the big four. Academics cherish the gnostic texts because today they are ancient writings--almost the contemporaries of the canonical gospels. To the people seeking to agree on canon in 325 AD, they just didn't measure up. In particular, gnostic texts lacked the carefully preserved history of authorship that demonstrated the canonical gospels were authoritative accounts by eyewitnesses or close contemporaries of Jesus Christ.

What am I missing, Ms. Pagels?

The hardest act of Contrition is the one you make to the God within "yourself". When you have - and only then - walked and talked with THAT God; all will be revealed to you.

I don’t believe your imaginary friend would approve of your tone there speed. Suggest you get down on your knees for a rousing session of wishful thinking (otherwise known as “prayer”).

REPENT!!!!

Ms. Pagels,

Thank you for an intriguing question. I am a Lutheran pastor and I, too, have wondered why Judas was ever singled out as someone who had done the "unforgiveable." Since when was Judas' misdeed any worse than Peter's who swore on oath that he never knew Jesus? When I read the passion stories, I get the sense that Jesus is abandoned in one way or another by everybody. No disciple or follower "stands up" for him. Had I lived then, I would probably that run and away and hid, too, when Jesus just gave himself up. I take it as a statement of the human condition.

If we believe the synoptics, Judas betrayed his master with a kiss. That is, Judas lead the high priests' soldiers to Jesus where Jesus could be arrested privately. The presumption was so the crowds in Jerusalem who supported him would not be upset. Judas identified Jesus out of a group of poor (maybe, ragged, too) Galilean Jews by greeting him with a kiss so the soldiers wouldn't get the wrong man in case Jesus and his disciples got up and ran. When Judas did that, he had to know it would certainly lead to Jesus' death. You have to admit, on a human scale, that's cold. But, not above forgiveness. If really Judas did that for the reasons given in a the gnostic gospel named after him, I would think him delusional. Delusional people frequently do things that lead to great harm to others.

Still, I don't see any reason why Judas should be singled out. In fact, the ancient creeds do not mention Judas, only Pontius Pilate, who gave the order for Jesus' death. Singling out Judas, or any one person, for eternal vilification seems to harkening back to an ancient Christian tradition, that we don't practice our own religion very well. Vilifying Judas gives us permission to do exactly what Jesus taught us not to do, condemn others. Vilifiying someone also gives us reason to feel self-righteous about doing something evil to the one we vilify.

Rather than worry about whether or not we could, should, would forgive Judas, why don't we look at Judas as a human being like too many others in the course of written history? Most of us are capable of justifying to ourselves deeds that bring terrible hurt and misfortune to others. The message that forgiveness is available even to the likes of us is truly redeeming and divine.

I will have to wait for you to publish something more to give us some enlightenment on gnostic motives and the Gospel of Judas. I read it when it was recently published and had a hard time making heads or tails of it.

Soja,

You are a simplton if that litney is all you know of faith.

I sense a setup.

Hey sheep-banger (dyedinthewoolskeptic)

....you are an ignorant bigot; go "shear" some more sheep.

Fascinating fairy tale. But what is even more fascinating is that you actually believe this is an accurate representation of reality. Sheer idiocy.

Staggering lack of common sense Soja. Simply staggering. Have you no shame?

On the divinity of Jesus: He was born of a Virgin, so His father was literally God. That explains His divinity. He is not created in the same way as Adam or the angels in heaven were. The fact that Jesus had a human mother, makes Him both divine and human. That is why we Christians say that Jesus was fully human and fully divine. Jesus the human was limited in space and time and of necessity needed a physical form, with all its limitations and temptations. If Jesus did not have the limitations of a human being He could not set an example for human beings. Remember how He was tempted by Satan after the forty days of fasting came to an end? Remember how He struggled to accept death on the cross as He prayed on Mount Olives on the night He was betrayed? All that goes to show that He was as vulnerable as any other human being.

So the risen Jesus who sits at the right hand of God is the part of God that took a human form - as Son of God who was with God and was part of God from the beginning but lived on earth in human form. In coming to earth in human form as Jesus, God's energy came to earth in the most powerful way and continues to come through the Holy Spirit. That is the Christian understanding of the Trinity. The Gospel of John is the best source for understanding the concept, especially chapters 1 and 14-17.

According to mythological explanation of evil: Satan was created as an angel named Lucifer, the angel of light. He was the most beautiful and the cleverest angel of all. Precisely for that reason Satan was jealous of God and wanted to be like Him. So God granted Satan his wishes and banished him and his followers from heaven. How could a creation of God be equal to God? God could not have granted Lucifer his wishes even if He wanted to. Now for Satan to be the god of a place, it had to be where God had no place. That is what hell is, a place where God and all the qualities associated with God has no place. Hence hell is described as a place with no love, no light etc. Satan, once known as the angel of light is known as the prince of darkness, who poses as the angel of light to deceive. Deception, lies and seduction is the hallmark of evil. The devil uses half truths to deceive when an outright lie is easily detected. That is how he deceived Adam and Eve, with a partial truth. Separation from love, which is God, feels like fire. Ever been separated from the one you love? Know what it feels like? So Satan tries to recruit people to his kingdom and he does it by any means. God wants all His creation to be with Him, but His love demands that love for Him should be a free choice. In this world we are caught in a state where we make our free choices. Our free will alone is mightier than God or Satan, and God created it that way for He created us in His image and likeness.

Just my thoughts.

Gaby, your view of the nature of God and Christ is wrong, but you believe it because its the easiest way to understand it. I have news: many important things in life are rarely simple and unable to be described fuly in under 3 sentences. If you wish to understand Christianity read the Bible instead of concluding the most whimsical of conclusions.

123 - i did not say that one cannot listen to the arguments of others. knowledge comes from a number of sources. but just becasue someone has a different opinion on a topic does not mean that you have to change your view. there will always be people who do not agree with you. the fact they dont agree does not mean you have to change your opinion. there is nothing wrong with listening to the opinions and facts of others, and even changing an opinion. but to change just for the purpose of making someone with a contrary view happy is not my cup of tea.
and i do not remember saying anyting about foolish or evil much less discussing anything with them. but that is not what happens here. here we have many opinions on a number of topics and we have no control over who we are talking with. are some evil, maybe. are some foolish - sure. but to those i feel have foolish opinions they probably think the same of my opinions.
but there are just some times that you want people to know that there are contrary opinions on a topic and your stating them is not to convence the person with the opposing view, but to educate those with no view.

Believer,

I respectfully disagree. Christ was created even if as an extension of the father. You can say the same thing about human beings. Our children are an extension of ourselves, yet they are individuals. While I could possibly believe in the holy ghost inspiring people (somewhat like ESP), I could never believe in the trinity as explained by Christian faith. You either are one and the same or you are not.

Why would Christ say that noone comes to the father except through him? And why did he ask if his father has forsaken him? And why does he have to sit at Gods right hand? Either they are the same and they sit in the same chair or they are not. That only leaves the option that Christ is nothing more than Gods favority son and Satan is the evil breed.

Now if Christ were God, that would a pretty twisted, mentally ill being. In that case the Bible should read: Noone comes to me except through me; why have I forsaken myself; and I'm sitting right here, but I also sit in the chair next to me.

Definitely sounds like the ramblings of a lunatic.

I like my God a hell of a lot better.

"It's an obvious conclusion, since God created everything and there was nothing before God, then he must have spawned both Jesus and Satan in addition to many other little angel thingies. One good, one evil! Therefore, God could never be only Love, because Love alone annot beget evil, and evil alone cannot beget love. So I think God is as much in need for forgiveness as humankind. I'll forgive him if he repents for having created evil, and in return he can forgive me whtever sins I have committed. Then we are even!"

Gaby, that's in interesting line of reasoning, but it's based on an understanding of God, Satan and Christ that are almost completely unrelated to the traditional Christian understanding of them. The Christian scriptures clearly teach that Satan is a created being who was granted free will, and chose to use it in rebellion against God. Christ, on the other hand, is not a created being, and shares the nature and substance of God the Father. They are not paired, matched or of equal nature, as you might find in a dualistic religion. Describing Christ as a "little angel thingie" may be cute, but it's totally divorced from any real understanding of the Christian view.

Mr Mark, known to let the beat...mmmmmdrop

Even Jozevz joined in.

Have to run; however, I disagree with your assertion that comprimise is not the key to such discussion.

How can you have a discussion with a person if you reject their reasoning or ideas as foolish or evil? It inherently degrades that person and what they have decided to stand for whether it is faith or faith in science/atheism.

These conditions make dialogue untenable before you even begin that converstation that you say you are interested in.

You can keep your core beliefs and still have meaningful connection to those with different ideas - this is done through compromise and highlighting the value and common groud between the two sides.

Folks, Concerning Judas of coarse God forgives him. He was a devoted disciple to Jesus but just like everybody Judas wanted to take matters into in his own hands. He did not think Jesus was moving fast enough and he believed Jesus would use his powers to fight the Romans so he turned him into the authorities. When Jesus did not put up a struggle Judas realized what he had done.

If you remember Jesus said we should forgive not 7 times but 77 times 7. And remember what Jesus said as he hung from the cross, "Forgive them for they know not what they do."

We are all humans who make mistakes and so was Judas.

thanks 123 - now i understand. it has been my opinin that if expression of thought is essential. yes, lots of people have different opinions and on some very important issues. so an issue arrises, if the issue is important and you see that only one point of view is being expressed and you have a different point of view, do you sit back and be quiet. or, do you express your view? i am of the opinion that everyone gets to say what they want about an issue and that way someone who has not reached an opinion has the full range of opinions and facts upon which to make up their mind.
the ultimate result is not necessarly compromise, which means that a core belief is to be discarded so that two people can say they agree to something that neither one is happy with. there are times when beliefs have to be accepted or rejected - no matter if others like them or not.
such is life.
and i dont see much in the way insults against posters, except in a few instances and its usally the person who cannot confront facts contrary to their position and they resort to name calling. otherwise i like to see and hear what others are saying and what they base their opinions on, even if they are not my opinion.

Just providing a little observation: these boards, for the most part, are all firework and polemics - no nuance or compromise. This is not high-school debate team - who wins or who loses or making the other guy look bad.

I am not the guy to provide that nuance - and I am not even sure if many atheists want it as it compromises their foolproof position - but it is lacking.

123 - a little defensive i see. and how would you know why people are here, what their motives are? i dont see them written down. strange, when someone asks another person a question its generally thought to be a compliment as they want to know more about something that person said, but you?
i have read what you have written but no i still dont know what your opinion is but asking appears to set you off.
so forget what i asked you dont appear to share well. keep looking for those sites where only people who think like you exist. good luck.

Bravo!

Speed 123 doesn't speak for me!

Do I know what his opinion is,
Or do I go about my own biz?

He says that I'm not here to debate,
But that I simply choose to berate,
That I'm not open to other views,
(As if that strikes anyone as news!).

I am here to opine (and occasionally whine) -
Well, what else does one do when with like minds?

As far as coming here to rhyme,
I'VE never done that, not one time!

;)

John,

Why do you care about my parameters? Do you even know what my opinion is?

Most people on this board are NOT here to debate and be open to other views; they are here to opine and colaborate with like minds! Perhaps even to rhyme.

Ghostbuster wrote: " Gaby, Jesus and Satan are brothers? What kind of a bible are you reading?"

It's an obvious conclusion, since God created everything and there was nothing before God, then he must have spawned both Jesus and Satan in addition to many other little angel thingies. One good, one evil!

Therefore, God could never be only Love, because Love alone annot beget evil, and evil alone cannot beget love.

So I think God is as much in need for forgiveness as humankind. I'll forgive him if he repents for having created evil, and in return he can forgive me whtever sins I have committed. Then we are even!

speed123 do you only say that if they post an opinion contrary to yours. its been my experience that those who lose a debate or discussion are the ones who call the others names, and accuse them of being rasict, homophobic, sexist, and all those things, even if they do not mention one fact that falls within the parameters of those terms.
so exactly who on this board falls within your asserted parameters, i would love to know.

Forgiveness is the foundation of redemption through Christ Jesus in the Christian faith, available to all including Judas. As others have said, we don't know if Judas sought forgiveness from Jesus as the other apostles did following his resurrection. That is between the two of them.

Dr. Pagels keenly focuses on forgiveness here, but not solid scholarship in her writings. For those who know her work, her motives are transparent and people should not take this latest effort as genuine scholarship. As a principal detractor of the Christian faith dating back to her defense of Gnosticism in her 1979 book, The Gnostic Gospels, Pagels has chosen to align herself with entertaining but fradulent assertions of the Da Vinci Code and the like in an attempt to demystify the divinity of Christ.

That is her mission here as well.

Cool site Speed, thanks.

And you dont achieve fame from been even keeled or open minded!!

As for forums - I really think they bring out the worst in people.

When it comes down to it we are all looking for answers and meaning - vilifying one side or the other (religion or the religion of atheism) does little for enlightenment - it only closes our minds to options and ideas that are very similar to our own.

Good luck everybody! It is a crazy world!

PS - I still think people like Pagels and Hitchens are hacks in it for the money/fame.

Check out the members with stars next to their screen name - very good replies that could almost be published themselves.

Not sure if I can post a URL but here goes:

http://www.slate.com/?id=3936&tp=fighting&nav=navof

The physical resurrection of Jesus as per currernt theology teachings at many large Catholic universities-

"Heaven is a Spirit state or spiritual reality of union with God in love, without earthly -- earth bound distractions.

Christ 's and Mary's bodies are therefore not in Heaven. For one thing, Paul in 1 Cor 15 speaks of the body of the dead as transformed into a "spiritual body." No one knows exactly what he meant by this term.

Most believe that it to mean that the personal spiritual self that survives death is in continuity with the self we were while living on earth as an embodied person.

The physical Resurrection (meaning a resuscitated corpse returning to life), Ascension (of Jesus' crucified corpse), and Assumption (Mary's
corpse) into heaven did not take place.

The Ascension symbolizes the end of Jesus' earthly ministry and the beginning of the Church.

Only Luke's Gospel and Acts record it.

The Assumption ties Jesus' mission to Pentecost and missionary activity of Jesus' followers The Assumption has
multiple layers of symbolism, some are related to Mary's special role as "Christ bearer" (theotokos). It does not seem fitting that Mary, the body of Jesus' Virgin-Mother (another biblically based symbol found in Luke 1) would
be derived by worms upon her death. Mary's assumption also shows God's positive regard, not only for Christ's male body, but also for female
bodies."

Amazing how this agrees with Professor Crossan and the Jesus Seminarian's conclusions based on attestations and stratums.

See http://wiki.faithfutures.org/index.php/017_Resurrection_of_Jesus for added details.

An excerpt:

"In the epilogue to Who Killed Jesus? (1995:217), Crossan writes:

The resurrection of Jesus means for me that the human empowerment that some people experienced in Lower Galilee at the start of the first century in and through Jesus is now available to any person in any place at any time who finds God in and through that same Jesus. Empty tomb stories and physical appearance stories are perfectly valid parables expressing that faith, akin in their way to the Good Samaritan story. They are, for me, parables of resurrection not the resurrection itself. Resurrection as the continuing experience of God's presence in and through Jesus is the heart of Christian faith."

Another point of view:

According to Reimarus as referenced in R.B. Stewart in his introduction to the recent book, The Resurrection of Jesus, Crossan and Wright in Dialogue,

"Reimarus (1774-1779) posits that Jesus became sidetracked by embracing a political position, sought to force God's hand and that he died alone deserted by his disciples. What began as a call for repentance ended up as a misguided attempt to usher in the earthly political kingdom of God. After Jesus' failure and death, his disciples stole his body and declared his resurrection in order to maintain their financial security and ensure themselves some standing."

Same here, Russell. I tried Google with no luck.

Speed:

Where do I find that board? You got my interest peaked.

Speed123,

"You think this is intellectual and refined discourse on religion?"

Not per se, but your posts are mostly taunting Elaine Pagels, as opposed to genuine criticism.

You jump to a conclusion to allude that Norrie has no life for being on the board a lot. I was only saying that because I am in a "writing mode" all day, and have the kind of job where I can include this in my multi-tasking could also mean that Norrie is in similar circumstances.

"No life" would be having so much time that one can troll conversations that hold no other interest than the opportunity for making wisecracks from the sidelines.

Furthermore, I don't think that Norrie and CANDIDE, of all people, can be placed in the same category. Whether I agree with Norrie, or not, he contributes to the ACTUAL discussion at hand. Candide is just childishly inflammatory (strangled with entrails, indeed!).

I would rather think I am like Norrie.

You remind me more of Candide than Norrie does.

P.S. I'm not trying to be all nasty here, just matter-of-fact.

Andrea, hello!

Doing my best to stir the pot... and I do think there are some good posters on here but I seriously think the discussions/debates are very one sided and repetitive. I dont have the time to research or make up the difference.

Anywhoo, check out the Slate message boards - great debate on there - especially on the current article concerning the Atheist Manifesto by Chris Hitchens.

Speed,

Nice to read you again, I must have been hanging around the wrong threads!

"You think this is intellectual and refined discourse on religion?"

Some try to make it more intellectually stimulating by offering worthwile posts...some are unable to and resort to mindless rambling and inflamatory remarks.

Jesus' death on the cross was necessary fulfillment of prophesy. How, then, can Judas (or Pilate or anyone else with a hand in the crucifixion) be condemned?

You think this is intellectual and refined discourse on religion?

Candid blabbers: "There is no messiah. There probably is no God. This is all bull."

Very intellectual...I have news for you Danny tech writer: this IS the peanut gallery!

PS - have you read the SECRET? It will change your life just like the Da Vinci Code and the Tomb of Jesus changed Norrie's and Candid's.

Speed123,

You said to Norrie: How is it that you can spend all day, everyday on here? No life?

I am an automotive tech writer and whether I am in the office, or working from home, I can have these message boards up all day...if I want to.

The five posts you have contributed have been nothing more than smart-@$$ comments from the Peanut Gallery anyway.

Seems like a waste of time to me. No life?

Norrie, at least, can provide some substance to the conversation.

Candide:

If He was so minor, his name wouldn't be known all over the world. If this is all bull, then I guess you have nothing else to add. There are millions of people who disagree with you though, and some of them would like to discuss this topic further, if you don't mind.

CCNL quoted Crossan as saying:

"I do not want to express my faith through a theology that pictures God demanding blood sacrifices in order to be reconciled to us."

Crossan should stop insisting that the rest of Christianity is wrong based on what HE doesn't want to believe.

Furthermore, he's quoted as saying, "In terms of divine consistency, I do not think that anyone, anywhere, at any time, including Jesus, brings dead people back to life." In that case, I guess Crossan should just stop calling himself a Christian altogether. Is there anything left about Christianity that he does believe? Jesus as God in Man? No. Born of a virgin? No. The resurrection? No. Jesus the Saviour? No. Performance of miracles? No. Is anything in the bible true? Oh yeah, some parts; only the parts he WANTS to believe...

Some interesting possibilities:
1. Jesus was gay.
2. Judas was his brother.
3. Thomas was Jesus' twin brother and when Thomas (the name means twin) was seen after the crucifixion they thought it was Jesus resurrected.

But let's get serious for a change. Why are we so concerned with a minor Jew killed almost two thousand years ago? He was no saviour. He was not resurrected. He cannot take anyone's sins away. Christians have been duped. They are dupes.

There is no messiah. There probably is no God. This is all bull.

Gaby: Jesus and Satan are brothers? What kind of a bible are you reading?

Atonement is part of apology and repentance.

The definition:

a·tone·ment (ə-tōn'mənt)
n.
Amends or reparation made for an injury or wrong; expiation.

Reconciliation or an instance of reconciliation between God and humans.
Atonement Christianity. The reconciliation of God and humans brought about by the redemptive life and death of Jesus.

Professor Crossan's take on the Christian theology of atonement:

From his book, "Who is Jesus" co-authored with Richard Watts)

"Moreover, an atonement theology that says God sacrifices his own son in place of humans who needed to be punished for their sins might make some Christians love Jesus, but it is an obscene picture of God. It is almost heavenly child abuse, and may infect our imagination at more earthly levels as well. I do not want to express my faith through a theology that pictures God demanding blood sacrifices in order to be reconciled to us."

"Traditionally, Christians have said, 'See how Christ's passion was foretold by the prophets." Actually, it was the other way around. The Hebrew prophets did not predict the events of Jesus' last week; rather, many of those Christian stories were created to fit the ancient prophecies in order to show that Jesus, despite his execution, was still and always held in the hands of God."

"In terms of divine consistency, I do not think that anyone, anywhere, at any time, including Jesus, brings dead people back to life."

Maria Brazda wrote: "Also one of the comments mentioned if God should be forgiven for Katrina. I hope that there will be a day that the entire world will see that there is a dark force, the devil, satan that deceives man and is the author of destruction. Unless we know who the enemy really is- we will go around blaming Christ and other disasters on God."

Maria, if you beleive in the bible, Satan is God's son justs like Jesus. The only difference is that one doesn't like his daddy whereas the other one is daddy's pet. If your biblican God is all love like so many claim, then was he able to spawn something inherently evil?

Your God shares a certain blame for everything that goes on is this world since he is the one who created it. Maybe in stead of asking him to forgive us, he should ask us to forgive him.

Candide wrote:

"But the name Judas for Christians -- especially when combined with notions of betrayal and treachery -- becomes the archtype of the evil Jews."

What? You have GOT to be kidding me.

Believer,

Regarding your post where you talk about the addicted wife, I fully share your idea of what forgiveness is all about.

My father was a raging drunk and did all sorts of horrible things as a result of his drinking. He stopped when I was five years old.

Though I can barely remember his drinking, I have been told (even by him) of the things he did. He has not had a drink now in 32 years!

In that time he has gone above and beyond in terms of atonement, and changing his destructive behavior. He excelled as a provider, and as a teacher by example (the best kind) to my sister and I. My parents have now been married for 46 years!

To me (of course he's MY dad) there is no one more deserving of forgiveness and respect.

I think this is why your post really caught my attention.

Give them enough rope and they will hang themselves! How fitting (barely even off topic for this thread)!

Frank Collins: hey, what is this ce date? what calendar is it. its not jewish, and not islamic, and not or shinto, or budhist, or even hindu? i have never even seen an egyptian date using ce. so what is it and how do we sync it with bc and ad?

After those thousand-line posts and the insistance that you are an authority on ANY subject in the Islam threads...to post this is HYSTERICAL!

I am absolutely peeing!

Thank you for finally posting something interesting!

"Each religion has the right to determine what is or is not part of its religion and i have not seen one say that all those writings you refer to is a gosepel. Want to make you own decision, start your own religion, the others are taken.

Frank, you are correct in the strict logical sense. If someone doesn't agree with the core beliefs of a religion, then why would the person belong to that religion in the first place?

Of course religions have the right to decide their core beliefs. My point is that this should be a bottom-up process determined by individual believers, and not a top-down process determined by a few leaders. The bottom-up process would allow the individual believer to join the religion that best fits his or her own beliefs. The problem with the top-down process was that dissenting writings were suppressed as "blasphemous" and "heretical." That amounts to telling people what they should believe at all and deeming certain beliefs to be forbidden for everyone, not simply what people should believe in order to be a member of the religion. I see this as related to the problem of different religions making exclusive claims to truth.

What if the early church struck an agreement with the Gnostics and the other groups where the church would cease suppressing their beliefs, as long as the unorthodox groups called their religions something other than "Christian" to avoid false advertising? Sounds like a fair trade to me. Modern Christianity is remarkably diverse, with Mormons, Adventists, Jehovah's Witnesses, and Unitarians all calling themselves Christians, yet the religion as a whole continues to thrive. It seems reasonable to me that early Christianity would still have thrived even if it had let the unorthodox groups go their own way under separate names.

Keep in mind that I'm not trying to take the side of either early orthodox Christianity or of Gnosticism, but simply the right of people to follow whatever religious beliefs they want.

Dear Khadijah,

You wrote: Can someone please help me understand the order of God? If people say He's that powerful, would someone that great create such travisties? I don't understand how people hold up a being to be so powerful and then have the audacity to forgive Him when things go horribly wrong. It doesn't make sense to me. What does that show, is God really answering your prayers? I like to think that there are good people and bad people in this world. And I think bad things happen to good people, there is no explanation behind it, it just happens. Can someone explain or answer any othe questions I asked?

You are asking if anyone can explain God. One would have to be God to explain God. I am not bashing you, but I am only asking you to see what you are asking. Let's go back to before our creation. God first created the angels, and Lucifer was considered a great and perfect angel. Then he turned on God and he and one third of the angles were cast out of Heaven. So what happened? Free will happened. So why did God give every creature free will? Dunno, but He did. So why today's attrocities? Free will. So why did God give man free will? Dunno, but He did. Apparently free will is a big thing to God. That sounds very Godly to me. He could have made us a bunch of robots instead.

Satan and one third of his angels are repsonsible for the evil you see. God is not making the bad stuff happen. He is allowing it to happen because he gave up his blood to save us from it. If you own the salvation,then you've won. If you box with GOd, then you die an eternal death.

I think that as far as God is concerned, all of us need to make it our business to do what it takes to get to Heaven. Heaven is described a spure bliss, forever. Do you know how long forever is? So, we all must die and some of us are going to die in physical pain. But if you walk in line with God, a split second after you die even the most terrible death, you are in eternal bliss. I believe that's why God let's stuff happen. In the end, He gives us better than what our imaginations can comrephend. God does not feel guilty about that when an airplace crashes into a building with 400 people aboard.

Peace.

P.S.
Satan doesn't get the option of repentance. Jesus died for human beings on earth. A 5 year old explained Satan to me in case any of you haven't read the story. Satan was an angel- an entirely different category of creation than humans. Inhabiting the heavenly realms - he knew the order of things and thought he could be in charge. He and 1/3 of the other angels staged a rebellion against the guy in charge. Guess who? Yes- the Alpha and Omega. They lost. He still awaits his final disposition which is to Hell and spends his time trying to deceive and destroy God's joy- his human creations. We ended up in his arena because we wanted our own way. What baby doesn't? Jesus gave us a way out when we simply couldn't get with God's program (you know the 10 commandments of how we should treat each other and Him). You would have thought we could be thankful but instead we spend our time arguing about whether Jesus meant what He said. Yes, the eye-witness accounts vary BUT any bad accident has its varying accounts coloured by each witnesses perceptions. Boys notice the make of the cars, girls notice the people crying or maybe the colour of the cars! Kids get this, maybe the adults should too. Could we all at least agree that if we COULD be more like Jesus the world would be a nicer place? And didn't He say something about a Spirit left behind to help us?

Judas wanted his own way- a warrior King to lead the Jews. He thought he could force Jesus to act and overthrow the Roman government, freeing the Jews from their tyranny. And having seen Jesus miracles, knew he had power. When he realized the results of his actions he felt bad and sad and afraid. He didn't stop and think (like Peter did)that he could change his ways (repent) and carry on. He despaired and died instead. Pretty typical human doing.
Most children get this. Maybe that's why Jesus told us that unless we become like little children (helpless, dependent and not arrogant) we could not enter the kingdom of Heaven.
You can know the great I AM, He did send His Son, the angels in Heaven do rejoice and that is the Good News.

I have read some pagels and nothing is new in her scholarship. She has just re-packaged old theories for mass consumption and jumped on the feminist and Dan Brown money train.

If you like Pagels, boy have I got a great new hot seller that will change your life and the way you see the world: The SECRET!!!

I have read Dr. Pagels works. I have studied the Kings James version of the bible on my own and through bible school. I have studied early christian writings including versions labelled gnostic with scholars and on my own.

When we are talking about forgiving Judas, we are talking about forgiving someone who was part of God's plan by direct evidence presented in Gospel of Judas or through later scriptures adopted by Roman Empire and Catholism circa 325ad or the first Nicene accord. Judas is much easier to forgive than Cho, the shooter responsible for the massacre at Virginia Tech. Judas has been accepted as being divinely inspired for his actions therefore, forgiveable.

How could we see Cho as being part of God's plan ? How could we ever imagine this person was put in the midst of innocent college students and professors with pre-determined homicidal and suicidal tendencies as being divinely inspired ? We can not see that. And yet as Judas was placed with Jesus and performed a specific task, he was forgiven, and proclomated a saint. Does anyone at this time think future generations will recieve this young man, a very sick child of God, as being St. Cho ? Did someone from the past say Judas would not become a saint in a million years ?

Here's the problem as I see it. According to the old text, hypocracy is only number two of the biggest sins to blasphemy, contemptous or irreverent talk of God. The root word in greek translates to "to injure". Now the earliest Christian of writings found to date indicate the only sin that cannot be forgiven is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.

I have suggested that to use the Holy Spirit to sin is blasphemy like hiding behind God to sin. Or in the name of God, I sinned. Or in the name of God I homicidally bombed X number of people.

Cho was dissapointed with God, he could not find him. And Cho was just too diseased to allow others inside his world. Well, maybe not all people.

If I had to really look for devine inspiration through Cho it would be the following. Gnostics teach that God is all things and is inside us all. Therefore, we don't need a church or other people to find God. GOT indicates that God is a light within us all and when we cannot show that light, we live in darkness. Now does that sound like Cho to you ? His darkness was revealed and yet he does show a desire to find "inner light" expressing disapointment with God.

And maybe he just took 23 years of anger out on innocent people mocking them as being hedonistic when secretly he did covenent the American Dream for himself.

So for numerous reasons being issues of mental health, failures of society and the selfishness of hedonistic societies, I can forgive him. However Supreme Court actions today indicate that if Cho had lived, he may have been incarcerated for 99 years and not the death penalty. I could have lived with that too.

May add that those who have attempted suicide have created an enormous sin according to the Catholic Church. I hope the Court recognizes the inner Hell of living with emotional and mental illnesses as well as substance abuse. To blow one's head off may be an insane solution to the cessation of pain. Who is not to say the pain is not life threatening ?

My question now is really profound and may be an inquiry into a secretive world created by Gnostics trying to practice their faith post first Nicene Accord. Was the Holy Grail actually found in 1945, a time when the world needed a boost defeating nazism, interesting.

Att: A.N.O.N.Y.M.O.U.S., vIEJITA, Jonathan et al

Hugs and kisse to ALL the HUMATES Here and there & Beyond our Galaxy.

Secret: We come from MAGMA and we go via Plasma right?

Guess what happens when we go through the Non gravity place via the Due To Be?

Answer: We get recreated in another NEBULAE that gives birth, from an OLD Star Systems to a NEW Star Systems.

Our Eclati-on moves or weaves from one Nebulae to another.

And backhere on Earth your ME ME staYs within the Biological Generation of your off Spring from one Genetic permutation to another until Space-Ship Momma/Poppa Earth herself/Himself goes POOF-TIME, especially when Grandma-Sun Inplodes and becomes a chunk of Iron in the Due to be, for another ENDOFINITY INTO EXOFINITY over and over.

Are you happy now cyber Who?

Sholom. p.S. I am an ECLATi-On. I am from the Jakton blood line and not Pelig like Moses, Jeaus, and Abraham et al: I a EBERU in full battle gear.

Are You ready? : = ) / ya Ya Mon.

iftakhar - the koran is not the issue - wrong board.

Greetings Jacob Josevz! Welcome to earth. We earthlings can't take you to our leader as you asked. We know not who our leader is. We are busy bickering here.

Jacob Josevz, you are a devout Jew after all! Can't ever spell G-d with a "o", ever, in all your posts! Fine in being devout, mon, but just don't talk and type like a spaced out, warp speed starship lagged alien from outer space lost in cyberspace here.

I think what makes Judas important is exactly this compulsion we have to place blame. We can't blame God, or Jesus, so the crucifixion has to have been the fault of Judas, or all the Jews, or the Romans, or the "establishment".......

A thought to remember: when Jesus broke bread and shared wine, the original Eucharist, the first Eucharist, Judas was present and partook in the body and blood of Christ. Even when Jesus was well aware that Judas would soon leave to betray Him.

My hope, my prayer is that this is a clear a sign to us that in the immense love of Christ, there is room for Judas.

Pacifist
I'd be happy to apologize, as a human being, for the acts of other humans. I'll also apologize, as a Catholic Christian, for the official acts of those who purport to represent my faith. What the hey, I'll apologize, as a U.S. citizen, for George W. Bush. I have no standing to apologize for members of other religions, like Islam, but I'll do that too if it helps.

Like most generic group apologies, none of my four apologies are worth the paper they're printed on (so to speak).

Brandi
What difference does it make? Are you saying that only born-again Christians can study early Christian writings?

Dear Professor Pagels

I find the concept of forgiving Judas quite interesting. I find it as interesting as the concept of someone else, all too eager to be Christian to the highest degree, in forgiving someone who has wronged ME, the wrongdoer, who has neither accepted wrong doing nor apologised nor made reparation to ME in any way, and they chastise me, and accuse me of failing the "ultimate test" for not forgiving the wrongdoer!

It was Jesus who was betrayed, not you or me. So it doesn't make much sense in you or me forgiving Judas. Jesus already forgave everyone who wronged Him, as He hung on the cross, when He said "Forgive them for they know not what they do." We are not called to forgive Judas. Leave the forgiving to Jesus and God. I don't see the need or the hurry in taking over God's job of passing judgement on Judas one way or another. We do know from the Bible that he realised he had done wrong for he threw the money he got for betraying innocent blood in the temple and hanged himself. He could have chosen to seek out Jesus and beg for forgiveness, but he didn't. How is God going to judge his remorse? We don't know. Why should an "ultimate test" about forgiving Judas be created at all? Nobody is asked to spend their time hating Judas in the first place, but merely learn from the wrong he did. Judas betrayed the one who loved him, the one with whom he spent three years; Judas betrayed innocent blood for thirty pieces of silver. We are to learn not betray those who love us, not to sell our souls for thirty pieces of silver and cause hardship to an innocent person.

The Judas in us is the one we are expected to examine. Forgiving Judas who betrayed Jesus is irrelevant.

Trying to rationalise everything Judas did and trying to make out he didn't do anything wrong in the first place is ridiculous. One could rationalise away all evil with that tactic. Evil remains a mystery. Why God permits it and how it all happens are questions that don't have a ready answer. Working out simplistic nonsense solutions isn't the answer either.

When the nonsense simplistic attitude is applied everywhere, it would be just as simple for ME to forgive Hitler because he did not send me or my relatives or loved ones to the gas chambers. I can be an extremely generous Christian and "fogive" Hitler. But such forgiveness, in my opinion, is not only moral nonsense, but an insult to the victims of the Holocaust as a patronising, and holier-than-thou attitude towards the God of justice. Let the victims of Holocaust forgive Hitler if they can. Believe me, I have heard a couple of really otherwise enlightened people (NOT Dom Bede Griffiths!) try to explain away the Holocaust on the grounds that there is no good no evil, and everything is just an illusion. It was not a denial of the Holocaust but a denial of the existence of evil, and such an attitude was being portrayed as being spiritually superior. The only problem with that is, even an enlightened Jesus spoke of evil as being real. Even Buddha said, "Aviod evil, do good."

We need to continue to rake our brains hard to find answers to the problem of evil (or at least accept it as a mystery), and not stop with morally nonsensical explanations, no matter how sublime it may appear at first glance.

Soja John Thaikattil
Sydney, Australia

KHADIJAH,

From Edward Schillebeeckx, the famous Christian theologian: from his book, Church: The Human Story of God,
Crossroad, 1993, p.91 (softcover)

"Christians (et al) must give up a perverse, unhealthy and inhuman doctrine of predestination without in so doing making God the great scapegoat of history" .

"Nothing is determined in advance: in nature there is chance and determinism; in the world of human activity there is possibility of free choices. Therefore the historical future is not known even to God; otherwise we
and our history would be merely a puppet show in which God holds the strings. For God, too, history is an adventure, an open history for and of men and women."

Schillebeeckx was responding to the Dutch citizens who were blaming God for the North Sea storms that destroyed a significant number of levees resulting in a significant loss of life and severe storm damage.

Sound familiar??

OH JESUS MARIA ELAINE WHY ALL THIS HOKUS POKUS WHY ALL THOSE FAIRYTALES FROM 1000S OF YEARS AGO? ITS ALL A SCAM THIS RELIGION. ITS RUN FOR AND BY MONEYGRABBING HOMOPHOBIC PREACHERS . AS FOR THIS GOD/JESUS STUFF WELL DARLING SHE JUST DOESNT EXIST.ITS LIKE BELIEVING IN SANTA CLAUS .PLEASE ELAINE GET A LIFE REAL SOON OR JOIN THE CIRCUS WHERE THEY HAVE OPENINGS FOR CLOWNS!

Judas was the American people. In awe of America for the good it was. Then the leader of America asked them to do god's will. 2007: If God wouldn't(but could) create a stone he could not lift, then why would he insult his character with a war.
Blame Judas?
Maybe.
The situation was a choice and we chose unwisely.

ATTEN; FRANK COLLINS
As sa elf-considered expert on QURAN for last 40 years,please also provide concept of forgiveness explained in QURAN by our creator GOD ALMIGHTY.

I am interested in Frank Collins comments on explanantion of MARY(peace be on her) and JESUS(peace be on him) before birth to cross in QURAN as Frank claims to have been reading QURAN since 60's and considers himself authority on QURAN and is an expert in qouting QURANIC verses deliberately ignoring the background of the cuase of revelations to spread his hate towards ISLAM.

The last post is mine. I am not bragging but I don't like anonymous posts and did it by mistake. Guess I am not god afterall. And I was so looking forward to healing some Republicans later on.......

Speed 123, what are you on? Clearly you have not (and based on your writing could not have) ever read Pagels. She is one of the most respected scholars in her field and has done more than anyone in her field to make serious, scholarly studies accessible to the well read lay person. In this nation of Oprah, one does not write books about the Gnostic Gospels in order to get rich. I live in a bastion of prfessed Christians and I can assure you there are no lines to buy anything by Professior Pagels. She does not need the money anyway since she is a Westinghouse Scholar.

"Whatever" you need to do a little reading. Pagels' gnostics were Christian---quite possibly closer to the thrust of what Jesus preached than the orthodox Christians whom you apparently presume to be the only "true" Christians. What is the source of your religious certainty? The institutional church systematically picked and chose among countless gospels and letters of the early church. They literally voted on what was inspired and what was not and then established the doctrine of scriptural authority.

It is little different from me announcing that I am god. Then I organize a club and write down some things I want my followers to believe. Then, because I am god, I declare that what I have written is sacred and that everyone on earth must believe what I say or suffer everlasting damnation. No sentient being would fall for my scam but because your scam of choice was perpretated on us 2000 years ago, you think it is valid. It is absurd to look to the source of a set of beliefs to find the proof of the vaidity of those beliefs.

You comments reflect the hubris that attends many of the commentators on the religius right who assume theirs is the only possible way to interpret truth. We are a remarkable species which has evolved to the level of introspection and rational thought. Our minds have been the key to our survival. It is such a waste of our natural gifts to eschew reason in favor of a set of mythological stories first developed by a nomadic tribe of goat herders thousands of years ago. (For god's sake, they actually conceived their god to be one who wanted them to cut off the ends of their dicks!) If there happens to be a god, surely it expects more of us than mindless kowtowing to the fake god of our fears.

Can someone please help me understand the order of God? If people say He's that powerful, would someone that great create such travisties? I don't understand how people hold up a being to be so powerful and then have the audacity to forgive Him when things go horribly wrong. It doesn't make sense to me. What does that show, is God really answering your prayers? I like to think that there are good people and bad people in this world. And I think bad things happen to good people, there is no explanation behind it, it just happens. Can someone explain or answer any othe questions I asked?

Pagels is out to sell books and stir controversy a la the Tomb of Jesus.

The "gospel of dead presidents" will be her next book.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Judas has already been forgiven by Jesus. The love of God is stronger than death. In my opinion, people who think that Judas cannot be forgiven don't understand the power of love and life that Jesus came to reveal. As Jesus said, "forgive them for they do not know what they do." None of us know what we are doing to God. We are all forgiven.
Dan

Please, Give Judas a break. How do we know the truth anyway? Do we have credible ecidence about what happened, after Aramaic is translated into Greek into Hebrew into whatever else? Give it a break. They were all illiterates. Every one of them, so if they say they kept notes, then they are lying and if they did not, then you know you cannot trust a peasant's memory.

Please, Give Judas a break. How do we know the truth anyway? Do we have credible ecidence about what happened, after Aramaic is translated into Greek into Hebrew into whatever else? Give it a break. They were all illiterates. Every one of them, so if they say they kept notes, then they are lying and if they did not, then you know you cannot trust a peasant's memory.

What about all the sinners who lived before 0000? Without a Jesus to bail them out, were they condemned to an eternity of shoveling the devil's coal pile? Or did God issue them all a blanket pardon? If not, then no one can say that God is fair.

I'm no expert, but if Judas committed suicide, doesn't that mean he automatically goes to hell? Whether or not he asked for forgiveness, God doesn't take kindly to us taking our own lives, from what I understand. And I don't think that God said he was just not going to ever forgive Judas. If Judas repented and followed God, he would have been forgiven, as all of us have. From my reading of the Bible, God never stopped loving Judas, he was disappointed with the choices that Judas made that eventually resigned him to the fate he met.

My two cents.

Betryal Prophecies:

Old Testament (Zechariah 11:12) says:
I told them, "If you think it best, give me my pay; but if not, keep it." So they paid me thirty pieces of silver.

Old Testament (Zechariah 11:13) says:
And the Lord said to me, "Throw it to the potter"--the handsome price at which they priced me! So I took the thirty pieces of silver and threw them into the house of the Lord to the potter.

Old Testament (Psalms 41:9) says:
Even my close friend, whom I trusted, he who shared my bread, has lifted up his heel against me.

Just to let you all now The Gospel of Judas is NOT PART OF BIBICAL CHRISTIANITY it is a Gnostic Gospel written after Judas hung himself. Judas did not write this gospel. It is not a eye witness account like the other four gospels. Do not take any of the non-bibical books as truth/canonical. The Gnostic Gospels are pretty much stupid and twisted but they do make you think, should these be part of the bible or not.

Judas had to betray Jesus to fulfill old testament prophecy about that incident. I do think he needs to be forgiven in a sense however he did have to betray Jesus.

I tried reading some of these comments but don't have the time to go through all of them. In one of the first, someone said that (paraphrasing) Jesus would have been betrayed anyway, but yet that person put the burden on Judas. I believe he (Judas) was a hero. If Christians really want to know the truth, they have to also read the Old Testament. It was ordained and in the New Testament, Jesus orders Judas to go and betray him. I'm glad he did because of Judas, we all can be saved. Judas was in such despair that he killed himself. Some people would say that was the ultimate act of remorse.

Dr. Pagel's,
Thank-you for your indirect post-Easter meditation on forgiveness. Our pastor often reminds us that forgiveness of the sinner includes forgetting the sin. In the gospel of John we two scenes which stand in tension with one another. In one scene, in the words of the late comedian, Flip Wilson, "the Devil made" Judas do it. In another scene, Jesus' declares that when the Child of Humanity is raised up, all peoples will be drawn together before the out-stretched arms. The immovable object meets the irrestible force. Forever cast outside or once forgiven and all forever included. Saved by grace alone or only saved by the tradition that separates the righteous from the infidel and remembers always who is whom. Grace freely given or works righteousness. These are the issues your essay on Judas bring to my mind. Craig

Romans Chapter 9:13 As it is written, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated." 14 What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God’s part? By no means! 15 For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." So it depends not upon man’s will or exertion, but upon God’s mercy. (end of text from New Testament)

Saul of Tarsus was a mass murderer who was forgiven. Thereafter, he was called St Paul. So, I guess that there is much hope for all of us.

Bobby, thanks for your reply. I have read revelations and I am shocked by its contrast to the love and wisdom of Jesus. Personally, I think revelations sounds like the author was on a bad acid trip but I respect your choice to believe it. Please forgive me if I chose to life a life free of the fear that controls many Christians because of this writing.

A Christian missionary once asked Baba Sawan Singh, a great Saint of India, "May I ask another question, if you don't mind? What has been the lot of Judas Iscariot, who betrayed Jesus? Where is he now?"

"Where should he be in your opinion?" asked the Great Master.

"Why, I should think he must be suffering hell torture somewhere," the missionary replied.

"No," said the Great Master. "He is with Lord Jesus Christ, enjoying perfect bliss in His lap."

A loud "Oh!" burst from the lips of all the missionaries. Their leader, the elderly gentleman said, "Wonderful. This is perfectly true."

"This is the way of the Masters," the Great Master told them. "They never look at our faults. There is no place for hell torture in Mercy and Love."

"Was he not punished for his crime?" asked one of the young missionaries.

"His sin was personal against the Lord, and the Lord forgave him," the Great Master replied.

Christianity is for church on SUNDAY!!!
Who the HAIL let you out again???
Go BACK to your churches, NOW!
We'll call you if we need you...NOT!!!

Urgent Message for the Christian Right:

Go And Sin No More

When will you Christians finally realize that your faith is a hoax, invented by fools and knaves?

I have often wondered if the real betrail of Judus was his sucide. Saul- St Paul persecuted Christians and was brought Christ by the Spirit and given forgiveness for his previous life. If Judus, on realising his crime, had just had enough trust in Jesus and strengeth in his own spirit, IMO Christ would have forgiven him. Without Judus and his sin there would have been no cross and no salvation for me from my sin. Forgiveness for Judus would have yet further strengthened the message that there is hope for all who truely repent. If Judus had chosen the path to then be reborn in the Spirit he could have been saved. God easily has enough power to do that if He wishes.

First find Noah's Ark, and then maybe the rest of us will take you christian wackos serious for once.

Frank, you might want to take that plank out of your eye.

For all of you clutching if not thumping your Bible, secure in thinking that you've got the one and only Truth in a great big scary world of chaos clutched in your tight little fist, you can read the Bible until the cows come home and it won't bring you any closer to God.

God is within you. Christ is within you. Put your Bible up on the shelf, stop going to your megachurch and praying for abundance. Go into your bedroom, close your eyes, and go inside yourself. Listen with all your might. Speak to God. He is right there. Why on earth would you depend on somebody else's version of what God is, or Jesus is, when you can find the truth within yourself.

Do you want to experience love or do you want to read about it? The Bible is hearsay. The only words worth anything to you are the ones between you and God. Period.

God bless Judas. He was the only one of the apostles who had the balls to sacrifice himself so that the greater sacrifice of Jesus could happen. Of course history would rather not see it that way. It's easier to lay all the evil on one man (one bad man pitted against one good man, isn't that how we like our stories?) than to remember that it was the everyday evil of all of humankind that tortured and killed God incarnate.

This goes way back, BUT:

In the 1970s there was a man in prison in Atlanta (Theriault or Therioux) who claimed he was getting messages from ECLAT and was the ECLATARIAN NAZARITE. He started the Church of New Song. I think there was a long legal case.

Hey, Jacob, did I get close to your inspiration?Does anyone else remember this?

The Gospel of Judas is a gnostic gospel, not a Christian gospel.

End of discussion.

now i understand the author. she has decided that everyone that came before her is wrong about the christian religion and only she has the right answer. her loss of her son to a 5 year illness and her husband the same year in an auto accident required her to doubt religion because if SHE was not treated as she wanted to be, then there must be a flaw in the system, it must be wrong and its up to her to give us all the correct answer. and now that she has decided that she is no longer a christian she has determined that she shall set the standard for what a real christian is, and if that standard is not lived up to, well like her, they are not christians either.
i have seen this before. she is so angry at her personal loss she now doubts what she believed before. she takes the birth and death flow of humanity as a personal affront to her. a personal insult from god and as punishment she will punish god by pretending he does not exist and his son jesus was not the son of god, and on and on and on.
i am very sorry for her. she lost her family and lost her faith too. she must feel very alone.

Personally, I've always liked Judas the best of the disciples. A number of my friends think this is an eccentricity. Certainly in this day of the collision (and collusion) of church and state, it seems to me Judas has less blood on his hands than any of the "Bishops of Rome." But there are those who prefer Peter, or pretty John, or one of the others. One might do a helpful job examining the male-male bonding in this relationship.

Sincerely,

L. Kabong

There will be a time in the future when the Bible won't exist. It won't even be remembered. Maybe in 10,000 years, maybe in 50,000. It doesn't matter.

Why? Because much of the Bible provides what could be called an extremely "light weight" kind of spiritual fuel. It's had its place, but at some point people will evolve beyond a need for its teachings.

For these past 20 centuries or so, it's been the lie that's worked for a large percentage of people, and that's ok. If not this myth, it would be another.

The Bible metaphorically is describing the lowest and highest states of human consciousness as they exist today across the spectrum of human beings inhabiting the planet (and as they've existed over the past several thousand years). At some point people will unfold their spiritual potentials and achieve states well beyond what the Bible speaks of.

The Bible (and the sacred books of all religions) could be understood as a mythical description of the outworkings of mortal mind (as it learns to disentangle its higher spiritual nature from the (human)mind created fiction we call ego).
Which is also descriptive of the Greek myths, among many others.

But alas, for people to move from a God who is a personality to an impersonal Principle that never does more nor less than It is always doing, takes ages in earth time.

Elaine Pagels is contributing in a small but important way to people's understanding of the origin of religion as a means to establish temporal power in the hands of a ruling priesthood, and how to bring non-individuated conformists into the fold through fear of damnation.

She's contributing to the expansion of people's awareness, so they might gain a more universal understanding of Spirit and its corrupt manifestations.

In the end, people will some day not be so much concerned with religion as the study of a so called "divine history", but will understand the essential fact that religion in its deeper sense is an individual path that involves the interpretation on the basis of inner conscious experiences of a "divine mystery".

God's grace to all.

SAME SALADA Different BOWL?

TODAY: is Universal Circa 4.98Billion,2997 years and 04 Month and 25th dia.

Short: UYC 4.98B/2007/04/25 Calandate (Grigarian).

Eclati-Ons have an EIGHT-DAYS-A-WEEK calandate.

Would you like to see?

Note: Holidays are BIG Bang Business for "The ECONomy" and the Equinox's and Soltices work out like Clock work.

remember the ABRAHAMIC Faiths evolved during the PISCES AGE or Epoch moment.

Today We are in the AQUARIUS AGE for another 27,000 year to make full circle.

Praise Eclat Day!

Michael of Bowie: Pilatus is not toast. He repented later. Remember that his wife, Procula, was a Christian.

Michael of Bowie: Pilatus is not toast. He repented later. Remember that his wife, Procula, was a Christian.

posterx - thanks for the info but if we already have a date system, and its using that same date system, why change the name? you are still using the same system. presently the world measures time by the life and death of jesus, so you still want to measure time by the life and death of jesus - you just want to give it a different name and pretend your not doing it? i could understand going with a different calendar altogether. say you want to use the jewish or islamic or any of the other ones, but to still use it and pretend you are not basing time on the life and death of jesus - well that is just nuts. nothing personal - i dont know if you use it or not. for my part if i did not want to use it i would just pick another calendar and use it - i would not give a different name to a calendar that i did not want to use. the term form over substance comes to mind.

Paul,

You wrote: But doesn't this limit God to an angry/abusive parent, who requires the death of his own, innocent son. Is justice ever accomplished by punishing the innocent for the sins of the guilty?

You sound like you have brought God down to the level of man. Here is what I have no problem accepting. Before God created anything, even the angels in Heaven, he created spiritual law. Try to see it like the laws of physics as we know them. So, spiritual law is created by God, and the reasons for each one is only known by God, and they are forever, like it or not, understand it or not.

One of the laws is, the wages of sin is death. Blood must be shed as the cost of sin. No I don't understand it but I accept it because it sounds and feels like something that only a God would come up with. Since one man (ADAM) brought sin into the world, one man (Jesus) will redeem thse sin, but the one Jesus can redeem all sin by all men combined because Jesus is God himself in the flesh. So, he is not a murderous beast. He blessed all of us by sparing us from the law of death by shedding the holy blood himself. Jesus is God in the flesh and so God shed the blood for us. Once a person accepts this concept, then it is easy to understand why sheep were slain for sin as well, back in the day. It's just one of God's laws, and only God knows why, and the rest of us will find out exactly why when we are absent from the body.

For non-believers, I know that I sound like a first class fool. I can accept that and it doesn't bother me a bit. The reason is, once I decided to accept this and not to box with God about how little sense the blood thing seems to make to my mere mortal mind, he has come through for me personally.

And in response to many of the other blogs here, we are expected to forgive everyone. No one is left out of "everyone", including homosexuals and non-beleivers. The Bible explains that people are not our problem. Instead, there are principals and powers (of Satans' domain) that bring on all the evil. People become victims of these pricipals and powers because Satan and company are powerful. They once resided in Heaven and they know and work the spiritual laws. But, but when people learn of and accept the living Word of God and spiritual law that Satan is defeated, then in the blink of the eye, we people have power over Satan on Earth. We can literally reject Satan's "stuff" in the name of Jesus because Satan knows the rules, and he must follow them. If one doesn't use the name of Jesus, Satan wins because one is not using the fact that Satan is defeated. I know, I know...I'm killing folk out there now. I'm a real lunatic. No problem.

Sort of off the track, but burning in me to repeat, I wrote in a blog weeks ago that atheists have an arrogance that cannot be exceeded. An atheist's real attitude is, if there is a Supreme Being, then he/she/it must prove itself to them before they will believe. Imagine that. Oh great powerful one who created everything, prove to me you did. So what do you say if "the Supreme Being" does prove it?

You all have a good night. I'm done for the day.

Constantine called the meeting and approved the results?

Is Pilate, although not the founder of Christianity, a "necessary accessory" ?

Along with Paul (messed up the imminent Second Coming but that "prophecy" filled the pews and the coffers)?

Along with the Jewish high priests?

Along with the divine right of emperors, popes, kings and queens?

Along with Gentile money?

Judas if he existed or played a part if he did exist would have been a very minor "necessary accessory". I rank him with Joseph of Aramathia.

With respect to the subject of religion, money and economics.

The Baptizer drew crowds and charged for the "dunking". HJ saw a good thing and continued preaching the good word but added "healing" for an added charge to include free room and board. Sure was better than being a poor peasant but he got a bit too zealous and they nailed him to a tree.

Paul picked up the money scent on the road to Damascus. He added some letters for a fee and "Gentilized" the good word to the "big
buck" world. i.e. Paul was the first media evangelist!!!

Along comes Constantine. He saw the growing rich Christian community and recognized a new tax base so he set them "free".

The Holy Roman "Empirers"/Popes/Kings/Queens et al continued the money grab selling access to JC and heaven resulting in some of today's
richest organizations on the globe i.e. the Christian churches and related aristocracies.

And there you have it, money is the real founder/foundation of Christianity and actually the foundation of all major religions.

Judas:

Christ! I know you can't hear me
But I only did what you wanted me to
Christ! I'd sell out the nation
For I have been saddled with the murder of you
I have been spattered with innocent blood
I shall be dragged through the slime and the mud
I have been spattered with innocent blood
I shall be dragged through the slime and the mud!

I don't know how to love him
I don't know why he moves me
He's a man - he's just a man
He is not a King - he's just the same
As anyone I know
He scares me so
When he's cold and dead, will he let me be?
Does he love, does he love me too?
Does he care for me?

My mind is darkness now - My God I'm sick, I've been used
And you knew all the time
God! I'll never know why you chose me for your crime
For your foul bloody crime
You have murdered me! You have murdered me!

- Jesus Christ Superstar

hey jozevz i have no idea what you are trying to say.

I have often thought this to be the case. The entire event depended on his work.

Why do you people spend sooo much of what I would presume is your valuable time speculating on the lives and thoughts of imaginary people.. "what did Santa really think about Wodin...
Sometimes I understand..Imagine being there when Zuess appeared as a swan and mounted Leda...

Get a freaking life.

Hey historian - i have no such knowledge that they were anonymous. I have never seen the originals and even if i did i would not know enough to compare handwriting and further, i can not tell if they were dictated to a scribe - and some editing was made during that process. What i do know is that what is in the new testament was approved at a time when they were closer to the events than we are now, and i just have to trust in those who made the decision. As a matter of fact i never disagree with any religious writing when it comes to what it says and that religions authority to say its acceptable to them. Each religion gets to say what their religion consists of.
Russell - say what you want but each religion has the ability to determine what its holy writings consist of. No person has the right to determine what another's religion must consist of. At this time only the various christian churches have the right to say if something is a gosepel, not you, not me, and not anyone else but that religion. Therefore, there is no gospel of judas. And how did he write it if he died at the same time as jesus?
Tonio - the above replies to you too. Each religion has the right to determine what is or is not part of its religion and i have not seen one say that all those writings you refer to is a gosepel. Want to make you own decision, start your own religion, the others are taken.
Hey norrie you are close but the lords prayor does not demand forgiveness only as we forgive others. You think that means everyone and i think it means using the same standard for judging. When we are dead we will know who is right.
And Mason, you are one of those all inclusive forgiveness and i am one of those same standard people. You want to forgive everyone everything and i don't think they are entitled to it and i named a few. There are many others, like the man that murdered those little girls in the school house a few years ago. Child molesters. Charles manson. You are entitled to your belief and others are entitled to theirs and this is one of those areas where a degree cannot make one person more correct than another.
Pacifist - in the final evaluation it is not up to me to forgive anyone for the almighty. I don't think the dead can say they are sorry to anyone and it would just be a guess on my part if they apologized or not. I don't believe that one person can apologize for someone else. I understand that the mormans believe that, but i don't. But i can only speak for me on this one. And if your asking me if someone has done me a personal wrong i can forgive them, well i frequently do. But i do not forgive for 911. I do not forgive for those who taught the making of and use of ied's. I do not forgive for blowing up grandma's and children in ice cream parlors, but then again no one has asked me about that.

WASHINGTON, DC 04-25-2007 today at Walter Reed things has not change at all just a simlpe white wash..It began as brief hallway encounter between a soldier at DC's Walter Reed Army Medical Center and Maryland Congressman Elijah Cummings, but turned into an emotional exchange about the medical mistreatment of reservists. It was when Cummings and his staff were attempting an early exit from a special congressional field hearing at the Center that Sgt. Charles Eggleston introduced himself

TAPE: (7 SECONDS):
IC: I served 14 months, in Mosul Iraq, I got blown up in by an IED and multiple mortar fire.

Sgt. Eggleston, an army reservist from Bowie, Maryland who walks with a cane and a noticeable limp, reminded Cummings that he was still waiting for a reply to the letters he had sent. Almost immediately Cummings insisted they talk in private.

TAPE: (XX SECONDS)
IC: He doesn't want you to record him

But Sgt. Eggleston said he had no problem with talking on the record

TAPE: (XX SECONDS)
IC: I don't care, listen

Cummings smiled and nodded his head but continued to edge away, but the soldier followed him and leant in close to speak...

TAPE: (XX SECONDS)
IC: " Eggleston, we bounced into each other in the Safeway out there in Columbia.
CUMMINGS: I'll take a look at it. [inaudible].
The way the system is set up here, it takes us back to 40's and 50's with segregation. The active duty and reservists and guard get treated in two different deals. If you are active duty, they'll stick you in front. And if you are reservist and guard, they'll stick you in the back. And that was pushed down by the damn command.
CUMMINGS: No doubt about it. What the army tells us is that it's not on our dime that you went over there and got messed up. The VA is in place to take care of that. And that's not the way it goes."

Even with permanent injuries to his back, legs and jaw, Sgt. Eggleston planned to continue his military career, perhaps behind a desk. But the red tape and delays in receiving treatment have forced him toward premature retirement just so he can access medical care at Veterans Administration facilities.

Prior to his resignation, Lt. General Kevin C. Kiley, the Commander of Army medical acknowledged concerns like those of Sgt. Eggleston at a Senate Armed Services Committee Hearing...

TAPE: (11 SECONDS)
IC: There clearly has been a concern among reservists and National Guard soldiers that they perceive they are not getting timely enough care quickly enough.

In response, Republican Senator John Warner of Virginia challenged military brass with a government report identifying a disparity of care between reserve and active duty soldiers....

TAPE: (14 SECONDS)
IC: We have relied upon the guard and reserve to a greater extent than I suppose ever before in the contemporary history of our military. A wound is a wound, weather it is borne by a guardsman, reservist or regular army soldier.

Warner promises to investigate the matter further. For his part, Congressman Cummings said he would look into the Sgt.'s situation. Last week, Cummings visited The Baltimore Veteran's Affairs Medical Center. He told reporters that he was impressed with the facility and the quality of care in Baltimore. But he left with concern that greater numbers of troops returning from Iraq and Afghanistan could add pressure and crack apart the fault lines that the Walter Reed scandal has uncovered in the military medical system.

TAPE: (8 SECONDS)
IC: I am going to be touring my own veteran's hospital in my district and] I am going to urge every member of Congress to do the same so we can figure out how systemic these problems are.

Back in the Hallway at Walter Reed, as Sgt. Eggleston and Congressman Cummings continued their discussion, Walter Reed staff wearing civilian clothing observed the two, listening carefully and conspicuously taking down notes...

TAPE: (18 SECONDS)
IC: The Command constantly threatens you. You talk to a reporter and you say the wrong word, that means we'll take some money out of your pocket. I will speak up for the NCO corps. What the Generals decide to do, that's their personal thing.

I'm Ben Shaw, on Capitol Hill for 88-1, WYPR.

Our reports from Capitol News Connection in Washington are made possible in part by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the W.K. Kellogg Foundation and PRI - Public Radio International.

© Copyright 2007, WYPR

This problem has not change at all

Contact this soldier at charles777@starpower.net for more infor and interviews

Ms Paigels,

From all the noise populating this "On Faith" discussion I'm glad you're the distinctive voice of reason and historical perspective. I've read all your books, and I particularly remember fondly "The Gnostic Gospels" as a book that cemented my atheism. For that I thank you.

El Blind Ve

I too have always thought it most unfortunate that Origen was branded a heretic because of his ideas that repentance and forgiveness might come posthumously.

What I find even more interesting is (what I assume to be a post modern phenomenon) the current interest in reexamining what is canonical, even if not so labeled. Rather than accepting the Church's judgment as to what picture of Jesus is "correct," people in and out of church seem interested in the pictures that didn't make the cut. I don't know if this is a good or bad thing, but it is certainly a different religious landscape from that of 50 years ago.

Why isn't anyone mentioning the fact that the so-called Gospel of Judas was not written until at least 100 years after Christ's death? Whereas the four canonical gospels were all written within one lifetime of Christ's death. That alone makes them more reliable, along with countless other reasons which caused them to be considered Canon and Judas not.

It seems obvious that Judas is not only forgivable, but forgiven. If he had not done as he did, Christ would not have been caught and crucified. Without His death, mankind would not be saved, right? So without Judas, wouldn't we all be condemned to live in hell after death? Why wouldn't we forgive him, when it is obvious he repented of his sin, and we all benefitted from his sin.

Someting strange happened. The following is my post yet it was identified as coming from "Anonymous":

Dear Mr. Mark:

Wow. Thank you. I got so caught up in my reply that I failed to notice the "hanging" word in Mathew. On the surface there does seem to be a conflict between Mathew and Acts.

I quickly ran to the internet to see what the scholars have come up with and I found a very, very interesting read at: http://www.tektonics.org/gk/judasdeath.html
Nice blogging with you. I'm out until 4:30. I will look for your reply then

Posted April 25, 2007 3:14 PM

Jozevz:

I WANT nothing to do with you!!! And it's
POSTERX" not "POSTEREX". If you're going to refer to someone, get their posted name right.

Just recently discovered this WAPO feature. Kind of nice. Sort of like the Post has its own little internet
home for the people waiting for Coast to Coast to come on later. Hoping for future discussion topics regarding probable birth weight of the Easter Bunny,
followed by learned speculation concerning the wingspan of the Tooth Fairy. Oh, almost forgot: does anyone know if that Miracle-Gro stuff is worth the money?

hey Gregor,

my response to your insightful remark: read my post at 3:46

Regarding the action of God upon the human will, I think there are many quite different considerations. I think the following is what can be said in general. God in co-operating with ordinary actions only follows the laws which he has established, that is to say, he continually preserves and produces our being so that the ideas come to us spontaneously or with freedom in that order which the concept of our individual substance carries with itself. In this concept they can be foreseen for all eternity. Furthermore, by virtue of the decree which God has made that the will shall always seek the apparent good in certain particular respects (in regard to which this apparent good always has in it something of reality expressing or imitating God's will), he, without at all necessitating our choice, determines it by that which appears most desirable. For absolutely speaking, our will as contrasted with necessity, is in a state of indifference, being able to act otherwise, or wholly to suspend its action, either alternative being and remaining possible. It therefore devolves upon the soul to be on guard against appearances, by means of a firm will, to reflect and to refuse to act or decide in certain circumstances, except after mature deliberation. It is, however, true and has been assured from all eternity that certain souls will not employ their power upon certain occasions.

But who could do more than God has done, and can such a soul complain of anything except itself? All these complaints after the deed are unjust, inasmuch as they would have been unjust before the deed. Would this soul a little before committing the sin have had the right to complain of God as though he had determined the sin. Since the determinations of God in these matters cannot be foreseen, how would the soul know that it was preordained to sin unless it had already committed the sin? It is merely a question of wishing to or not wishing to, and God could not have set an easier or juster condition. Therefore all judges without asking the reasons which have disposed a man to have an evil will, consider only how far this will is wrong. But, you object, perhaps it is ordained from all eternity that I will sin. Find your own answer. Perhaps it has not been. Now then, without asking for what you are unable to know and in regard to which you can have no light, act according to your duty and your knowledge. But, some one will object; whence comes it then that this man will assuredly do this sin? The reply is easy. It is that otherwise he would not be a man. For God foresees from all time that there will be a certain Judas, and in the concept or idea of him which God has, is contained this future free act. The only question, therefore, which remains is why this certain Judas, the betrayer who is possible only because of the idea of God, actually exists. To this question, however, we can expect no answer here on earth excepting to say in general that it is because God has found it good that he should exist notwithstanding that sin which he foresaw. This evil will be more than overbalanced. God will derive a greater good from it, and it will finally turn out that this series of events in which is included the existence of this sinner, is the most perfect among all the possible series of events. An explanation in every case of the admirable economy of this choice cannot be given while we are sojourners on earth. It is enough to know the excellence without understanding it. It is here that must be recognized altitudinem divitiarum, the unfathomable depth of the divine wisdom, without hesitating at a detail which involves an infinite number of considerations. It is clear, however, that God is not the cause of ill. For not only after the loss of innocence by men, has original sin possessed the soul, but even before that there was an original limitation or imperfection in the very nature of all creatures, which rendered them open to sin and able to fall. There is, therefore, no more difficulty in the supralapsarian view than there is in the other views of sin. To this also, it seems to me can be reduced the opinion of Saint Augustine and of other authors: that the root of evil is in the negativity, that is to say, in the lack or limitation of creatures which God graciously remedies by whatever degree of perfection it pleases him to give. This grace of God, whether ordinary or extraordinary has its degrees and its measures. It is always efficacious in itself to produce a certain proportionate effect and furthermore it is always sufficient not only to keep one from sin but even to effect his salvation, provided that the man co-operates with that which is in him. It has not always, however, sufficient power to overcome the inclination, for, if it did, it would no longer be limited in any way, and this superiority to limitations is reserved to that unique grace which is absolutely efficacious. This grace is always victorious whether through its own self or through the congruity of circumstances.

"ce" may stand for "Common Era". It is COMMONLY an alternative name for the Gregorian calendar.

hey, what is this ce date? what calendar is it. its not jewish, and not islamic, and not or shinto, or budhist, or even hindu? i have never even seen an egyptian date using ce. so what is it and how do we sync it with bc and ad?

Anonymous:

Homework assignment: WHO wrote scripture? "There's an approximate length given for the captivity in Egypt." HMMM... "approximate"?????????? Why take the BIBLE at face value?

DEMOS:

There is STILL oral tradition!! How do you think URBAN myths come about!?!? HMMMMMM.....

How do you PEOPLE think that misunderstandings come about?? From PEOPLE saying THINGS!!! Untrue THINGS!! REPENT!!

The BIBLE was written by MAN. Infallible MEN?? Point out a man/woman that HAS never made any mistakes. Keep in mind, beauty is in the EYE of the beholder. REPENT!!

So much superstition even in supposedly a modern society like ours!

Amazing.

No wonder our country is engaged in a useless war that is killing tens of thousands and exiling so 100000 from their homes every month while the ignorants at home quibble about events that happened 2000 years ago and are of little relevance to major issues of the day.

First, no, these newly discovered 'gospels" don't shake anything. I believe only in the Gospels that are in the canon of the Christian church.

Secondly, it is not my place to forgive Judas Iscariot. I hold him no grudge, though I have, from reading my Bible, no positive view of him.

As to whether he is "forgivable?"--I refer all to two passages in the Bible--Matthew 26:24 and John 17:12 (KJV). To me, after reading these passages, it is somewhat obvious as to Judas Iscariot's standing and fate in the eyes of God.

Someone asked: "Does God need forgiving?" That is a silly secular humanist statement if ever there was one. God is Holy--He does the forgiving. Never are we, His creations, in the position to judge Him or His actions--let alone forgive Him.

Terry L. Walker

PosterX, you've got no style with your capitalization. Take a lesson from Jozevz. Heather, I like the "madman with style" description Heather.

POSTERX, the PHOTONS are not with you.

Wow! In all the blogs and discussion groups I visit thoroughout the week, none are as filled with vitriol and venom as the one's I find in blogs devoted to religion and faith. And my religious friends wonder why I believe that while faith is a beautiful thing and can lift us above the human condition, religion does nothing but drag us all down into the mud. I am going to laugh my a** off if there is a true self-awareness afterlife and God is a small, brown Eurasian child standing at the gates of Heaven, seperating out those who need a good spanking first before they're allowed to enter! Forgiveness indeed :-) BE NICE TO EACH OTHER!

"I guess you NEVER heard of an oral tradition. YES? REPENT!!"

Aahhhh - an oral tradition, is it? Predating Abraham? Wonderful - works for the generations from Abraham to Moses.

REPENT!!!!!

First, bravo to all those who see Ms. Pagels for what she truly is...a heretic trying to pimp a few books.

Second, one need not look to any purported "gospel" according to Judas, nor resort to any of the various and sundry opinions found on this blog to know the fate of Judas.

According to one of the real Gospels, that being the one according to Matthew, Jesus himself says of the one who dips his bread in the dish at the same time as he (that, of course, being Judas)...

"But woe unto that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! It had been good for that man if he had not been born."

If the Son of God says that you would have been better off not having been born, then I don't see where this leaves a whole lot of room for speculation and debate.

Jim wrote:
But the name Judas for Christians -- especially when combined with notions of betrayal and treachery -- becomes the archtype of the evil Jews.

As a Christian the above claim is pure falsehood. Anti-Semitism runs counter to true Christianity (even if some Christians are anti-Semitic). The Jews were God's Chosen People that he used to start his relationship with all of us

John 4:22
You Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews.

Roy, first, even "Christian extremists" try to forgive all sins, including homosexuality (disagreement that it is a sin is an entirely different point). It is their Christian identity that allows them to forgive the sinner but rebuke the sin. "Moderate" christians who are fine with any sort of sin are not practicing forgiveness, they ar being lukewarm, read Revelations on what God thinks about lukewarm churches.

Second, no one is worrying about forgiving Judas, it is God who deals with him, Christians have to forgive and love their neighbor and their enemies and all who trespass against them. It is merely a point for discussion

POSTERX, you're not even trying any more.

(And capitalizing CAME isn't even interesting)

Homework assignment. You can work out the chronology for Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Joseph from scripture. There's an approximate length given for the captivity in Egypt.

Good night, good luck . . .

Candide,

You wrote: Judas is the Greek transliteration of the Hebrew name Yehudah, who was one of the 12 sons of Jacob. Jew comes from Judaea, the province in which the Israelite monarchy survived the longest, where 2 of the 12 tribes lived. But the name Judas for Christians -- especially when combined with notions of betrayal and treachery -- becomes the archtype of the evil Jews.

I agree completely with you. Your comment is only correct up to a point, though: Judea is also the Greek from the Hebrew "Yehuda". In fact, the area of Judea was called "Yehuda" back then and modern Israelis continue to refer to this area (now in the West Bank) as "Yehuda". The Hebrew word for Jew is "Yehudi" and plural "Yehudim", which as you pointed out, comes from the portion of the Israelite monarchy that survived the longest (historically, the home of the tribe of descendants from Judah). The term "Jew" is a much, much later transliteration.

DEMOS:

I guess you NEVER heard of an oral tradition. YES? REPENT!!

Each good story must have a villain.

Until Christian extremists can forgive gays and those of other religions, it is quite preposterous for them to worry about forgiving poor dead Judas.

"Why would the Jewish leaders admit that this was money spent to shed innocent blood? The Bible reports that the Sanhedrin brought false witnesses against Jesus, and that some members walked out of the proceedings to protest their illegality. It's obvious that the Sanhedrin knew the charges were false and that they were condemning an innocent man. But having gone through that exercise and gotten their pound of flesh, why now say to all the world the shedding Jesus' blood was shedding innocent blood? One would think that if the Sanhedrin was as evil as the Bible portrays them that they would hardly have had the moral wherewithall to falsely condemn Jesus one day, then turn around the very next day and admit that they condemned an innocent man by turning down the return of the money that they had given Judas to betray Jesus."

If you read the gospels carefully, there's some interesting political stuff going on. It appears that the High Priest felt it necessary for Jesus to die to avoid trouble with Rome. It's entirely possible for a man of that time to make the expedient decision to railroad an innocent to avoid trouble with an occupying army, but be unwilling to ritually defile the temmple treasury with blood money. (Not that different from a terrorist being completely comfortable blowing up innocent children, but horrified by the idea of eating non-Halal meat).

DEMOS:

"Moses then died at the age of 120." If Moses lived to the age of 120, WOULDN'T it be fair that the others that CAME before him also lived as long or longer? "According to the Genealogies of Genesis, Adam died at the age of 930."

To Jean on Christian forgiveness...

The Parable of the Unmerciful Servant

Matthew 18

21Then Peter came to Jesus and asked, "Lord, how many times shall I forgive my brother when he sins against me? Up to seven times?"
22Jesus answered, "I tell you, not seven times, but seventy-seven times.[f]

23"Therefore, the kingdom of heaven is like a king who wanted to settle accounts with his servants. 24As he began the settlement, a man who owed him ten thousand talents[g] was brought to him. 25Since he was not able to pay, the master ordered that he and his wife and his children and all that he had be sold to repay the debt.

26"The servant fell on his knees before him. 'Be patient with me,' he begged, 'and I will pay back everything.' 27The servant's master took pity on him, canceled the debt and let him go.

28"But when that servant went out, he found one of his fellow servants who owed him a hundred denarii.[h] He grabbed him and began to choke him. 'Pay back what you owe me!' he demanded.

29"His fellow servant fell to his knees and begged him, 'Be patient with me, and I will pay you back.'

30"But he refused. Instead, he went off and had the man thrown into prison until he could pay the debt. 31When the other servants saw what had happened, they were greatly distressed and went and told their master everything that had happened.

32"Then the master called the servant in. 'You wicked servant,' he said, 'I canceled all that debt of yours because you begged me to. 33Shouldn't you have had mercy on your fellow servant just as I had on you?' 34In anger his master turned him over to the jailers to be tortured, until he should pay back all he owed.

35"This is how my heavenly Father will treat each of you unless you forgive your brother from your heart."

BTW TO HUGENOT: im interested, what is the verse in Isaiah that u describe that God's ways and thoughts are not ours,

Point of clarification - my last message was in response to POSTERX (yes, I know - I should know better than that).

Thousands? Really? Do you want to hazard a guess at the approximate dates for the lives of Abraham and Moses? Or a guess at the chronology suggested by the books of Genesis and Exodus?

Let me ask you a trivia question. What about Enoch? (Descendent of Adam through Seth, and anscestor of Noah.) Was he pleasing to God? How did he manage that without a BIBLE?

Give me a good answer to that one, and then we'll talk about the generations between Abraham and Moses.

I can't believe I wasted my time and read this... and the rants from a buch of idiots who pay attention to this crap.

MrMark, forgive me seriously, Im sorry, but your "if the Bible were real then the Sanhedrin should have said this or that" completely made me fall of my chair laughing...sorry for the glib comments,

"Interesting. Just how helpful do you think it is to observe superficial little customs like this while riduculing people?

And what custom explains your capitalization patterns? I haven't seen anything quite like it since reading the corny signs at our last Renaissance festival."

I do NOT riducule people. I tell them to stop WORSHIPPING a false idol and to REPENT!! The CUSTOM OF RANDOM CAPITALIZATION!! HAHAHA.

Anonymous wrote:
"I may be a woman MrMArk, oh ye who has everything figured out"

Hey, your gender identity problems may be linked to the fact that you can't even come up with a screen name to distinguish you from the myriad Anonymi who blog here.

BTW - No one purports to have figured everything out. We're having a discussion here. I'm posing a question based on what I learned from an article that someone else suggested I read. I assume you didn't bother reading the article. That's fine, but don't expect your glib comments to be given any weight if you're content to treat the discussions on this blog as a spectator sport.

Demos:

What about the TIME in between Abraham and Moses? They were without a BIBLE for (thousands?) years!! REPENT!!

""(pbuh)" stands for Peace Be Upon Him. When writing/speaking ABOUT the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), you say Peace Be Upon Him. It is generally an acronym when written. That is the custom of Muslims. Only fair to follow CUSTOMS."

Interesting. Just how helpful do you think it is to observe superficial little customs like this while riduculing people?

And what custom explains your capitalization patterns? I haven't seen anything quite like it since reading the corny signs at our last Renaissance festival.

"(pbuh)" stands for Peace Be Upon Him. When writing/speaking ABOUT the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), you say Peace Be Upon Him. It is generally an acronym when written. That is the custom of Muslims. Only fair to follow CUSTOMS.

Jean,

you're right - we are nowhere commanded to be either fools or patsies. We are forbidden to retaliate against people who harm us, and we're commanded to love people who hate us.

Forgiveness has several dimensions. One is giving up hatred, bitterness and revenge. We can do that whether or not someone asks for forgiveness and changes (though it can be harder if they don't).

Another is restoring the relationship that was broken - and we can't do that unilaterally.

Do we "forget?" In a sense, yes. In another, no, we don't. Let's say my wife becomes addicted to prescription painkillers, and as a result does some things that seriously damage our family and marriage. Should I forgive her? Yes - and get her some help. Should I hold a grudge, and keep throwing her failings back in her face? No. But should I remember that she has had a problem with substance abuse, and be sensitive to avoiding anything that might contribute to a relapse? Yes.

Bottom line, I should do everything I can to restore our relationship, and to act in a way that's in her true best interests.

tyler wrote:

You all are a joke and miss completely the teachings of Jesus. Jesus was of the meek. His people were the infected and the poor. You all are hypocrites.

While the world strives to, apparently we are not the only ones who dont understand the teachings of Jesus

You all make me laugh. I would have respect for religion if it wasn't based in selfishness and greed. Wake up sheep. You only care about yourselves - and finding a way into some fictional place called heaven. You have no idea what you are talking about, and lack any originality. I would have more respect for you all, generally speaking, if you found your way to Christianity. Unfortunately, most of you, like the majority of lunatics in this country were brain washed by your friends and family. You all are a joke and miss completely the teachings of Jesus. Jesus was of the meek. His people were the infected and the poor. You all are hypocrites.

I may be a woman MrMArk, oh ye who has everything figured out

Anonymous wrote:

"Proverbs 18:2
A fool finds no pleasure in understanding but delights in airing his own opinions."

It takes a big person to prove their point at their own expense, and you have done so selflessly and brilliantly.

Thanks, Anon. You're a better man than I.

http://shopngvideos.com/products/the_gospel_of_judas

Good show...everyone should watch it.

Why has nobody mentioned that the Bible itself tells us the only unforgivable sin is blaspheming the Holy Spirit? So Judas could have been forgiven. Was/is he? There's the question. Can we ever answer it? It's worth noting as we debate this that Isaiah teaches us that God's thoughts are not our thoughts and God's ways are not our ways.

Norrie,

I see you are still here blabbering about crusades, witch-burning and all the typical complaints.

How is it that you can spend all day, everyday on here? No life? Still angry at the world - I mean Christians?

Being a bigot is hard and angry work...perhaps you need a vacation?

POSTERX,

as a thought experiment, let's consider what would happen if there were to be one or more divinely inspired teachers. They would, presumably, teach. If divinely inspired, they would also presumably be pretty good at it, and someone would want to preserve what they taught.

There would also be others who would want to hijack their legacy for one reason or another. Eventually, you'd get spurious books and letters (heck, we even got a fake biography of Howard Hughes).

Ultimately, anyone who was seriously interested in what the original teachers had to say would have to go through something like the canonization process - they'd have to sort out the genuine from the spurious. Judaism went through a similar process, as did Islam.

I'm sensing that you simply don't accept the possibility of inspiration. Fine - you don't have to. But there's nothing suspicious about the compilation of the New Testament. Christians who took the legacy of Jesus and the apostles seriously took a lot of time trying to separate the wheat out from the chaff.

Just out of curiosity, what did you mean by "(pbuh)" ?

Mr MArk
A more-likely response from the Sanhedrin would have been to insist that Judas keep the money, and to try to convince him that he had done the right thing from a scriptural point of view...and that Jesus' blood was hardly innocent.

Oh you really get it....please tell us more what the Sanhedrin in Jerusalem 2000 years ago would have said.....

Proverbs 18:2
A fool finds no pleasure in understanding but delights in airing his own opinions.

I have had this conversation with several different people recently. I suppose I don't completely understand the Biblical concept of "forgiveness" because I think there are certain acts which you will never and should never forget. If you cannot forget it, and you don't 100% trust this person again, then I don't know where "forgiveness" fits in. Not forgetting does not mean "wishing ill". It just means to me that, in all the Bible, there is no Commandment: Thou shalt be a patsy. Not forgetting treachery seems to be a prudent thing to do. And surely common sense is one of the "talents" that we are to use and not bury in a hole in the ground.

I respectfully submit that Mr. Frank Collims posting reflects all that is wrong with religion, and therefore violates the fundamental principals of compassion and yes, foregiveness.

What Mr. Collims is left with is blaming others for their sins, and this blaming not only consumes his personality, but it pollutes his religious beliefs with ungodly ideas. A better approach would be to understand that each human mind is enveloped in a myriad of issues, for which we are not to judge or blame.

As for horrific crimes and prosecution of criminals, there is the concept of justice, but then there is also vengeance and revenge. The former results in peace and acceptance, the latter begets only more violence and hatred. Stop the violence and hatred by controlling your feelings for vengeance and revenge. It is a personal matter that affects us all.

All of this is conjecture and hearsay - no one even knows for sure who wrote the bible, and it has been translated too many times to be completely accurate and/or true to the 'original' - which no one will ever be able to tell what was 'original'.

Anonymous -

Thanks for the link to the article at tektonics. It leads me to ask this question:

Why did the Jewish religious leaders turn their noses up at Judas returning the 30 pieces of silver? The Bible (and the article you referenced) say it was because the money was tied to the shedding of "innocent blood."

Why would the Jewish leaders admit that this was money spent to shed innocent blood? The Bible reports that the Sanhedrin brought false witnesses against Jesus, and that some members walked out of the proceedings to protest their illegality. It's obvious that the Sanhedrin knew the charges were false and that they were condemning an innocent man. But having gone through that exercise and gotten their pound of flesh, why now say to all the world the shedding Jesus' blood was shedding innocent blood? One would think that if the Sanhedrin was as evil as the Bible portrays them that they would hardly have had the moral wherewithall to falsely condemn Jesus one day, then turn around the very next day and admit that they condemned an innocent man by turning down the return of the money that they had given Judas to betray Jesus.

I would assume that Judas would have gone back to the very same people who gave him the 30 pieces in any attempt to return the money. A more-likely response from the Sanhedrin would have been to insist that Judas keep the money, and to try to convince him that he had done the right thing from a scriptural point of view...and that Jesus' blood was hardly innocent.

Beyond this, the article you reference doesn't resolve the differences between the two versions of the story and basically rejects many of the arguments that have been put forward to homogenize the divergent stories into a single narrative.

At least none of the explanations aver that Judas was born of a virgin.

Demos:

The "POOF" comes from MEN deciding what went into the BIBLE. MEN!! Not God. No PROPHET had a BIBLE made in their lifetime. It only came after them. No Moses, JESUS, Muhammad (pbuh). Nothing until AFTER!! REPENT!!

I would like to revisit my previous post. I don’t think that Judas’s betrayal was a necessary requirement of Christianity. You might say that Jesus had it coming and by His teachings acquired some powerful enemies. He would be arrested and executed sooner or later with or without Judas’s input. Judas appears to me a somewhat accidental figure. If his name were deleted from the Gospels entirely, their message would not change.

Considering that mortals (known to mess up) chose the gospels and started various franchises on a church that Jesus never asked for, one might focus on how what they believe translates into God's purpose and meaning in their own lives, rather than trying Judas over the Internet?

Why then in the Gospel of John does Jesus tell his mother that the "disciple whom he loved" will take care of her. Why then at the end of the Gospel of John does the "disciple whom he loved" not committ suicide but Jesus says in essence he will live until Jesus decides his time is up? Why then is this part of the Orthodox narrative and not of the mainstream. This should be made part of a narrative of forgiveness.

" Over 300 years, no CANONIZATION. Then poof. A BIBLE of selected stories as INSPIRATION! "

What do you think canonization is? A huge editorial meeting where everyone says "look guys, we gotta get our storyline straight . . . what's the basic plot premise gonna be . . . who's our target audience . . . who are the key protagonists gonna be . . . do we need a villain . . . " then make writing assignments and go off to create what's in essence a multi-volume novel?

Beginning with the late first century there were a number of documents circulating among the early churches. Some were gospels, others were letters to various churches, some were instructional (like the Didache) and others had still other forms (such as the Acts of the Apostles). Some were more widely circulated than others, so the mix of documents used varied somewhat from region to region. Some were recognized as inspired and authoritative, and others were not.

The process of canonization was a gradual one, and involved comming to a general consensus about which documents were authoritative due to their authenticity and inspiration. Some books were almost universally accepted among mainstream Christianity from a very early date (e.g., the canonical gospels and Acts). Others, such as the Epistle of James, were widely used in some churches but not others - and were eventually accepted as canonical (James was widely used among Jewish Christians, but not among gentile congregations). Still others, such as the Didache and the Shepherd of Hermas, were widely used in the early church, but the ultimate consensus was that they were not inspired.

This was a lengthy process - there was no "POOF" - and one that we can reconstruct fairly well. No conspiracy was involved - and the New Testament was definitely not constructed by Constantine.

It is absolutely amazing how much people can talk about something that they no scant little about.

Diego, says who?

There is NO forgiveness. ONLY Repentance!!!

Whether or not Judas is in hell right now is not known by any person. We do not know if anyone who suicided (jumped off a bridge, hung him/herself), in such a way that Judas did and in present day, has gone straight to hell. Only God knows what happens the split second before a person dies. If in that second before death, a person truly repents, I believe as well as other priests, that person could have been forgiven. Although it is too late to turn around and save oneself when falling off a bridge or hanging on a noose, a person may have asked for God's forgiveness in the end. The Church did (or should) not condemn anyone to hell based on actions that PEOPLE see. NO ONE in this world KNOWS.
As for Saints, a person must have done at least three miracles (of some sort) to be officially called a saint in the Catholic Church as well as some other regulations and critia.

Bob D wrote:
Is this really worth all the silly discussion? It's all a myth. What a huge waste of time! It's like arguing whether Zeus wore boxers or briefs.

What is the point of those who frequent these On Faith only to post simpleton statments akin to "you guys are fools God doesn't exist and Jesus wears combat boots!" OK, thank you for that opinion and for not contributing anything to the discussion.

The topic is Judas, forgiveness, etc. To all the jokers who are posting simpleton statements that have ZERO value and think they're really clever I have news for you: All youv'e accomplished is eliciting feelings of disgust from intelligent people (religious AND atheist).

Or to put it into terms you may prefer...YOU STINK WAWWAWAWA!!!

If Judas was actually assisting Jesus in carrying out his mission, what does that suggest about the role of the Jews? The Jews have been for centuries also been regarded as the agents of Satan for turning Jesus over to the Romans for punishment. Yet if this is the mission of Jesus, then they also assisted. Or are the Jews the ones who are really unforgiveable here?

If Judas was actually assisting Jesus in carrying out his mission, what does that suggest about the role of the Jews? The Jews have been for centuries also been regarded as the agents of Satan for turning Jesus over to the Romans for punishment. Yet if this is the mission of Jesus, then they also assisted. Or are the Jews the ones who are really unforgiveable here?

Michael of Bowie--

"Jesus was appointed to die to redeem us." I too was raised on this sacrificial/satisfaction theory of Jesus' death and the description of the "suffering servant" in Isaiah 53. But doesn't this limit God to an angry/abusive parent, who requires the death of his own, innocent son. Is justice ever accomplished by punishing the innocent for the sins of the guilty?

I would recommend a more historical/critical interpretation in which Jesus was put to death by the authorities of this world and, by extension, us. In this scheme, Judas' role as betrayer is entirely plausible given the unwillingness of the authorities to arrest Jesus while he was protected by the crowds of Passover. There's no need to worry about whether Judas was predestined to betray Jesus.

Dr. Pagels has a "dog in this fight" and has had ever since her affirmation that the Gnostic Gospels were original Christian thought rather than derivations from the gospel tradition. Consequently, her musings on our troubled Iscariot--even the implication raised by Origen, which deals not with Judas as the theme but on repentance and forgiveness--carry a defined bias: the Gnostics of the late 2nd and early 3rd centuries were Christians! None of this material is new. It was treated some 1700 years ago and again during the course of the 20th century (we will not mention the Medieval legends that went hand-in-hand with the Magdalene romances), further it actually obscures the central thematic on Judas and its redactic utility: simple knowledge of the Savior is not sufficient to ensure salvation.

The "gospel" of Judas is as much a fantasy as the funerary box of Jesus...which of course does little to dissuade the "vested interests" ever after publicity and its concommitant pieces of silver.

De wrote:

"Forgiveness is a charitable act, as God forgives us, we are to forgive others...do unto you as others do unto you...so forth and so on.

Who truly benefits from forgiveness? The forgiven? Not likely, their sin or crime or misstep or whatever is still with them, never to be gone."

Agree with the first point, disagree with the second. When God forgives, he forgets,(Hebrews 8:12, For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more). Forgiveness of sins leads to a Christian being born again (not talking about evangelical "born again"), God's forgiveness washes us clean

7 Cleanse me with hyssop, and I will be clean;
wash me, and I will be whiter than snow. Psalms 51:7

Bob D.:

I think Zeus was naked under that toga.

Jozevz is a madman with style.

His posts are without a doubt the strangest things I have ever read - and my dad was paranoid schizophrenic.

Is this really worth all the silly discussion? It's all a myth. What a huge waste of time! It's like arguing whether Zeus wore boxers or briefs.

Forgiveness is a selfish act, it is never a gift. It has nothing to do with the forgiven but absolutely everything to do with the forgiver.

This is not rocket science. I don't understand why so many get it backward.

No one "deserves" forgiveness or is there anyone "undeserving" of forgiveness.

Forgiveness is a charitable act, as God forgives us, we are to forgive others...do unto you as others do unto you...so forth and so on.

Who truly benefits from forgiveness? The forgiven? Not likely, their sin or crime or misstep or whatever is still with them, never to be gone.

The forgiver by the act of forgiveness can clear mind & soul of the crime/sin/misstep/whatever forever.

Is that clear now?

A request for more "arping":

An explanation and the results so far:

There is not enough apologizing, repenting and "penancing" ("arping") e.g. The Catholic Church should start "arping" for claiming it is the one true religion. Ditto for Islam. Ditto for Mormons.

The Catholic Church should start "arping" for the Inquisition and the treatment of Jews. Islam should start "arping" for the militant and anti-female passages in their Koran.

"Luke:

Whites should start "arping" for treatment of blacks and native americans. Protestants and Catholics should "arp" for everything they've done to each other in Ireland. America should "arp" for Hiroshima and Nagasaki". England should "arp" for Dresden. Actually, while we are at it, we should quit our jobs, and "arp" until everyone has covered all of their own history, and then our kids won't have to.

"Andrea:

Should all people from the offending country "arp," or just those in power when it happened?

Christians!! Repent!! For you are following a FALSE idol. A plastic figurine. If JESUS died for our sins then why is there still baptism? If JESUS took our sins then why do we NEED to be baptised for sins that DO NOT exist!? Repent!! If God became JESUS from God then why did he, if God already knew of our sufferings? Why did the BIBLE come together after CHRIST JESUS? Over 300 years, no CANONIZATION. Then poof. A BIBLE of selected stories as INSPIRATION! Repent!! Come let us drink a toast to our fallen comrades and freeze our spaghetti.

SPEED 123,

Glad to see you racing around these threads again.

With Christians like you, we don't need any Satanists galloping around in these posts.

Regards.

Judas was an essential pawn and Jesus would be/was the first to forgive him. He was just playing out his role. Without the betrayal, there would have been no cruxifiction...no cruxifiction, no resurrection...no dying for sins...none of the stuff that Christians hold so dear. Somebody had to do it....

...but, in reading the posts already made, at least a dozen others recognize the same point...

As to tornadoes and infant deaths...the principle is covered under Theodacy (why bad things happen to good people). The Catholics, with a twist of logic I find hard to follow with a straight face, use theodacy to rationalize God, demonstrate free will, and place blame on people who choose to stand in the way of bad weather...and atheists use theodacy to disprove God...but it's a good question, anyway. In the book (by a rabbi whose name I can't recall) by the same title (WBTHTGP), speculates that maybe God isn't all-powerful and some things are beyond his/her/its control. I can light a bonfire in a dry forest and 'create' the resulting forest fire...doesn't mean I can put it out.

Att: (((((( Jozevz )))))) TubuLAR!

Why NO wOW for CYBER WORLD? Her PHOTONismalism is danker than THOU?! Rejoice, for the UPPER BAND of the galactica is WITH YOU.

A new poetic form has been built.

I followed the link to the discussion of Judas's death and Acts and Matthew's Gospel, very interesting reading. A far cry from the claim that one version should be believed over another Mr Mark.

you forgot to add:

Jesus the Son of God, the Savior
Holy Bible

Dear Mr. Mark:

Wow. Thank you. I got so caught up in my reply that I failed to notice the "hanging" word in Mathew. On the surface there does seem to be a conflict between Mathew and Acts.

I quickly ran to the internet to see what the scholars have come up with and I found a very, very interesting read at: http://www.tektonics.org/gk/judasdeath.html
Nice blogging with you. I'm out until 4:30. I will look for your reply then

For added discussion about the historical Jesus and Judas, see http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html

A synopsis: (again, note that three of these NT exegetes are members of the On Faith panel)

:Jesus the Myth: Heavenly Christ
Earl Doherty
Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy

Jesus the Myth: Man of the Indefinite Past
Alvar Ellegård
G. A. Wells

Jesus the Hellenistic Hero
Gregory Riley

Jesus the Revolutionary
Robert Eisenman

Jesus the Wisdom Sage
John Dominic Crossan
Robert Funk
Burton Mack
Stephen J. Patterson

Jesus the Man of the Spirit
Marcus Borg
Stevan Davies
Geza Vermes

Jesus the Prophet of Social Change
Richard Horsley
Hyam Maccoby
Gerd Theissen

Jesus the Apocalyptic Prophet
Bart Ehrman
Paula Fredriksen
Gerd Lüdemann
John P. Meier
E. P. Sanders

Jesus the Savior
Luke Timothy Johnson
Robert H. Stein
N. T. Wright

Dr. Pagels points out the Judas may hab bin part of a planned conspousy by The Teacher himself.

This gospel of Judas is not part of the Holy bible and was condemned by Catholics as being nostic, evil.

Shooter at VT was evil. Jesus did not tell him to shoot. Satin told him to shoot.

I am sure Jesus forgave him. Who else could. On da cross at Calvery, my Savior said, "Forgive bexcause the no not what they do".

I think it is evil to suggest the shooter be forgiven. He is burning in Hell now.

Tom D.
Houston, Tx.

Jesus welcomed and served Judas at the Passover table, even though he knew Judas was to betray him. You're welcome to disagree with me on this, but I believe therein lies Judas's forgiveness. Where, then, do so-called Christian churches today get off denying Communion to anyone, regardless of their real or imagined offense to society, as long as they desire to follow Jesus?

I agree Dave. Humility is the heart of Christian faith. I read today something beautiful. Jesus said that physical blindness is much better than spiritual blindness because the blind man at least knows he cannot see.

When you come to know the creator of this world in a personal way, when you have known Jesus Christ as the Son of GOD, when you have seen on a personal baises the healing hand of GOD with 4 healings in ones own family. When you come to see good and bad, then know how to select good over bad because you KNOW Truth. It is sad to see follow humans fall into the trap of unbelief because they choose to follow the father of lies. What truth is in a lie? Talk about the highlights of how very fragile un-belief is?
Truth cannot change otherwise it was never true to begin with? ...where does that leave you...?

In a world where truth is gone with the wind. I thank GOD for my personal understanding of HIM through HIS WORDS of Truth.
There is a worldly dogma, one that tries to take GOD out of the picture. One that says just be man and get along with others. And when you die, and when you'er gone there'll be one child left to carry on?

Do you really believe lies? How sad it is for some to cling desperatly to those very winds shifting and changing, full of uncertain doctrines? GOD who created all, longs that none of us should perish that all should come to forgiveness to everlasting life.

The opposite of truth is lie.
"When you run from truth you head for the opposite, that's no lie!"
So choose "life" or choose "death", but for me and my house we will serve GOD!

Well, you may be a bit muddled by it all. I am not. This kind of fogginess, navel-gazing and existential second guessing is what is destroying mainline Christianity. Pastors who learn this kind of stuff go on to tired, stale churchs that go through the motions. I know, there are plenty of those kind around. You want to see the future of Christinaity? It is not being taught by the deep thinkers in our divinity schools like Princeton. It is alive, well and vibrant in house churches, Bible studies, and prayer groups. The Spirit does move amongst believers and I am sorry that so many 'wise' people will not cling to Jesus. Funny thing, Paul and Jesus both had something to say about the fate of the wise and the proud. I'll just settle for being a fool.

I just have one question for the author I see from your credentials that you are referred to as a religious scholar however, I am curious to know if you are a believer? Do you know Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior?

"Mere Christianity" is rubbish. Appealing on the surface if you don't bother to think his arguments through, so I guess it's reassuring to believers in their moments of doubt.

I think that instead of representing Evil personified, Judas represents moral weakness personified.

"It is based on the Slavonic version of Josephus' History of the Fall of Jerusalem."

Huh? We're talking about a theory that depends on a particular reading of a book written to explain the Jewish people to ancient Romans - and that reading only shows up in the Slavonic translation of the book?

That's a bit like trying to explain Lincoln's motivations during the U.S. Civil War by analyzing a German translation of the Gettysburg address - and coming up with a theory that doesn't work if you use the English text!

We're grasping at straws here, guys.

Forgiveness is not for the person we are forgiving. Take the Va Tech tragedy. I have heard some parents forgive the killer. They aren't doing it so much to make him feel better are they. No, they are letting go of resentment which only eats a person up. Jesus was a sacrifice, not really same thing as forgiveness. He took the place of all the sacrifices people were making thinking that set them right with God. God said that wasn't my intention when I asked for sacrifice. He wanted us to not be focused on getting forgiveness, but giving love to one another. Resentment binds the heart, while forgiveness frees it. I don't have any resentment towards Judas because I know that it really didn't matter whether it was him or someone else. Jesus did what he came to earth to do, and God was in complete control of it. Evil looses everytime. I read some kid wrote a on memorial for a killed friend - Even death cannot defeat love. We'll miss you, but you will stay in our hearts.

As Christians we can forgive Judas even if God did not forgive him. It is an irrelevant argument on whether we should forgive him or not. "Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us". Judas did not trespass against us he trespassed against God, therefore it is God who chooses to forgive or not.

The reason God cant forgive Judas is that Judas felt only remorse about his crime but did not repent and seek forgiveness (and the peace that follows) from God. An amazing parallel to Judas's situation is Peter. Peter also betrayed Christ and felt remorse just like Judas. The difference is that he repented and accepted the peace God gave him in return.

An important element in Christianity presents itself here. Guilt over one's sins can lead to different roads. One can (like Peter) feel guilt about one's sins and then repent TO God, who in turn (due to Christ's death and resurrection) would forgive one's sin and the person would be washed clean and find peace with himself and God (reconciliation as St.Paul describes it).

Alternatively, one can feel bad about one's sin, feel hate towards himself and God sometimes. This self-loathing renders one to believe he is incapable or undeserved of forgiveness, thus never repenting TO God and seeking forgiveness and God's peace in return. And thus one moves further and further away from the Father.

Peter and Judas are two sides from the same coin of humanity. Both sinned, both betrayed Christ yet one repented and sought the peace granted by Christ while the other's remorse and guilt and self-hate pushed him to end his life that he deemed worthless.

As Christians we sometimes fail to reconcile the concept of humility and the verse "love thy neighbor AS THY SELF". Self-loathing is un-Christian, recognizing and declaring one's sins to God and accepting His forgiveness is what grants us Christ's peace.

Why are you people taking the bait????

Is is just scam for Pagels to sell books and stir up drama a la the Da Vinci, the Tomb of Jesus, Gnostic Gospels etc. etc.

These people care as much about serious discussions religion as Al Sharpton cares about serious discussions on race.

Pagels is part of the psydo-theory drama group that has made a cottage industry out of this crap!!!

Isn't that right, $Pagels$ ???

The point has already been made that all the disciples betrayed Jesus, with the exception of John. He alone among the disciples was at the cross. Unlike the other disciples - particularly Peter (John 21:15-19) - Judas didn't repent and seek reconciliation. Some seem to think that forgiveness exists in a vacuum, and overlook the other components of forgiveness: confession, apology, and repentance on the part of the wrong-doer. And Judas is not unique in the Bible - what about Cain? Achan? Saul? There are many others who admitted what they did was wrong, but for whatever reason did not repent, and instead sought to justify themselves.

Candide,

again, I disagree with you. There's a tremendous "paper trail" for mainstream Christianity that includes not just the canonical New Testament books, but the non-canonical books that were considered for inclusion in the canon (such as the Didache and the Shepherd of Hermas) and the writings of the pre-Nicene fathers. The beliefs of the Gnostics are not some modern discovery (thought they have been re-popularizid); they've been known to serious students of religion for centuries. While active debate continued over some books, the majority of New Testament books were accepted by almost all mainstream Christians by the middle of the seoncd century.

Don't make too much of the equivalence between the Greek "Judas" and the Hebrew "Judah" - Judas Iscariot isn't the only Judas in the New Testament. We're dealing with a fairly common name for Palestinian Jews (just as "Jesus" was fairly common).

If Judas hadn't turned Jesus in, then he (Jesus) wouldn't have been killed (sacraficed) and thus 'died for our sins'. Would we be forgiven for our sins if Judas handn't done his evil dead?

This whole Christian religion is a bunch of crap. Give it up people and face reality. What a waste of time it's been over all these years.

Jesus died for our sins, but only those that confess them. I am glad I am not God and do not have to worry about whether or not I need to forgive Judas. I have forgiven many sins against me, and I have confessed my sins. While historically Judas's story is very interesting, faith wise, not so much. The only person we really have to know about in the Gospels is Jesus.

I see that Pagels is not done milking Christianity for new press and hot new theories! I cant wait for the book!!!!

Oh, oh, let me guess: you found the bones of Judas in the Tomb with Jesus, Joseph and Mary.

What! The holy grail, too?

Please, you are not a scholar, you are an explotation monger!

Get a show that comes on right after Dr. Phil, Pagels!

To "What!: (Gotta love that handle!)

I'm in agreement with you, and "Believer" is on target too, but I have a question for you about: UNFORGIVENESS IS SIN. I believe that truth as a general rule, but in the case of Judas suicide I am stumped. Folk who commit suicide do it because they turn to self for answers and not God. Therefore, they reject God in their final act, rather than ask for forgiveness, mercy, and following up with a repentant life. As I said in the beginning post today, I thik that this is one of those issues that no man on earth knows the anwer to.

God forgives those who repent and ask for forgiveness. I believe He wants us to do the same. But I don't believe that you can forgive the evil that someone has done who is not sorry and does not ask for forgiveness. Could any of us forgive Satan? No. Pure evil with no remorse IS unforgivable.

Norrie Hoyt, you are correct. The human race would be better off if each person worked on getting their raging, immature egos under control, via a Zen Buddhist practice, rather than worshiping an invisible, genocidal deity, and making preposterous truth claims about the universe via the Christian religion.

Switch to Buddhism, guys, and all the controversies, antagonisms, misunderstandings, and acrimonies of this and the other threads will vanish fast away.

Dear Michael of Bowie -

Thanks for your comment.

Acts says nothing of Judas falling on a sword. It says what it says.

You make my point - people don't usually explode when they fall down. Acts doesn't say that Judas took his own life. To me, it reads that Judas threw himself to the ground - maybe in a moment of contrition or grief or self-loathing - but he wasn't trying to kill himself. His guts spilling don't seem to be the result of a natural act.

I'm sure Biblical scholars have argued this point to no end, but I don't see the retelling of this as being the same account. The differences are more striking than the similarities.

Demos: I agree that the best way to criticize contemporary Christians is to quote the New Testament at them. Their lack of Christian behavior would become evident.

But that is not my shtick. What I prefer is to highlight the real origins and history of Christianity, which are far different from what Christians think they are.

Judas committed suicide, therefore, did not ask for forgiveness. Furthermore, didn't Jesus himself answer this when he said something to the effect that "it had better for him if he had not been born" regarding his betrayer Judas? Jesus being God and man and knowing all things answers that question directly

Judas is the Greek transliteration of the Hebrew name Yehudah, who was one of the 12 sons of Jacob. Jew comes from Judaea, the province in which the Israelite monarchy survived the longest, where 2 of the 12 tribes lived. But the name Judas for Christians -- especially when combined with notions of betrayal and treachery -- becomes the archtype of the evil Jews.

Judas Repented

Matthew 27:2And when they had bound him, they led him away, and delivered him to Pontius Pilate the governor.

3Then Judas, which had betrayed him, when he saw that he was condemned, repented himself, and brought again the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders,

4Saying, I have sinned in that I have betrayed the innocent blood. And they said, What is that to us? see thou to that.

Authorized Version

There are so many Philasophical, Intellectual researchers and opinions. Jesus and the christian faith is exactly that FAITH. Without Faith it's impossible to pleas God. So if you try to Rationalize Jesus and the Bible it won't work. Simply put!!!

Any theory, or new "GOSPEL OF WHOEVER" I just simply put that in the TRASH BIN. Because it is what it is. There is no need to come up with ways to please GOD and if you don't believe in GOD or Jesus you really shouldn't even have to comment. I just don't get it. You can have 50 degrees in every religion or field but guess what that doesn't impress God. He won't judge you on how many degrees you have or how many Gospels of Mary, Martha, Judas, etc, you came up with. He is simply going to ask, what did you do with my son Jesus. He has given you so many ways to receive him and yet you have rejected him. You tried to rationalize or educate your way to Heaven (the Father) but it won't work.

Being a christian is not hard. It's what you make it. It's not supposed to put you in condemnation. But so many people have their own theories and opinions that it makes it difficult for someone who is really trying to seek the face of God. Just pray to God via his son Jesus and your prayers will be answered. That is the only way. Seek and ye shall find.

Exegesis vs. hermeneutics. It gets just a little tiresome after a while. The great moral and intellectual hazard of all theologians is presuming to know anything about God. Elaine Pagels walks that line with discipline, self awareness and great intelligence. I believe it might have been Kierkegaard who posited that absolute communication with the absolute is possible or Abraham is lost (referencing the sacrifice of Isaac). I wonder if it might be possible to extend this to 'absolute understanding of the absolute is possible or the canonical is folly?"

A little more awareness of the infinite mystery and majesty of God and a little less hubris might serve us all a little better.

Prof. Pagels is not really trying to defend Judas. In all her books her main point is that what we call Christianity is the version that won out after many centuries of battles between different sorts of Christian believers, all of whom had different understandings of everything about Jesus, his life, his person, his mission, etc. She and people in her field want Christiant orthodoxy to be seen for what it is: no more likely true than any other version of Christianity or for that matter any other religion.

Candide,

We may simply disagree. There's really not that much about Jesus in the Quran, and what there is is pretty clearly late and derivative, intended to position Muhammed's beliefs relative to the existing faiths of Judaism and Christianity.

Jewish sources such as the Talmud also refer to Jesus. They are pretty clearly polemic - there was an active religious dispute between mainstream Judaism and the early church at the time the Talmud was written. The references to Jesus attack Christianity or defend Judaism against attacks by Christians - no where is there any attempt to give an extended portrait of Jesus' life or teachings.

It's not surprising that Islamic and Jewish sources would view Jesus as "merely a man" - if they saw him otherwise, they'd be Christians.

I'm constantly amazed that people are willing to totally discount any texts that are associated with mainstream Christianity, but are quick to jump on accounts from any other source - no matter how fragmentary or late - as giving us a picture of the "true Jesus."

If you really want to go after contemporary Christians, you'll have better luck really digging into the New Testament and then challenging them to live up to what it really says (and not what they'd like it to say).

The story of Judas reveals only one thing, Christianity's love of dualism. Other religions do not delude themselves into believing in ultimate good or ultimate evil. By the way......is it true the name Judas translates into Jew?

In a short story by Anatole France Pontius Pilate is asked about his recollection of Jesus of Nazareth. He replies: "Jesus of Nazareth, the name doesn't ring a bell."

Actually there was plenty of documentary evidence that the Roman prefect sent home to Rome but when Christianity became the established religion the Christian emperors gave the church the right to censor and destroy evidence that was unfavorable to Christianity. Everything showing that the earliest Christians were rebels and revolutionaries and that Jesus was condemned for sedition was destroyed. Read, if you can find it, Robert Eisler's book Jesus the Messiah and John the Baptist. It is based on the Slavonic version of Josephus' History of the Fall of Jerusalem.

In the book off Exodus, chapters 10 and 11, the great Jehovah commits an act of terrorism with his tenth plague: to coerce the Pharaoh's decision, he kills all the firstborn in the entire land of Egypt. He didn't even have to do this: the same two chapters say that he actually hardened the Pharaoh's heart because he was afraid otherwise he wouldn't get a chance to wreak the tenth most terrible and terroristic plague. He committed this act of terror so that today we may even find it in our hearts to forgive terrorists such as Bin Laden, who have not even come close to this act of Jehovah, which is undoubtedly the biggest single act of terrorism in world history. Certainly it was not easy for God to go against his loving grain like this; once again he suffered so that we may find in our hearts the power to extend forgiveness to others.

Tornadoes, Tsunamis, Hurricanes, etc, ARE NOT ACTS OF GOD. Simply put.

Judas betrayed Jesus (YES). Jesus knew ahead of time that Judas would do what he did (YES) Judas was used by Satan (YES) Could Paul, Peter, John have done it (YES) but it was Judas. We should forgive others (YES) Could SATAN BE Forgiven by God (ABSOLUTELY NO NO NO NO NO) Simply stated because God kicked him and his running buddies out of heaven to an ETERNAL PIT OF HELL!! NO WAY OUT! NO WAY BACK! So therefore whoever will not Obey God and his ways will be with Satan FOREVER. Unless you have received His son Jesus. For all have sinned and come short of glory of God. Sin is Sin. But there are different levels of sin (YES) But sin is unclean and any of it is not pleasing to GOD. UNFORGIVENESS IS SIN. No matter what Judas did it for he did it. He knew who Jesus was and what his purpose was. Because of his Jealousy and greed (MAYBE) No matter what or who the plan was for Jesus to come and redeem us from the curse and give man an opportunity to become one with the Father in heaven again.

The poster who mentioned Mikhail Bulgakov's narrative in "The Master and Margarita" is most correct -- how much of what passes down to us through the gospels is problematic because, really, we have no way to know what is myth and what is memory...look at how twisted news events get after some laughable time passes, such as 5 minutes or 100 years. Ever hear the truth about the Alamo?

pontius pilot, in Bulgakov's version, is far more multi-faceted and thinking, caught up in politics and the victim of a moment of cowardice he later regrets. Does anyone really think the simplistic version of the gospels, so black and white, is even remotely close to the truth?

Before you can debate whether judas should be forgiven, yu need to decide if there really was such a man. Or really a Jesus, as far as that goes. We never know.

This makes pinning your religious faith on to the reality of the gospels a dangerous thing -- it is more safe, and more sensible, to pin your faith on the teachings, the ideas, the goals, than any particular facts.

Demos: you have misunderstood me, unintentinally or intentionally, don't know which. I am not defending the Quran as an historical document. I merely observed that the original Jewish-Christian understanding of Jesus, one that must be the most credible, finds more traces in Islam than in any Christian source. Muslims don't like to admit that their prophet was influenced by anyone but Allah, but historians know that Muhammed picked up most of his notions from non-maintstream Christians and Jewish-Christians who lived in Arabia and Syria. He met many during his caravan travels. This Islamic understanding of Jesus -- that he was a great prophet, that he was merely a man, that he was not really killed but only pretended to die on the cross -- these comes from a variety of Jewish and non-mainstream Christian groups.

Dear me, what a discussion about mythology. One often has to wonder when it will ever end. I suggest people read "The Jesus Puzzle" by Earl Doherty, or other books like it, and realize that the "Christ" religion was one of many mystery cults like those based on Isis that came out of Egypt. The book of Mark took a few events, studied "prophesy" and wove a darn good tale with the Pauline Christ cult. People are still in the throes of this mystery religion. There is a much better way to get at "truth" and it is called the Scientific Method. Move on people, it's over, we live in a new world now. Religion served its purpose (whatever it was) and we don't need it anymore. If Judas stands for rebellion about God and Religion, praise Dawkins.

Mason,

I may have misrepresented you; if so, I apologize.

It seemed to me that you were at least implying that Jesus' message was only one of love and forgiveness. I think it was this sentence that gave me that impression: ". . . I know what Jesus taught and his command to love and to forgive was unequivocal."

Love and forgiveness are central to Jesus' message, but that's not all there is to it. He also set an incredibly high standard for personal holiness, and was not at all hesitant to condemn evil in all its forms. Remember, the Jesus who preached forgiveness of sins was the same Jesus who cleansed the Temple. He preached a message of forgiveness and hope - but one that underscored the need to repent and actively seek God.

Loving our enemies is tough for all of us - old or young, Americans or Iranians, Republicans or Democrats, Liberals or Conservatives, religious or non-religious.

Standing up and saying "that's just not right" is also hard for us (unless "that" is something we, personally, have no interest in doing anyway - then it can become easy). Jesus struck an incredibly hard balance by extending forgiveness while at the same time clearly confronting evil.

We do no one any good if we always "forgive" and never confront. Of course, we also do no one any good if we always confront and never forgive.

Saying "I forgive you" is easy - restoring our relationship can be very hard. The Christian view is that God's forgiveness was not cheap, it was incredibly expensive - it required the sacrifice of His son. It's freely available to all; God is anxious to extend it; but not everyone is willing to accept it.

You seem to be interpreting the "Kingdom of Heaven" to mean the end of the world. That's not how most Christians over the centuries have understood it - it's more commonly understood to refer generally to the rule of God in people's lives, and more specifically, to the church. That did originate shortly after his death, during the lifetime of his direct associates.

More recently some scholars have tried to reinterpret Jesus as a prophet who was mistakenly predicting the immanent end of the world (if I recall correctly, Ms. Pagels may be among them). Those who believe the texts are essentially reliable don't take that approach - it's hard to square with the idea that Jesus really was raised from the dead, with all that implies about his divinity.

Quite funny.

Splitting hairs over events that may or may not have happened, and even if they did, have no consequence for anybody except those who profit from hair-splitting.

Look I agree that human should learn to be humble and to be nice to each other by listening to these stories, but apart from that how does it matter what someone did or not do 2000 years ago?

Dear Ms. Pagels,
I would just like to thank you for your scholarship and what you have contributed to my understanding of early Christianity. After discovering the Gospel of St. Thomas, I went on a quest to find out what these early (now called) gnostic gospels were all about. I wanted to find more of them and get help in understanding them. I wanted to learn more about what happened before 300AD, I wanted to learn more about people who sought an individual relationship with God and didn’t need to go through an intercessory, and I wanted to learn what the original Aramaic meant compared to English translations (“Original Prayer” by Neil-Douglas Klotz was also invaluable for that). For me it was like I was handed a family recipe called “tofu with gravy” and while some generations past they had tried to fix it back to its original and changed the gravy, I went back further and found the original recipe was actually for lamb. I have many books, but the one that put it all into perspective was your book “The Gnostic Gospels”, the only book in which I would report on to other people (who didn’t care about this quest of mine at all), “did you know that some Christians before 300 AD sought out to be martyrs?” I am always happy to hear your comments when you are on shows on the history or discovery channels. Thank you for all your contributions, and for making them more publicly available - I am very much looking forward to reading this new book.
My mom has had problems with Christian dogma for most of her life, but the news of The Gospel of Judas captured her heart the way St. Thomas did mine. It was the first time she had ever been interested in early Christianity. I will be sure to buy her a copy as well.

B-MAN, stop sticking carrots up your bunghole.

Mr Mark: You wrote: Depends if you believe the account of Judas' death from Matthew or Acts:1:18.

How does a person fall down and burst to the point that all of the bowels gush out? I have fallen many times in life and never came close. What's the answer? Suicide. People often commit suicide by falling on a sword and other object that pierce. Mathew 27:5 and Act 1:18 are the same story. About the money being used to buy the land, I was not talking about Judas. He was dead. But ultimately the silver was used to buy land to bury strangers.

Act 16 to 19:
Men and brethren, this scripture must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake before concerning Judas, which was guide to them that took Jesus.
17 For he was numbered with us, and had obtained part of this ministry.
18 Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.
19 And it was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem; insomuch as that field is called in their proper tongue, Aceldama, that is to say, The field of blood.

Constantine and Eusebius sat down with up to 600 gospels, editing them down to a text that fit the Nicene Creed. They're all fiction, dedicated to power. With no basis in the human condition other than to prove that people are stupid.

If you accept the story in the Bible and that Jesus died to wipe away our sins, then Judas actually did a good thing. True, if Judas did not exist and Jesus had to die for our sins, then some other way would have come about to put Jesus on a cross so that He could die so that He could rise.

Thanks, Judas! You set in motion what had to be.

I don't get how many Christians are so grim on Good Friday. You would think that they don't know (every year) that Jesus rose again on Sunday!

If He didn't die, we wouldn't be saved!

If Jesus, while up on the cross, said, "Nah, this is too much" and performed a miracle and came down unharmed, he would have convinced a lot of people back then, but would we be saved?

Besides, the only one who has to forgive Judas is God. It doesn't matter if I forgive him or if Little Suzy Who forgives him.

I try not to limit my God. I know that I may sometimes be petty and hold a grudge. I also know that God is INFINITELY better and more loving than I. As loving and forgiving as I might be able to imagine Him, God is INFINITELY more.

(kinda like saying infinity plus one... there's ALWAYS more to infinity. There's always more to an Ininifitely Infinite Being, a Being Who is Infinite in an infinite number of ways)

So, while my petty little human brain might not be able to fathom forgiving Hitler or Saddam or Stalin or Cho or any number of "evil" persons, I am confident that my Infinite God always finds a way to love and forgive them.

It may not be easy to get your head around it but that's the way infinity IS.

Peace.

Skip,

I've read Mere Christianity, I've studied Christianity most of my life. Where is Chaotician incorrect? Please clarify. His post seems a reasonable summation of Christian practice and dogma.

If Judas had not acted, there would have been no cross. With no Cross, no death. No death, no resurrection. No resurrection, no Christian Church. In order for Jesus to become Christ Jesus he had to be betrayed. He had to suffer he had to die. Without Judas there would be no Christ. Does it matter why he acted or who or what caused him to act? Thanks to God that he did and the world could see the goodness and mercy of the Lord. And, if Judas asked to be forgiven in his final act of life forgiveness would be his. Just as the crucified criminal at Jesus' side, he would be with him that day in Paradise. A Paradise that doesn't need the promise of virgins to ensure acting on behalf of God.

Mr. G:

I find it curious that you "found that the Gospels in the New Testament to be totally reliable."

LOL! Based on WHAT?

To pick just one example of many, both Luke and Matthew list the supposed geneology from Abraham to Jesus. One list has 15 more names on it than the other, and most of the names do not match between both lists. Reliable? Really? I don't think so.

Other blatant contradictions in the NT are so numerable and have been discussed at such length elsewhere, I really don't know what else to say about this issue except read "the End of Faith" and "The God Delusion". I've yet to hear a Christian or anyone else coherently rebut the evidence listed in these books.

Chaotician,

How can one proclaim so confidently when one knows so little about Christianity?? For heavens' sake, man, read CS Lewis's MERE CHRISTIANITY or some basic text about faith in Christ. Good heavens!

Remarkable, how there is an implied belief that the gossip of the Bible has some historical validity! For a group of people who celebrate the torture and death of their God as a "Human" sacrifice to appease a wrathful and jealous God for the terrible crime of being created by that same God; you would expect the same support for the person who helped make this necessary sacrifice occur. Without Judas, in this mythology, the basic and core event to enable the very existence of Christianity would not happen. Without the foresight of Jesus before his sacrifice, we would not have the necessary and ghoulish "sacrament" of eating the flesh of their God and drinking the blood of their God in some bizarre belief that these cannibalistic practices provides some spiritual benefit in achieving their goal of eternal obeisance in the glory of their God.

Jesus tells us in the Gospels that it would have been
better for that man not to have been born. I trust in the
scriptures that Judas was a worker of satan and he will
not be forgiven.

Also one of the comments mentioned if God should be forgiven for Katrina. I hope that there will be a day that the entire world
will see that there is a dark force, the devil, satan that deceives
man and is the author of destruction. Unless we know who the
enemy really is- we will go around blaming Christ and other
disasters on God.

I encourage your readers to seek the Lord, read the Bible
and draw near to a personal relationship with the Christ
and then all things will be made clear.

If Judas was fulfilling his role, than that just makes it all the more better, doesn't it? Every religion needs a couple of martyrs.

Judas merely fulfilled his role in giving Jesus up to the authorities, setting into motion events that resulted in the crucifixion. No arrest = no crucifixion = no resurrection = no Christianity.

If Judas was merely fulfilling God's will for his life and His will for the history of mankind, then I don't see why anyone, least of all church leaders who supposedly have a deeper understanding about such matters, would have a problem with him. There is nothing to forgive, and even if there is, our forgiving or not forgiving him makes no difference.

Am I the only one who finds a weird sort of poetry in Jacob Jozevz posting? It's like e. e. cummings on acid. Don't ask me to explain what he said, but it has a rhythm.

"Pacifist," YOU will be unforgivable if you bait Frank, et al., into another Islam battle...

Judas Priest was certainly far better than the ungifted American imitations.

Excuse me - but you guys are arguing over a bible EDITED BY CONSTANTINE.

When you start quoting scripture remember that.

While Constating succeeded in destroying the gospels, even he couldn't quash god's love and forgiveness.

Practive love and forgiveness. Hate, denigrating others, lying to convince a nation to go to war, racism, obstruction of justice, oppressing others for political gain, and sticking to "points of principle" rather than facing the hard choices that would recognize your opponent's humanity is just as bad as the betrayal of Jesus.

Many have forgiven the president for his sins without a thought - even a blanket pardon of the mind - and yet won't even forgive their fellow man.

Forgiveness and grace are the concepts that when acted upon validate your claim of being a follower of Christ... Not the parroting of Constantine's editorial product known as the "bible".

"What you do, do quickly," has always struck me as biblical evidence that Judas was about Jesus' business, evidence hiding in plain sight. What that business was about is anybody's guess. But one can suppose it didn't turn out as Judas expected. Jesus was well aware of the threat to his (earthly) life, but Judas was apparently anticipating a happier outcome than Jesus' violent and degrading end. At that point, money would be worthless, and one can see how he might have considered his life as fofeit.

Since Judas died right after the crucixion, apparently not leaving a note (or one that has come down to us), then we will never fully understand what Judas expected to come of this business.

But it's as pointless to blame Judas for Jesus' death as it is to blame the Jews (Jesus was a Jew after all, not a Christian). It's we who have killed Christ, God. We kill Christ everyday by our actions, inactions and above all, hypocrisies. Every one of us.

My earliest understanding of Judas' damnation, was that it followed the one unpardonable sin, despair (his suicide).

But I have preferred the interpretation that Bulgakov gives in The Master and Margarita....and I would welcome an opportunity to read Ms. Pagels' fuller insights into the new Gospel account.

Why do you keep repeating the same post on every forum Pacifist? It is irritating...

Though to be fair, you do make a good point. Would the radical islamo-fascists really say they are sorry to humanity for all their wrong-doings?

Believer,

I can think of few things more challenging than loving and forgiving those who persecute us---our enemies. I do not get the thrust of your comments apparently. What, in my previous post, struck you as a "WHY CAN'T WE ALL JUST GET ALONG" theology? Loving our enemies seems to be a challenge that American christians have trouble wrapping their brains around. Our public display tends not to be of affection but of "shock and awe."

I find it ironic that you cite the passage in which Jesus mistakenly states that the kingdom of heaven is at hand. In another place he states that the kingdom will come before their generation has passed away. It matters not a bit to me that his timing was off but why would a believer point that out to one whose soul you think needs redemption?

If ALL muslims in the world apologize for ALL THE ATROCITIES on humanity and on women for the last 1400 years, show TRUE repentence and promise not to let it happen ever again, could we forgive them? Should we?

What do you think people? Frank Collins, Concerned etc?
What do you say? Mohammed Malleck, Victoria, Veijita etc?

B-Man:
Personally, I found that the Gospels in the New Testament to be totally reliable. Therefore, I am not shaken by some new "discoveries" like these gospels, many of whom were written more than a century after Christ and are unreliable when it comes to faith.

As for the Judas issue, I believe that forgiveness is available to all. If he had went to Jesus at the cross and begged His forgiveness, I am confident that Jesus would have forgiven him there and then. That is the scandal of grace, in that even the worst of sinners can find forgiveness in spite off themselves and what they have done. It is not man's determination as to who will be saved and who isn't; only God makes that decision. (Thank goodness I'm not God!)

The point of forgivenessis not always to release the person who committed the act, but to release the forgiver from the bondage of anger and bitterness, which if left unchecked, can greatly affect all of our relationships, especially with those we love and with God.

How can someone be forgiven who is already judged?

"Thus the Muslim view of Jesus is arguably better than any Christian interpretation."

Uh huh - I'll buy that as soon as you prove to me that the Quran gives a clearer picture of 2nd century Judaism than the Babylonian Talmud.

The canonical gospels and the book of Acts were written by people with a clear point of view, and with very different standards of research than modern historians. But they were at least attempts to produce coherent accounts of the life of Jesus and the early church, and in the case of Luke and Acts show at least a passing resemblence to classical Greek and Roman historical writing.

The Quran is a collection of purported revelations, arranged by length, of all things. It never attempts, or claims, to provide a coherent historical account of anything.

"I am not Christian but I know what Jesus taught and his command to love and to forgive was unequivocal."

Did you read everything He said? Did you also happen to catch His saying "repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand?" Did you notice any of the "Woe unto you . . . " passages? The bit about "unless your righteousness exceeds that of the Pharisees . . . ?"

Whether or not you accept Jesus as the Son of God, His message (taken as a whole) was a lot more challenging than "can't we all just get along!" It's easy to pick those parts we like, and ignore the rest, but that's wimping out. If we're going to take Jesus seriously, we have to struggle with the bits that challenge us as well (which ones we find easy, and which ones we find challenging, will be different for each of us).

My previous post was in response to Robert Kubiak

john hartigan wrote:
"My understanding of Judas' damnation was that he committed the only unpardonable sin: despair, in his act of suicide."

Except that the account of Judas' death in Acts isn't suicide. In fact, it sounds like Judas was struck dead by god.

Two points to make.

1.) The Gospel of Judas is not a legitimate inspired text. It was written possibly as early as 180 AD long after the four gospels were written.

2.) Did Judas ever ask forgiveness? Forgiveness is something we must seek from Christ, not something that Christ forces upon us. Some people, perhaps Judas, have such hardness of heart that they cannot bring themselves to ask forgiveness. If Judas showed up at the foot of the cross and asked forgiveness, I am sure Christ would have granted him forgiveness.

The best information about Jesus survived among the Jewish-Christians, those who had been led by his brother James. They became marginalized by the gentiles Christians who wanted Jesus to be a divine being. This tradition survived in pockets in Syria and Arabis and finally found its way into the Quran. Thus the Muslim view of Jesus is arguably better than any Christian interpretation.

Are most public figures arrested or captured in the middle or a public appearance with much fanfare, or are they taken down as quickly and quietly as possible?

As for the arrest itself, we don't know if anyone in the actual arresting party had ever seen Jesus up close or heard him speak. They didn't have a wanted poster to look at and his face definitely wasn't 24/7 plastered on CNN.

If I was going to arrest a well-known, man who traveled with 12 or more followers, (bodyguards for all I know) who received a kings welcome upon his arrival into town the previous week, in secrecy, at night, in a secluded place, in a potentially dangerous situation, would I bring along an insider? An insider who claimed to know exactly where Jesus and his disciples hung out and knew the man personally?

Yes

Crossan's reconstruction of events about Jesus' death is probably good. But add to it the information found in the Old Russian or Slavonic version of Flavius Josephus' Fall of Jerusalem. There Jesus comes into Jerusalem with the crowds and hundreds of followers to begin a new exodus from the evil Roman-Temple regime. This frightens the priesthood and Roman governor and they proceed by night to take Jesus. He is quickly executed and by the beginning of the Passover all is over. His followers were expecting him to lead a sort of rebellion and he apparently allowed this misconception. But even without his consent, the cry of the crowds: Save us (hosannah) Son of David (king) was enough to constitute his having been chosen an anti-Roman king -- treason certainly. Thus the political element which the Gospels ignore or conceal is revealed in Josephus. The Slavonic Josephus is believed to contain material Josephus originally wrote in Aramaic for his own people; later while a Roman collaborator he revised much of this materials out of his Greek version.

It is indeed pathetic to see this misunderstood and misled man, Jesus, made into a God whose death would save people from, from what? God let Jesus down, as he always does.

Many contemporary NT scholars agree with Candine but with somewhat different reasoning.

See Professor Crossan's take on the events of the last days of Jesus in Crossan's book, Who is Jesus? (coauthored with Watts).

An excerpt.

"We've talked about what didn't happen. What do you think actually happened during those last days of Jesus' life?"

" My best historical reconstruction would be something like this. Jesus was arrested during the Passover festival, most likely in response to his action in the "Temple. Those who were closest to him ran away for their own safety. I do not presume that there were any high-level confrontations between Caiaphas and Pilate and Herod Antipas either about Jesus or with Jesus. I doubt they would have agreed before the festival that fast action was to be taken against any disturbance and that a few examples by crucifixion might be especially useful at the outset_ And I doubt very much if Jewish police or Roman soldiers needed to go too far up the chain of command in handling a Galilean peasant like Jesus. It is hard for us to imagine the casual brutality with which Jesus was probably taken and executed. And those "last week" details in our gospels, as distinct from the brute facts just mentioned, are prophecy turned into history, rather than history remembered."

i.e. No Judas involvement.

Sorry to repost. The second sentence in previous post should read:

By committing suicide, he seems to have *taken* the penalty for that sin upon himself rather than letting Jesus take it upon Him. It indicates that Judas never felt able to *restore* his relationship to God.

(In contrast, the other disciples chose to restore themselves to God after they had seen Him resurrected.)

Believe the garbage you read in old and new testaments and dedicate your existence to it, and you are doomed to waste your mind and life on the resolution of fairy tale nonsense. Forget Jewdas and turn your life to useful enterprises Pagels.

Frank C.,

"i have read the new testament, in all its forms, and i dont remember jesus saying to forgive everyone everything."

Ever recited The Lord's Prayer?

I think there's something in there about..."as we forgive those who trespass against us..."

or: "...as we forgive our debtors..."

Frank Collims, please report to the nurses' station for your medications. Charming diatribe, yours. I envy your "peace that passeth all understanding!"

The eternal plight of Judas makes for good debate among theology students and scholars. I will eagerly read anything Professor Pagels has to say about this or any other topic related to her fine scholarship. She has opened worlds of thought for me regarding the gnostics, original sin and satan among other aspects of the early church.

However, for the rest of us the answer seems pretty simple. If we cannot love enough to forgive, we are not worthy of the label "Christian." I am not Christian but I know what Jesus taught and his command to love and to forgive was unequivocal. It amazes this non-believer to see the intellectual and theological contortions some self-styled Christians will put themselves through to avoid following the teachings of Jesus as reported in the church approved canon.

My understanding of Judas' damnation was that he committed the only unpardonable sin: despair, in his act of suicide.

But I prefer the narrative that Mikhail Bulgakov gives in The Master and Margarita.

To forgive and love one's enemies? Gee, that seldom happens inside a church, much less outside. Conservatives insist that lenience not to include a long list. Judas is always the other guy. To be contrite or humble one's self? Humph. No, step right up and hurl that first stone. Praise the L and pass the ammunition.

The discovery of the gospel of Judas only highlights how very fragile the Christian religion is.

When you set yourself up as possessors of the only real truth in the universe, then find out that the dogma you have accepted uncritically for 2,000 years is actually false...where does that leave you...?

Twisting in the wind I'm afraid, clinging desperately to your superstitious beliefs.

There are other gospels out there as well (Peter, Mary Magdelane) which only further undermine accepted Christian dogma.

Ms. Pagels doesn't mention one of the most interesting aspects of the betrayal of Jesus: Judas was not the only one to betray him. All of his followers ran when he chose not to resist his arrest - and Peter denied him three times.

Why is Peter considered a pillar of the early church, while Judas is remembered only for his betrayal? Both failed - but their responses to those failures were very different. Both were remorseful, but in Judas' case that remorse led to despair and death, while Peter's remorse led him back to God.

I would note that the Gospel of Judas, while the original text was lost for some centuries, was not unknown to scholars. It was mentioned by several early Christian writers. It's later than the canonical gospels, and represents a late 2nd to 3rd century gnostic thought. The wikipedia article on it provides a fairly even-handed overview.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Judas

Bottom line, there's nothing particularly startling in the Gospel of Judas - the gnostic concepts it contains have been well known among Bible scholars since they originated in the 2nd century.

I realize that my knowledge of the Gospels is rather fuzzy, but I’m curious how Judas could have betrayed Jesus. Jesus and his disciples were preaching in the open and were not hiding from the authorities. During the night before crucifixion Peter as recognized not once but three times as a follower of Jesus, which means to me that Jesus himself was a well known figure and there should be no need to point him out. Sanhedrin and the Roman authorities could have easily arrested Him without having an insider among His followers. In other words, crucifixion was inevitable with or without the cooperation from any of the 12 disciples. Somebody, please enlighten me on this subject.

The events and personnagaes of the Gospels are for the most part fictitious. Yes, there was a Jesus and yes he was killed in a Roman manner, obviously because he was perceived as a threat to the Roman authority and the Jewish priesthood. That is about all we can know. The rest -- about his birth, teachings, betrayal, and trial -- are reconstructions designed for propaganda purposes.

If here was a Judas, he was probably a disgruntled zealot either unhappy with Jesus' impractical procedures or he was trying to precipitate a divine intervention, which of course failed since God always disappoints those who think they hear his voice.

Or Judas was an invention to bring the Jews (Judaea, Judah, Judas, etc.) into further disrepute. Most of what was written was anti-Jewish, pro-Hellenistic propaganda on behalf of a crude new religion designed for fools.

You might hear from that what Judas's betrayal of Jesus was unforgivable, but you might also hear that this was forgivable but that Judas never claimed God's forgiveness. By committing suicide, he seems to have the penalty for that sin upon himself rather than letting Jesus take it upon Him. It indicates that Judas never felt able to his relationship to God.

An analogy to the prodigal son parable may be instructive. The understanding I have learned and believe is that the father forgave the prodigal son the moment he walked out the door. He was ready to accept the son back when he returned, but the relationship wasn't restored until the son returned. (The father does run out to his son when he sees him far off in the distance.)

In this Christian perspective, God's forgiveness is infinite (not just dependent on the extent to which we forgive one another), but we are challenged in claiming that forgiveness when we feel that there is nothing to forgive (don't admit we're wrong) or feel that the our sin is to heavy to forgive (as Judas seems to have felt).

Michael of Bowie writes:

"As you know, Judas committed suicide and the 30 pieces of silver were ultimately used to buy land that was used to bury strangers."

Depends if you believe the account of Judas' death from Matthew or Acts:

Matthew 27:5
And he [Judas] cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself.

Acts 1:18
Now this man [Judas] purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.

I have always thought that only the victim can forgive the victimizer.

Ms. Pagel,

Thank you for your work and I look forward to reading your treatment of the gospel of Judas. I've come to believe that the only forgiveness I can offer is to those who I percieve (rightly or wrongly) as having harmed me in some way (mental, physical, etc). I am more focused on seeking forgiveness from my God for my transgressions in thought and deed. I truly believe (as the Christian tradition teaches) that forgivness is divine. I also believe that we demostrate our faith by the actions we take in our every day lives not just our protestations on Sunday or our proclamations of morality in the public square.

For me, Judas and Jesus (& God) understand the nature of the events of the surrender and crusifiction of Christ and that is fine. I do not judge Judas, I just want to understand him and his relationship with Jesus in an effort to better understand my relationship with Jesus and ultimately God.

Frank Collins,

No one is claiming that the Gospel of Judas is the "real" truth or that it's more valid than the canonical Gospels. Numerous Gospels were written during the early days of Christianity, because there were many different sects with different beliefs about Jesus. I see nothing wrong with Christians or others studying the non-canonical Gospels to form their own opinions about them.

"the most important is that they did not appear to be written by the person who had their name on the title page."

From what I've read, that's true of all the Gospels, including the canonical ones. Apparently, the "Of So-and-So" indicated the author's allegiance to a certain school of Christian thought at the time, not a claim as to who actually wrote the particular Gospel.

Friends, for all our sincere handwringing, it doesn't matter much whether or not we forgive Judas--that is God's prerogative. If God's grace is sufficient for me, I don't see why it wouldn't be sufficient for Judas. One additional note: I, like many others, am seriously suspicious of pseudonymous "gospels." There are plenty of others besides the one ostensibly by Judas.

I have never thought of Judas as an evil person who could not be forgiven. I've always thought of him as someone who was used by Satan; and afterward when he realized what he had done he couldn't live with himself. But in the big picture, what he did ended up being necessary; it's just that no one could have known it at the time.

Frank:

There is too a Gospel of Judas. Just because it's not in your cherished book doesn't make it any less a gospel. There are other gospels not in the Bible also.

Ananymous: I was not aware that Pilate repented, and if he did, thenI'm with you. I don't know if he's been deemed a saint either?? I will look it up. What is really interesting on the repent thing is that, one of the two on the cross beside Jesus was forgiven while on the cross and told that he would go to Heaven "this day." Did he have time to repent? The sucker was already hung, so there was no means to change his life. That is a very powerful message about God's forgiveness. Even down to the wire! Yes!

Curious:

Those weren't acts of God, those were the result of bad weather. Can't forgive the climate.

oops, sorry for the double post.

Hey Frank,
You do know that all the other Gospels are actually anonymous, right? Church tradition alone attributes them to their respective authors; none of them have a name on the title page.
Of course, if these authoritative books are relatively anonymous, how much more so is any supposed gospel attributed to Judas? The Church has dealt with gnosticism for 2000 years, so any claims to secret truth about 'what really happened' aren't new. They make for interesting Da Vinci code plotlines, but have little to no historiographical import.

Hey Frank,
You do know that all the other Gospels are actually anonymous, right? Church tradition alone attributes them to their respective authors; none of them have a name on the title page.
Of course, if these authoritative books are relatively anonymous, how much more so is any supposed gospel attributed to Judas? The Church has dealt with gnosticism for 2000 years, so any claims to secret truth about 'what really happened' aren't new. They make for interesting Da Vinci code plotlines, but have little to no historiographical import.

Has anyone seen the wonderful Franco Zefferelli film "Jesus of Nazareth?" Judas is portrayed there as one who loved Jesus and who was basically duped by the Sanhedrin into turning him over...He is presented as trying to arrange a meeting between Jesus and the Jewish elders for the purpose of Jesus explaining his ministry and message. After Judas leads the Jewsish leaders to Jesus and Jesus is arrested violently, Judas is portrayed as being surprised and greatly distressed. And if he weren't greatly distressed, why would he have killed himself? I think this clearly indicates that he realized either a huge, costly mistake of naivete or misunderstanding, or felt horrible remorse for having betrayed his Master.

This portrayal of Judas is the most plausible and sensible I have ever encountered. It helps us see that evil can affect ordinary human beings without prompting us to label that human being in himself as an embodiment of evil.

What I don't understand is this: Jesus's comment to (Pilate?) that Pilate "would have no power over me at all if it had not been given from above -- therefore, he that delivered me to you hath the greater sin." Was he talking about Judas the human being, or was he referring to Satan/the power of darkness, or to something else?

Didn't Jesus tell us that all things are possible with God? Didn't he tell us not to judge...lest we be judged? And that whatever we bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever we loose on earth will be loosed in heaven? Doesn't this support Origen's view?

M of Bowie: That's what makes the forgiveness question so intriguing. Did Pilate repent and isn't he considered a Christian Saint in some other religion? I honestly think there is a 50/50 shot that both of these guys were forgiven and redeemed.

first let me say that there is no GOSOPEL OF JUDAS! its not a gosopel until a church says it is. at the time the new testament was conpleted many writings were reviewed and many rejected, and for a number of reasons. the most important is that they did not appear to be written by the person who had their name on the title page. additionally, just becasue the writing is old, does not, in and of itself, make it reliable and/or accurate. and lastly since judas died the day after they took jesus he would hardly have been around to write a gosopel, or anything else.
and why does any religion have to forgive anyone for anything? why is it considered the ultimate test for a christian to forgive the betrayer.
are they supposed to forgive the devil? how about hitler, is that a test too? are those that were responsible for the millions killed in the armenian genocide to be forgiven - is that a test? how about serial child rapists - is that a test too.
i have read the new testament, in all its forms, and i dont remember jesus saying to forgive everyone everything. he did tell peter that he had the power to forgive and that those sins that peter forgave were forgiven and if he didnt then they were not forgiven. he didnt say forgive everyone everything.
frankly, as long as the individual religion does not force itself on others outside that religion by vorce or violence, i dont care who they forgive or dont forgive.
ultimately the issue of forgiveness will be left to god and he must have a large group he was not going to forgive as he created heaven and hell. if there were no unforgiveable sins we would not need hell.
the issue will be decided by an authority a lot higher than we have here on earth.
as for an opinion, like hitler [and all nazi] and stalin and mao and the great kahn, timur the lame, and lots others that are in the same boat as judas, i personally dont forgive them and hope they burn in hell forever.

Elaine,
Does God also need forgiveness? Katrina, the Tsunami in South-east Asia, the earthquakes in Turkey that killed thousands were natural disasters. Does God regret such acts?

Curious

Very interesting article. I have always viewed Judas as a Shakespearian "tragic hero." Thanks for the insight.

T-DOG: I gotta beleive that Pilate is toast. Plain and simple, he was not walking in line with God. Caesar was his god. So, he was toast even without giving up Jesus to die.

On occasion, I have wondered about Judas AND Pilate. I guess we won't know until we go.

Elaine,

As you know, Judas committed suicide and the 30 pieces of silver were ultimately used to buy land that was used to bury strangers. So,the 30 pieces were associated with death. There is a message in there I'm sure.

Judas was one of the 12, and he knew who Jesus was because he saw Jesus' power at work on Earth. Although Jesus was appointed to die to reedem us, He could have and would have been identifed some way, even if Judas didn't identify Him. That would make Judas's act unnecessary. And yet Jesus knew what he would do. Licifer, who also knew God turned against God in the Spirit, and Judas turned agains God in the flesh. Wow. This is certainly all a good lesson that anyone can turn against God, and so we must keep our guard against evil. However, certain question will never be answered among men,and whether or not Judas is forgiven is one of those.

From Mathew 27:
5And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself.
6 And the chief priests took the silver pieces, and said, It is not lawful for to put them into the treasury, because it is the price of blood.
7 And they took counsel, and bought with them the potter's field, to bury strangers in.
8 Wherefore that field was called, The field of blood, unto this day.
9 Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying, And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him that was valued, whom they of the children of Israel did value;
10 And gave them for the potter's field, as the Lord appointed me.