Barbelo, Jesus and Judas

I read a long artickle by Mary ( here ). Aparently the words 'satan', 'lucifer', 'Babel' and others had other meanings than we know of today. And it is apparent that those encountering Iesous were experiencing something far more extraordinary than a simple carpenter who was the lone resident of a neighboring village.

How can the church and other learned have overlooked these things for nearly 2000 years? Well, actually, our oldest 'orginal' bibles are only about 1000 year old if memory serves me today.

With Mary's view, wich seems sensible (I know from experience that words change meaning over time) and if it is true it means we should not pray to Jesus/Iesous but ... Maybe not pray at all?

my personal religious battle has always between gnostic and atheist beleifs, I have never recognized the Catholic (or protestant) church as an option. And hopefully it is the same for more and more people now as recent publications have the catholic church on the run and shredding papers.

to put it blunty there is no heaven, there is no hell, the biblical god does not exist, the events written in the bible are pure fiction, the pope is an old man with a stick and funny hat who seized the opportunity to manipulate millions for personal gain, and millions are starving while the church is getting fatter and all they offer is a prayer.

Originally posted by Ghaele
I read a long artickle by Mary ( here ). Aparently the words 'satan', 'lucifer', 'Babel' and others had other meanings than we know of today. And it is apparent that those encountering Iesous were experiencing something far more extraordinary than a simple carpenter who was the lone resident of a neighboring village.

The problem is is that the writings of Judas date from after our earliest copy of the gospels, and so it has no more validity than what is written in the bibles. Also it does depend a lot on the original translation of the texts, when the copies we have are most likely 4th or 5th generation, and have been translated most likely from or into Greek and Aramaic.

How can the church and other learned have overlooked these things for nearly 2000 years? Well, actually, our oldest 'orginal' bibles are only about 1000 year old if memory serves me today.

Whilst the earliest complete bible is from later, there are copies of all the gospels that go back to the C 3rd century here The early church did not overlook it, its validity was disscussed and argued by the early church, and it was decided that it wasnt valid.

With Mary's view, wich seems sensible (I know from experience that words change meaning over time) and if it is true it means we should not pray to Jesus/Iesous but ... Maybe not pray at all?

Then what should we do when we need faith? its all very well saying we have no need to pray but try telling that to someone who is under fire, who is about to die, that its ok, there is no need. I believe that the need for prayer or a prayer like state is needed to keep the mind body and spirit healthy.

"to put it blunty there is no heaven, there is no hell, the biblical god does not exist, the events written in the bible are pure fiction, the pope is an old man with a stick and funny hat who seized the opportunity to manipulate millions for personal gain, and millions are starving while the church is getting fatter and all they offer is a prayer."


Remember that on your death bead, and I guess that means your life is meaningless.

'Prayer' to me is more like conversation, mediation, contemplation, on God--not the sort of 'please grant me' or 'please help me' kind of thing most people think of.

It's receiving as well as contributing.

BUT, as to your question who to pray to--

I get the general idea from the bible that we are to worship God only, not Christ, and that our conversation is with God, enabled and channeled, somehow, through Christ.

I don't know for sure, though...that's just me.

Remember that on your death bead, and I guess that means your life is meaningless.

why would my life be meaningless? atheists all throughout history have been known to have made huge impacts on the world. what if it turns out there is no god, would your life then be meaningless?

Originally posted by daedalas
to put it blunty there is no heaven, there is no hell

There is no hell, thats right. But there is heaven, or rather an afterlife.
Today we have three indepent kind of withnesses that there is an afterlife waiting for us.
1. is near death survivors who can tell how some of the afterlife areas look like from within that realm(s).

2. some meditation methods makes one able to gain out of body experiences and these people have reported sightings from the outside of the afterlife realms that confirms the near death experiences. The afterlife realm has churches, temples and mosques for belivers of various religions and views, there are universities for those who want to study, and any place where people would feel at home.
The afterlivers do not have to stay at his/her church, they all can visit other religions and churches if they like to. With other word, you can die as a christian but after your death you may convert to any other religions. Even religions wich have not been practiced here in this life for centuries exists in the afterlife. There are aparently still practioners of the aasa, the religion of the vikings...

3. The third group of withnesses differs from the other two groups. The withnesses of group one and two observe the same things, altough from two different perspectives. But the group three withnesses are different.
They are those who see ghousts. Of course many ghoust stories are made to scare or facinate people at campfires. But we cannot deny that there also are ghouststories that are more than just a story. Those who see ghousts prove that there is an afterlife, without having to revert to meditation or almost die. But they don't see the whole realm of the dead, they only see a few people from that realm. Noone know how or why some afterlivers can show themselves. Regardless, the ghoust-witnesses confirm that there IS an afterlife and thus that death is not the end.

It seems that in this life we can live to ca. 70 years and maximum 120 years, the afterlife seems to be about ca 1000 years and maximum perhaps 2000 years.

Wich one of the two is the important one? This? But we live so short! I think it must be the afterlife that is the important one as one has so long time to live it. However, the afterlife do not last forever. Group 2 withnesses can tell us that some of them are reborn, while others disapear into a highter realm. Noone has ever come back from this highter realm so noone knows anything about that. Oh well, I guess we have 1000 year to find out about it!

I was looking through the Gospel of Judas thread here, in particular this thread, which has the following link:
www.nytimes.com...


I only just started reading it but it has mention of this "Barbelo" realm.

Actually, Barbelo is not a realm. It is:

" requested from the invisible, virginal Spirit - that is Barbelo - to give her foreknowledge. And the Spirit consented. And when he had consented, the foreknowledge came forth, and it stood by the forethought; it originates from the thought of the invisible, virginal Spirit. It glorified him and his perfect power, Barbelo, for it was for her sake that it had come into being.

More can be read here.

The Invisible Spirit & Barbelo after whom the Logos & Pistis Sophia are emanations in the physical realm.

Barbelo really doesn't have anything to do with Judas, except that I guess the lessons about these things are being told in the Gospel of Judas.

But I do not understand what the idea is about Jesus asking Judas to betray him. I've read it several times and I don't think it says that at all.

Although I do agree with the Mary who wrote the page that Ghaele linked to--Judas isn't so bad and certainly none of us can judge--I always felt sorry for him as a kid--he surely had more regret on his shoulders than many ever know, over what he had done. That's the way the bible makes it sound. And even the new Gospel doesn't make him out to be a hero, but sad in the very same way, IMO. I know some translators try to fill in the missing pieces of papyrus and some just put ellipses. It's better to leave the words out, because we just can't guess. The copy linked to on this thread seemed to have fewer ellipses than the one I have (somewhere backedup so I haven't bothered to find the CD yet to check) which was something I found on the National G. website. It wasn't anything to do with NYU, though--so I wonder how many translators are going to have their hand at it. It must be a hot potato in those circles that study these kinds of things.

But, truly, if not for Judas, then what? For those who seek Christ as savior, that is. He is crucial and in a way--he made a sacrifice, too.

Kind of like the two goats every year at the temple on Yom Kippur. One was an atonement to make clean and the other was a scapegoat who was driven off a cliff to his death. But both are required for that particular Jewish Ritual. Which, BTW, involves white stones for forgiveness, something mentioned in Revelation but not explained unless you're familiar with the ancient Temple Service.

That article was really rather interesting. I think Mary's got things mixed up quite a bit with the names, and other things, but there are several root principles which she's trying to express that I think are totally on spot. And what she says about the bible's original languages 2000 years ago and all that happens between--one of my favorite soap box subjects around here. All you need is a Strong's Concordance to find out some things that have been totally misrepresented through linguistic convolutions.

On barbelo, I suspect that in some traditions it can be an entity, in others a realm, similar to how an Aeon is sometimes refered to as a spirit, and other times, just an era that has something typified about it. Recall that the people writting these thigns and thinikng about them didn't have anything like the vast libaries of thought that we have today. We tend to want 'standarization' of things and the meanings of terms, and this leads to confusion when talking about things that simply weren't standardized.

Consider the word 'cathar'. People think as if it was a doctrinalyl determined faith, or that ther were people going around saying "I'm a cathar", as opposed to merely a heretic in southern france. Or even the term 'gnostic'. The christian gnostics have little to do with the pre-christian gnostics from the far east, and the modern 'gnostics' would be shocked and horrified at whats preached in some gnostic texts (just look at the one above, homosexuals are hated, for example).