Judas.. Pure Evil or A friend of Jesus...

Thought you'd like to review the Gospel of Judas if you haven't already read it. It's a fresh breath into the dark polarised and dogmatic steel corsette of the Church in who is the hero and who is the villain. Take time to read through it.

Gospel of Judas in English
Gospel of Judas in Coptic

reply to post by realshanti

---

Pliny the Younger (61-115 AD)

Around 112 AD, in correspondence between Emperor Trajan and the provincial governor of Pontus/Bithynia, Pliny the Younger, reference is made to Christians for the first time. Pliny famously reports to his emperor:

"Christians ... asserted, however, that the sum and substance of their fault or error had been that they were accustomed to meet on a fixed day before dawn and sing responsively a hymn to Christ as to a god, and to bind themselves by oath, not to some crime, but not to commit fraud, theft, or adultery, not falsify their trust, nor to refuse to return a trust when called upon to do so." – Pliny to Trajan, Letters 10.96-97.


Note that Pliny is relaying what those arrested said they believed (and there is no reference here to a 'Jesus.')

Pliny had convened trials of Christians, not because of their beliefs but because he had 'forbidden political associations' which he obviously suspected them of forming. He continues:

"Accordingly, I judged it all the more necessary to find out what the truth was by torturing two female slaves who were called deaconesses. But I discovered nothing else but depraved, excessive superstition."


Some of those arrested recanted, worshipped the imperial image and state gods, and cursed Christ. But Pliny is uncertain how to proceed with numerous others in what he describes as a widespread 'contagion' and asks Trajan for guidance. Trajan's celebrated reply is:

"They are not to be sought out; if they are denounced and proved guilty, they are to be punished, with this reservation, that whoever denies that he is a Christian and really proves it -- that is, by worshiping our gods -- even though he was under suspicion in the past, shall obtain pardon through repentance."


Is the exchange of letters genuine?

It's worth noting that unlike the 247 letters Pliny himself prepared for publication (so-called books 1-9), book 10, which contains the celebrated letters "96" and "97", was published posthumously and anonymously. "It is surprising," says Betty Radice (translator of the Penguin edition), "that no more letters were to be found in the imperial files or among Pliny's personal papers to add to this record of the relations between one of the best of Rome's Emperors and his devoted servant."



Pliny's ignorance of Christians

Pliny was a lawyer in Rome before going to the east. He was only a child when the "persecution of Christians by Nero" supposedly took place but his guardian Verginius Rufus was a high-placed commander at the time, loyal to Nero. Following Nero's suicide, Rufus actually declined an offer from the army of the Rhine to become emperor himself. Any "lurid massacre" of Christians, if it had taken place, could have been told to Pliny as a child – but in later life he recalls no such thing.

At the age of 17 Pliny inherited his uncle's extensive estates after the elder Pliny died in the eruption of Vesuvius. Rich and talented, and with impeccable connections to the highest echelons of the Roman state, Pliny began a distinguished career. He served on the imperial staff in Syria, a centre – one is led to believe – of energetic Christian activity, but again it left no mark on Pliny.

Rising rapidly through the ranks of quaestor, tribune and praetor, while still in his thirties the bright young aristocrat was appointed state prosecutor at four major public trials of provincial governors. Such a career would have made any incumbent aware of "persecution" of Christians, if indeed there had ever been any such thing. But Pliny reports none of it.

Pliny survived the persecution of the Stoic opposition during the reign of Domitian (81-96). The emperor actually made him a senator, even though several of Pliny's Stoic friends were executed. Subsequently Pliny went on to become consul, state priest, and finally, governor of Bithynia-Pontus.

Curious, is it not, that such a well-placed, well-educated Roman grandee, directly and intimately involved in the Roman judicial system at the highest levels, and a friend of historians Tacitus and Suetonius, should – in the second decade of the 2nd century – remain so ignorant of Christians and the persecution of them – unless, that is, they were nothing other than an obscure, and insignificant bunch of fanatics and the "persecution" is a fable?

"Having never been present at any trials concerning those persons who are Christians, I am unacquainted not only with the nature of their crimes, or the measure of their punishment, but how far it is proper to enter into an examination concerning them."

reply to post by realshanti

---

Cornelius Tacitus (c.55-117 AD)

Christianity has no part in Tacitus's history of the Caesars. Except for one questionable reference in the Annals he records nothing of a cult marginal even in his own day.

Sometime before 117 AD, the Roman historian apparently wrote:

"Nero looked around for a scapegoat, and inflicted the most fiendish tortures on a group of persons already hated for their crimes. This was the sect known as Christians. Their founder, one Christus, had been put to death by the procurator, Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius. This checked the abominable superstition for a while, but it broke out again and spread, not merely through Judea, where it originated, but even to Rome itself, the great reservoir and collecting ground for every kind of depravity and filth. Those who confessed to being Christians were at once arrested, but on their testimony a great crowd of people were convicted, not so much on the charge of arson, but of hatred of the entire human race.

Their deaths were made farcical. Dressed in wild animals' skins , they were torn to pieces by dogs, or crucified, or made into torches to be ignited after dark as substitutes for daylight."

– Tacitus (Book 15, chapter 44):


As we have seen, the term 'Christian' was not in use during the reign of Nero and there would not have been 'a great crowd' unless we are speaking of Jews, not Christians. 'Jewish/Christians' – being perceived by Roman authorities (and the populace at large) simply as Jews meant that early Christ-followers also got caught up in general attacks upon the Jews.

"Their effects to dissemble their Jewish origins were detected by the decisive test of circumcision; nor were the Roman magistrates at leisure to enquire into the difference of their religious tenets."

– Edward Gibbon (Decline and Fall)


One consequence of the fire which destroyed much of Rome in 64 AD was a capitation tax levied on the Jews and it was the Jews – throughout the empire – who were required to pay for the city’s rebuilding – a factor which helped to radicalise many Jews in the late 60s AD.

Not for the first time would Christian scribes expropriated the real suffering of a whole people to create an heroic 'origins' fable...

No Christian apologist for centuries ever quoted the passage of Tacitus – not in fact, until it had appeared almost word-for-word in the writings of Sulpicius Severus, in the early fifth century, where it is mixed in with other myths. Sulpicius's contemporaries credited him with a skill in the 'antique' hand. He put it to good use and fantasy was his forte: his Life of St. Martin is replete with numerous 'miracles', including raising of the dead and personal appearances by Jesus and Satan.

His dastardly story of Nero was embellished during the Renaissance into a fantastic fable with Nero 'fiddling while Rome burned'. Nero took advantage of the destruction to build his 'Golden House' though no serious scholar believes anymore that he started the fire (we now know Nero was in his hometown of Antium – Anzio – when the blaze started.) Indeed, Nero opened his palace garden for temporary shelter to those made homeless.

In short, the passage in Tacitus is a fraud and adds no evidence for a historic Jesus.

reply to post by realshanti

---

Caius Suetonius (c.69–140 AD)

Nowhere in any of Suetonius's writings does he mention 'Jesus of Nazareth.' Suetonius did write a biography called Twelve Caesars around the year 112 AD and of Emperor Claudius he says:

"As the Jews were making constant disturbances at the instigation of one Chrestus, he expelled them from Rome."


Jesus in Rome in 54 AD? Of course not. But the unwary can be misled by this reference.

'Chrestus' does not equate to 'Christ' in English but to 'The Good' in Greek, It was a name used by both slaves and freemen and is attested more than eighty times in Latin inscriptions. Clearly, Suetonius was explaining why the Jews (not Christians) were expelled from Rome and is referring to a Jewish agitator in the 50s – not to a Galilean pacifist of the 30s. Yet even this report is questionable. The historian Cassius Dio gives a more convincing account of the same Claudian "expulsion":

"As for the Jews, who had again increased so greatly that by reason of their multitude it would have been hard without raising a tumult to bar them from the city, he did not drive them out, but ordered them, while continuing their traditional mode of life, not to hold meetings." – Roman History, 60.6.


It is also said that Suetonius, in his Life of Nero, described Nero's persecution of the Christians:

'Punishments were also inflicted on the Christians, a sect professing a new and mischievous religious belief ...' (16.2)


We have moved from 'rebellious Jews' to 'mischievous Christians'.



BUT WAIT A MINUTE:

Christians in Rome during the reign of Nero (54-68 AD) ?

Would (could) Nero have made such a fine sectarian distinction – particularly since there was no identifying faith document (not a single gospel had been written) – so just what would 'Christians' have believed?

Even St Paul himself makes not a single reference to 'Christians' in any of his writings.

The idea that a nascent ‘Christianity’ immediately faced persecution from a cruel and bloodthirsty pagan Rome is an utter nonsense. For one thing, it is only in the last third of the 1st century AD, that Christ-followers emerged as a separate faction from mainstream Judaism. Until then they remained protected under Roman law as Jews. The irritation they caused to their more orthodox brethren meant nothing to the pagan magistrates. Says Gibbon:

"The innocence of the first Christians was protected by ignorance and contempt; and the tribunal of the Pagan magistrate often proved the most assured refuge against the fury of the synagogue."


Early Christ-followers called themselves 'saints', 'brethren', 'Brothers of the Lord' and their critics used various names: Nazoreans, Ebionites, 'God fearers', atheists. The Jewish association remained strong throughout the first century and when Christian sects got going in Rome in the second century they were identified by their rival leaders – Valentinians, Basilidians, Marcionites, etc.

So little were christ-worshippers known in the Roman world that as late as the 90s Dio Cassio refers to 'atheists' and 'those adopting Jewish manners'. Christians as a distinct group from the Jews appear only late in the 1st century, not long before the Jewish curse on heretics at the council of Jamnia (around 85 AD). The label 'Christian' itself only appears with the 2nd century Acts – with the story that the term 'began in Antioch' (11.26).

Equally odd, is that Suetonius's isolated sentence appears in a section on Nero's 'good points.'

It should also be noted that Suetonius does not associate punishment of the Christians with the fire that swept Rome, a crucial part of the later myth.

Quite simply, the reference is a Christian forgery, added to Suetonius to backup the work of the 5th century forger Sulpicius Severus, who heavily doctored the work of another Roman historian – Tacitus – with a lurid tale of brutal persecution ('torched Christian martyrs') which immortalized Nero as the first Antichrist in the eyes of the Christian church. (The second Antichrist being the reformist Luther.)

Courtesy Ken Humphries

reply to post by realshanti

---

Please provide evidence

Indeed it seems that it was Judas' unpleasant task to act as 'perpetrator', which of course might be a misinterpretation. Why it was Barabbas that people wanted free, and Jesus condemned to crucifixion?

Barabbas in Aramaic literally means "Son of the Father", sometimes referred as Yeshua Barabbas. So why was other of "sons of the father" crucified, and another one set free? IMO, this is not a literal/historical event, but rather yet another allegory.

Yeshua Barabbas, according to Wikipedia.

With this book, one has to be able to read between the lines.

-v

Pilate: Who should I set free? Jesjuah Son of the Father? Or Jesjuah Son of Joseph?.

You make a point, And another is that one of Jesju's brothers were named Judas, the very same who is credited for having written Jude (naturally, calling him Judas in English would be over the top for the ecc's). We also meet a guy called Bar Jesjuah (son of Jesjuah) in Acts. Do you have an opinion about him?

reply to post by Neo Christian Mystic

---

Could he possibly be Yehuda bar Yeshua (Judah (jude ?) son of Jesus that is to be found in a tomb along with - Jesus son of Joseph , Mary, Mary Magdalene and Joseph ?


Perhaps, because Jesus was not a god but a man with a claim the later christian church went to such great lengths to torture or slaughter anyone that would insinuate this.

reply to post by moocowman

---

Could be, could you please elaborate? Sounds abit too good to be true at first glance. When and where was this tomb found etc. Links? Other sources?

Anyway, Shaul Paulus has obviously learned the trick "Jesju" used on him when he got blind and "repented". But he obviously can't heal it, like the dude in Damascus....

Acts 13:4 The two of them, sent on their way by the Holy Spirit, went down to Seleucia and sailed from there to Cyprus. 5 When they arrived at Salamis, they proclaimed the word of God in the Jewish synagogues. John was with them as their helper. 6 They traveled through the whole island until they came to Paphos. There they met a Jewish sorcerer and false prophet named Bar-Jesus, 7 who was an attendant of the proconsul, Sergius Paulus. The proconsul, an intelligent man, sent for Barnabas and Saul because he wanted to hear the word of God. 8 But Elymas the sorcerer (for that is what his name means) opposed them and tried to turn the proconsul from the faith. 9 Then Saul, who was also called Paul, filled with the Holy Spirit, looked straight at Elymas and said, 10 "You are a child of the devil and an enemy of everything that is right! You are full of all kinds of deceit and trickery. Will you never stop perverting the right ways of the Lord? 11 Now the hand of the Lord is against you. You are going to be blind, and for a time you will be unable to see the light of the sun." Immediately mist and darkness came over him, and he groped about, seeking someone to lead him by the hand. 12 When the proconsul saw what had happened, he believed, for he was amazed at the teaching about the Lord.

reply to post by Neo Christian Mystic

---

Sorry no. I can't recall such person at this moment. Besides, even it may sometimes seem so, I am not that familiar with the Bible and it's books. I usually attend into distinct parts of it, never read it through from cover to cover. But help me out, where is Bar Jesjuah mentioned so I can check it out?



I've heard this before, even that it has been on television as a documentary. I never seen it, but if anyone can post a link to that doc, I'd be grateful. But then again, it is not always exactly true what is in those documentaries

Yes it's rather possible that Yeshua was just an ordinary (well not ordinary exactly, but human being nevertheless) man, and the crucifixion event never happened literally. Rather it is an psychological event, where the one makes the ultimate sacrifice - the sacrifice of self and the ego, hence becoming one (psychologically) with God (everything else). Christian churches (well, mainly Catholic one) has been doing some ill work to keep this covered. As pointed out in one of the previous posts, people have literally lost their heads, when they have claimed such "blasphemy". *chop*

-v

[edit on 4-11-2009 by v01i0]

reply to post by v01i0

---

I haven't actually seen the documentary (it's on youtube apparently) I read the book "The Jesus family Tomb" written by Simcha Jacobovichi and introduced David Cameron it makes for astounding reading, which documentaries normally don't get all the info across

I was lead to this book by another amazing piece of work "The Jesus Dynasty" by Dr James Tabor which is well worth some spare time reading.

James D. Tabor is Chair of the Department of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte where he has taught since 1989. He previously held positions at Ambassador College (1968-70 while a student), the University of Notre Dame (1979-85), and the College of William and Mary (1985-89).

Here's a link to Dr Tabors response to to criticism of the Jesus Family tomb. www.jesusdynasty.com...


We have to face up to some rather queer reasoning with christians, they simply cannot have and do not want a real Jesus.

Xtianity would appear to be a make it up as you go along delusion whose proponents spend endless energy trying to prove to others (because they really don't believe it themselves) is real.

Lets face it, if xtians had "real" faith ie (believing something without the need for evidence), then they wouldn't even entertain the thought of trying to prove the case like in threads such as this.

The Jesus that resides at Talpiot is no less likely to be the Jesus spoken of in the Gospels than the jesus floating around in the sky listening to every thought an xtian has.

What is totally ridiculous about the whole affair is that. The childlike thinking of christians would reject the idea of let's say the tomb of Santa Clause being the "real" Santa. Their rejection would be because he was buried with a Mule along his reindeer, and we all know that Santa didn't have a mule.

[edit on 4-11-2009 by moocowman]

reply to post by Neo Christian Mystic

---

Please see my response to V0liO,

Indeed it would appear that this Jesus (one of very many) the godman invented at Nicaea is a complete BS story created to control ignorant and weak minds .


Apologists rely upon hearsay,fraud and circumstantial evidence to try and prove their case.

If all that is required is hearsay and circumstance to prove something then there is far more of this type of evidence indicating that the Jesus characters were merely men.

No gods here my friend, just a fmily claiming the right to the throne, priesthood and bloodline of the house of David.

The family it would appear were adepts in the cult of resurrection, a figurative ceremonial practice hearkening back to the ancestral line of Egypt.

Why Egypt ? because this is where monotheism was invented and where the resurrection cults were practiced .

There were never any Hebrew slaves in Egypt this is a lie perpetuated by the confusion of the old testament.

Moses and Aaron would appear to be pseudonyms or confused amalgans of Ramases and Horemheb.

It would appear that the cult of the Aten (monotheism) was exiled from Egypt over a period of time , following the death of Akhenaten and the re instigation of polytheism at Thebes.

The priesthood of Egypt (Akhetaten) was decimated and many left headed for Canaan taking with them great wealth and memories of Egyptian religious practices and history.

Is it not more likely that Jesus, James, John, Barabus the baptist et al were making a claim to this priestly and royal lineage?

Given the later mass slaughter, by the christian church of the Albegeisians, Templars, Gnostics and anyone else who did not conform to the worship of the "mangod". Is it not reasonable to conclude that the jesus family/resurrection cult perpetuated albeit decimated and forced underground ?

Christianity would appear to be a repugnant control tool for the gullible. History itself shows us that people who happen to be xtian do good deeds Christianity itself has been nothing but a force of violence and tyranny enslaving the many (minds) to enrich a few.

I often wonder, when the sheeple hand over their hard earned cash to their gilded pastors, why do they never ask themselves where did all the Vatican wealth actually come from ?

What is so different between the Pontiff of one church and the Mr Ts of the small town baptist church ?

Perhaps one takes his bling and hides and the other wears it but they both get it the same way.

reply to post by moocowman

---

Excellent. Thank you for the info, I think I might review it once I have more time at hand. Otherwise I kinda agree what you said in your post, except that it is rather generalizing. Not all of the Christians are alike, some even might be reasonable

I find illogical only those that are taking everything that Church and Bible says literally.

Thanks for info though!

-v

reply to post by v01i0

---

I would agree not all Christians are alike, I have close friends and family that are christians and have differences.

However it is hard not to generalize when it comes to religious "faith" as the differences are just varying degrees of faith or knowledge of the source of their faith.

Faith by definition asks, that something be believed without any corroborating evidence to support it whatsoever. Reason requires us to present evidence and think critically which is completely at odds and conflicting with faith.

So yes xtians can be reasonable but only relative to their degree of faith, an xtian with absolute faith has no need to defend his position more than once.

Find time to read by the way, far better than TV shows I do most of my reading sitting on the toilet lol

Oh yes they whipped him and nailed him up, the rest is first aid, and emergency surgeancy and anestesie. Rich men who had frekked the dying patient's lady Great, and of whom Mary kept records, so we could work in time and space like we always do. This turned into your Bio-Ba'al.... Good luck....

reply to post by realshanti

---

Firstly, you are not asked,
Yahweh commands, should you not comply then you will suffer. Should you choose to believe what the bibles tell you about Yahweh you have no need of evidence if you do not wish to suffer.

Secondly, reason requires one to consider evidence and form an opinion (belief) based upon the evidence, conscience (con- science) only comes into play when judging the evidence in relation to your morality, which in your case is derived from Yahwhe (believe or suffer).

Thirdly, Yahweh commands you to obey or suffer if he /it bestowed upon you the gift of reason, then you would immediately reason that it is better to obey than suffer.

However, Yawheh chooses that you should suffer regardless of whether you obey or not, this is by definition unreasonable. Not only does Yahweh choose to do this contrary to "other peoples" claims of his/its pure love, he/it then goes on to make stretch your gift of reason to its' limits to discern whether he/it actually exists or not.

reply to post by realshanti

---

So what reason did you apply to your lifetime of study when you concluded this - ?




Or this - ?





Your claims are based on deception and lies, I have provide you with some evidence of such, why did you choose not to refute it ?

Your argument is basically "I have been told the bibles are truth about Yahwhe the evidence for this truth is right there in the bibles, the bibles are true because they say so"

Tell me how does a catholic deal with the fact that there was never 2 million Hebrews enslaved in Egypt, or that the earth revolves around the sun ?

reply to post by moocowman

---

I apologize but I haven't followed all the arguments on here that closely however I use the light of reason that is available to anyone - and information that comes not just from the bible but also from oral tradition and the writings of early church fathers, and my own personal experience with the living Christ - the sources that you refute in fact are still published with the information in them unchanged so some don't share your interpretation of history - in any case I don't feel the need to defend my sources... I offered them for folk who might be interested....if anyone needs to research them they can do so and come to their own conclusions. If you would like a sample of the type of logic that is used by Catholics simply read the Catechism - available online along with the writings and copious documents of nearly 2OOO years worth of thinking, and research...

The following link gives a good start on some of the disciplines that are covered by the Church - I have found this to be an excellent source if your wondering what kind of reasoning lays behind the Christian belief system -
Philosophy

and the basic doctrines
Catechism


My faith is just that - mine...and I have told you how I arrived at it - the personal details of my life and my struggle are not necessary to our present discussion..though if your that interested in how I think and some of what I've been through just go to my profile and read some of my other posts..
In sum I do trust the Gospel accounts of Jesus and what he taught in part because of the unbroken apostolic line preserved by the Catholic Church -

As to the idea that the Hebrews were never in Egypt - I researched that a number of years ago and it is quite interesting - I wouldn't dismiss it out of hand but the jury is still out on that ...whether their captivity was in Egypt or Babylon does not affect my faith in Christ - in fact there is speculation now that the Hebrews may in fact have been Canaanites and that with the loosening of Egyptian power in the region Canaan began to break apart and the Hebrews eventually coming to together out of that decline...I don't know and I'm no expert - but its worth studying....

Are you serious?....God does not command anyone to love him...what would be the point? And since we are made in his image - I presume there are some similarities in the matter of intellect...so while my human intellect cannot comprehend all of the universe at once, it is knowable at least in part - in that I can share experience with God and be assured that he understands and with the incarnation of the Word in the person of Jesus Christ I have no doubt he understands....

but the tone of your post is that of someone who hates a cruel father...and I can only conclude that it is colored by your personal experience with humans claiming to represent him and not God himself...because my experience with God has been exactly the opposite of what you describe...

Apologies to the OP - we have strayed far from the original topic - so I leave it there...