The two treatises below were shared
by Anna Morton of patternville yahoo group and address a most important issue in regards to global affairs wrt politics and
affiliations.
So
whilst there is little 'science' in this address of mine; it is rather important as 'gnosis=science=insight knowledge'
and so I share this on 'physical' science sites, as well as on 'philosophical science' sites.
On a first reading of this post by Elaine Pagels (with Karen King), a renown biblical scholar and adept
in regards to gnostic literature, say the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Nag Hammadi documents; the casual reader and 'believer'
in the holy scrolls (including the Judeo-Christian bible, the Torah and the Quran and the Vedas btw), would perhaps be rather
'shocked'.
The described inconsistencies are indisputable.
For example in Mat.27.3-5; Judas Iscariot clearly hanged himself after repenting; whilst in Acts.1.15-20
Judas Iscariot bought a 'field of blood', and falling headlong 'burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels
gushed out'.
This is just one of many, many examples used by skeptics of all sorts
to debunk the 'holy scriptures' and to emphasise the latter to be 'the works of human scribes' and their
manipulations and editions.
But the skeptics miss the true meaning of the 'holy scriptures'
in a rather tunnel- visioned manner.
So allow me to elucidate what I mean by that.
Firstly, the 'holy scriptures' should be relabelled as 'wholey writings', meaning 'scrolls
of holistic cosmologies' .
So of course the 'scriptures' are written by scribes and men, not
all of whom experienced say the same scope of 'holistic inspiration' , also known as the 'divine inspiration
of the prophets', say.
But a common ground is found in all of them and this common ground is described
in various forms of Oneness or Unity or Wholeness or what have you and the monism of Leibnitz and the monotheistic Egyptian
'god' Aton of Akhenaton and Nefertiti included.
So then this holism introduces a kind of 'redeemer' character, say called the 'Teacher of Righteousness'
in the Dead Sea Scrolls. This 'redeemer' is universal and known as Hermes Trismegistos, as Thoth, as Horus, as Quetzalcoatl
- the plumed serpent, as Christ Serpent and as Shiloh - the messiah and 'anointed one' and many many more such labelings.
In my particular
area of scriptural expertise (my gnosis), this refers to a certain genealogy or covenant-lineage called Melchizedek in the
Torah and Old Testament and Melchisedec in the New Testament say. One important aspect of this lineage is, that it has
NO physical parentage and so can be identified as the LOGOS or WORD of the creation cosmologies themselves. Scriptural references
are found in Genesis and Hebrews and the 'Scrolls'.
But now, and in conjunction with a deep analysis of the 'holy scriptures' certain generalisations can
be made.
The universal redeemer character is 'promised' in the overall
'holistic perspective' of the story telling and must possess certain characteristics and qualities.
And here one can use the Judas Iscariot character as an example for the deeper gnosis.
The thing which links the 'prophecied' messiah to the physical embodiment of the Yeshuah (Jesus) in
the New Testament in the ENCODING wrt to Judas Iscariot are the 'ransom money' of the 30 silver pieces.
Zechariah.11.12-13:
"And I said unto them, if ye think good, give me my price; and if not, forbear. So they weighed for my price thirty pieces
of silver. And the lord said unto me, cast it unto the potter: a goodly price that I was prised at of them. And I took the
thirty pieces of silver and cast them to the potter in the house of the Lord."
Jeremiah.32.7-10: "Behold, Hanameel the son of Shallum thine uncle
shall come upon thee, saying, buy thee my field that is in Anathoth: for the right of redemption is thine to buy it. So Hanameel
mine uncle's son came to me in the court of the prison according to the word of the Lord and said unto me, buy my field,
I pray thee, that is in Anathoth, which is in the country of Benjamin: for the right of inheritance is thine, and the redemption
is thine; buy it for thyself. Then I knew that this was the word of the Lord. And I bought the field of Hanameel my uncle's
son, that was in Anathoth, and weighed him the money, even seventeen shekels of silver. And I subscribed the evidence, and
sealed it, and took witnesses, and weighed him the money in the balances."
Hosea.3.1-2: "Then said the Lord to me, Go yet, love a woman beloved
of her friend, yet an adulteress, according to the love of the Lord toward the children of Israel, who look to other gods,
and love flagons of wine.
So
I bought her to me for fifteen pieces of silver and for an homer of barley, and an half homer of barley."
Rev.6.6: "And I heard a voice in the midst of the four beasts say. A measure of wheat for a penny;
and three measures of barley for a penny; and see thou hurt not the the oil and the wine."
So gnostically decoded, this means that a penny is thirty pieces of silver and which is the 'price
of a slave' and an oxen (Exo.21.28-32 and Mat.21.14-15) and this 'sacrificial oxen' (compare the Minoan cults
and the Mithras religion and the 'Age of Taurus' as preceding the Ages of Aries and Pisces (Vesica Pisces symbolisms))
as an OT symbol represents a 'fulfilment of prophecy' by the 'Anointed Servant' as the 'extrapolated'
'Oil and Wine' of the 'Branch of Righteousness' and the 'Holy Candlestick' in Zechariah.3,4,11.7-17;
say called 'Beauty and Bands' of the 'flock of slaughter' and then as the TWO witnesses in Revelation.11.
This then can show the discerning reader, that there is so much more
to 'holy scripture' than either the dogmatic bible students or the superficial skeptics would even imagine.
There are links and encodings everywhere and only a gnostic or encompassing analysis of taking the thing
as a 'whole' aka 'holy' scroll will allow to infuse some sense into obvious and indisputable selfcontradictions
contained in them.
But the Judas Iscariot scheme does not just relate to the personas of
one of the apostles, say the 'purse keeper' and Jesus; but to the holistic meaning of the entire NT.
The major point here is that the 12 apostles relate to the 12 sons of
Jacob renamed Israel as the 'holy generations' of Abraham-Isaac-Jacob as a generalised and universally applicable
'Israelification' of a paternal Grandfather-Father-Son in mirror association with the matriarchal Grandmother-Mother-Daughter
in a say twelve-tiered division of a cyclicity, say the season-centred year or the zodiac (the Mazzaroth in Job).
And so stories weave into stories and associations.
For example the 24 elders in Revelation are the bisexual mapping of
the 12 male apostles onto their female images to define 12 'starsigns' as the Sons of Israel also as the Daughters
of Israel.
Instead of being 'sexist' the scriptures actually define a beautiful
harmony between the male and female generations - if the theological experts could just decipher their scriptures gnostically,
instead of dogmatically - the ordination of women as clergy for example would be a nonissue.
So in regards to Judas Iscariot, he is one of the twelve and is associated with the 'breastplate
of the high priest' in the OT; where he represents the starsign of Pisces and is the 'House of the Amethyst and Benjamin'
( and as Jacob's last son to Rachel in Benjamin, which is encoded in the 'blessings of Jacob' in Genesis.49).
Every apostle is a Son of Jacob is a Gemstone on the Breastplate is
a Gate of the New Jerusalem etc. etc. and inclusive of Judas Iscariot as the 'Son of Perdition', meaning the 'goat
part' (or devil or shaitan or dogness etc.) of the Unity between the White Sheeps and the Black Goats of the 'Last
Judgement' separating 'heaven and hell' or whatever.
So of course Judas Iscariot must be present at the 'visitation of
the resurrected Jesus' in Mark.16.14; Luke.24.33 and John.20.24 and then in 1 Corinthians.15.5.
The skeptic misses the 'holistic aspect' of the 'wholey writs' in literal interpretations
of quotations take in isolated contexts, which often do result in scriptural self contradictions if paradoxed as such.
As said before in many similar expositions on the 'esoteric meanings' of the 'scriptures'; the origins of
the 'Holiness' as Unity derives from the occurrences 'before' a material universe and so all notions of space,
mass and time existed.
One can then utilise modern science and say abstract model building
using mathematics and theoretical physics to reconstruct this cosmogenesis; or one can use metaphor, semiotiks and archetypical
symbols to attempt to retell and describe the same story and as is done in socalled religions and cultures throughout the
human pathos of selfidentifications.
And
so a deep analysis and study of the 'holy writs' might they be called Torah or Quran or Baghavita or Vedaic writings
or cnative mythologies or I Ching or Tzolkien; should always result in the discovery of an 'already unified'
cosmology, yet subject to selfdiscovery in terms of a little egocentric selfhood and a greater more encompassing selfhood
of a 'cosmic family'.
Tony B.
Judas wasn't a betrayer
Recently discovered gospels
give a radically different picture of early Christianity, writes NS Rajaram
Reading Judas: The Gospel of Judas and the Shaping
of Christianity
Author: Elaine Pagels and Karen L King
Publisher: Penguin/Viking
Price:
£8.99
For nearly 2,000 years, Judas Iscariot has been reviled as the archetypical
betrayer for which the Jews have been made to pay a terrible price. A recently discovered ancient text known as the Gospel
of Judas gives a radically different picture: Judas, far from being a traitor, was Jesus's closest disciple to whom,
and to whom alone, Jesus entrusted the most important task to fulfill his mission on earth - to die for the sins of mankind.
In handing Jesus over to the Romans, Judas was doing exactly what his master ordered him to do. Without it there would be
no Christianity.
This is the dramatic, not to say shocking, message of the Gospel of Judas, one of the 40-odd
gospels that were in circulation during the first four centuries of Christianity. This is the subject of Reading Judas
by Elaine Pagels and Karen King, two of the world's greatest Biblical scholars. It is accessible to the general reader,
though one is helped by some familiarity with recent Biblical discoveries like the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Nag Hammadi Manuscripts.
The
standardisation of the New Testament with its four canonical gospels that we know today - of Mark, Luke, Matthew and John
- took place in the fourth century. This, as the authors point out, had the effect of lowering the message from a spiritual
to a material plane with the story of Jesus's body escaping from the grave with a resurrected body. To a non-believer
or a scientifically informed person, this supposed miracle seems absurd. But it remains the foundation of Christian belief.
The
Gospel of Judas, along with its companion Gospel of Thomas, belongs to the category of early Christian texts
knows as Gnostic. (Thomas was Jesus's twin brother, so who was the 'Only Son of God'?) Gnostic is derived from
the Greek gnosis - cognate to the Sanskrit 'gnana' (or jnana) - meaning spiritual knowledge.
According to Lost Christianities by Bart Ehrman, there were "Christians who... believed in one God. But there
were others who insisted there were two. Some said there were 30. Others said there were 365."
To
give an idea of how diverse early Christianity was, some said that Jesus never died, while some others claimed he was never
born, meaning Jesus was a fictional character. This is also the view of several modern scholars who have studied the Dead
Sea Scrolls. John Allegro, a very famous Biblical scholar, wrote: "I would suggest that many incidents (in the Gospels)
are merely projections into Jesus's own history of what was expected of the Messiah."
Allegro was persecuted and
hounded out by church authorities for expressing such views. It was no different nearly 2,000 years ago. The key figure in
suppressing texts which "encourage believers to seek God within themselves with no mention of churches, let alone clergy"
was Irenaeus, a Syrian theologian who was the bishop of Lyon. He is particularly harsh on Judas with his claim of having received
secret knowledge (gnosis) as the favoured disciple of Jesus. (It was the claim also of Mary Magdalene in her Gospel.)
Irenaeus's
programme was to suppress diversity and impose total uniformity of belief and practices. According to Pagels, "The teachings
Irenaeus labelled as 'orthodox' tend to be those that helped him and other bishops consolidate scattered groups of
Jesus's followers into what he and other bishops envisioned as a single, united organisation they called the 'catholic
(universal) church'. The diverse range... they denounced as 'heresy'... could be antithetical to the consolidation
of the church under the bishops' authority."
One can see that the overriding concern of the early church fathers was exercising
political control over the followers. Irenaeus's agenda was taken a major step forward in the fourth century by Athanasius,
bishop of Alexandria. He fixed the New Testament substantially in the form we have it today by selecting four gospels out
of more than 40 then known, and assigning them to Mark, Luke, Matthew and John.
Athanasius's theological
consolidation of Christianity was soon followed by political consolidation. At the Council of Nicea in 325 AD, Eusebius, bishop
of Caesarea, persuaded Emperor Constantine to extend protection to this version of Christianity or Nicene Christianity. Armed
with this power, it was relatively easy for Eusebius, Athanasius and others to suppress the Gnostics and other competing versions
of Christianity. Church dominance became complete when Theodosius in 391 AD declared Nicene Christianity the only legitimate
religion in the Roman Empire.
Why are these momentous findings little discussed in India when the media
is willing to give space to discredited 'Jesus lived in India' stories and proven fakes like the Shroud of Turin?
Is it because the English language media is dominated by a convent educated elite that doesn't want to report controversial
findings? Or, do Indian churches and their leaders still see themselves as serving colonial masters and have no tradition
of critical Biblical scholarship? If so they have yielded the space to politico-religious entrepreneurs like John Dayal and
outright charlatans like Valson Thampu.
Fortunately, the authors of Reading Judas, despite being Christians,
have not allowed their beliefs to come in the way of truth.
--The reviewer is the author of The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Crisis of Christianity
**************
JUDAS vs PETER - A DOUBLE STANDARD?
Louis W. Cable
Let
us begin by comparing two passages in the Bible (KJV) which contradict each other.
Matthew 18:21-22: Then
came Peter to him, and said, Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? till seven times? Jesus saith
unto him, "I say not unto thee, Until seven times: but, Until seventy times seven."
Hebrews 6:4-6:
For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift,
and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, If they
shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him
to shame.
Note that as quoted in Matthew 18:21-22 Jesus is uncompromisingly adamant. When it comes to forgiveness
he makes no exception. But Hebrews tells a different story. Here we are told that forgiveness is not universal after all.
It seems that there is one sin, apostasy, for which there can be no forgiveness. So, did Jesus just forget about it or did
he deliberately lie to Peter in the Matthew quote? It should be noted also that in Matthew 12:32 Jesus again contradicts himself
by the following statement, "Who so ever speaketh a word against the Son of Man it shall be forgiven him. But who
so ever speaketh against the Holy Ghost it shall not be forgiven neither in this world nor in the world to come." So,
we learn here that, in addition to apostasy, there is a second unforgivable sin, blasphemy, speaking against the Holy Ghost.
Not only does this contradict Matthew 18:21-22 and Hebrews 6:4-6, it also contradicts the doctrine of the Holy Trinity in
which God, Jesus and the Holy Ghost are said to be one and the same. So, how could someone speak against one without at the
same time be speaking against all three?
Now let us compare the stories of Judas Iscariot and Simon Peter, two of the
New Testament's best known characters outside of Jesus himself, and see if they were treated fairly by Jesus. Judas first.
Judas Iscariot, the betrayer of Jesus, ranks as the most hated, the most despised character in the entire Bible with
the possible exception of Satan himself. Is such intense loathing justified, or is Judas the victim of biased and inaccurate
reporting? Interestingly enough the sole source of information on Judas is the New Testament gospels and the Book of Acts
all of which were written long after the events alleged took place. He receives not a single mention from such prominent first
century Jewish historians as Philo Judaeus and Flavius Josephus. But what is even more revealing is the absence of any mention
of Judas and his dastardly deed in the authentic writings of the Apostle Paul, the Gospel of Thomas, the reconstructed document,
"Q" (Quelle) or the Didache.
Judas first appears in the nineteenth verse of the third chapter of the Gospel
of Mark, the oldest of the canonical gospels, where he is appointed by Jesus as one of the original twelve apostles. In this
passage we are tipped off in advance of Judas' treachery. Matthew and Luke repeat Mark almost verbatim, however, the author
of John adds something. In John 6:70-71 Jesus announces that one of the twelve, Judas, is a devil. In John 12:4-6 we learn
of another of Judas's character flaws which the synoptic gospel writers neglected to mention. He was a thief, regularly
skimming from the common purse. At John 13:18 Jesus says, obviously in reference to Judas, that he made his choices "so
that scripture might be fulfilled." He then quotes Psalm 41:9 "He that eateth my bread lifted up his heel against
me." This, in all probability, provided the inspiration for the betrayal story.
As was predicted, Judas went to
the chief priests and offered to identify Jesus (Mark 14:10 and parallels). They accepted his offer and agreed to pay him
thirty pieces of silver (Matthew 26:15) which brings up another perplexing question. Why would the authorities pay to have
someone pointed out to them whom they already knew? According to the gospels Jesus was well known throughout the land, especially
in Jerusalem. In Matthew 26:55 Jesus says to those who came to arrest him, "I sat daily with you teaching in the temple,
yet ye laid no hold on me."
Judas identifies Jesus to the authorities by way of that infamous kiss, and that's
the last we hear of him in the gospels of Mark, Luke and John. However, the author of Matthew doesn't let it drop there.
Apparently Judas' conscience got the better of him because according to Matthew 27:3-5 he made a sincere attempt to repent
but was denied forgiveness. In a gesture of frustration he flung the money onto the temple floor and went and hanged himself.
Matthew goes on to say in 27:7-8 that the chief priests and the elders used the money to buy a piece of land. Because it was
bought with blood money, the land became known as "The Field of Blood."
Had the Judas story ended with the
betrayal followed by the suicide everything might have been hunky-dory, but the writer of Acts couldn't leave well enough
alone. In 1:15-20 he tells us that Judas didn't give the money back; he invested it in real estate. We also learn that
Judas didn't commit suicide; his death was accidental. Because of the messiness of this accident, the property became
known as (you guessed it) "The Field of Blood." So, did Judas commit suicide as the writer of Matthew claims or
was his death an accident as we are told in Acts? Also, was this the same land that the priests bought, or were there two
fields of blood? But, it gets even more confusing.
Mark 16:14 and Luke 24:33 state that following his resurrection Jesus
appeared to "the eleven." Who was missing? After all that had transpired you would just naturally think it was Judas.
Wasn't he dead already? Apparently not because in John 20:24, we discover that the missing apostle was Thomas. Therefore
the eleven had to include Judas. To further confound the reader, Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15:5 that following his resurrection
Jesus was seen by "the twelve." If he is referring to the apostles, it had to have included Judas because it wasn't
until after the ascension, some forty plus days after the resurrection, that another person, Matthias, was voted in to replace
Judas (Acts 1:26). So, according to this, Judas neither committed suicide nor died by accident. In Acts 1:25 we are told that
Judas "turned aside to go to his own place," whatever that means.
Another clue confirming the absence of the
Judas story in the earliest Christian documents occurs in Matthew 19:28 and Luke 22:30. Here Jesus tells his apostles that
they will "sit on the twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel." No exception is made for Judas even though
Jesus was aware of his impending betrayal. The answer may lie in the fact that the source of these verses is Q (QS 62). Q
predates the gospels and is considered to be one of the earliest Christian documents. It was obviously written before the
betrayal story was invented by the writer of Mark and embellished by later gospel writers.
For centuries Judas Iscariot
has been held up as the archetypical traitor, the exemplar of treachery, the quintessential turncoat. This is strange indeed
when one considers Acts 1:16. Here the apostle Peter tells us, "This scripture (Psalm 69:25) 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." So
according to Peter, Judas' betrayal was a part of God's grand plan all along. Not only did Judas serve as a vehicle
through which key Old Testament prophecy might be fulfilled, it was by way of his betrayal that Jesus was able to complete
his earthly mission. One might say that it was a dirty job, but somebody had to do it. Judas was in reality an enabler. Instead
of hating and reviling him, Christians should appreciate Judas' contribution as an indispensable component of the passion.
Now consider the story of Peter, the greatest of the apostles and the one for whom Jesus openly showed favoritism. The Roman
Catholics go so far as to elevate him to sainthood and designate him the first Pope. Jesus selected him to be his immediate
successor and put him in charge of the movement (Matthew 16:18-19, John 21:15-17). But is Peter really worthy of such adulation?
First, he publicly denied Jesus three times (Mark 14:66-71, Matthew 26:69-74, Luke 22:54-60, and John 18-25-27). In Mark's
and Matthew's version not only did he deny Jesus, he swore an oath against him. Second, Peter ignored Jesus' most
important directive. According to Matthew 28:16-20, AKA The Great Commission, the apostles were to immediately go forth into
the land and start spreading the word in advance of the imminent second coming. But, upon Jesus' death they abandoned
the movement entirely and returned to their original profession, fishing (John 21). As their designated leader, Peter must
be held accountable for what has to be the most astonishing show of no confidence in history.
Shouldn't these blatant
acts of apostasy and denial have given ample grounds for Peter's summery dismissal from the movement as well as disqualifying
him from ever being forgiven in accordance with scripture In fact, Peter's public denial of Jesus might even qualify
him as the Antichrist according to 2 John 2:22-23. In spite of these damning facts Hebrews 6:4-6 was ignored thus absolving
Peter of all blame. His position of prominence in the church goes unchallenged to this very day.
Judas, I remind you,
never denied Jesus. He never committed apostasy as did Peter. He just saw an opportunity to make a little money on the side
and took it. While this action may not have been ethical, if Jesus was sincere in Matthew 18:21-22 wasn't he obligated
to honor Judas' request for forgiveness?
The stories of Judas' betrayal and Peter's denial are obvious fiction
with no basis in history. Their primary purpose is to beguile the credulous and impress the naive. However, the story of Judas
betrayal has a more sinister purpose. It is deliberately designed to fan the flames of anti-Semitism. According to part 3
of Bishop John S. Spong's 3-part essay, Unmasking the Sources of Christian Anti-Semitism, Judas is the Greek
word for Judah, the Jewish nation while Iscariot means political traitor or assassin. Judas is portrayed as a caricature intended
to confirm the very worst misconceptions about the Jewish people. As a result, for almost two thousand years the Jews have
been unjustly persecuted because their forefathers were accused of slaying Jesus, a mythical god-man whose very existence
remains highly questionable.
