Posted on 05/04/2006 10:20:30 AM PDT by churchillbuff
the idea of a sacred Judas always seemed rational to me, at least in Christian terms. The New Testament tells us firmly that Jesus went to Jerusalem at Passover to die and to fulfill certain ancient prophecies by doing so. How could any agent of this process, witting or unwitting, be acting other than according to the divine will? ...[snip]
Now we have, recovered from the desert of Egypt, a 26-page "Gospel of Judas," . ...[snip]
The Judas gospel puts legend's most notorious traitor in a new light—as the man who enjoyed his master's most intimate confidence, and who was given the crucial task of helping him shed his fleshly mortality. And you can see why the early Christian fathers were leery of such texts. This book has the same cast but a very arcane interpretation. Right before Passover, as the disciples are praying, Jesus sneers at their innocence. Only Judas has guessed the master aright—and has discerned that he comes from the heavenly realm of the god "Barbelo." In the realm of Barbelo, it seems, earthly pains are unknown and the fortunate inhabitants are free from the attentions of the God of the Old Testament. The Judas gospel would make one huge difference if it was accepted. It would dispel the centuries of anti-Semitic paranoia that were among the chief accompaniments of the Easter celebration until approximately 30 years after 1945, when the Vatican finally acquitted the Jews of the charge of Christ-killing. ...[snip]let us all therefore give thanks for our deliverance from religion, and raise high the wafer that summons us to the wonders and bliss of the faraway realm of Barbelo and brings us the joyous and long-awaited news that Judas saves.*
(Excerpt) Read more at slate.com ...
How do you know that? He made an alliance with Stalin. He loathed Stalin and communism, but I haven't read anywhere that he advocated invading the Soviet Union - or that he would have supported such an invasion if Britain had greater military power. In fact, he vehemently opposed proposals for the Western powers to to invade China, after WWII, to help the Nationalists in their fight against Mao and the communists. Churchill was not reflexively in favor of each and every military action that might be proposed, even if the target was a dictator. It's not inconsistent to be a fan of Churchill and to believe that the US invasion of Iraq was unnecessary (and possibly even harmful to our interests). Saddam may have been as evil as Hitler in some respects, but, in his weak and contained position, he didn't pose a threat to the US the way Hitler, with his growing military might and his occupation of neighboring territories, threatened Europe and the world in the 1930s. Saddam was about as much a threat to us as Castro. And haven't seen any freepers arguing for an invasion of Cuba. Historically, we don't invade countries just because the leaders are evil. Churchill certainly didn't. It requires a real imminent threat to justify invading another country.
I think he wrote that the money was being banked and maybe being sent to the Vatican. I do remember that he expressed the thought that Westerners who donated to her could feel that they had done well and been charitable to some of the poorest people in the world, never realizing that MT wasn't building state of the art hospitals, clinics, or hospices, or providing excellent care with the money. Many of her donors assumed that was what she was doing.
Thank you for that info. My husband is Catholic, but it gets more difficult for him to contribute to the church. He just doesn't trust where it goes.
Where it goes is published every year. My diocese sends out an annual financial report; I think that's standard procedure. Then the individual parish finances are pretty much open to inspection as well.
I wouldn't listen to a Christian-hating Stalinist criticizing Mother Teresa, but that's just me.
This from the same moron who tried to say that Mother Teresa pandered to dictators.
Another joker calling bad good...sheesh!
I though he was a Trotsky groupie when he was young. No one hated Stalin more than them. David Horowitz spend over half his life as a hard working member of the CP USA. Is he "evil" too?
Hitchens in his own words. I think he concluded that she used a lot of the money to build convents for the order she started.
http://www.abc.net.au/foreign/stories/s266592.htm
You sound paranoid.
Indeed there was.
It was called Oil for Food.
All I have to say about the so-called Judas Gospel is this: Read Matthew 26:24-25, Mark 14:21, Luke 22:22. If you buy into the Judas Gospel, you are calling Jesus Christ a liar.
Chris, very simply, has "issues".
Indeed. Standing too close to Mr. Hitchens could be considered a self ZOT.
The essence of Gnosticism. Essentially, God is evil in their view. The other gnostic gospels (Thomas is the most famous) are similar.
The gnostics attached their previously-held view to Christianity when it benefitted them and tried to confuse the issue.
What is frustrating is that every few years, people re-discover these things and think they have discovered some sort of secret knowledge.
David Horowitz has seen the light. I'm not sure Hitchens has.
Also, David Horowitz doesn't trash Mother Teresa, Reagan, the Catholic Church and Christianity in general. Hitchens does.
That would hardly commend him!
David Horowitz spend over half his life as a hard working member of the CP USA. Is he "evil" too?
He has thoroughly repudiated his past. Has Hitchens?
What is it that Jesus said about the one who betrayed him?
>>What is it that Jesus said about the one who betrayed him?<
Woe unto that man.
You're halfway there. What else?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.