Skip to comments.Judas Saves; Why the lost gospel makes sense (Christopher Hitchens)
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 lightas 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 arightand 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 ...
Brilliant! Let us do evil that good may come of it.
Poor Christopher. He seems like a good guy, but he's just asking to fry.
Another example that Christopher Hitchens seems to hate Christianity and Catholicism. Yet a lot of freepers love him because he's pro-Iraq-invasion. But so is Hillary. Favoring the Iraq invasion dosn't make you a conservative, just as opposing it (as I do) doesn't make you a liberal. Indeed, Hitchens is very liberal. He has said despicable things about Reagan, Mother Teresa and other people I, as a conservative, regard as heroes.
Some people will believe anything.
But I have no interest in his religious views. He's not on the right team.
IOW somwone 1500 years ago came up with a cool forgery which was discredited.
Now National Geographic admits they can prove it is real and admits it is prrooooobably a forgery, so we have useful idiots like this buy the fraud a millenia later.
Stuck on Stupid for certain.
Let's bring back Gnosticism and call it Hitchenism.
Isn't it one of the rules of writing that a person should write on topics that he knows something about?
"Isn't it one of the rules of writing that a person should write on topics that he knows something about?"
Not on Free Republic. [grin]
This is a vile anti-Christian smear. East was an occasion for anti-Semitic paranoia up until 1975? I was well into adulthood by 1975, and never heard of such paranoia. Rather, Easter was a time of joy because of Christ's Resurrection. Hitchens is hateful. Interesting, though, that you - Petronski- smear me as a Nazi-lover, simply because I disagree with Hitchens on the Iraq war. You, with your smear tactics (the NEville photo) are in good company, with this hateful person.
I compare Hitchens to Stalin. Stalin wanted to destroy Hitler. Whatever Stalin's motives for wanting that, the result was an absolute good. In all other respects, Stalin was an evil being.
Hitchens supported the Iraq operation? Great. He's still an evil person in many other respects.
Stck to your last, bud. Have you bothered to read this thing?
This is a vile smear. Easter was an occasion for anti-Semitic paranoia up until 1975? I was well into adulthood by 1975, and never heard of such paranoia. Rather, Easter was and is a time of joy because of Christ's Resurrection. Hitchens is hateful. Interesting, though, that you - Petronski- smear me as a Nazi-lover (that NEvill photo you invariably trot out), simply because I disagree with you and Hitchens on the Iraq war. You, with your smear tactics are in good company with this hateful Hitchens.
If I'm not mistaken Hitchens is an athiest.
Of course, Hitchens IS a Stalinist, so the comparison is all the more apt.
Like Michael Schiavo then? 'Helping' Jesus to die was his task and we should thank Judas? Alrighty.
Hitchens has come unhitched. I guess for the abortion, love the sinner and his sins, euthanasia, culture of death crowd, this is the perfect answer. A 'new' twist on Christianity to fit their ideas, their culture of death lifestyle.
I like Hitchens, but you have a point. Yes, he's a liberal, but I think he tries to think through things and not blindly drink his kool-aid. I respect that. And he's a patriot. He's a good thinker and I can read him even when I disagree because he does think. But he has a hatred which gives him a very blind side--Christianity. So while I may scan what he has to say about it, it's the one area that I don't try to read and consider his thoughts.
Neither is saying positive things about the Iraq invasion. If being opposed to Iraq invasion automatically makes you a liberal - that means Bill Buckley, Tom Clancy and John Paul II are liberals.
And if being in favor of the Iraq invasion automatically makes you a conservative, that means Hitchens and Hillary are conservatives.
Chamberlain wasn't a Nazi-lover, he was weak. He vacillated in the face of evil, tried to placate it. Chamberlain's crime was not malfeasance, but rather nonfeasance.
Yeah, I know. But this is really a mess and, from what I've read of his, I expected better.
It isn't a "lost gospel" of anykind. It was written some 300 years after the fact. It's simply a lost piece of fiction written by the same type of person as we find today writing works of fiction like the davinci code.
Well, if you are going to believe a bunch of nonsense you might as well advertise it. I don't think it's personal towards Christians as much as it is hatred of God. He doesn't seem to think much of religious Jews either, so it's the whole God thing that bugs Him. This article is nothing but a shaking fist towards heaven. It's not that he's blind but that he refuses to see. It's a battle between him and God. He thinks he can win. He can't.
Judas was a Muslim.
Fine, but I don't vacilate on the Iraq invasion. I have always thought it was a mistake - - not because I believed in placating Saddam, but because I believed and believe he wasn't an imminent threat. Hitler, obviously WAS a threat when Neville tried to placate him. Hitler was already occupying neighboring territory and he had a massive and threatening military. Saddam, in contrast, was contained by an aggressive sanctions program, and constant military flyovers, and he had no military to speak of.
all we can do is hope & pray that ol' Christopher sees the Light before he checks out.
Everyone who touches it becomes a Democrat.
Is this any different than GW telling us that all these illegals want is to come here & get a job that NOBODY else will do / Islam is a religion of peace? And yes, Hitchins IS unhitched.
Riiiight, herr general.
but Moses invests?
Then why does taunting God seem to be so important to him?
Judas couldn't have been a Muslim, the cult wasn't invented during his lifetime. Not until around 635AD did Mohammad make slaughtering, raping and pillaging into a religion.
Prolly dronk when he wrote it.
Catholicism is Christian. To suggest the two are different is insulting to Catholics (I was raised Methodist). No criticism intended, just a correction, though maybe I misunderstand your post.
You are not correct and I can prove it.
If my statement is wrong, which part of it was wrong? Was there not an aggressive sanctions program that was keeping Iraq from economic expansion? Was there not a systematic program of military flyovers to keep in Iraq in check? Did Iraq have a powerful military? (That it didn't was evidenced by our uninterrupted drive to Bagdhad; there was no military to stop us). Comparing Saddam's weak and contained situation in the early 80s to Hitler's military powerful and aggressively expansive stance in the 1930s simply doesn't hold water.
Also, the idea that containment can't keep a dictator in check is belied by Reagan's policy toward the Soviets. He defeated them by containing them, not by invading them.
Moses is just overseeing that the terms of Abraham's contract continue to be met. ;)
Judas as saint makes sense if that's the worldview you wish to justify. If you choose to adhere to the most authentic and reliable documents, though, Judas is no saint. Funny how there is a continual effort to justify and rationalize the actions of Judas as being a good thing. It was certainly part of the plan, but that doesn't make Judas any more forgiveable. We could claim any crime was ultimately part of some plan to justify that crime.
Hitchens' mastery of the written word, coupled with his stentorial, though often slurred, oratory gives the lie to the cliche, "God-given talent."
One of the basic tenets of Christianity is that Jesus had to go to the cross to atone for our sins. Doesn't that make all of us Christ-killers?
Died he for me? Who caused his pain!
For me? Who him to death pursued?
Amazing love! How can it be
That thou, my God, shouldst die for me?
Charles Wesley, 1739
What do you mean 'bring back'? It's been here all along.
Because windmills are scarce in this sotted age.
Yes, Catholicism is Christian, but Christianity is bigger than just Catholicism, and Hitchens seems to hate both the larger body of Christianity as a whole, and the Catholic Church within that body.
He defeated them by putting Pershings in Europe and launching the SDI program. The Reagan Doctrine was a direct rejection of containment and the Brezhnev Doctrine.
That's exactly what it sounds like.