Note: this topic was posted 04/15/2006. Thanks wagglebee.
Posted on 04/15/2006 11:36:25 AM PDT by wagglebee
When the Rev. John Buehrens gives his Easter sermon this Sunday, he'll borrow a page from an unlikely source: the Gospel of Judas. The gnostic text, unveiled by scholars with fanfare last week, portrays Jesus Christ as an enigmatic guru who venerates Judas, teaching him secret accounts of creation and approving his imminent betrayal.
Many Christians might find that offensive, or, like Mr. Buehrens of Unitarian First Parish in Needham, Mass., silly. But as an emblem of Christianity's long tradition of dissenting voices, the text is for him an inspiration nonetheless.
"An awful lot of what passes for orthodoxy today is something Jesus would have despised," Buehrens says, noting Christian support for "imperialism and militarism." As a challenge to orthodoxy in its time, he says, the Judas story is "a reminder that no single interpretation of the Christ event can exhaust the spiritual implications."
Across the country, observers say, the Gospel of Judas is striking a chord with progressive Christians. Not so much for its heretical theology, but as an ancient symbol of their modern mission to update what defines faithfulness. It's an approach that's winning approval from scholars, who say Christianity has always attracted diverse beliefs. But others worry that this revisionism misrepresents time-tested truths.
Modern theologians attracted to the Judas gospel are reminding today's dissenters that they follow a long, legitimate tradition. At last week's press conference, four academics used either "diverse" or "diversity" to describe what the text reveals about the beliefs and attitudes of the early church. If the church was so varied in its early days, they suggest, then contemporary Christians can perhaps accept the growing diversity of beliefs and lifestyles in their religious communities as well.
"The Christianity of the ancient world was even more diverse than it is today," says Bart Ehrman, a religious studies professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and a former fundamentalist Christian turned self-described "happy agnostic" - someone who claims it cannot be known if God exists. "My hope is that when people see how diverse Christianity was in its origins, [they] will be a little bit more tolerant of diversity in Christianity today."
That may be easier said than done. One reason: many of early Christianity's most steadfast figures rejected gnostic teachings as heresy - that is, false representations of Jesus' life and of God's nature. (Gnostic doctrines assert rival divine beings and emphasize salvation through secret knowledge.) Although heresy is seldom a matter of public debate in the 21st century, the problem of embracing all beliefs that purport to be "Christian" persists.
To think that noncanonical texts legitimizes diversity today "is to ignore the fact that that diversity was not accepted [in the early church]," says Ronald Simkins, director of the Kripke Center for the Study of Religion & Society at Creighton University in Omaha, Neb. "It's a naive use of history."
Adjustments to Easter service
At the Episcopal Cathedral of St. Paul in Boston, the congregation has stripped Holy Week observances of traditional content that strikes members as offensive. On Palm Sunday last weekend, for instance, parishioners heard an adapted Passion narrative that removes biblical language seen as blaming Jews for Jesus' crucifixion. And the hundreds who observe Good Friday won't pray for those who haven't yet received "the Gospel of Christ" but for those untouched by "the grace of God" - a new gesture of respect for the Muslims who use the church for Friday worship.
The goal of these adjustments, says Cathedral Dean Jep Streit, is to reflect in practice who Jesus is and what he represents. And that message-refining process, he says, echoes the debate between orthodox believers and dissenters centuries ago.
"We have this give and take through the first two or three centuries [after Christ's birth], and it continues today, as it should," he says.
In Atlanta, the Rev. Chip Carson plans to proclaim Jesus' triumph over sin and death when he celebrates Easter at First Metropolitan Community Church of Atlanta, a church with predominantly gay membership. But he won't provide the traditional explanation, which says God required a sacrificial atonement for human sin, because he prefers a "love-based theology rather than a fear-based theology."
"Whoever is in power decides what's heresy," Carson says. "We don't tell people what to believe. We only encourage them to have closer contact with God."
Who defines what's Christian?
Yet the same standards hold from age to age, regardless of who's in charge, according to Richard Land, president of the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention.
"You can have disagreements about doctrinal interpretations of particular issues - that's why we have Catholics, and we have Presbyterians, and we have Baptists, and we have Methodists.... But if you deny the resurrection [or other core teachings], well, according to historic Christianity, you are beyond the pale."
For some the debate isn't about theology; it's about freedom of conscience.
The Rev. Jayne Oasin, a social justice officer for the Episcopal Church, USA., says that "to consider there to be only one truth is to me a form of oppression."
Saul was a Pharisee.
"The Jews" who killed Jesus were the Temple Sanhedrin. The Gospels also accuse (some of) the Pharisees of plotting to kill him, but they didn't do the deed.
Allegedly
The only evidence we have is that Saul was a Pharisee, there is no evidence to the contrary. Unless you want to contend that the whole thing is a fabrication, in which case there is really nothing to discuss with you.
You know exactly what I mean.
Ok. One more time. Whoop de doo.
but the date and original language of the Gospels mean that Rome had nothing to do with the state of the received text. At the time our first copies of the Gospels and Acts were written, Rome was still very much pagan, and had zero interest in revising or altering the obscure texts of what to them was an annoying cult on the fringes of the Empire. That was my point.
Perhaps. But I don't ignore existence of proto-orthodoxy. Funny coincidence that the thousands of Jewish believers James was talking about in acts were nowhere to be found in the mid 2nd century. Of course by that time a human was given divinity. Not too many Jews would want to stick around for that.
Of course the religious authorities in Jerusalem were conspiring to wipe out Jesus's followers. That isn't disputed by anyone.
It would be helpful if you pointed out which religious leaders and source something other than the NT.
Their motives, however, had to do with the fear of attracting attention from the occupying authorities, not with race hatred. Caiaphas is quoted in one of the Passion Gospels as stating that it was better that one man should be sacrificed than the entire people. The religious authorities were trying to avoid what happened soon afterwards with the revolt and destruction of the Temple in A.D. 70.
Obviously "Jewish" Religious leaders were not motivated to hate their own race. That came later by Orthodoxy. Things like outlawing Sabbath observance and such. Not everyone believes NT is inspired. So its probably going to be difficult to prove a point with all the NT quotes.
The idea that this had anything to do with "anti-Semitism" as it is currently understood ignores the politics of the eastern Mediterranean at the time.
I thought I made it clear later writers, redactors and interpolaters were anti-semetic? You'll probably notice I didnt' cede your point that all these early manuscipts read then as they do now.
I must have missed backing away from something.
The only evidence we have is that Saul was a Pharisee, there is no evidence to the contrary. Unless you want to contend that the whole thing is a fabrication, in which case there is really nothing to discuss with you.
He can say he's a pharisee all he wants. Talk is cheap. Most of his actions, as depicted in NT writings, confirm otherwise.
It's like trying to nail jello to the wall.
If I want feminist humanism, I can turn on the TV or pick up any magazine at the supemarket checkout counter
My wife and I left the United Methodist Church behind in 1979, and have never looked back. We still go to Easter services with her folks, and it seems as though the typical congregant nowadays is 70 or more years old. It's kinda like the founder of Willow Creek Church. Once a year, he goes back to the church he grew up in -- just to remind himself of everything he wants to avoid!
One of my fantasies is to buy an old UMC church building some day, move in, and start a living church within that shell. It's not impossible -- some Pentecostal friends of mine were once GIVEN a beautiful old Unitarian clubhouse, since the members were all dying out!
some Pentecostal friends of mine were once GIVEN a beautiful old Unitarian clubhouse, since the members were all dying out!
I've been to Willow Creek several times, mostly for friends. It is Emblematic of everything I cannot stand about contemporary Christianity. It's all marketing, packaging and entertainment, little spiritual depth, more of a pep rally than a worship service. I have found a fairly traditional Roman Catholic Church and it rings true. When I heard that Willow Creek was closed on Christmas because of a lack of attendence, that spoke volumes.
You don't have to look at the NT for that, we can see a lot of older stuff like Cain and Abel, Saul, David and Absolom, The Sons of Israel and Joseph, Ahab, Ahaziah and the rest of the Book of Kings for that matter. You don't need to worry about the anti-Semitism of the NT prophets, the Old Testament prophets and writers seemed to be rending their garments over God's chosen people as well.
Since when is in-house Jew on Jew ugliness considered anti-semitism? That would be like a Jesuit squabble vs other Catholics being anti-catholic. get real.
Sorry, I thought you were originally refering to the squabble between the Pharisees and the Christians (who were Jewish).
No prob. I had the beef mostly with the later interpolaters and redactors that intentionally made Jews seem like morons.
Note: this topic was posted 04/15/2006. Thanks wagglebee.
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.
