jlrinc wrote: ↑24 Jul 2019, 23:43
Sahansdal wrote: ↑24 Jul 2019, 09:58
Amina Yusuf wrote: ↑24 Jul 2019, 09:44
Fable. I don't believe a word of it. I think I will stick to the original historical facts.
Which 'facts' could you possibly mean? The New Testament is literature, not history.
Here is an interesting fact. The word for bears me in the phrase you will sacrifice the one who bears me is the same word used in homer for the horses who bear Achilles, This word has also been translated as the one who clothes me.. What all this means is is that Jesus says that Judas will offer for sacrifice the human body that bears the christ. This is gnostic idea about Christ it occurs over and over again in the nag hammadi texts. The early church fathers condemn it as heresy time and again in their heresologies. The epistle of john even says that those who believe it are antichrists. Any cursory study of gnosticism will show this. This is the only interpretation that anyone who has an expertise in gnosticism believes. This is how it has been translated by every expert in coptic who has translated it. How does Judas Bear Jesus in the dialogue? Why doesnt Jesus just say you will sacrifice yourself? Can the author point to a single other gnostic text where the word bear is used in this way,Can the author point to a single time when the word bear is used this way in english, in greek the word means carry in english it means carry , in what sense does judas carry Jesus? If Judas was James why are the two together in the gospel of John? Why is James not disguised as Judas in any other gnostic book? In the phrase the unspoken word the author says it can only be undertsood as mysticism. Does he know that the phrase originates with Plotinus a philosopher in middle platonism, the very foundation fo western rationalism? Does the author know that Eisenmann doesnt quote a single modern scholar in the entire 1000+ pages of his book on James? Why does the author of this book ignore the scholarship of every prominent scholar who has looked at the text and yet the author reads neither coptic or greek himself? I actually applaud your scepticism and your independent inquiry but you have to be much more careful in building your arguments. You have hunch that something isnt right in the orthodox teachings of Christianity and you are doubtless correct but you need to start from the ground and go up. When you write you need to prove yourself wrong , this means examining the work of scholars who know more than you and test your ideas against theirs. You need to be ruthless against your own intuitions. In your book you dismiss every expert in the field. If you find 3 scholars who disagree with your interpretation you need to find three others who support it. You need to challenge your own ideas with that kind of ferocity and if you do this honestly and with integrity what is still standing will stand for a very long time. Another good option for you (and I think you have a lot of potential to be a really good writer) is to write about what your really trying to say. I think you are using Judas as a proxy to for your own ideas, forget Judas forget James just tell us your ideas. I bet you have a lot to say about spirituality that nobody can refute. That would be an awesome book. gnosticism is an incredibly complex set of ideas, is the Gospel of Judas influenced by the ideas of the Carpocrations, Velencius, Marcion? How does Barbelos, the demiurge, the autogenes differ in Judas than in other works? Does it reflect earlier gnostic ideas or are they more fully evolved? These are questions any author on G. Judas should be able to answer. Those are a lot of work to find out. If you want to be an expert then it requires a lot of work. But you have expertise in anthoer field that you are not utilising, work that you have put into study with your teacher and that you probably are a real expert in. If gnosticism is what you want to work in you ahve to get caught up and I have no doubt you can but it will be very very hard. You are probably right now an expert in the field that you have studied write that book! I have no doubt that book will be a classic! Best wishes sincerely
It's Coptic for whatever the Greek original word was, and it doesn't refer to Christ. Read the NHC Apocalypse of Peter for example, section about Paul, the anti-nomian worker of death. "Carry" is a good translation. 'Judas' carries or contains the inner Man, Jesus. Gnostics hated sacrifice
of others. 'Man' refers to the gnostic lower self, the "twelve elements" of Judas in gJudas 36.1-3 which are replaced by "someone else" -- the Master, Christ. Judas asked the question, "What will those baptized IN YOUR NAME do?" The Name is Nam or Shabd of the Sikhs, and mystic Satsangis like me. 'Name' of the Lord is Word, the Apophasis Logos. 'Name' isn't 'Jesus.' It has been incarnating since at least Seth (Genesis 4:26). The Master initiates and he waits for the disciple to progress to the point where he "sacrifices the man [the disciple's self] who bears me [the Master]." This is the answer from Jesus. There is no answer to the question of Judas at the end of page 55 until page 56 and this line spoken by Jesus. Judas will exceed the others and become one with the Master. The ode to the conqueror immediately follows, "Your horn has been raised, your wrath has been kindled [against himself,per Apoc. James 1], your star has ascended [per A. DeConick], and your heart has grown strong." THAT is Gnosticism. Judas overcomes
himself. Nowhere in this story is Jesus sacrificed.
I dismiss all the experts because they are all wrong, even Eisenman on this. I tried to enlighten him. (Good luck.) I have seen two Masters (John 6:40). I know that they are limited to their time only (John 9:4-5 and 14:6-7). Don't make the mistake of trying to extract one from his own generation. He will not help you. Masters must be living concurrently with the disciple to initiate into Word.
I think 'Jesus' is simply a reference to any Master's God-self. Whatever you call It, or Him/Her, the Son is not Jesus Christ. John 3:16 in the past tense proves the Son of God is not Jesus Christ, but the Holy Spirit. The proto-orthodox Church of the first several centuries did a very bad thing. They played up this "sacrifice" theme into a false sacrifice
of the Master. because it allowed the Pauline Church to rid itself of James, the real savior, in favor of a one-size-fits-all martyred savior, Jesus Christ. Doesn't Judas mean Jew, and Jesus mean savior? This should be a hint it was not intended to be history, but is literature. I think all the names have this double meaning in the Gospels. I am no expert on the NT, but I do know mystic theology. I see it overwritten on every page of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. They had other aims for what they wrote.
The only one more rejected than Eisenman is me. Doesn't matter. He is right, and I am right.