精华 改为“无题”比较好
- 主题发起人 农夫
- 开始时间
roaring mouse
新手上路
Judas saves
Reassembling fragments of the Gospel of Judas
I don't normally mind offending holy men, but I can remember feeling absolutely aghast at the injured look that spread across the fine features of the Coptic Archbishop of Eritrea as we sat in his quarters in Asmara in 1993. Was it true, I had asked him, that in the Coptic Christian tradition Judas was considered to be a saint? He jumped like a pea on a hot shovel and, when he had regained his composure, demanded to know how I could possibly have heard such a wicked rumor. Nothing more profane could be imagined than this perversion of the Easter story. (Looking back, I think I may have misunderstood something I read in Graham Greene.)
Nonetheless, 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? It did seem odd to me that the Jewish elders and the Romans required someone to identify Jesus for them, since according to the story he was already a rather well-known figure, but that was a secondary objection.
Now we have, recovered from the desert of Egypt, a 26-page "Gospel of Judas," written in Coptic script about 300 years after the events it purportedly describes. This fragment may or may not be related to the "Nag Hammadi library"―a collection of gospels, including those of Thomas and Mary Magdalene, that were unearthed near an ancient Egyptian monastery in 1945. Sometimes known as the "Gnostic" texts, they are the ones that were rejected as noncanonical when the early church made its vain attempt to standardize Christian dogma. Given how many discrepancies there are between the four remaining Gospels of the New Testament, one can almost sympathize with Bishop Athanasius of Alexandria, who in an Easter letter in the fourth century tried to boil down the number of approved books to 27.
Continue Article
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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. Jesus himself is descended in some fashion from Adam's third son, Seth. With Judas' help, he hopes to guide the seed of Seth back to the realm of Barbelo.* (Is it possible that C.S. Lewis always had a copy of this esoteric text in one of his wardrobes? Or perhaps it fell into the hands of the Heaven's Gate sect-maniacs, as they castratedly awaited the satellite that lurked behind the comet?)
I don't think any summarizing sentence on all this could be more wrong than the one written by Adam Gopnik in the latest New Yorker. He states:
The finding of the new Gospel, though obviously remarkable as a bit of textual history, no more challenges the basis of the Church's faith than the discovery of a document from the nineteenth century written in Ohio and defending King George would be a challenge to the basis of American democracy.
Can Gopnik not discern the difference between George III and Benedict Arnold, let alone the difference between a man-made screed and a series of texts sometimes claimed to be inerrant and divinely inspired? But never mind these trifling failures of analogy. 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. But if Jesus had been acting consistently and seeking a trusted companion who could facilitate his necessary martyrdom, then all the mental and moral garbage about the Jewish frame-up of the Redeemer goes straight over the side.
Remember that Christians are supposed to believe that everybody is responsible for the loneliness and torture of Calvary, and for the failure to appreciate the awful blood sacrifice until it was too late. In living memory, the Catholic Church invoked the verses where the Jews called for this very blood to be, not just upon their own heads, but upon their every succeeding generation. (This sinister fable occurs in only one of the four authorized Gospels, but it was enough―and Mel Gibson recently coined himself 40 million pieces of silver by attempting to revive it.)
Now ask yourself, why did the church take so long to exculpate the Jews as a whole from the collective and heritable charge of "deicide"? It ought to have been simple enough to determine that the Sanhedrin of the time, whatever it may have done, could not have bound all Jews for all eternity. The answer is equally simple: If Christianity had to excuse one group of humans from everlasting blood-guilt, how could it avoid excusing them all? Two millennia of stupidity and cruelty and superstition dissolve in an instant when we notice that even some early believers were shrewd enough to see though the whole sham. On this weekend of official piety, 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.*
from Slate.com
Reassembling fragments of the Gospel of Judas
I don't normally mind offending holy men, but I can remember feeling absolutely aghast at the injured look that spread across the fine features of the Coptic Archbishop of Eritrea as we sat in his quarters in Asmara in 1993. Was it true, I had asked him, that in the Coptic Christian tradition Judas was considered to be a saint? He jumped like a pea on a hot shovel and, when he had regained his composure, demanded to know how I could possibly have heard such a wicked rumor. Nothing more profane could be imagined than this perversion of the Easter story. (Looking back, I think I may have misunderstood something I read in Graham Greene.)
Nonetheless, 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? It did seem odd to me that the Jewish elders and the Romans required someone to identify Jesus for them, since according to the story he was already a rather well-known figure, but that was a secondary objection.
Now we have, recovered from the desert of Egypt, a 26-page "Gospel of Judas," written in Coptic script about 300 years after the events it purportedly describes. This fragment may or may not be related to the "Nag Hammadi library"―a collection of gospels, including those of Thomas and Mary Magdalene, that were unearthed near an ancient Egyptian monastery in 1945. Sometimes known as the "Gnostic" texts, they are the ones that were rejected as noncanonical when the early church made its vain attempt to standardize Christian dogma. Given how many discrepancies there are between the four remaining Gospels of the New Testament, one can almost sympathize with Bishop Athanasius of Alexandria, who in an Easter letter in the fourth century tried to boil down the number of approved books to 27.
Continue Article
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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. Jesus himself is descended in some fashion from Adam's third son, Seth. With Judas' help, he hopes to guide the seed of Seth back to the realm of Barbelo.* (Is it possible that C.S. Lewis always had a copy of this esoteric text in one of his wardrobes? Or perhaps it fell into the hands of the Heaven's Gate sect-maniacs, as they castratedly awaited the satellite that lurked behind the comet?)
I don't think any summarizing sentence on all this could be more wrong than the one written by Adam Gopnik in the latest New Yorker. He states:
The finding of the new Gospel, though obviously remarkable as a bit of textual history, no more challenges the basis of the Church's faith than the discovery of a document from the nineteenth century written in Ohio and defending King George would be a challenge to the basis of American democracy.
Can Gopnik not discern the difference between George III and Benedict Arnold, let alone the difference between a man-made screed and a series of texts sometimes claimed to be inerrant and divinely inspired? But never mind these trifling failures of analogy. 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. But if Jesus had been acting consistently and seeking a trusted companion who could facilitate his necessary martyrdom, then all the mental and moral garbage about the Jewish frame-up of the Redeemer goes straight over the side.
Remember that Christians are supposed to believe that everybody is responsible for the loneliness and torture of Calvary, and for the failure to appreciate the awful blood sacrifice until it was too late. In living memory, the Catholic Church invoked the verses where the Jews called for this very blood to be, not just upon their own heads, but upon their every succeeding generation. (This sinister fable occurs in only one of the four authorized Gospels, but it was enough―and Mel Gibson recently coined himself 40 million pieces of silver by attempting to revive it.)
Now ask yourself, why did the church take so long to exculpate the Jews as a whole from the collective and heritable charge of "deicide"? It ought to have been simple enough to determine that the Sanhedrin of the time, whatever it may have done, could not have bound all Jews for all eternity. The answer is equally simple: If Christianity had to excuse one group of humans from everlasting blood-guilt, how could it avoid excusing them all? Two millennia of stupidity and cruelty and superstition dissolve in an instant when we notice that even some early believers were shrewd enough to see though the whole sham. On this weekend of official piety, 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.*
from Slate.com
I do not turn a blind eye, actually I keep a close eye on the progress in China. I don't quite understand why you are saying that "you just seem to turn a blind eye to the tremendous progress in China over the past few decades". It was obvious there was no disagreement between you and me on whether or not there's the type of progress that you are referring to in China. Actually the type of progress in China was so obvious that no one in this forum is interested in talking about as far as I know. Also I think the acknowledgement of the type of progress is obvious in the context of my comment, which is the prerequisite condition for my comment on "at what expense for majority of people?". Let me make it clear this time. I completely agree with you that there is a tremendous progress in China (especially for some people), but who does the progress really benefit? Does it benefit those majority at the bottom? You seem to think so, and I beg to differ. I would say that's where we don't seem to see eye to eye, not whether or not there's the progress.
"the whole world amazed at"
I think there are more and more foreign economists and foreign media having recognized the problems underneath the type of progress. Some even used the terms "two China".
"难道多解释一下不是很好吗？地主老财亚。很多时候，让人丈二和尚摸不着头脑。"最初由 wushuren 发布
东方的宗教和哲学就解释的不这么清楚，很吝惜字和词，简直是惜字如金，让你直接去悟，害怕说多了，就会破坏那直接的心灵把握，例如有时候更多是讲证言的故事，难道多解释一下不是很好吗？地主老财亚。
很多时候，让人丈二和尚摸不着头脑。结果就用了八个字，
明心见性，直指人心。
I think the reason it has been like that is not because that they are so stingy like "地主老财". But on the contrary, it was deliberately put as concise as possible mainly because the language was not up to task.
I think language in general is always behind new concepts being created by brains, always behind what's been newly 悟ed by hearts, and always behind what's been newly felt holistically by beings. I also think it's possible there are times or things that language is totally inadequate to describe. The ancient Chinese sages clearly realized this limitation or inability of language. That's why they had PURPOSELY made this type of teaching/statement terse. Therefore I think the statement such as "明心见性，直指人心" is like a maximum inflection point, not a bit more, not a bit less, perfect right there. It reminds me of an interesting English saying "less is more".
Statement such as "明心见性，直指人心" is like certain type of things in life, either you get it, or you don't. When you get it, you'll find it's plain and simple, and absolutely true. When you don't, no need to keep working on it. Just leave it alone and forget about it. Come back to see if you get it 3 or 5 years later.
That's one of the greatness of the ancient Chinese sages because they had seen things or the depth of things that western sages haven't been able to see hundreds of years later. For example, up to now there seem no English word accurately enough for the incredible Chinese word "悟" that still makes me feeling awed whenever I think about the word.
wushuren
综合杂谈名誉斑竹
- 注册
- 2002-02-10
- 消息
- 6,500
- 荣誉分数
- 9
- 声望点数
- 0
最初由 龙行有雨 发布
没哪个牧师敢开这个口。是因您那解释，不够厚道。有个神明说啦，不能用牛的奶去煮牛的肉
至于万教归一，那不就“环球同此凉热”了吗？
同此凉热，从物理上讲，是世界末日。住在纪念堂里的那位“万寿无疆”，其实是个悲观主义者，他相信“热寂说”
我想上帝如此万能和无所不在，很可能是很好热闹的。否则的话，真得很没有道理。天主教出现的时候，同时代在中国是道家，而在印度是佛家的施加摩尼。当然这里面时间上可能稍微有些出入。
牛的奶煮牛的肉？能不能给个出处？
同流而不归一，才比较好玩和有趣，套用现在的名词，这叫做多元化。
wushuren
综合杂谈名誉斑竹
- 注册
- 2002-02-10
- 消息
- 6,500
- 荣誉分数
- 9
- 声望点数
- 0
我说的是反话，您可能没有看出来。
用西方的语言和文化体系，绝对受不了那种东方式的禅，熟悉圣经的人都清楚，人类的语言是谁给变乱的。
每种文化体系都出现了“同一”，虽然名称不同。这不是巧合，东方有了，印度有了，伊斯兰和欧洲需要借用犹太人的1.0版本，发展成2。0和2。1版本。
在没有2.0和2。1版本以前，除了犹太人，欧洲和中东崇拜系统绝对很乱，从古希腊开始就有这个传统，没有“同一”。
于是世界各地都有了“同一”作为基础。
我这都是作为一个凡人的瞎猜，不要有人试图给我套上一个假冒先知的罪名。
under the sun
新手上路
- 注册
- 2005-09-29
- 消息
- 191
- 荣誉分数
- 0
- 声望点数
- 0
著著！查到了。
俭翰福音3章17?。[因? 神差他的?子降世，不是要定世人的罪，乃是要叫世人因他得救。
信他的人，不被定罪，不信的人，罪已?定了，因?他不信 神?生子的名。]
under the sun
新手上路
- 注册
- 2005-09-29
- 消息
- 191
- 荣誉分数
- 0
- 声望点数
- 0
" 龙行有雨 " 朋友：呃睫?有喳咒的意思，碉不咿把劫果告灾 大家而已，?然每?人都有接受或不接受的自由。
神是 "盼望" 每一个人相信他，但他睫不勉?人的！
*烟包上的警告字眼"吸?可以致癌" 你?不会真它是咒喳吧？
神是 "盼望" 每一个人相信他，但他睫不勉?人的！
*烟包上的警告字眼"吸?可以致癌" 你?不会真它是咒喳吧？
wushuren
综合杂谈名誉斑竹
- 注册
- 2002-02-10
- 消息
- 6,500
- 荣誉分数
- 9
- 声望点数
- 0
不好意思，我在约翰福音第三章17没有找到您那段。“凡有世上财务的。看见兄弟贫乏，却塞住怜恤的心，神的心怎能存在他里面尼？”能不能再次确认一下？
为此怎么办？不如告诉，真理，道路和生命的光就是耶稣，施加摩尼和老子都不曾称呼自己为神，他们是师长和前辈，他们的证言都指向一个同一。不可言传的同一。他就是上帝。
我们只能重复圣经中说的话，我们不能评判人，这也是圣经中告诉的。
因为我们没有权柄，我们还在路上，即使呼主的名传道和行异能也有可能不被主承认。
“凡灵不认耶稣，就不是出于神，这是敌基督者的灵“约翰福音第四章3
为此，犹太人也不认耶稣，那么犹太人也是敌基督？
我看还是把耶稣的定义扩大成真理道路和生命的光，才比较好。耶稣自己这么称呼自己的，而且是无处不在，我们这样做当然是遵照了耶稣的旨意。
他住在我们的心里，这只能是道路真理和生命的光。一个充分必要条件。难道这世界上还有哪个道路真理和生命的光，不是耶稣？谁敢这么说，很可能就是敌基督。
为此，爱因斯坦这个无神论者也将被包括进来，布鲁诺也将被包括进来。
为此，我们很可能解决掉这个世界上，大大小小的隐含的，和明面的宗教和教派冲突和战争，还有宗教迫害的理论基础。
还记得清教徒逃往美州的五月花号吗？
