Well, that certainly would provide a solution to the question of "if Christ's crucifixion were necessary to his salvation of the world, then why would the individual most centrally responsible for it be eternally damned?"
I'm still not sure if I buy it, though I hold no belief in the divinity of the biblical scriptures anyway, so I can't exactly hold an offshoot wrting to be the "truth," particularly without having read it.
Along the same lines, something which has bothered me since childhood, and has been bugging me more than usual recently, is the modern (and classical) treatment of Pontious Pilate, by all accounts the second-most-villified villain in the New Testament behind only Judas himself. Despite what many who know me now might think, I've read the New Testament a number of times, and find it enlightening and inspiring, even if I remain unsure of it's divinity (I'm still agnostic, after all.) My problem is as such: Pilate is the only person, as far as I can tell, to publicly defend Jesus. Far from being his prosecutor, he pleas with the crowd for His amnesty, looking for any route possible. While he may not have been a desciple, he still acted with far mor rationality and less fear (even more impressive, given his precarious political position and the fact that he himself wasn't a believer.) Yes, he gave Christ over to the mob, but that's what the whole "I wash my hands of this" matter was about. It wasn't washing his hands of Christ, but rather of a matter sure to be decided by mob rule against his pleading, and of which he wanted no part. Of all those in the New Testament, I find Pilate to be only behind Christ himself in the honorability rankings. He stood up in public to defend Jesus. His own desciples were in hiding, denying him, and yet they're still seen as okay. WTF?
I feel that the discussion regarding how this new gospel can be seen as an authentic account of "what really happened" completely misses the point of why I feel this Gospel was written in the first place. One of the most amazing things about religious interpretations is that two people can come at the exact same event with complete polar different viewpoints of the significance of the said event. According to this new Gospel, Judas's betrayl of Christ is the lynchpin of the story of Christ. Without the betrayl, there is no Passion and no Cruxifiction, and therefore no salvation for humanity. Seen in this light, Judas becomes one of the central heroes of the Christ story. The Cainites, the sect that supposed produced the said Gospel, were known for taking Biblical villians and recasting them in a positive and heroic light (hence the name Cainites).
This interpretation of the Judas story has great spiritual power, if it is understood correctly. What if your beloved teacher, one who would willing give your life and death for, asked you to betray him and condemn him to hideous suffering and death, so he could fulfill a plan that would bring salvation and reconciliation to all of humanity, and begin the Kindgom of God on Earth? Furthermore, what if this meant that you yourself would be damned forever for this betrayl, both your soul and your memory vilified until the end of the World? What kind of choice is that? To me, whether or not Jesus "actually" asked Judas to betray him has little relevance when compared to how a believer can contemplate the full ramifications of this betrayl, and through this contemplation approach the fear and trembling that comes with facing the truly divine. I think that this new Gospel should be interpreted in this light: as a document of how some early Christians approached the mystery and paradox of Christ's sacrifice and the spiritual sustenance they drew from it.
But still, you must hand it to the marketing department at National Geographic. At a time when a sizable portion of Americans have had their beliefs about the authenticity of their Holy Book's narrative questioned by a best selling author (who's a total hack, btw), there is absolutely no better sale than an actual "Da Vinci Code" that "Challenges what is believed about the story of Judas and his betrayl of Jesus". This is why I have a permanent subscription with these people, my friends: they are professionals.
2 Comments:
Well, that certainly would provide a solution to the question of "if Christ's crucifixion were necessary to his salvation of the world, then why would the individual most centrally responsible for it be eternally damned?"
I'm still not sure if I buy it, though I hold no belief in the divinity of the biblical scriptures anyway, so I can't exactly hold an offshoot wrting to be the "truth," particularly without having read it.
Along the same lines, something which has bothered me since childhood, and has been bugging me more than usual recently, is the modern (and classical) treatment of Pontious Pilate, by all accounts the second-most-villified villain in the New Testament behind only Judas himself. Despite what many who know me now might think, I've read the New Testament a number of times, and find it enlightening and inspiring, even if I remain unsure of it's divinity (I'm still agnostic, after all.)
My problem is as such: Pilate is the only person, as far as I can tell, to publicly defend Jesus. Far from being his prosecutor, he pleas with the crowd for His amnesty, looking for any route possible. While he may not have been a desciple, he still acted with far mor rationality and less fear (even more impressive, given his precarious political position and the fact that he himself wasn't a believer.) Yes, he gave Christ over to the mob, but that's what the whole "I wash my hands of this" matter was about. It wasn't washing his hands of Christ, but rather of a matter sure to be decided by mob rule against his pleading, and of which he wanted no part. Of all those in the New Testament, I find Pilate to be only behind Christ himself in the honorability rankings. He stood up in public to defend Jesus. His own desciples were in hiding, denying him, and yet they're still seen as okay. WTF?
I feel that the discussion regarding how this new gospel can be seen as an authentic account of "what really happened" completely misses the point of why I feel this Gospel was written in the first place. One of the most amazing things about religious interpretations is that two people can come at the exact same event with complete polar different viewpoints of the significance of the said event. According to this new Gospel, Judas's betrayl of Christ is the lynchpin of the story of Christ. Without the betrayl, there is no Passion and no Cruxifiction, and therefore no salvation for humanity. Seen in this light, Judas becomes one of the central heroes of the Christ story. The Cainites, the sect that supposed produced the said Gospel, were known for taking Biblical villians and recasting them in a positive and heroic light (hence the name Cainites).
This interpretation of the Judas story has great spiritual power, if it is understood correctly. What if your beloved teacher, one who would willing give your life and death for, asked you to betray him and condemn him to hideous suffering and death, so he could fulfill a plan that would bring salvation and reconciliation to all of humanity, and begin the Kindgom of God on Earth? Furthermore, what if this meant that you yourself would be damned forever for this betrayl, both your soul and your memory vilified until the end of the World? What kind of choice is that? To me, whether or not Jesus "actually" asked Judas to betray him has little relevance when compared to how a believer can contemplate the full ramifications of this betrayl, and through this contemplation approach the fear and trembling that comes with facing the truly divine. I think that this new Gospel should be interpreted in this light: as a document of how some early Christians approached the mystery and paradox of Christ's sacrifice and the spiritual sustenance they drew from it.
But still, you must hand it to the marketing department at National Geographic. At a time when a sizable portion of Americans have had their beliefs about the authenticity of their Holy Book's narrative questioned by a best selling author (who's a total hack, btw), there is absolutely no better sale than an actual "Da Vinci Code" that "Challenges what is believed about the story of Judas and his betrayl of Jesus". This is why I have a permanent subscription with these people, my friends: they are professionals.
Post a Comment
<< Home