Curious Christian

6 responses to “Gospel of Judas”

1. 

   John

   2006-08-30

   Hi its John from Kyneton.
   What became the “official” version of Christianity was the result of a conflict between various understandings/interpretations of the significance of Jesus. Broadly put there were esoteric “gnostic” other worldly factions and strictly exoteric reductionist factions. The exoterics inevitably won. One reason was that you cant have an imperial religion based on other worldly mysticism. Mystics/ecstatics are not interested in fighting wars!!
   Ever since then mystics have always been essentially unwelcome in the “official” church–they were quite often persecuted and even executed. This hostility to mystics/ecstatics is also shared by “official” exoteric Islam.
   And is totally anathema to mainline exoteric/reductionist Protestantism—hence organisations with the title Stand To Reason and books titled The “Victory” of Reason.
   This hostility is also expressed in the recent Popes hostility to free independent Spiritual practice & enquiry outside of the prescriptive parameters of the guidelines of the “church”. Again mystics/ecstatics are a threat to the solid order of things.
   Meanwhile please check out these 2 essays by my favourite “philosopher”.
   The Blood Sacrifice at:
   1. http://www.dabase.net/bloodsac.htm
   Spirit Worship
   2. http://www.dabase.net/spiritw.htm

   LikeLike

   Reply
2. 

   Matt Stone

   2006-08-30

   John
   If you are under the impression that I see mystics/ecstatics as threatening then I suggest you check out my other blog. You may be surprised to find that is dedicated to the exploration of Christian mysticism, and furthermore, is named Ekstasis from the ancient Greek word for trance and spiritual ecstasy.
   Now, your comments initially caused me to wonder whether I am suffering from multiple personality disorder or theological schizophrenia, but after some reflection I’d like to offer an alternate interpretation: you have exaggerated the irreconcilability of the exoteric and esoteric within a theologically orthodox Christian framework.
   Mysticism is hardly peripheral to Eastern Orthodox Christianity, even if it is within other Christian circles, and my first experiences were actually within religious instruction classes in a Catholic school, that is, firmly within the bastions of institutionalism. It’s harder to find mystics within Protestantism, to my continual frustration, but even there I have found guys like Richard Foster offering instruction.
   So let’s be clear. My criticism of Gnosticism in general, and the Gospel of Judas in particular, is not grounded in a fear of mysticism, a captivity to reductionism, a commitment to institutionalism or an obedience to the Papacy. It is founded on the observation that the texts were composed a long time ago in a place far, far away, but not nearly so long ago enough or far away enough as to lend them historical plausibility over the New Testament texts.
   People are free to pursue Gnostic paths if they so choose, but let’s be clear that these Gnostic texts are essentially later romanticizations by people far removed from the Jewish culture of Jesus. I find them more interesting than the Book of Mormon but no more historically credible or spiritually beneficial. The Gnostics were elitists who disparaged the egalitarian grace of the Jesus who actually was and is.

   LikeLike

   Reply
3. 

   John

   2006-08-31

   Matt, I was not criticising your attitude to mystics & ecstatics.
   I was making a general comment on the “churchs” attitudes overall based on familiarity with Adi Da’s extensive commentaries on the origins & attitudes of the institutional “church”—commentaries which he is still making and which will be published in the future in a book titled Jesus of Gallilee. Which features a comprehensive discussion of Christian gnosticism, including its delusions and limitations.
   How do you know that the gnostics were elitists? Were you there? Did you talk to any of them? Did you ask them any questions?
   The fact of the matter is that the true Spiritual Process is inherently hierarchial because it is rooted in the psycho-anatomical structures of our bodies–the spinal line and the central nervous system brain-mind mechanism—the chakra system–quite literally the tree of life . And it can only be properly taught (or rather transmitted) by someone (male or female) who has mastered and incarnated the hidden/latent esoteric power centres.
   A concept which is almost totally unknown in the dreadful sanity of the “radically” secularised west.Especially
   among “egalitarian” entirely exoteric Protestanism where ecstasy and mysticism are totally taboo.
   Also how do you really know about anything that may or may not have happened over 1500 years ago?
   It is all presumptions! Especially for a dreadfully sane westerner trapped in the reductionist exoteric zeitgeist of the times. That is right now, or anyone born in the west for the past 200 years! Nietzsche was right–tragically.
   Besides which Adi Da points out that the “gnostic”/mystical dimensions of multi-dimensional being are latent in everyone (as our evolutionary potential) and as such are capable of being developed/cultivated by everyone and that sooner or later everyone will be obliged to do the spiritual sadhana wherby those dimensions are explored and accounted for. For one reason or another very few people in the entire history of humanity have ever done so. Such a possibility is absolutely TABOO in this day and age.
   The great spiritual cultures of the world were not created by the common unevolved everyman. NOr were the spiritually inspired great works of classical art from any culture. They were inspired and create by geniuses–members of the elite.
   Nor were the multivarious practicing schools of esoteric Buddhism & Hinduism. They were (and are) created, inspired and sustained by men and women of extraordinary Spiritual accomplishment.
   The various spiritual revivals (and their associated schools of esoteric spiritual practice) of Hindu India were not sparked by ordinary people but by men and Women of extraordinary spiritual power and accomplishment. People such as Shankara, Ramanuja, Sri Chaintanya, Jnaneshwar, Sri Ramakrisha, Swami Vivekananda and countless others. Quite often they were illiterate peasants. Four 19-20th examples being Sri Ramakrishna and Sri Ramana Maharshi Sai Baba of Shirdi and Bhagavan Nityananda of Ganeshpuri.
   Similarly the various practicing schools of Buddhism were founded and maintained to this present day by men & women of similar spiritual power and accomplishment.

   LikeLike

   Reply
4. 

   Matt Stone

   2006-09-03

   John
   It is precisely because your comment is so general that I must apply it to myself. For I am ‘the church’ as much as any Christian institution you care to name.
   Now, if you’d restricted your comments to specific institutions and not generalized so much then that would have been a different story, but you didn’t. And even so in critiquing Christian institutions it must be recognized that there is considerable diversity within some of them. Sometimes it’s our very diversity which causes so much internal friction!
   As for knowing who the Gnostics where and what they were on about, why do I need to have been there or talked to any of them? I’ve never talked to you in the flesh yet I know certain things about you from the teachings you promote. Same with them. I’ve read their stuff.
   As for spiritual growth being inherrantly hierachial, I must disagree with you on that as our teachings of grace cut right across that. And the concept of grace is not entirely unique to Christianity either, you also have the Cat School of Bhakti Yoga and Pure Land Buddhism to consider. These exceptions are ample evidence that it’s not an inherrant rule. It’s just an extremely common one.
   I obviously need to state this again too: mysticism is not ‘totally taboo’ within Protestantism, it’s just largely neglected. Nor are ecstatic states taboo as a cursory exploration of Chrismatic worship should make abundantly clear. You are way, way over generalizing. I will grant you it is taboo in certain quarters, neo-Calvanist cessationists come immediately to mind, but it is not true in all quarters. Might I suggest your experience of Christianity may not be entirely comprehensive?
   As for reductionism, I rejected exclusive commitment that back in my late teens, when I started exploring eastern mysticism and post-modern philosophy. I do not imagine I know everything, or claim that I am without bias; but that doesn’t preclude me from knowing anything about history. We can know some things; we just need to be very, very conscious of context, of where the bits fit within the larger whole. I might at this point ask you how you can know anything about history? Particularly anything that might contradict what I am saying about ancient Gnosticism here? Are you saying you channeled it directly?
   The problem with elitist paths is that seeking to transcend the self through self effort is somewhat contradictory. To transcend the ego you must let go of elitism.

   LikeLike

   Reply
5. 

   Mini

   2006-09-30

   Hello all,
   I want to show you an interesting site about Judas and gnosticism.
   http://www.gnosticjudas.com
   regards

   LikeLike

   Reply
6. 

   Matt Stone

   2006-10-01

   Mini, I take it that you grant the Gospel of Judas a great deal more of legitimacy than myself so I am wondering how you would repond to the conversation that has been going on so far.
   On your site you say Christian have been mistaken to take the gospels as real history. So are you admitting that the Gospel of Judas is unhistorical and more of a mythological reworking of the story in line with Gnostic theology?

   LikeLike

   Reply