From: riggs@descartes.tec.army.mil (Bill Riggs)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: What did Judas betray?
Date: 8 Oct 92 01:34:20 GMT
Followup-To: sci.skeptic,talk.religion.misc
Organization: LNK Corporation, Riverdale, MD

In article <BvqMGy.6uA@bunyip.cc.uq.oz.au> kinsler@newton.physics.uq.oz.au (Paul Kinsler) writes:
>I am about to jump into the middle of this thread, 
>so please excuse me if I change the tack slightly:
>
>Perhaps we should stop treating the Bible etc as a source 
>of historical information, and give up attempting to analyse 
>the motives of its protagonists.

	Maybe *we* should do that on sci.skeptic, since there is
virtually no consensus, in this forum at least, as to an acceptable
interpretation of data which is commonly accepted as fact. But Biblical
historicity is at least subjectively important to both believers and
non-believers, because it provides the underpinnings for their 
respective theologies/philosophies/belief systems, at least as far
as Jesus, and the Old Testament prophets are concerned. It is possible
to go for an allegorical interpretation, but this merely supplements, it
does NOT replace the need to judge what is in the Bible in historical
terms. 

>
>The reason (some) people care about the bible is because it 
>has meaning to them, not because of any claimed historical
>accuracy. (Not that m/any christians realise this).

	But you cannot speak for what Christians claim, or 
Jews, for that matter. Judeochristianity has two bedrock 
theological concepts which are unique to it:

	1. God created the heavens and the earth.

	2. God interacts with man in historical time.

	There are religions, such as Deism, Tao, and Buddhism,
which do not rely on these core concepts. They do not need a
scripture to record the actions of God in historical time. There
are religions which are essentially dead (i.e. paganism of the 
Greco-Roman and German varities) for which such a record has
a different meaning subjectively, since virtually nobody believes
in their gods anymore. And there are a few religions, such as Hinduism
and Islam, in which the historical element is either suppressed or
discredited, whose theological foundations lie elsewhere. And while
in many synagogues and churches firm belief in points #1 and #2 is slowly 
being replaced by a sort of fuzzy traditionalist nostalgia, often 
combined with raw emotionalism, you should be aware that such movements 
are generally poison to both the spirit and the law of the faith.
The one possible exception to this statement is the "Course
in Miracles" movement, but I simply have not got enough information
about who these people are, what they believe or what they do to
comment intelligently about them.

>
>The reason Judas betrayed Jesus was simply that Jesus 
>could not have died for our sins unless *someone* 
>betrayed him. Someone had to betray Jesus, and Judas
>just happened to be the one. If he had not betrayed
>Jesus, then he would have instead betrayed Jesus's 
>purpose on this earth (to be crucified and die for
>our sins... etc).

But Judas's role is theologically almost meaningless. If we 
use Schaeffer's Rule (the more theologically meaningful
a biblical reference is, the more likely it is that
that reference was made up ex post facto), Judas's betrayal
of Jesus takes on a high degree of probability.
	
>
>PS: I am not a christian. I am not even religious. 
>    The christian message has little place in my
>    life. I just think that myth should be analysed in 
>    terms of it's intended message or meaning, not 
>    as a collection of "facts" or "pseudo-facts".

	I have posted somewhat in this vein in the past, primarily
to underscore the intellectual distinction between Greek paganism
and Judeochristianity. Consider the following from Daniel Boorstin's
excellent book, "The Creators.":

(page 33) "Homer's world of gods and goddesses bypassed the perplexing 
questions of the first Creation of the earth and of man. In the Iliad and the 
Odyssey we see man and the gods fully matured. If Homer was ever troubled 
about how or why the world came into being, he does not share his concern
with us. The full-grown gods' loves and hates provide the motive power, the 
sources of defeat or victory, success or catastrophy in the Iliad and the 
Odyssey...So too, by showing their gods as immortal men and women with all the
human passions, fears, and hopes, they made men and women the more godlike.
The hybrid nature of man would remain a dominant feature in Judaism and
Christianity. The Greeks shaped their gods in man's image. They made man
their point of departure, and for them the problems of Creation were only
afterthoughts. But Judaism and Christianity would turn the question around,
and start from God. By making man in God's image, they committed themselves
to facing the Mystery of Creation, with endless consequences."

(page 41) "Here was a path leading man to think of himself a potential 
creator. Man would himself be no mere object or victim or instrument of
gods but part of the processes of creation. This was the paradox of the 
God of Moses. The God who would not reveal his name, and on whom Moses 
dared not to look, promised Moses, "Certainly I will be with thee (Exodus
3:12). The hint that man might himself possess Creator-like qualities
appeared in a new intimacy between God and man. As the Bible explained 
in Genesis, the First Book of Moses, "God created man in his own image, 
in the image of God created he him" (Genesis 1:27)...The perpetual
'covenant' between a Creator-God and a Man-in-God's-Image was an 
extraordinary idea. In religions and mythologies where the gods had 
been made in man's image, it was not surprising that Zeus or Juno, or 
Poseidon or Aphrodite should be angered at their human rivals. But this
God of the Unutterable Name actually entered into an agreement, a covenant,
establishing mutual obligations with his God-like human creations."

>-- 
>+soluble fish+
>"You people, you do not see the grandeur in the wind and stone and stars,
> in the blood and fire and iron - but paint only the flowers."

Bill R.

"My opinions do not represent those of my employer or any
government agency."
-- 
Bill R.