Thread: Was Judas especially evil, or just an average dude? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=029549

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
The question about Judas is specific, with implications about me or anyone. The thread is intended to be about extraordinary evil, Not about the fact that we all sin . My readings about murder, assault, rape, betrayal, genocide, ethnic cleansing etc seem to suggest that these are average people, not easy to distinguish from others except for some specific acts of evil.

Is it okay to try to understand the truly extraordinary evil acts that some people have done, or will our understanding create inappropriate empathy? Should we pray for the soul of Judas? Does anyone? What about Nazi or Rwandan war criminals?
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
Judas is a deeply ambivalent figure and I've often wondered whether he was as bad as he's portrayed.

What do you do if you join a religious-political protest movement that you realize after a while is sooner or later going to bring you into direct conflict with the government? What if you find you start to have doubts about your leader and you aren't at all sure which way this is going, or that you want to be part of it, but you don't feel you can leave?

And what if that leader seems to be aware that you have doubts but because there is a prophecy you both know of, he's going to let you continue along your chosen path and won't stop you, or mention explicitly to anyone else that it's you who may break ranks? For your own safety (the rest of the group won't take it kindly, obviously), are you glad he says nothing, or not?

I accept that Judas' motives might be a question for a separate thread, if it doesn't fit here.
 
Posted by HCH (# 14313) on :
 
What do you do if you start following a charismatic leader and come to wonder whether he is sane and needs medical attention? What if you are also rather naive?

Some people assert that the most serious crime of Judas was not the betrayal but his suicide, denying any chance of making amends.
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
I vote for average dude. And I've prayed for him.

[ 18. October 2015, 19:02: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
I think the entire point of the story is lost if Judas was especially wicked. In medieval dramas he was depicted as purely evil, Satan's best buddy. It is hard to believe that Jesus (or any sane person) would want someone like that on the team. It only becomes tragic if Judas really was intelligent and worthwhile and very nearly a saint.
 
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :
 
I pray for everyone, especially those who have caused serious injury or death to other people - to think that they have the pain of those acts to face at some point, when they see God.

Judas was an average dude imv, either one who was greedy and ready to betray Jesus for money - I've known plenty of average dudes like that - or one who thought he was pressing Jesus into action and so doing the right thing by his actions, until he saw the end result.
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
I really think that up to a certain point, it could have been any of the twelve--human nature being what it is, and temptation/fear being what IT is, any of them could have fallen, or others of those close to Jesus--and statistically speaking, somebody was going to cave and do the deed. The only question was who.

So I can't blame Jesus for choosing Judas. I suspect that knowing exactly who would make that choice is one of the bits of foreknowledge he laid aside when he "emptied himself," and it was only toward the end that he became certain.
 
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on :
 
I'm currently a bit busy on another thread, but there was an interesting 'take' on Judas in Dorothy L Sayers' radio plays "The Man Born to be King", suggesting Judas having made terrible mistakes but not specially evil in himself.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
Two people betrayed Christ on the same night. One sought forgiveness and became a mighty apostle and some say first bishop of Rome. The other despaired of forgiveness and hanged himself.

I think the message is clear, at least to me: do not assume you are unforgivable. Seek and accept God's forgiveness.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Two people betrayed Christ on the same night. One sought forgiveness and became a mighty apostle and some say first bishop of Rome. The other despaired of forgiveness and hanged himself.

I think the message is clear, at least to me: do not assume you are unforgivable. Seek and accept God's forgiveness.

Not quite. Peter failed Jesus, but at the time was actually being more courageous than the others. Judas, though, had turned Jesus in, gone over to the dark side.

However, on the actual question in the OP, I'm sure the point is that any one of the twelve could have betrayed him. When Jesus says 'one of you will betray me', they all start to ask 'is it I?' They all know they have it in them, that they aren't quite as 100% as they might like people to think they were, or would even like themselves to think they were.

We're all like that.
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
Does that forgiveness and implied understanding/empathy extend to those who've committed mass murder within genocide? Is it just Godly forgiveness or is suggested that humans shall forgive also? Can we afford to forgive extraordinary evil?
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
We MUST. Judas was just a bloke and will be fine.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Not quite. Peter failed Jesus, but at the time was actually being more courageous than the others.

By denying him three times? How is that more courageous?

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Does that forgiveness and implied understanding/empathy extend to those who've committed mass murder within genocide? Is it just Godly forgiveness or is suggested that humans shall forgive also? Can we afford to forgive extraordinary evil?

It really depends on what you mean by "forgive." If you mean that we should let this person out of prison and give them a position in which they can do it again, I'm thinking maybe not. But that's not what I mean, nor I think what God means, by forgiveness. The Pope (JP2) forgave the man who tried to kill him, but he didn't spring him from prison.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
Remember that every person, without exception, is the hero in his own narrative. When Osama bin Laden brushed his teeth, he did not see in the bathroom mirror a mass-murdering nutbag. He saw a hero, a right-doing individual bucking heavy odds.
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Remember that every person, without exception, is the hero in his own narrative. When Osama bin Laden brushed his teeth, he did not see in the bathroom mirror a mass-murdering nutbag. He saw a hero, a right-doing individual bucking heavy odds.

I'm not sure that's true. History is full of people who struggled throughout their lives with their own sense of worthlessness.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
But if you accept you are worthless, this is not a problem to you. It is the disconnect between a sense of worthlessness and the drive to be of value that is so destructive. Plus all those messages assuring you that you are worth that Benz, that chocolate bar, that woman. This is what drives young men berserk with assault rifles.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
We can't possibly know what Judas' motivation was, but the bits of clues we get from the gospels are intriguing: he apparently (along with the other 11) gave up everything to follow Jesus, lived and traveled with him for 3 years, then for some reason plotted against him-- and then, when everything turned out precisely according to plan, was filled with such remorse and shame that he was destroyed by it.

One theory-- and yes, it is just that, but an intriguing one I think-- is that Judas was a zealot who expected the messiah to raise up an army to overthrow the Romans. So for the whole 3 years he's watching Jesus gather a group of followers, show his power thru various miracles--- all looks good, but when does he start to gather the army? The theory is Judas was tired of waiting and was trying to back Jesus into a corner where he's have to fight and thus begin the revolution. Which could explain why he is so devastated when things turn out exactly according to plan. Note that Peter's first response when Jesus was arrested was also to grab a sword-- it appears to be only after Jesus shuts down that line of response that the disciples seem to fall apart and not know what to do.

We of course don't know if this is what's really going on or not-- the gospels don't tell us. But I find the theory intriguing because of what it tells me about myself-- about my own tendency to want to make Jesus into a messiah of my own choosing-- to want "force his hand" (as if I could) to defeat my enemies, rather than allowing Jesus to be that paradoxical, whimsical, upside-down messiah who seems more inclined to challenge me to look at my own heart.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
We're also told he had an embezzlement problem. Now you may wish to say that was added later to make him look worse than he really was, but since the whole story was written long after the events it may or may not depict, I'd say it's hard to tease apart which parts you want to accept and which parts you want to reject.

At any rate, at least lip service should be given to this accusation and an attempt to psychoanalyze Judas that doesn't give it a nod will be incomplete.

It certainly goes well with the idea that his reason for betraying Jesus was greed/love of money.

FWIW the Orthodox hymnody about Judas talk about "this man who for love of money" betrayed Jesus. So there's at least one Tradition that takes that point of view. Which is as pointed out quite in keeping with the plain reading of scripture. People who think the Orfies don't hold a high view of scripture, but who want to posit some other motive for Judas, have some 'splainin' to do.

ETA:

Of course that doesn't make him exquisitely evil or anything. Plain ordinary Joes do wrong things for the love of money every day. In the case of Wall Street day traders, thousands of times a second.

[ 18. October 2015, 23:46: Message edited by: mousethief ]
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
Is Judas not a saint, somewhere in the faith? O felix culpa and all that.
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
Maybe Judas had Perpetrator Stress Disorder, which I understand that people who have murdered others in genocides such as former Yugoslavia and Rwanda are said to have: visions and dreams of killing, raping and maiming, along with emotional problems. Suicide is one possible symptom.

I get that we all sin. But there's a quantum leap from the everyday level of lying, wrath, greed etc we all do, to the mass murder in genocide. Are we all capable of betraying Jesus to torture and crucifixion for cash? Are we all potential participants is genocidal murders? Do we all harbour the will (not merely possibility) to slaughter? Before any of us say "not me", how can you be sure? I am almost convinced by my study of the matter, as motivated by personal experience, that I harbour all the capacities to do it merely because I am human, and to do it with motivation and a feeling of justification. Dare I say "joy"? As my inheritance from Cain and Joshua and all the homonid ancestors I am descended from.

(So how to extinguish this in ourselves seems to me to be the most urgent of human purposes. Violence to each other is the real original sin. )
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
I've often wondered how the Calvinists square this story: how does the once-saved-always-saved idea work with Judas, how could Judas have resisted the redeeming love of Jesus and in what sense did Jesus chose Judas? It doesn't seem to fit the pattern as far as I can see.

I've heard sermons suggesting that God chose Judas specifically to be a betrayer - in order to set in motion the series of events which led to the atonement.

Personally I find all of the stories about Judas and the demonisation of him to be pretty unpalatable. Even a fairly "straight" reading of the story suggests that after the adolation of Palm Sunday, there was intense pressure on the disciples together with a sense of depression and let-down.

Maybe Judas persuaded himself that Jesus was just a clever magician and rhetorician after all - and that the Romans would just imprison or exile him. Maybe he was tired of being the only person in the disciple groupies who seemed to worry about the finances and was concerned that he had no life left, no money and nothing to show for the last 3 years.

Maybe the execution of Jesus came as a huge shock to him and as a result he committed suicide.

Incidentally, there is a pretty disgusting history of anti-Semitism associated with depictions of Judas.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Not quite. Peter failed Jesus, but at the time was actually being more courageous than the others.

By denying him three times? How is that more courageous?
When Jesus was arrested, the others had bolted into the night. Peter at least tried to stand by Jesus enough to follow along to see what happened to him.
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...
quote:
Does that forgiveness and implied understanding/empathy extend to those who've committed mass murder within genocide? Is it just Godly forgiveness or is suggested that humans shall forgive also? Can we afford to forgive extraordinary evil?


How do you think it is within our power to forgive those who have wronged other people? How do you imagine it is our function to do so? Isn't it a bit of a nonsense to say that we should forgive someone who has wronged other people rather than us?
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
There's also the idea, quite prevalent in liberal theological circles at one time, that Judas was actually playing a double-bluff and hoping to jolt Christ into taking up armed resistance to the Romans in line with the Messianic expectations of the Zealots ...

I've always found that a convoluted explanation - and also a high-risk strategy to all practical intents and purposes as it could so easily rebound.

Still, if we were to take a more Calvinistic view then it can quite easily be squared with the kind of more deterministic views associated with that theology ... Christ was betrayed and condemned 'at the hands of wicked men' but it was also by 'God's set purpose and foreknowledge.'

Acts 2:23

See: http://biblehub.com/acts/2-23.htm

That's the standard Calvinistic proof-text on this issue.

Funny things happen when we try to square any of these circles. I only found out recently that Pontius Pilate is venerated as a Saint in the Ethiopian Orthodox Church - presumably for his role in bringing about Christ's crucifixion, death and resurrection and thereby our salvation.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
I think Judas was averagely evil, just like the rest of us. He was subject to temptation (money, recognition, siding with the powerful, whatever) and he gave in to it.

Jesus expected his own actions to lead to his death, I wonder if Judas expected the same? Probably.
 
Posted by Pine Marten (# 11068) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
I think the entire point of the story is lost if Judas was especially wicked. In medieval dramas he was depicted as purely evil, Satan's best buddy. It is hard to believe that Jesus (or any sane person) would want someone like that on the team. It only becomes tragic if Judas really was intelligent and worthwhile and very nearly a saint.

I incline to this reasoning (which I have heard before but can't recall who said it...possibly Dorothy Sayers). Judas had the intelligence and capacity for the highest good - tragically also therefore the capacity for great evil.
 
Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on :
 
Judas is held to be specially wicked because he betrayed the Son of God and not some average Joe. I can’t help feeling there’s an element of hindsight in that interpretation. Whether Judas really appreciated the scale of what he was involved in I think is very hard to say, but I think it’s worthy of consideration.
 
Posted by Anyuta (# 14692) on :
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-voeq7Cebo
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
There's also the idea, quite prevalent in liberal theological circles at one time, that Judas was actually playing a double-bluff and hoping to jolt Christ into taking up armed resistance to the Romans in line with the Messianic expectations of the Zealots ...

I've always found that a convoluted explanation - and also a high-risk strategy to all practical intents and purposes as it could so easily rebound. ...

I agree. I'm also very doubtful about the value of an explanation for which there is no evidence in the only texts we have.
 
Posted by bib (# 13074) on :
 
We are all Judas for all of us have betrayed our faith in Christ many times. I know that I am guilty over and over but because Christ died for me he forgives these failings every day.
 
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

How do you think it is within our power to forgive those who have wronged other people? How do you imagine it is our function to do so? Isn't it a bit of a nonsense to say that we should forgive someone who has wronged other people rather than us?

Forgiveness on the personal level is ending your own emotional gut twisting, high blood pressure causing, insomnia creating reaction to something another person (or corporation or natural event or God) did that caused our internal upset. Get back your own internal equilibrium. If you are upset by a mass murder you read about, forgiveness sets you free from being chained to that horror emotionally. This is separate from the determination of what amount of punishment, correction, rehabilitation, or mercy is appropriate in dealing with the mass murderers themselves.

By forgiving Judas for betraying Jesus, I open the door to my seeing him as a normal flawed person, someone who made a mistake, was horrified by the outcome, it could so easily be you or me, the challenge is can I learn from that somehow? Refusing to forgive, demonizes him which makes him "wholly different from me" and blocks me from seeing the ways I am similar and need to be watchful over my own motives and reactions.

The (human or divine) objective evaluation of what is the most useful thing to do with this person is a different topic, that's "judgment" in the neutral sense which may or may not include punishment in any instance. So yes, whenever upset, whether by personal offense or something told by a distant connection, forgiveness is always important, it helps us see clearly. Seeing clearly is what gets us back on track in our own lives or sets us off on a new track working to change/improve some aspect of society.

Forgiving is not forgetting or saying "that's OK" as if nothing bad happened. Dismissing the evil substitutes one kind of failure to see clearly (unforgiveness) for another (denial).
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
Not quite. It's sitting lighter on one's own feelings. It might even be letting go of them. It's possibly taking more seriously Jesus's saying, 'judge not, that ye be not judged'. But its internal to 'me'. It isn't forgiving the person who commits genocide of their crimes against humanity. It doesn't change their situation either in this world or that which is to come.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by bib:
We are all Judas for all of us have betrayed our faith in Christ many times. I know that I am guilty over and over but because Christ died for me he forgives these failings every day.

Again, not quite. Judas's particular crime isn't that he betrayed, or defaulted on his faith in Christ. That is more like what St Peter did. Judas's crime is that he betrayed Jesus himself into the hands of his enemies. He was a sneak, a grass. He delated Jesus. And as far as we can tell, he did it on his own initiative, not under torture or pressure of any sort.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
One thing about the way some of us read the passion narrative during Holy Week is that we realise that we can be ALL the people involved, Judas included.
 
Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by bib:
We are all Judas for all of us have betrayed our faith in Christ many times. I know that I am guilty over and over but because Christ died for me he forgives these failings every day.

Again, not quite. Judas's particular crime isn't that he betrayed, or defaulted on his faith in Christ. That is more like what St Peter did. Judas's crime is that he betrayed Jesus himself into the hands of his enemies. He was a sneak, a grass. He delated Jesus. And as far as we can tell, he did it on his own initiative, not under torture or pressure of any sort.
I'm with bib. My "enemies" are my sins - the foes in whose presence God sets a table for me. And I betray that part of Jesus that lives in me into the hands of those enemies every time I give in to the temptation to sin.
 
Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
There's also the idea, quite prevalent in liberal theological circles at one time, that Judas was actually playing a double-bluff and hoping to jolt Christ into taking up armed resistance to the Romans in line with the Messianic expectations of the Zealots ...

I've always found that a convoluted explanation - and also a high-risk strategy to all practical intents and purposes as it could so easily rebound.

I agree. I think that this is an area where Occam's Razor can helpfully be applied. Why look for complicated and convoluted explanations when there are simpler answers readily to hand?

So I don't buy the idea of Judas trying to force Jesus's hands. And - for the same reason - I don't go with the idea that Jesus knew all along what Judas was going to do and so chose him for that very purpose. That just makes Jesus a cynical puppet-master.

The simplest explanation is that Judas was an ordinary guy who was tempted/tested and came up short. Just like any of us might have done. Was it the temptation of easy financial gain? Or did his betrayal come out of a sense of despair or disillusionment? It's impossible to say. Perhaps a bit of both. Let's face it - 30 pieces of silver was a hell of a lot of money. Ordinary people have buckled for less.
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
How do you think it is within our power to forgive those who have wronged other people? How do you imagine it is our function to do so? Isn't it a bit of a nonsense to say that we should forgive someone who has wronged other people rather than us?

Because they live among us. Should they be encouraged to have an end like Judas?
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Because they live among us. Should they be encouraged to have an end like Judas?

I think you'll have to explain that a bit. I regret I can't follow what you're getting at.
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
Enoch: I just don't think deferring forgiveness to God or the people who have been harmed or killed works very well in many situations.

Jesus wasn't personally available to counsel or discuss with Judas, and the disciples didn't do it either. The guy had no support, and he killed himself apparently.

Does a community have parallel responsibility to evil-doers in its midst? Does it make a difference what they've done? Considering a continuum of the daily non-illegal sins we all do, crimes within our communities, crime against other soldiers in war, crimes against civilians in war, wanton killing of civilians and atrocities, genocide.
 
Posted by HCH (# 14313) on :
 
Perhaps we need a crazy conspiracy theory saying that Judas did not commit suicide but was murdered. Who would kill him? Perhaps the people who paid him might have done so, if he decided what he had done was wrong and the consequences were not what he had expected or been promised.

As I said, crazy. It does sound like a plot for a movie.
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by HCH:
Perhaps we need a crazy conspiracy theory saying that Judas did not commit suicide but was murdered. Who would kill him? Perhaps the people who paid him might have done so, if he decided what he had done was wrong and the consequences were not what he had expected or been promised.

As I said, crazy. It does sound like a plot for a movie.

My thoughts exactly, as I read your first paragraph. "Judas: a murder mystery". Probably need a love interest too.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Enoch: I just don't think deferring forgiveness to God or the people who have been harmed or killed works very well in many situations.

Jesus wasn't personally available to counsel or discuss with Judas, and the disciples didn't do it either. The guy had no support, and he killed himself apparently.

Does a community have parallel responsibility to evil-doers in its midst? Does it make a difference what they've done? Considering a continuum of the daily non-illegal sins we all do, crimes within our communities, crime against other soldiers in war, crimes against civilians in war, wanton killing of civilians and atrocities, genocide.

Even if it doesn't work very well, deferring forgiveness in those cases to God is probably all we can do. Otherwise, it reads like conceit on our part, and the assumption of a role to which we are not entitled. It's the fact that it doesn't work well, which demonstrates a painful agony that underlies much of human history.

Suppose I say 'I forgive those who perpetrated the Rwandan genocide'. That is not a noble statement. It's a trite one. The Rwandan genocide is a horrible event which happened in our own lifetimes. But I am not a victim of it. I did not know anyone who was. And those who were, are now dead.

I have no title to forgive on behalf of the victims of the Rwandan genocide. Perhaps their surviving kindred have a limited title to do so. If I purport to say 'I forgive those who perpetrated the Rwandan genocide', I am claiming to speak for the wronged. But they have never appointed me to make recompense on their behalf.

Worse, by saying 'I forgive those who perpetrated the Rwandan genocide', I would be abrogating the agony of those who are the victims, pushing it under the carpet, taking away a right to give or withhold forgiveness which is theirs and God's only.


I agree that there is a sense in which we delegate to the judicial system of our own country, the obligation to do justice on our behalf, within our own communities. That sense, though, is limited. Notice how often, people don't accept its conclusions.
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
Enoch, let me be more specific, though carefully.

Suppose there was a person in your community or church who had participated in atrocities? What then? Do we support, do we condemn, do we say to let God sort it out, and leave well enough alone?
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
quote:
Originally posted by HCH:
Perhaps we need a crazy conspiracy theory saying that Judas did not commit suicide but was murdered. Who would kill him? Perhaps the people who paid him might have done so, if he decided what he had done was wrong and the consequences were not what he had expected or been promised.

As I said, crazy. It does sound like a plot for a movie.

My thoughts exactly, as I read your first paragraph. "Judas: a murder mystery". Probably need a love interest too.
Well Mary and Martha are just sitting there!
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
quote:
Originally posted by HCH:
Perhaps we need a crazy conspiracy theory saying that Judas did not commit suicide but was murdered. Who would kill him? Perhaps the people who paid him might have done so, if he decided what he had done was wrong and the consequences were not what he had expected or been promised.

As I said, crazy. It does sound like a plot for a movie.

My thoughts exactly, as I read your first paragraph. "Judas: a murder mystery". Probably need a love interest too.
Well Mary and Martha are just sitting there!
Mary, I think. Martha is too high maintenance.
 
Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :
 
What if his death had nothing to do with Jesus, and was all about Martha getting revenge for being dumped for her prettier, younger airhead of a sister?

Or was it Lazarus, defending the honour of his sisters?
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
Mmm. Love triangles shouldn't be the main plot. They should be one of the side tracks. The main issue should be much more imaginative. I think it is time for Pontius Pilate to get in there. He needs a net of agents, spying on the Zionist movement.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
This thread is now officially dead.
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
There's a circus drama to write?
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
What about the story where Judas doesn't break his neck and eviscerate himself, survives the hanging and Jesus finds him barely alive after His resurrection?
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
Returning to something approaching semi-serious, does anyone have a thought about the purpose of the Judas story? Is it not intended to be a contrast to the failings of Simon Peter - and therefore, perhaps, to add weight to the theological idea that "he who perseveres to the end will be saved" (Matt 24:13)?

ISTM that Judas didn't really do anything worse than Simon the Sorcerer (fake healing without the Spirit), Ananias and Sophia (not giving the church all the money they got from a house sale).. or even the Laodicean church of the Revelations of John (neither hot nor cold).

Whilst some of these were treated particularly harshly (particularly A&S), none seemed to retain the label of traitor.

So what did Judas do that was so much worse?
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
There's more than one version of the death of Judas. Acts says he fell down and burst open in the field he'd bought, and a non-Gospel version has him crushed by a passing chariot. So who knows, it doesn't make it any easier to figure out his motives in the Garden of Gethsemane or how he dealt with the aftermath. He must have thought at the time he was doing the right thing in handing Jesus over to the authorities. For all we know, maybe he'd been pressurized into doing so.
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
"that was so much worse"--well, in God's eyes, maybe nothing, he looks at sin a lot differently than we do as human beings. In human terms, he committed betrayal of a close friend and teacher--and that betrayal resulted in death. I've come to believe that (humanly speaking) betrayal is the worst of sins, because it destroys the trusting victim in a way that nothing else can match. And the deeper the trusting relationship, the deeper the pain.

Also, betrayal in the proper sense is never an accident. It is done deliberately, by someone who could have chosen to do otherwise. Peter freaked out and ran away out of cowardice--that's bad. But Judas preplanned the whole thing.

That's why, humanly speaking, Judas' sin was the worse. And why Dante put him along with other notable betrayers in the lowest circle of hell.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
See - in the face of blood-thirsty, murdering bastards, I don't think betrayal is so bad. It becomes something which is perfectly understandable given the adversary and the pressures.

Obviously it is bad for the person being betrayed. But I don't consider it to be the worst of all sins, particularly in high-pressure conditions.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
And Judas's situation gets us into all kinds of complicated theological knots. Jesus came to die for our sins, as you recall. So if Judas facilitated this, is he not doing the Father's will?
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Enoch, let me be more specific, though carefully.

Suppose there was a person in your community or church who had participated in atrocities? What then? Do we support, do we condemn, do we say to let God sort it out, and leave well enough alone?

No prophet, I have to say, I don't know the answer to that one. I think it's one of the most difficult questions there is, and I'd be uneasy of someone were to tell me they thought the answer was obvious - whatever answer they gave.

Casually welcoming could be like commending someone who licks their lips and say's "I have done nothing wrong". On the other hand, there has to be a way back even for those whose evil is almost beyond comprehension.

What do you think?


Mr Cheesy, has it not occurred to you that the reason why the story of Judas is there is quite simply because it happened?

I don't agree with you that Judas didn't really do anything worse than Simon the Sorcerer ... etc. I'm with Lamb Chopped on this. Blood-thirsty murdering bastards are bad, but so is betrayal.
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
Thanks Enoch. That's about where I'm at too.

Is Judas' betrayal of Jesus which led to Jesus' death worse that a similar betrayal that leads to death of someone else who isn't Jesus? Or is it exactly the same?

Additionally, I have the sung lines from Jesus Christ Superstar in my head this morning:

Jesus: why don't you go do it?
Judas: you want me to do it (?)

It repeats to my ears like a taunt from Jesus to Judas. Perhaps my ears hear it wrongly. Suggesting that Judas' betrayal was Jesus' desire and order.
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
No. We see Jesus making efforts to hold Judas back--warning him well ahead of time, washing his feet, offering him special honor and attention (the sop, also apparently his placement at table), and finally, when he WON'T be turned aside, saying "Fine. What you're going to do--do it quickly."
 
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Maybe Judas had Perpetrator Stress Disorder, which I understand that people who have murdered others in genocides such as former Yugoslavia and Rwanda are said to have: visions and dreams of killing, raping and maiming, along with emotional problems. Suicide is one possible symptom.
)

Being tortured by your conscience is a disorder now?
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
No. We see Jesus making efforts to hold Judas back--warning him well ahead of time, washing his feet, offering him special honor and attention (the sop, also apparently his placement at table), and finally, when he WON'T be turned aside, saying "Fine. What you're going to do--do it quickly."

Yeah but what about humanity's salvation trough the Cross had Jesus been successful in talking Judas out of dobbing Him in ?
 
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :
 
If someone in my parish were guilty of participating in genocide, I would be able to offer the sacrament of Penance--but even then I would probably withhold absolution pending his acceptance of whatever judicial process was appropriate. Likewise with someone who confessed to molesting his child; I would hear the confession, and then tell him that I would pronounce absolution in the police station.

God's forgiveness of sins removes the weight of guilt from a person's soul. It doesn't negate the necessity of submitting to the civil authority's penalties, or making restitution to one's victims. I can ask God to forgive me for having swindled someone, but it doesn't relieve me of the responsibility of paying him back.
 
Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on :
 
Now Judas, don't you come to close
I fear that I might see
That traitor's look upon your face
Might look too much like me

'Cause just like you I've sold the Lord
And often for much less
And like a wretched traitor
I betrayed Him with a kiss


Michael Card
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
I'm with mr. Cheesy regarding the extremely unpalatable link between the portrayal of an evil Judas and anti-semitism.
This, and the clearly spin-doctored Gospel accounts of the 'crowd' wanting Jesus crucified, (over and above a brutal governor who flogged and crucified trouble-makers without a second thought), tragically set in motion 2000 years of dangerous prejudicial feeling towards Jewish people.

Being someone not wishing to align myself with any of that, I believe the historical colleague of the controversial preacher from Galilee was an ordinary dude, a person who got caught up it some pretty heavy shit. The exact details of that situation, or the motives of those involved, can never be fully known
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
Spin doctored?
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
Being tortured by your conscience is a disorder now?

Good point. It leads me to suggest that the scientists and mental health experts want to understand how and why, because the alternative, that people wilfully do evil things means that they (and everyone) might have to consider what potentials for evil they have within them.

Thanks for your subsequent discussion on how penance and absolution could work in such situations. Enlightening.

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
No. We see Jesus making efforts to hold Judas back--warning him well ahead of time, washing his feet, offering him special honor and attention (the sop, also apparently his placement at table), and finally, when he WON'T be turned aside, saying "Fine. What you're going to do--do it quickly."

This is fascinating to me. It almost sounds that Jesus was at the point of exasperation, though I wonder if this is the right attribution of emotion by me - maybe a further projection on my part. I would have wanted to hear (not merely read snippets) all of the dialogue, from before supper and through it. An exploration of Judas' character and motives, so to understand how it is that good people can do extraordinarily evil things. If there's a patron Saint of Evil, it is him isn't it? whether deserved or not.
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
No. We see Jesus making efforts to hold Judas back--warning him well ahead of time, washing his feet, offering him special honor and attention (the sop, also apparently his placement at table), and finally, when he WON'T be turned aside, saying "Fine. What you're going to do--do it quickly."

Yeah but what about humanity's salvation trough the Cross had Jesus been successful in talking Judas out of dobbing Him in ?
Like I said, if it hadn't been Judas, it would have been somebody else. In an inner circle that large (throw in the 72, the ladies, etc.) there's BOUND to be somebody who will crack under temptation. Jesus' death required no special prophetic powers to foresee, anymore than that of Martin Luther King Jr. or Abraham Lincoln. The question was only who and how.
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
No. We see Jesus making efforts to hold Judas back--warning him well ahead of time, washing his feet, offering him special honor and attention (the sop, also apparently his placement at table), and finally, when he WON'T be turned aside, saying "Fine. What you're going to do--do it quickly."

This is fascinating to me. It almost sounds that Jesus was at the point of exasperation, though I wonder if this is the right attribution of emotion by me - maybe a further projection on my part. I would have wanted to hear (not merely read snippets) all of the dialogue, from before supper and through it. An exploration of Judas' character and motives, so to understand how it is that good people can do extraordinarily evil things. [/QB]
Yeah, I'd dearly love to have a transcript of the whole evening too. Though Judas' turning was clearly the work of more than an evening. In fact, it seems to have become settled in his mind the evening Judas rebuked Mary for wasting precious ointment on Jesus, and then Jesus rebuked him in turn. I believe that's John 12, though it might be 10.

I don't really hear exasperation, though. More like grief. The kind of grief you get when you've done your damndest to prevent someone you love from doing something dreadful--picking up another drink when they have been in alcoholism treatment successfully for years, say, or filing for divorce of a loving wife because they've got the hots for some little parasite everybody around them can see plainly will be gone in six months.

Jesus knows--tonight's the night. It's the Passover, when the lambs that symbolize him have been sacrificed for generations, and God's people set free from physical and spiritual slavery. All the earthly circumstances are in place--the enemies are gathered, Pontius Pilate is in town, the crowds have been stirred up by first a miracle (Lazarus' raising) and then a triumphant entry on Palm Sunday. Everything is clearly at the crisis point. And Judas is still on his deadly trajectory in spite of everything Jesus can do. [Frown]

They've run out of time. Judas is antsy to get going. And so Jesus dismisses him to be about his self-chosen business, I think with a voice touched with grief. It will be the last time Jesus ever sees him again in this world.
 
Posted by Galloping Granny (# 13814) on :
 
If Judas had not betrayed Jesus, wouldn't the authorities have got him anyway, sooner rather than later?

Was it important for them to arrest him privately? Were they concerned lest his arrest in public should cause an uprising?

Just wondering.

GG
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
Or the next question GG - why was any betrayer necessary? A private arrest could have been made on many occasions. And another is to ask how Judas knew that Jesus would be in the garden, given that he left before the end of the supper.

An answer to the first is that we are all betrayers of Christ, just as we all would have called out for Him to be crucified (and still do during the Passion readings on both Palm Sunday and Holy Thursday).

The only answer I can think of to the second is that Jesus told him privately, to ensure the link between Passover and His crucifixion.
 
Posted by Moo (# 107) on :
 
I think Judas' problem with Jesus was that Jesus wasn't doing what Judas thought he should. He assumed he knew better than Jesus how things should be done.

Moo
 
Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on :
 
ISTM the discussion thus far posits the “historical” Judas: Judas considered as an historical character, and too little as the “biblical” Judas: the function he played within the theological understandings and purposes of the gospel writers.

The way I see it the gospels, especially in the context of the crisis of Jesus’ ministry, make a critical binary distinction the children of God/Light and the children of the Devil/Darkness: those who are for and those who are against. See, for example, Luke 16: 1-15, summarised in verse 13: “No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate one and love the other, or you will be devoted to one and despise the other”; and John 8: 32-47, where Jesus makes the sharp distinction between those whose father was God and those whose father was the Devil. Judas stands condemned not because he made a mistake but because he made an existential decision to side with the forces of darkness, as Luke puts it (Luke 22:3) “Then Satan entered Judas....[who] went off and spoke with the chief priests ...how he could betray Jesus”. Again, John 13: 26-30, esp. “As soon as Judas took the bread, Satan entered him.”

Contrast Judas with Peter (Luke 22:31-32): “Simon.Simon! Listen! Satan has received permission to test all of you, to separate the good from the bad, as a farmer separates the wheat from the chaff. But I have prayed for you Simon, that your faith will not fail. And when you turn back to me, you must strengthen your brothers.” Simon is to show signs of weakness, but unlike Judas, along with the religious establishment, has not sold out to the Devil.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
ISTM the discussion thus far posits the “historical” Judas: Judas considered as an historical character, and too little as the “biblical” Judas: the function he played within the theological understandings and purposes of the gospel writers.

The way I see it the gospels, especially in the context of the crisis of Jesus’ ministry, make a critical binary distinction the children of God/Light and the children of the Devil/Darkness: those who are for and those who are against. See, for example, Luke 16: 1-15, summarised in verse 13: “No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate one and love the other, or you will be devoted to one and despise the other”; and John 8: 32-47, where Jesus makes the sharp distinction between those whose father was God and those whose father was the Devil. Judas stands condemned not because he made a mistake but because he made an existential decision to side with the forces of darkness, as Luke puts it (Luke 22:3) “Then Satan entered Judas....[who] went off and spoke with the chief priests ...how he could betray Jesus”. Again, John 13: 26-30, esp. “As soon as Judas took the bread, Satan entered him.”

Contrast Judas with Peter (Luke 22:31-32): “Simon.Simon! Listen! Satan has received permission to test all of you, to separate the good from the bad, as a farmer separates the wheat from the chaff. But I have prayed for you Simon, that your faith will not fail. And when you turn back to me, you must strengthen your brothers.” Simon is to show signs of weakness, but unlike Judas, along with the religious establishment, has not sold out to the Devil.

see, I would look at those exact same verses and see the exact opposite of a "binary" approach, which strikes me as hyper-5 point-Calvinism's "elect" and "reprobate". I see rather in those passages evidence of the old adage that "the line between good & evil runs right down the middle of each of us". That any of us is capable of becoming Judas-- or Peter. And each of us demonstrates aspects of each.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
ISTM the discussion thus far posits the “historical” Judas: Judas considered as an historical character, and too little as the “biblical” Judas: the function he played within the theological understandings and purposes of the gospel writers. ...

Is there a difference? Why is this a dichotomy? Why does anyone might want to separate them?
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
The authorities were indeed concerned about making an arrest in private (see Mark 14:1 for starters). They wanted to avoid a riot and get the deed done so it would be too late for the crowds to start anything.

But during Passover week Jesus was rarely out of company. He spent his nights at Bethany with Lazarus' family, and his days at the temple preaching. Going to and fro he was surrounded by the usual crowds, particularly as it was Passover time and many people were camped out on the mountains just outside Jerusalem. Lots of coming and going. Really, late at night in a quiet area would be their only hope--either that, or waiting until after the holiday. When Judas showed up with his willingness and his intimate knowledge of Jesus' patterns and plans, they had it made. Luke 22:39 etc. shows that Jesus had the habit of spending time on the Mount of Olives--I suspect every day that week ended with a detour there on the way back to bed at Mary/Martha/Lazarus' home.

So Judas' offer was--I was going to write "a godsend", stopped to consider it and got all tangled up in theological conundrums. Never mind. You get the picture.
 
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
ISTM the discussion thus far posits the “historical” Judas: Judas considered as an historical character, and too little as the “biblical” Judas: the function he played within the theological understandings and purposes of the gospel writers. ...

Is there a difference? Why is this a dichotomy? Why does anyone might want to separate them?
Exactly. What do we know about Judas that *isn't* in the Bible?
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
There's masses of stuff that isn't in the Bible. This is apparently a deliberate Heavenly policy. You remember the line about how, if everything about Jesus were written down, there's be a heck of a lot of books, certainly too many for the technology of the time. (Little did they know that some day there would be Kindle!) We are deliberately told very little, and I can guess why. It's to keep us from haring off after irrelevancies (what was Judas's political philosophy? Did the Sadducees profess nonviolence, and if not why not? Did Martha use swiffers, and how much housework did she get out of Mary anyway?) and focus instead on what the Gospel accounts are actually supposed to accomplish.
 
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :
 
Of course there's lots of stuff that isn't in the Bible. My point was that our sole historical source for Judas Iscariot is what's in the Bible.
 
Posted by Galloping Granny (# 13814) on :
 
Then again, you can go with Crossan and read the story as parable.

GG
 
Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
The authorities were indeed concerned about making an arrest in private (see Mark 14:1 for starters). They wanted to avoid a riot and get the deed done so it would be too late for the crowds to start anything.

But during Passover week Jesus was rarely out of company. He spent his nights at Bethany with Lazarus' family, and his days at the temple preaching. Going to and fro he was surrounded by the usual crowds, particularly as it was Passover time and many people were camped out on the mountains just outside Jerusalem. Lots of coming and going. Really, late at night in a quiet area would be their only hope--either that, or waiting until after the holiday. When Judas showed up with his willingness and his intimate knowledge of Jesus' patterns and plans, they had it made. Luke 22:39 etc. shows that Jesus had the habit of spending time on the Mount of Olives--I suspect every day that week ended with a detour there on the way back to bed at Mary/Martha/Lazarus' home.

So Judas' offer was--I was going to write "a godsend", stopped to consider it and got all tangled up in theological conundrums. Never mind. You get the picture.

I think that this is a fairly accurate picture of the scenario. One thing I would add, though, is that it might be misleading to say that Jesus "spent his nights at Bethany with Lazarus' family". That makes it sound like a quiet little arrangement. I suspect that Bethany was a popular spot for pilgrims to stay - especially from Galilee. Jerusalem itself would have been packed to the gunwales at Passover and the cost of staying inside the city boundaries would have been ferocious. A lot of pilgrims, therefore, would have been like Jesus and the disciples - going into Jerusalem in the morning and then leaving at night and sleeping in surrounding villages. So I see Bethany as a place that would have been filled with Galilean pilgrims.

That, of course, just emphasises the dilemma of the authorities. They couldn't touch Jesus in the Temple without causing a riot. And they couldn't touch Jesus in Bethany as he would have been surrounded by a whole host of Galilean supporters.

Once they had decided to arrest Jesus, they needed a suitably quiet time and place. Judas with his inside knowledge was a gift that they couldn't have imagined possible.

Overall, I am a great believer in "cock-up" over "conspiracy". I don't think ANYONE (and especially not Jesus) could have planned what was going to happen. It's just not credible - there are far too many variables.

Jesus challenged the authorities to their breaking point. I think he must have known that they were going to respond somehow. But no-one knew how things would pan out - not in detail. Judas' actions were just another of the unpredictable variables. But if he hadn't done it, I suspect that the authorities would have found another way to get rid of this troublesome charlatan.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Galloping Granny:
Then again, you can go with Crossan and read the story as parable.

Why would anyone want to?
 
Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on :
 
Kwesi
quote:
The way I see it the gospels, especially in the context of the crisis of Jesus’ ministry, make a critical binary distinction between the children of God/Light and the children of the Devil/Darkness: those who are for and those who are against. See, for example, Luke 16: 1-15, summarised in verse 13: “No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate one and love the other, or you will be devoted to one and despise the other”; and John 8: 32-47, where Jesus makes the sharp distinction between those whose father was God and those whose father was the Devil. Judas stands condemned not because he made a mistake but because he made an existential decision to side with the forces of darkness, as Luke puts it (Luke 22:3) “Then Satan entered Judas....[who] went off and spoke with the chief priests ...how he could betray Jesus”. Again, John 13: 26-30, esp. “As soon as Judas took the bread, Satan entered him.”

Cliffdweller
quote:
I would look at those exact same verses and see the exact opposite of a "binary" approach, which strikes me as hyper-5 point-Calvinism's "elect" and "reprobate". I see rather in those passages evidence of the old adage that "the line between good & evil runs right down the middle of each of us". That any of us is capable of becoming Judas-- or Peter. And each of us demonstrates aspects of each.
Cliffdweller, while I'm inclined to agree with you that "the line between good and evil runs right down the middle of each of us" I fail to see how such a conclusion can be inferred from the texts I quoted. Incidentally, I don't see those texts as particularly, or necessarily, or appropriately Calvinistic. They are compatible with an Arminian position: Judas is condemned, in contrast to Peter, because he chose to recognise the Devil as his father rather than God.

To my mind most of the posts are resistant to the idea that an individual might chose to serve evil rather than the good. That may have been a feature of Socrates' philosophy but is not shared by the writers of the Old and New Testaments. The gospel writers certainly did not did not find, as Ariell, "Judas a deeply ambivalent figure", or that "Judas was just a bloke and will be fine" (Martin60). Nor did they think "Judas was averagely evil, like the rest of us" (Boogie) , or agree with (bib} that "we are all Judas for all of us have betrayed our faith in Christ many times."

IMO Enoch hits the nail on the head when he observes that "Judas had gone over to the dark side", and "as far as we can tell he did it on his own initiative, not under torture or pressure from any sort." He was serving his master. Judas may have been an "average dude" ( Lamb Chopped and Raptor Eye), but so too was Peter, and the evangelists would recommend that we chose to follow the course of the latter or suffer serious consequences.

My argument is not that I necessarily agree with the framework of the gospel writers re Judas, but I don't think there is any dubiety about what they thought about him and his fate, and that we should think the same!
 
Posted by fausto (# 13737) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
ISTM the discussion thus far posits the “historical” Judas: Judas considered as an historical character, and too little as the “biblical” Judas: the function he played within the theological understandings and purposes of the gospel writers.

The way I see it the gospels, especially in the context of the crisis of Jesus’ ministry, make a critical binary distinction the children of God/Light and the children of the Devil/Darkness: those who are for and those who are against. See, for example, Luke 16: 1-15, summarised in verse 13: “No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate one and love the other, or you will be devoted to one and despise the other”; and John 8: 32-47, where Jesus makes the sharp distinction between those whose father was God and those whose father was the Devil. Judas stands condemned not because he made a mistake but because he made an existential decision to side with the forces of darkness, as Luke puts it (Luke 22:3) “Then Satan entered Judas....[who] went off and spoke with the chief priests ...how he could betray Jesus”. Again, John 13: 26-30, esp. “As soon as Judas took the bread, Satan entered him.”

Contrast Judas with Peter (Luke 22:31-32): “Simon.Simon! Listen! Satan has received permission to test all of you, to separate the good from the bad, as a farmer separates the wheat from the chaff. But I have prayed for you Simon, that your faith will not fail. And when you turn back to me, you must strengthen your brothers.” Simon is to show signs of weakness, but unlike Judas, along with the religious establishment, has not sold out to the Devil.

see, I would look at those exact same verses and see the exact opposite of a "binary" approach, which strikes me as hyper-5 point-Calvinism's "elect" and "reprobate".
I think it sounds more Gnostic than Calvinist.

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
I see rather in those passages evidence of the old adage that "the line between good & evil runs right down the middle of each of us". That any of us is capable of becoming Judas-- or Peter. And each of us demonstrates aspects of each.

That sounds a bit like a Christian version of a new age-y folktale that may or may not have authentic Native American origins:

"One evening, an old Cherokee told his grandson about a battle that goes on inside people.

"He said, 'My son, the battle is between two wolves inside us all. One is Evil - It is anger, envy, jealousy, greed, and arrogance. The other is Good - It is peace, love, hope, humility, compassion, and faith.'

The grandson thought about this for a while and then asked his grandfather, 'Which wolf wins?'

To which the old Cherokee simply replied, 'The one you feed.' "

I wonder whether it doesn't drift into Pelagianism. (I also wonder whether there isn't some merit in Pelagianism, but that's a whole 'nother discussion.)

As to the original question about whether Judas was especially evil, I haven't followed the whole thread, but has anyone yet suggested that Judas's ostensible betrayal was in fact necessary to God's plan of atonement and redemption? Or that Judas made a mistaken, but sincere and forgivable, moral decision on the basis of incomplete or imperfect information? The Gospels do tell us that he later felt remorse. Would the Atonement exclude him? Seems to me there are several levels on which to evaluate Judas's function and his moral choices, and not only from an a posteriori view of the consequences or from within the standard hero-and-foil literary structure of the narrative.
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
I doubt the Cherokee story is authentic. First peoples didn't characterise animals this way. If it is a Cherokee story, it is a blended story from their contact with Europeans. You can look up stories about the Windigo (also written Wendigo) for something about evil which has some more credibility.
 
Posted by fausto (# 13737) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
I doubt the Cherokee story is authentic. First peoples didn't characterise animals this way. If it is a Cherokee story, it is a blended story from their contact with Europeans. You can look up stories about the Windigo (also written Wendigo) for something about evil which has some more credibility.

I suspect you're right about the inauthenticity, but that's not really the point. The point is whether good and evil are binary opposites and we are inherently either one or the other, or whether we all carry some of each and have the freedom of choice to cultivate either or both. That's a question that transcends Christianity (yin and yang would be another example), although Cliffdweller's take on Judas puts it in a specifically Christian context.

[ 22. October 2015, 02:44: Message edited by: fausto ]
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by fausto:
...good and evil ... we all carry some of each and have the freedom of choice to cultivate either or both...

I think so. (My conclusion, not necessarily yours.)

[ 22. October 2015, 03:41: Message edited by: no prophet's flag is set so... ]
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by fausto:
I think it sounds more Gnostic than Calvinist.

Interesting observation. I hadn't thought of it until just now, but Calvinism has a rather gnostic ring to it. Salvation for us special ones, not for that other rabble. Hmm.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by fausto:
I think it sounds more Gnostic than Calvinist.

Interesting observation. I hadn't thought of it until just now, but Calvinism has a rather gnostic ring to it. Salvation for us special ones, not for that other rabble. Hmm.
hmmm... yes. Salvation is dependent upon "knowing" the right things... yep, it fits.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
Yeah but what about humanity's salvation trough the Cross had Jesus been successful in talking Judas out of dobbing Him in ?

I think they would have figured out who he was without Judas fingering him, eventually.

quote:
Originally posted by Galloping Granny:
If Judas had not betrayed Jesus, wouldn't the authorities have got him anyway, sooner rather than later?

Exactly.

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
quote:
Originally posted by fausto:
...good and evil ... we all carry some of each and have the freedom of choice to cultivate either or both...

I think so. (My conclusion, not necessarily yours.)
Reminds me of the quote from The Gulag Archipelago:

quote:
Originally posted by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
“Gradually it was disclosed to me that the line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either -- but right through every human heart -- and through all human hearts. This line shifts. Inside us, it oscillates with the years. And even within hearts overwhelmed by evil, one small bridgehead of good is retained. And even in the best of all hearts, there remains ... an unuprooted small corner of evil.


 
Posted by Galloping Granny (# 13814) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Galloping Granny:
Then again, you can go with Crossan and read the story as parable.

Why would anyone want to?
Because to me it makes sense.

GG
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
Kwesi - we all go over to the dark side. Judas repented.
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
If Judas did extraordinary evil, is this like Fr Webber's suggestion of: he can do penance but absolution is another matter. Suppose Judas had lived on, what would the community have done with him? Kept him on as one of the 12?

I was reading about Efraín Ríos Montt this morning. He did a coup d'état in Guatemala in 1982 and subsequently gained immunity from charges of genocide by getting elected, and then eventually was charged with genocide and crimes against humanity re 200,000 people killed.

quote:
from link
Drawing on his Pentecostal beliefs, Ríos Montt invoked a modern apocalyptic vision comparing the four riders of the Book of Revelation to the four modern evils of hunger, misery, ignorance and subversion, as well as fighting corruption and what he described as the depredations of the rich. He said that the true Christian had the Bible in one hand and a machine gun in the other.

I think the support of America for him is well known, though not so well known is the Israeli. Bruce Cockburn wrote the song If I had a Rocket Launcher in response. Both Montt and Cockburn profess they are Christian.

The question I wrestle with is:
Is there a place for this sort of sentiment "If I had a rocket launcher, some son of a bitch would die"? In the face of monstrous evil, is the death of the perpetrator, whether Judas or a genocider, appropriate?

My professed nature is to reject all violence and aggression, but I find myself really really wondering about what is justice and what is fair, and whether absolution requires more with extraordinary evil.
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Kwesi - we all go over to the dark side. Judas repented.

We sometimes like think people driven to the point of suicide undergo some kind of last second repentance, eg. mr H. just before ejecting a bullet into his skull. I'm not sure this is necessarily case, it could be a form of pity on our part.

Not that I'm comparing Judas with someone who knowingly commits evil, I think the bloke's mind was scrambled.
 
Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on :
 
Martin60
quote:
Kwesi - we all go over to the dark side. Judas repented.
I guess the gospel writers would say, "Tough! Too late! Bad decision! it's a case of weeping, wailing and gnashing of teeth" after the fatal choice.

I suppose my position is that there's lots in the NT about unmerited forgiveness of sin, repentance, salvation, reconciliation etc. extending to even "the chief of sinners", but there is also a more apocalyptic strand which is harsh and judgemental, where one is either a sheep or goat, and the case of Judas falls into this latter slot.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
I can't imagine the Prince of Peace with an assault rifle.
Envision Judas, having hung himself or burst apart or whatever, finally tottering up to seat of Judgment, exhausted and dirty. Jesus is sitting there. What would He say? "Dude, you really blew it this time. But it's cool. Whatever else you can say, you believe."
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
Alan Jones tells of a legend thast Jesus went into the depths of Hell to fetch Judas to a second Last Supper as all the others were waitjng for him befopre they could start. (Towards the end of this page)
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Martin60
quote:
Kwesi - we all go over to the dark side. Judas repented.
I guess the gospel writers would say, "Tough! Too late! Bad decision! it's a case of weeping, wailing and gnashing of teeth" after the fatal choice.
While the gospel writers aren't particularly sympathetic to Judas (big surprise) I don't see this either. In fact, the accounts are remarkably absent of any commentary one way or the other-- really just a bare recitation of the facts. I don't see ANY speculation one way or the other re Judas' ultimate fate.


quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
I suppose my position is that there's lots in the NT about unmerited forgiveness of sin, repentance, salvation, reconciliation etc. extending to even "the chief of sinners", but there is also a more apocalyptic strand which is harsh and judgemental, where one is either a sheep or goat, and the case of Judas falls into this latter slot.

I agree the account is mixed, but I see the balance very much in the other direction. Although really, again, the NT does not tell us a lot one way or the other about the afterlife. Really, all we know from the text is that there is an afterlife, that Jesus is the final arbiter, and that God is there.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
The gospel writers were trapped by their culture. As was Jesus.
 
Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on :
 
Martin60
quote:
The gospel writers were trapped by their culture.
That more or less is what I've been trying to argue, though I wouldn't put it quite like that.

To my mind there are two contrasting strands in the NT which are difficult to reconcile: the apocalyptic and the non-apocalyptic, and that the case of Judas falls into the apocalyptic genre. The apocalyptic strain is one which reflects a church under extreme persecution where the distinction between friends and enemies is vitally important to discern, and situations in which the sufferings of the faithful need to be vindicated and the pride and violence of their powerful persecutors condemned and judged. Christians past and present suffering persecution have found great comfort in these stories because they offer hope. Judas, I believe, can only be understood within the context of the apocalyptic narrative. IMO to regard Judas as some sort of Prodigal Son is to miss the point.

Personally, I'm more comfortable with the non-apocalyptic strain, which reflects not only my status as a non-persecuted Christian, but also my belief that it has a more convincing view of the complex nature of human beings, the nature of the relationship between God and humanity as reflected in the work of Christ, and the purposes of God in securing the widest possible salvation. Where there is a conflict between the apocalyptic and non-apocalyptic strain I would opt for the latter. In my book, like most of you posting, Judas would have a fighting chance of salvation, but that is not what the gospel writers say.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
...Where there is a conflict between the apocalyptic and non-apocalyptic strain I would opt for the latter. In my book, like most of you posting, Judas would have a fighting chance of salvation, but that is not what the gospel writers say.

Not to dispute your point re apocalyptic v. non-apocalyptic strains in the NT, but where exactly do you see the gospel writers suggest that Judas is damned? You've said this twice now, and I just don't see it. Again, it's clear the gospel writers are pissed at Judas, and are even willing to speculate about his motives, but I cannot find a single text that speculates about his ultimate fate.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
Judas' salvation is a done deal. Not a mere fighting chance.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
(The scene is in Heaven, 40 or 50 years later)
Paul of Tarsus is executed by the Romans and totters up, dirty and exhausted, to the Judgment Seat. Jesus is sitting there, and Judas walks in. He looks at Jesus and yells, "Aw man, not Saul of Tarsus!" And Paul looks at Jesus and cries, "Really, Jesus -- Judas?" And Jesus laughs and laughs.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
(The scene is in Heaven, 40 or 50 years later)
Paul of Tarsus is executed by the Romans and totters up, dirty and exhausted, to the Judgment Seat. Jesus is sitting there, and Judas walks in. He looks at Jesus and yells, "Aw man, not Saul of Tarsus!" And Paul looks at Jesus and cries, "Really, Jesus -- Judas?" And Jesus laughs and laughs.

[Overused]
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
The only spot that might refer to Judas' ultimate fate (i.e. eternal) is from the lips of Jesus, and occurs in John 17, in the high priestly prayer. There he says to the Father, "And none of these have I lost, except the son of loss, in order that the Scriptures might be fulfilled." John 17:12
quote:
καὶ οὐδεὶς ἐξ αὐτῶν ἀπώλετο εἰ μὴ ὁ υἱὸς τῆς ἀπωλείας, ἵνα ἡ γραφὴ πληρωθῇ.
The word apoleias is another form of Jesus' verb apoleto "I have (not) lost", and translates as loss, destruction, waste, being cut off, ruin. It is a dreadful, somber, frightening thing, and it is hard to see it as referring to anything less than eternal death--though I hope it does.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Judas' salvation is a done deal. Not a mere fighting chance.

You know that, do you Martin? People have debated this for generations but a voice from heaven spoke just to you and told you?
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
Aye it did Enoch. He did. They did. Father (Judas'), Son (Judas' Brother) and Holy Spirit (the one that helplessly dropped with Judas). In my heart. Clearly. Viscerally.
 
Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on :
 
Cliffdweller
quote:
but where exactly do you see the gospel writers suggest that Judas is damned?
Lamb Chopped
quote:
The only spot that might refer to Judas' ultimate fate (i.e. eternal) is from the lips of Jesus, and occurs in John 17, in the high priestly prayer. There he says to the Father, "And none of these have I lost, except the son of loss, in order that the Scriptures might be fulfilled." John 17:12
Thank you for making the point for me, Lamb Chopped. Perhaps I might add the OT reference John mentions:
Psalm 41:9 "Even my close friend, someone I trusted, one who shared my bread has lifted up his heel against me."

I would also suggest that the manner(s) of Judas' death, self-murder or physical dissolution, indicate(s) that he was cursed.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
Ah, the pendulum swings. I'm struggling with that now again.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Cliffdweller
quote:
but where exactly do you see the gospel writers suggest that Judas is damned?
Lamb Chopped
quote:
The only spot that might refer to Judas' ultimate fate (i.e. eternal) is from the lips of Jesus, and occurs in John 17, in the high priestly prayer. There he says to the Father, "And none of these have I lost, except the son of loss, in order that the Scriptures might be fulfilled." John 17:12
Thank you for making the point for me, Lamb Chopped. Perhaps I might add the OT reference John mentions:
Psalm 41:9 "Even my close friend, someone I trusted, one who shared my bread has lifted up his heel against me."

I would also suggest that the manner(s) of Judas' death, self-murder or physical dissolution, indicate(s) that he was cursed.

Ps. 41:9 tells us only that Judas will betray him. We already knew that. To suggest that the manner of Judas' death determines his ultimate fate is begging the question-- that's what we're debating.

Lamb's excellent exegesis on John 17:12 is more on point, as always. Yet there's still enough room even there to say "we don't know."

[ 24. October 2015, 14:50: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
Does Love love or not?

Can Jesus do what He says on the tin or not?

[ 24. October 2015, 15:51: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
.....and we have to remember this man Judas walked with the Lord, ate with Him, looked into His eyes and touched Him.

If Hell's going to burn hot for this man's indiscretion then what hope for the rest of us?
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
.....and we have to remember this man Judas walked with the Lord, ate with Him, looked into His eyes and touched Him.

If Hell's going to burn hot for this man's indiscretion then what hope for the rest of us?

It is difficult to take an example of one person and apply this to oneself. Apparently Jesus' divinity was not completely apparent to Judas, or it was and he expected Jesus to sic the angel army on the Romans and other bad ones, or he thought Jesus wanted him to do the betrayal thing. People often think God wants them to do stuff.

It does seem that the literary value of the Judas story is improved with his difficult death (which ever version) representing just deserts and fitting hell-bound punishment.

I suppose we could have had a version of him visioned beside Jesus in heaven like Obi-wan Kenobi and Darth Vader/Anakin Skywalker are at the end of Star Wars. I always had a little trouble with that end scene, because Darth's genocide of Alderaan by blowing up the planet seems one of those extraordinary acts of evil, which is anything is irredeemable, this should be. Of course the bible itself is problematic because saying shit about the Holy Spirit is said to unforgivable whereas actual terrible behaviour is.

I'm back to Judas really was an average dude, perhaps with some character flaws like most of us, and didn't have the capacity or moral reasoning to consider what he was doing. Does the "forgive them, they know not what they do" apply to Judas? Maybe. Though I don't think it applies to Pol Pot, Stalin, Hitler, and some western-supported dictators, or some of our governments and leaders who gave them helicopters and rockets, and knew and know exactly what they do.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
Therefore they don't.
 
Posted by fausto (# 13737) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Cliffdweller
quote:
but where exactly do you see the gospel writers suggest that Judas is damned?
Lamb Chopped
quote:
The only spot that might refer to Judas' ultimate fate (i.e. eternal) is from the lips of Jesus, and occurs in John 17, in the high priestly prayer. There he says to the Father, "And none of these have I lost, except the son of loss, in order that the Scriptures might be fulfilled." John 17:12
Thank you for making the point for me, Lamb Chopped. Perhaps I might add the OT reference John mentions:
Psalm 41:9 "Even my close friend, someone I trusted, one who shared my bread has lifted up his heel against me."

I would also suggest that the manner(s) of Judas' death, self-murder or physical dissolution, indicate(s) that he was cursed.

I think it's quite a stretch to interpret Psalm 41 as a prophecy or foreshadowing of Judas's betrayal. The first-person speaker confesses sinning against God, which hardly seems to match the Gospels' portrayal of Jesus.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
It isn't fausto. We quote mine all the time, that's all they had.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
Even if it were, a prophesy of Judas' betrayal is not a prophesy of Judas' damnation.
 
Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on :
 
Cliffdweller, of course the Psalm 41:9 does not prove Judas or the psalmist's erstwhile friend were damned, and I would also share your view that the reference is another case where NT use of OT scripture is badly our of context. I merely offered the text as the source of John's comment without prejudice.

My dispute with your position, Cliffdweller, is that you are resistant to the idea that the NT could possibly imply that Judas was damned for his action because your general theological position is more or less universalist. You refuse the believe that Judas is 'lost' on theological grounds which leads you to argue that John could not possibly have meant that he was. Why not just say that although John implies that he was damned you disagree with him?
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Cliffdweller, of course the Psalm 41:9 does not prove Judas or the psalmist's erstwhile friend were damned, and I would also share your view that the reference is another case where NT use of OT scripture is badly our of context. I merely offered the text as the source of John's comment without prejudice.

My dispute with your position, Cliffdweller, is that you are resistant to the idea that the NT could possibly imply that Judas was damned for his action because your general theological position is more or less universalist. You refuse the believe that Judas is 'lost' on theological grounds which leads you to argue that John could not possibly have meant that he was. Why not just say that although John implies that he was damned you disagree with him?

I don't disagree with John, I disagree with you. We all read the text through our various lenses, and it does look to me as if that's precisely what you're doing. Of course you are correct that I'm seeing it thru a possibly universalist pov (I'm rather agnostic on the issue), I'm at least able to say:


quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:

Lamb's excellent exegesis on John 17:12 is more on point, as always. Yet there's still enough room even there to say "we don't know."

"We don't know", especially in the context of my affirmation of Lamb's exegesis, is far from the stubborn "refuse to believe that Judas is 'lost'" you suggest.
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
Is this a tangent?:
If we're going to go onward with the biblical stuff, I'd like to see a discussion from those who know such things of the concept of 'betrayal' vs 'handing-over' in Gospel of Mark, and also the apparent inability of any of the disciples to understand who Jesus was throughout that story. And further, why Judas gets scant mention in that version. All of which seems to suggest Judas was merely an average dude.
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
AIUI the reason Judas was damned in the, much later written, Gospel of John is because by this time a signicant section of Jews would not accept Jesus as the OT Messiah.

The Judas character becomes representative of this resistant group, hence the bile and the expression of infuriation heaped on him here, and later on in the Book of Acts.
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
Whoa! I don't see the least bit of bile--rather, on Jesus' part of sense of sorrow, and with regards to the other disciples, a surprising restraint (apparently as the result of a "but for the grace of God there go I" realization). I mean, "he went to his own place"--how mild is that? It's only spooky if you hold certain suppositions about human nature (including your own) and what "our own place" might entail as a result. And he is described as "having left this ministry"--not as "having willfully and most foully done to death our dear Lord and Savior, for the most heinous motive imaginable, filthy lucre, vile scum that he was" and etc.

If you're looking for Judas-vilification, you'll have to look somewhere other than the Scriptures.

[ 26. October 2015, 19:03: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
Re "handing over", "delivering over", and "betrayal", these are all legitimate ways of translating the verb paradidomi. The context tells you which one to use. If you are paradidomi a letter, you are simply delivering it (as a postman, for instance). You can paradidomi a child to its parents when they come to pick it up after childcare hours. You could be a cop and paradidomi an evildoer into the hands of the jailers. Or you could paradidomi your dear friend into the hands of those who want him dead.
Pick your context, and then choose your English verb.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Whoa! I don't see the least bit of bile--rather, on Jesus' part of sense of sorrow, and with regards to the other disciples, a surprising restraint (apparently as the result of a "but for the grace of God there go I" realization). I mean, "he went to his own place"--how mild is that? It's only spooky if you hold certain suppositions about human nature (including your own) and what "our own place" might entail as a result. And he is described as "having left this ministry"--not as "having willfully and most foully done to death our dear Lord and Savior, for the most heinous motive imaginable, filthy lucre, vile scum that he was" and etc.

If you're looking for Judas-vilification, you'll have to look somewhere other than the Scriptures.

Yes. This is why I said I'm disagreeing with Kwesi, but not so much with you-- I don't think our positions are all that far apart on this matter. We're both acknowledging a degree of ambiguity and restraint in the text that in and of itself is remarkable under the circumstances.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
What on Earth has John 17:12 got to do with Judas' post mortem? With Jesus' capacity to save in the resurrection of the dead?
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
AAARRGGHH! That first apostrophe.
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Re "handing over", "delivering over", and "betrayal", these are all legitimate ways of translating the verb paradidomi. The context tells you which one to use. If you are paradidomi a letter, you are simply delivering it (as a postman, for instance). You can paradidomi a child to its parents when they come to pick it up after childcare hours. You could be a cop and paradidomi an evildoer into the hands of the jailers. Or you could paradidomi your dear friend into the hands of those who want him dead.
Pick your context, and then choose your English verb.

If the Greek language isn't nuanced about this, was the Greek concept and thought about as nuanced as we make it in English? This is quite crucial I think, because the difference between betrayal and delivery seems so vast. Which crazy person knows the minds of those crazy Greek writers and transcribers from 2K years ago??
 
Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on :
 
Perhaps, Cliffdweller et.al., we might also consider John 6: 68-71:

"Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. We have come to believe and to know that you are the Holy One of God.”

Then Jesus replied, “Have I not chosen you, the Twelve? Yet one of you is a devil!” (He meant Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot, who, though one of the Twelve, was later to betray him.) (NIV)

I suppose we might think average blokes are demonic, but I don't think the writer of John did.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
Who's talking demonic?
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Perhaps, Cliffdweller et.al., we might also consider John 6: 68-71:

"Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. We have come to believe and to know that you are the Holy One of God.”

Then Jesus replied, “Have I not chosen you, the Twelve? Yet one of you is a devil!” (He meant Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot, who, though one of the Twelve, was later to betray him.) (NIV)

I suppose we might think average blokes are demonic, but I don't think the writer of John did.

Is he a devil? Is he filled with a devil? Is he about to do a devilish deed? Or a deed in service of The devil?

Again, there is no doubt that Jesus was aware that there was evil in Judas' heart-- that's not under dispute. I'm arguing that we don't know what happens next (after Judas' death)-- because the text doesn't say. You seem to think you know, and perhaps you're right. But I'm hard-pressed to see how "we don't know" is the stubbornly dogmatic, biased pov.
 
Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on :
 
......If John describes Judas as a devil, and if Judas is regarded as an average dude, then are we not to conclude that the average human being is a devil? John, however, seems to imply that Judas is not an average dude because he is a devil, whose natural residence is Pandemonium.
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Re "handing over", "delivering over", and "betrayal", these are all legitimate ways of translating the verb paradidomi. The context tells you which one to use. If you are paradidomi a letter, you are simply delivering it (as a postman, for instance). You can paradidomi a child to its parents when they come to pick it up after childcare hours. You could be a cop and paradidomi an evildoer into the hands of the jailers. Or you could paradidomi your dear friend into the hands of those who want him dead.
Pick your context, and then choose your English verb.

If the Greek language isn't nuanced about this, was the Greek concept and thought about as nuanced as we make it in English? This is quite crucial I think, because the difference between betrayal and delivery seems so vast. Which crazy person knows the minds of those crazy Greek writers and transcribers from 2K years ago??
Yo, crazy person here [raises hand]. I don't claim ESP, but there's no reason to think any human language lacks nuance--in fact, I'm fairly sure I was taught that no extant natural language is in an "immature" or "primitive" state which prevents it from meeting basically all human linguistic needs.

Also, the distance between delivery and betrayal is not so vast as you think, conceptually. We handle both in English with the words "hand over". You can hand over a baby who needs changing to its mother; hand over your wallet (your money or your life!); hand over control of a city or region to ISIS; or speak of Jesus as the one who "by God's set plan and foreknowledge, was handed over" to death (that's in Acts somewhere, one of Peter's sermons, I believe).

It seems that the simplest words in a language are the most overloaded with nuance, and end up having the longest dictionary entries to pull out all the shades of meaning. Paradidomi is no exception.
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
......If John describes Judas as a devil, and if Judas is regarded as an average dude, then are we not to conclude that the average human being is a devil? John, however, seems to imply that Judas is not an average dude because he is a devil, whose natural residence is Pandemonium.

A bridge too far here--Jesus himself calls Peter "Satan" at a moment when Peter is advocating (all unknowingly, I'm sure) a pathway that would allow Jesus to avoid the cross. And Peter was certainly an average dude.

The moral of this story is IMHO that any of us could be a "devil" or "Satan" if we impede God's work--and any of us could get out of that status by repentance and possibly getting hit with the clue bat a couple times.

So yeah, average dude.
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
Mark came first right? The lack of focus on Judas there seems more persuasive to me. With his goal apparently to make a point about who Jesus was. The other 3 gospels have other agendas, no?

(Thanks Non-Crazy Person: my "crazy" reference is self-referent - sorry! - due to the fact that the whole evil thing drives me a more than a bit batty. I am exploring Judas so as to understand evils experienced more recently.)
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
Drat, I quite wanted to be a crazy person.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
This is another nail in the coffin of the remarkably tenacious zombie of literalism which just won't stay dead. I keep blowing its head off with postmodernism every time it gets out but it grows back. Maybe it's a vampire? Oh and VERY well said Lamb Chopped. That's a stake through its heart.

But Kwesi cannot be rid of it for themselves. It is a fearful thing if you don't have the right gear.

I blew its head clean off just over a week ago and even as I did I could see I'd missed a bit and it grew back frighteningly fast. Yeah it's a vampire and it definitely supped at my neck this week. Not in running amok with a handful of wooden words about Judas. But about the WHOLE sack of ... meaning we drag about.

Starting with the sacks of meaning the writers of the Bible dragged about.

And above all the sack that Jesus - who was average dude AND - had to drag about.

Which I thought I'd dealt with starting three years ago.

I'll be starting a thread on it real soon. With shotgun, baseball bat, stake, garlic and of course ... cross.
 
Posted by pimple (# 10635) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Cliffdweller
quote:
but where exactly do you see the gospel writers suggest that Judas is damned?
Lamb Chopped
quote:
The only spot that might refer to Judas' ultimate fate (i.e. eternal) is from the lips of Jesus, and occurs in John 17, in the high priestly prayer. There he says to the Father, "And none of these have I lost, except the son of loss, in order that the Scriptures might be fulfilled." John 17:12
Thank you for making the point for me, Lamb Chopped. Perhaps I might add the OT reference John mentions:
Psalm 41:9 "Even my close friend, someone I trusted, one who shared my bread has lifted up his heel against me."

I would also suggest that the manner(s) of Judas' death, self-murder or physical dissolution, indicate(s) that he was cursed.

But Ps.41:9 could equally - and perhaps even more appositely, refer to the disciple Jesus loved -the one nobody ever named (or dared name?) - the one reinstated in the Epilogue to the fourth gospel.
 
Posted by pimple (# 10635) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Perhaps, Cliffdweller et.al., we might also consider John 6: 68-71:

"Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. We have come to believe and to know that you are the Holy One of God.”

Then Jesus replied, “Have I not chosen you, the Twelve? Yet one of you is a devil!” (He meant Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot, who, though one of the Twelve, was later to betray him.) (NIV)

I suppose we might think average blokes are demonic, but I don't think the writer of John did.

Is he a devil? Is he filled with a devil? Is he about to do a devilish deed? Or a deed in service of The devil?

Again, there is no doubt that Jesus was aware that there was evil in Judas' heart-- that's not under dispute. I'm arguing that we don't know what happens next (after Judas' death)-- because the text doesn't say. You seem to think you know, and perhaps you're right. But I'm hard-pressed to see how "we don't know" is the stubbornly dogmatic, biased pov.

I am always troubled by statements prefaced by "there is no doubt". It is disputed. I dispute it. We can only hope that Jesus was nor misquoted. I don't think we can be sure of that. What we can be fairly sure of is that "John" frequently finds it necessary to explain what was in Jesus' mind when he said or did anything that might be misunderstood. In Christian circles as a whole, some things are not permitted to be true. In John's gospel, nothing is permitted to be misunderstood.
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
There is lots of doubt, because the 4 gospels have different versions. Luke has Judas doing the devil's work, that ain't in Mark. Seems to me the stories have been spun.
 
Posted by HCH (# 14313) on :
 
A sideline here is to ask about other betrayals in Scripture. An obvious example is David's double betrayal of Uriah, one of his best men. What else comes to mind?
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
Jacob shafted Esau; Cain did in Abel. Aaron, along about the Golden Calf episode, cut Moses' legs out from under him -- and there was very little comeback. The children of David were pretty much scumbags, all in all.
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Mark came first right? The lack of focus on Judas there seems more persuasive to me.

A reference from Mark ch14 v44 may be of interest
Judas, arriving at Gethsemene, says something like 'Whomsoever I shall kiss, the same is he , take him, and lead Him away safely.'
This doesn't sound like the sentiment of and evil and wicked person, who wished malice on someone he called his Master.

I also vote for Judas being an average dude. Someone who may have been Jesus' confidante . Possibly he carried out the Lord's wishes hoping He'd become a political prisoner. When it became clear the action he'd taken would lead his friend and Master directly to the Roman flagrum and the Cross, he couldn't cope with it.
 
Posted by georgiaboy (# 11294) on :
 
Following on, Judas' comment to the Temple Police in the Garden leads one to surmise that, while he thought he was being so very clever and astute, he was in fact, throughout the narrative continually outsmarted by Caiaphas and the Sanhedrin. This leads into his attempting to return the money and cancel his bargain, which C and the S won't go for.
And with a little literary license here, because he is caught 'between heaven and earth,' his end must be hanging. It's brilliant writing and even more brilliant theater.
And it could lead to further study of parallels between the Passion and various Greek tragedies.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
All stories are spun. Including this skein of threads.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by georgiaboy:
Following on, Judas' comment to the Temple Police in the Garden leads one to surmise that, while he thought he was being so very clever and astute, he was in fact, throughout the narrative continually outsmarted by Caiaphas and the Sanhedrin. This leads into his attempting to return the money and cancel his bargain, which C and the S won't go for.
And with a little literary license here, because he is caught 'between heaven and earth,' his end must be hanging. It's brilliant writing and even more brilliant theater.
And it could lead to further study of parallels between the Passion and various Greek tragedies.

Another interesting parallel is the Sanhedrin and Pilate both trying to shift blame-- Pilate literally 'washing his hands' of it, Sanhedrin saying to Judas "that's your problem"-- intriguing how similar they seem in the story.
 
Posted by pimple (# 10635) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Two people betrayed Christ on the same night. One sought forgiveness and became a mighty apostle and some say first bishop of Rome. The other despaired of forgiveness and hanged himself.

I think the message is clear, at least to me: do not assume you are unforgivable. Seek and accept God's forgiveness.

I take it that you mean Peter sought forgiveness.
Do you think he sought out Jesus after the "picnic" in John 21, in order to say sorry? If so, why didn't he? The three admissions of love were dragged out of him. And he was not so much "reinstated" as boss man as gathered back into the fold, at the very most primus inter pares - to feed the sheep, not rule them. A mighty apostle? That is perhaps true. Might is still accepted as right rather too often, IMNSHO.
 
Posted by pimple (# 10635) on :
 
From the POV of someone who thinks C.S.Lewis was deliberately disingenuous with his suggestion that Jesus was either mad, bad, or God (posited at a time when to call his bluff might have got one arrested), it's possible that Judas had a very good reason for ditching his master. If as a Jew the idea that Jesus was God seemed to him to be a blasphemous claim (and we're told that even the beloved disciple wasn't a believer until he found the empty tomb), then he might have used something like Lewis's false trichotomy. Since Jesus couldn't be God, he must be either mad or bad or both.

Which may be the attitude of many Jews today. That Judas wasn't a traitor or a confused man needing understanding and forgiveness. He was just right.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
He was a thieving former terrorist. Bitterly disappointed that Jesus refused to be the Jewish messiah. Not outraged that He claimed to be: He had issues. Like most Christians, he was wedded to the myth, lie of redemptive violence. But he didn't want Jesus hurt let alone killed.
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
Aaaaaugghhh. How the hell do you know?
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
Walter Wink told him so.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
How don't you?
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
How don't you?

Oh, he told me too.
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
There are times I wonder if Jesus and Judas weren't privy to something the other 11 disciples were not. Crucially, come Good Friday afternoon both people who knew the nature of that 'something' were dead.
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
How don't you?

And why do I take the bait?

[brick wall] [brick wall] [brick wall]
 
Posted by Laud-able (# 9896) on :
 
Dante’s vision of Hell sees Judas, the betrayer of Jesus, with Brutus and Cassius, betrayers of the Empire, for ever tormented by a weeping Satan – all four locked together in frozen isolation and darkness, as far removed from God as it is possible to be.

It is true that the vision, despite its immense power, is ultimately no more than a vision: it is possible that all four are in fact ‘Safe at last on Abra’m’s breast’. God alone knows.

However, Mark’s gospel (for instance) makes it clear that the betrayal of Jesus was Judas’ own idea – he chose to go to the authorities – and Jesus’ condemnation of that betrayal is stern:

The Son of man indeed goeth, as it is written
of him: but woe to that man by whom the Son of
man is betrayed! good were it for that man if
he had never been born.

I find it difficult to sidestep that judgement.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
What judgement is that? Beyond dying knowing that you had sold the man you looked up to, loved, followed in a band of intimate brothers for three years, to torture and death in front of you, that all your dreams of liberation, of tangible redemption had come to nothing on nothing. You knew that you were a useless idiot, a thieving tool of murder, despised by everyone. And you couldn't even kill yourself neatly. You may well have survived the drop with your guts hanging out and suffocated after many long minutes or bled out even longer. There's something bad BEYOND that? Apart from two thousand years of revulsion, condemnation?

What?
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
Betrayal is a difficult concept. That is the word the Bible uses several times re. Judas and doesn't appear to mince it much. Some analysts have gone in for the mistranslation of 'betrayal', and reckon in Hebrew it stands for some far less serious or devious.

I can understand Roman civilisation having a pretty dim view of betrayal in the trust sense. The Roman power system stood on the foundations of obedience and trust and they weren't in the business of taking on fables which compromised loyalty.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Laud-able:

However, Mark’s gospel (for instance) makes it clear that the betrayal of Jesus was Judas’ own idea – he chose to go to the authorities – and Jesus’ condemnation of that betrayal is stern:

The Son of man indeed goeth, as it is written
of him: but woe to that man by whom the Son of
man is betrayed! good were it for that man if
he had never been born.

I find it difficult to sidestep that judgement.

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
What judgement is that? Beyond dying knowing that you had sold the man you looked up to, loved, followed in a band of intimate brothers for three years, to torture and death in front of you, that all your dreams of liberation, of tangible redemption had come to nothing on nothing. You knew that you were a useless idiot, a thieving tool of murder, despised by everyone. And you couldn't even kill yourself neatly. You may well have survived the drop with your guts hanging out and suffocated after many long minutes or bled out even longer. There's something bad BEYOND that? Apart from two thousand years of revulsion, condemnation?

What?

Once again, I'm with Martin here. "Woe to him" means he will have a horrible future. Obviously it was horrible if it drove him to suicide. It tells us nothing about his eternal fate. Again, this is typical of the NT, which says very very little about the details of the afterlife, telling us only that there is one, that God is there, and that Jesus is the one who makes the final call.
 
Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on :
 
Laud-able
quote:
However, Mark’s gospel (for instance) makes it clear that the betrayal of Jesus was Judas’ own idea – he chose to go to the authorities – and Jesus’ condemnation of that betrayal is stern:

The Son of man indeed goeth, as it is written
of him: but woe to that man by whom the Son of
man is betrayed! good were it for that man if
he had never been born.

I find it difficult to sidestep that judgement.

Laud-able, I’m with you in that it seems to me pretty clear that the gospel writers had decidedly negative views about Judas, as I have argued in previous posts with particular reference to Luke and John. From their point of view Judas had betrayed the Messiah, God’s Anointed, the Holy One of Israel, even to the point of suggesting not only was he in league with Satan, his master, but actually a devil. This is not the kind of language that resonates with Western Christians today, and there seems to be a great reluctance on the part of some of the posts to recognise the mind-set of the gospel writers regarding the seriousness and consequences for Judas of his actions. Counter-theories of varying plausability have been advanced and even sentimental legends recounted in their support but none of them is grounded in the gospel record. It is open for one to disagree with the gospel writers, but one ought not to argue that they meant the opposite of what they said.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Laud-able, I’m with you in that it seems to me pretty clear that the gospel writers had decidedly negative views about Judas, as I have argued in previous posts with particular reference to Luke and John. From their point of view Judas had betrayed the Messiah, God’s Anointed, the Holy One of Israel, even to the point of suggesting not only was he in league with Satan, his master, but actually a devil. This is not the kind of language that resonates with Western Christians today, and there seems to be a great reluctance on the part of some of the posts to recognise the mind-set of the gospel writers regarding the seriousness and consequences for Judas of his actions. Counter-theories of varying plausability have been advanced and even sentimental legends recounted in their support but none of them is grounded in the gospel record. It is open for one to disagree with the gospel writers, but one ought not to argue that they meant the opposite of what they said.

Who exactly here has argued that the gospel writers did not have "decidedly negative views about Judas" or disagreed with the gospel writers that "Judas had betrayed the Messiah"??? I don't recall reading that anywhere on this thread. Again, no one here is disagreeing with the gospel writers. We are simply pointing out that they show far more restraint than you are in speculating about Judas' ultimate fate.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
And even if they didn't show restraint, what do they know?

As ever cliffdweller, it's ALL about what we bring to the party.

You don't bring wooden Dalek darkness. Apart from the one totally unnecessary bit of weirdness. Dump that nonsense and your credibility will soar.
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
The Gospel story, esp. That surrounding the Crucifiction is constantly open to interpretation .

At risk of going Godwin side, the 'you-know-who's' in the 30's staged lavish pageant plays on the Passion. They depicted a story in which Judas(the Jude) was portrayed as a hook-nosed, almost sub-human creature, who was the epitome of evil.
Most of us now know where that was leading.
 
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :
 
The Wikipedia article on the Passion Plays notes no special connection to Nazism; their connection with antisemitism has existed for centuries.
 
Posted by pimple (# 10635) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Two people betrayed Christ on the same night. One sought forgiveness and became a mighty apostle and some say first bishop of Rome. The other despaired of forgiveness and hanged himself.

I think the message is clear, at least to me: do not assume you are unforgivable. Seek and accept God's forgiveness.

How, exactly, would Judas have sought God's forgiveness? At Jesus' trial? At the foot of the cross? Only the disciple whom Jesus loved had the courage for that. And Jesus' response - to give him charge of Jesus' own mother - might not have
defended him forever. Peter was still after him when Jesus was asking him "Do you love me more than these?"

With Jesus on the cross, an unbelieving Judas might think the only chance of forgiveness might come from the other apostles. Particularly Peter. How credible is that? Is Peter, still smarting from the guilt of his own betrayal, a likely source of comfort for the repenting Judas? We know how far Peter's proclivity for forgiveness extended, from his later dealings with Ananias and Sapphira. So if Judas despaired of forgiveness, how much responsibility for that should be laid at the door of God's chosen, quivering Apostles?
 
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :
 
A Judas who believed that Jesus was the Christ could just pray for forgiveness. The killer--no pun intended--is what an atheist Judas could do for forgiveness.
 
Posted by HCH (# 14313) on :
 
I see no suggestion anywhere that Judas was an atheist.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
The ignorance of all the disciples is two thousand years more ignorant than ours. And ours is appalling.
 
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by HCH:
I see no suggestion anywhere that Judas was an atheist.

I don't think it's clear whether Judas believed Jesus was the Christ, someone you could pray to. Do you?
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by pimple:
With Jesus on the cross, an unbelieving Judas might think the only chance of forgiveness might come from the other apostles. Particularly Peter. How credible is that? Is Peter, still smarting from the guilt of his own betrayal, a likely source of comfort for the repenting Judas?

WE know that because we have the benefit of 2000 years of hindsight. Judas could have at least tried, but did not.
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
Judas was powerless to prevent the action he took. Like all who are drawn into darkness. The consequence in this instance was that a great Light was released.
No Judas , no Cross. No Cross, no salvation. No death of God, no Resurrection of God.

Not really sure if Judas should be forgiven or thanked. I can't see that his demonisation has done much good over the years. The need to demonise is though an intrinsic part of our human nature, suppress it in one area of our existence and it invariably pops up somewhere else.
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
Judas was powerless to prevent the action he took. Like all who are drawn into darkness.

Balderdash and nonsense. Choice, Freedom to choose. Freewill.

quote:
rolyn:
The consequence in this instance was that a great Light was released.
No Judas , no Cross. No Cross, no salvation. No death of God, no Resurrection of God.

Jesus was on a trajectory that if not in that episode, it probably would have been another, in which the authorities caught up with him. As a former bishop and archbishop suggested to me that might be a pile of stones instead of a cross. Or a sword, spears or clubs. Though it is interesting to consider that our focus on the cross as a symbol is more recent and unfamiliar to Christians until much later.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
What are choice, freedom, freewill?
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
I am absolutely certain Jesus forgave Judas. This is built into His character.
I am also reasonably sure (because He was famously persuasive, could probably sell ice to Eskimos) that He was able to get Judas to accept His proffered forgiveness. And then they adjourned to the bar, because if Heaven is anything at all as advertised it must have a bar, right? And had, possibly not a beer, but certainly a nice drink of something.
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
The way I see it, Judas did repent of his actions. He was wretched over it, as evidenced by his suicide. So, did this repentance save him?

Or perhaps this repentance didn't count, because he didn't ask forgiveness from Jesus. Of course, Jesus was taken away so he couldn't talk to Him anymore. But he could have prayed to Jesus. Is there anywhere in the Gospel where Jesus said to the disciples that they should pray to Him if they wanted forgiveness?

(Man, this kind of theology is fucked up.)
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
What are choice, freedom, freewill?

We recently had a thread on freedom which foundered on it being relative . Freewill? A double mountain of theology has tried to cover that with little success.
That leave choice. Ok, if those teetering on the edge of dark deeds retain the power to be able to choose, and pull back from such actions, then yes, Thanks be to God and Alleluia indeed.

I suppose these matters come down to excusability. There are those who do not wish, or maybe do not feel able to excuse Judas for what he did. I accept this.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
Then they are excused accordingly.
 
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Alan Jones tells of a legend thast Jesus went into the depths of Hell to fetch Judas to a second Last Supper as all the others were waitjng for him befopre they could start. (Towards the end of this page)

I love that story, partly because I first heard it from Madeleine L'Engle herself. It's a nice contrast to the sermon I recall from high school days, given by our bright young curate, who called Judas "the one person we can be quite sure is in hell."

I gather, though, that there was a lot of personal ambition underlying Judas's actions. Wasn't he the treasurer for Christ's inner circle, possibly with his hand in the till? The one who objected to the pouring of precious ointment because the money should be given to the poor (wink-wink)? Or is that just negative propaganda from legend?

But in any case, I'd like to to envision a happy ending for him in the afterlife. In the careful words of Bishop Robert Barron, "we are permitted to hope that hell is empty." Or in the words of a Catholic priest on TV years ago, "To rejoice in anyone's spending eternity in hell would be to wish for Christ's redemptive work to fail."
 
Posted by HughWillRidmee (# 15614) on :
 
Surely the point about Judas (assuming for the moment that he existed) was that he was necessary.

If you believe that God caused Jesus to die as the solution to the problem of sin (I don't) he had to have an agent didn't he - I'm assuming that neither suicide nor natural causes would have got the job done; would they?

If, in the view of those such as WLC, morality is doing what God wants you to do - Judas's betrayal would have been a moral imperative. Thus neither especially evil nor an average dude - a special person of the highest moral character doing what his God required of him even though it lead to his own early demise.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
So God is that Machiavellian? That "pragmatic"? That amoral?

Or we're just wooden literalists, making it up badly as we go along. Just like they did 2000 years ago, but with 2000 years less excuse?
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
Surely the point about Judas (assuming for the moment that he existed) was that he was necessary.

If you believe that God caused Jesus to die as the solution to the problem of sin (I don't) he had to have an agent didn't he - I'm assuming that neither suicide nor natural causes would have got the job done; would they?

If, in the view of those such as WLC, morality is doing what God wants you to do - Judas's betrayal would have been a moral imperative. Thus neither especially evil nor an average dude - a special person of the highest moral character doing what his God required of him even though it lead to his own early demise.

Whoa! The action was inevitable, given the hearts of sinful humankind; and so you could in one sense say that the role of betrayer was inevitable for somebody.

But nobody is forced into volunteering for the role. God didn't reach down a divine finger and push Judas, protesting all the way, down the highway to Jerusalem and into a conference room with Jesus' enemies. That was a voluntary act.

If Judas had refrained, no doubt we'd have seen Peter or James or Philip or Simon taking on the role. In any group of twelve, there's going to be at least one who breaks under pressure. And that pressure (from temptation, from circumstances, from fear) would have just kept growing. That's the trajectory Jesus was on.

It's probably more surprising, under the circumstances, that somebody didn't fall earlier, or even several somebodies.
 
Posted by HughWillRidmee (# 15614) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Whoa! The action was inevitable, given the hearts of sinful humankind; and so you could in one sense say that the role of betrayer was inevitable for somebody.

But nobody is forced into volunteering for the role. God didn't reach down a divine finger and push Judas, protesting all the way, down the highway to Jerusalem and into a conference room with Jesus' enemies. That was a voluntary act.

If, as you suggest, it was a voluntary act it was not inevitable was it? Probably someone would have done the deed - or rewritten the story with a different cast - but that is not the same as inevitability. So - if it wasn't inevitable (and it cannot have been in your scenario) how would god have justified all the bother of producing Jesus? If it had looked as though Jesus was going to die of natural causes God would either have had to "encourage" someone or have another try a few years later and, possibly, somewhere else.

Mind you, there is also the point, isn't there, that apparently one has to talk with a lot of people actively working in neuroscientific research before finding one who believes that any of our actions are truly voluntary.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
That's more like it Lamb Chopped. Jesus avoided trouble until it was His time. He couldn't be betrayed in Galilee or Trachonitis.
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
That's more like it Lamb Chopped. Jesus avoided trouble until it was His time. He couldn't be betrayed in Galilee or Trachonitis.

I don't think the location is important. Nor exactly who and by what method betrayed and killed. It was going to happen. That's what happens ton people like him, as inevitable as winter will come. We don't know the day, whether via a storm over night, or by a blizzard in the afternoon. We don't know what the temperature will be, nor the windspeed nor the direction. But winter will come. -- Jesus was going to get caught and killed. Somehow. That is the clear part. The rest I think is circumstance. Because the circumstances are less important than the main event (betrayed, killed), the people who told the stories, and the later people who wrote them down, didn't always agree on each detail. But the main event is the same.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
He knew.
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
If, as you suggest, it was a voluntary act it was not inevitable was it? Probably someone would have done the deed - or rewritten the story with a different cast - but that is not the same as inevitability. So - if it wasn't inevitable (and it cannot have been in your scenario) how would god have justified all the bother of producing Jesus? If it had looked as though Jesus was going to die of natural causes God would either have had to "encourage" someone or have another try a few years later and, possibly, somewhere else.

Mind you, there is also the point, isn't there, that apparently one has to talk with a lot of people actively working in neuroscientific research before finding one who believes that any of our actions are truly voluntary.

Voluntary does not equal "uninfluenced in any way by any person, temptation, or outside circumstance." It means that the individual could have chosen to do otherwise. The fact that a particular choice is either easy or difficult doesn't stop it from being voluntary.

As for inevitability--look, the only way I can see Jesus surviving to, say, age 80 without being murdered would be if the entire human race had a sudden miraculous attack of selfless goodness. "Oh no," they'd say, "I'm happy to give up my power and prestigious position rather than harm this innocent man. I don't mind Jesus' competition, truly, it's just great to see people seeking God! And if the Romans come in and sweep us all away due to a Messianic uprising, that's fine with me too, just as long as I don't get involved in any dirty work."

And Pilate and the Roman soldiers would of course be saying, "We're just here to uphold justice, and if protecting an innocent man loses us our jobs, or even our lives, we're good with that, really."

Uh huh. If you can find an entire religious and political establishment where every freaking member would prefer to lose all rather than do in an innocent man--well, I'd say you have your miracle, society is already redeemed, and Jesus can quit worrying about being Savior of the world and go water-skiing instead. Without skis.
 
Posted by HughWillRidmee (# 15614) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Voluntary does not equal "uninfluenced in any way by any person, temptation, or outside circumstance." It means that the individual could have chosen to do otherwise. The fact that a particular choice is either easy or difficult doesn't stop it from being voluntary.

As for inevitability--look, the only way I can see Jesus surviving to, say, age 80 without being murdered would be if the entire human race had a sudden miraculous attack of selfless goodness. "Oh no," they'd say, "I'm happy to give up my power and prestigious position rather than harm this innocent man. I don't mind Jesus' competition, truly, it's just great to see people seeking God! And if the Romans come in and sweep us all away due to a Messianic uprising, that's fine with me too, just as long as I don't get involved in any dirty work."

And Pilate and the Roman soldiers would of course be saying, "We're just here to uphold justice, and if protecting an innocent man loses us our jobs, or even our lives, we're good with that, really."

Uh huh. If you can find an entire religious and political establishment where every freaking member would prefer to lose all rather than do in an innocent man--well, I'd say you have your miracle, society is already redeemed, and Jesus can quit worrying about being Savior of the world and go water-skiing instead. Without skis.

The overwhelming weight of experimental evidence is said, by those involved, to deny the possibility that we act in the way you describe as "voluntary". Although we think it true that some choices are more difficult than others that is part of the story we tell ourselves to maintain what we call sanity - just like thinking the story we unconsciously construct around a few salient points is an accurate memory. Our choices are made subconsciously based on data we hold and can only be modified by further data - that's why "getting them young" is so powerful. The more our existing data is reinforced the more contrary data it takes to change our mind.

There are many reasons why Jesus (again assuming an existence) might have died well before 80 other than as a formal sacrificial victim. Illness, starvation, drowning, accidental bodily injury, at 30 he was getting on; heck - once he got to five he was in the minority.

Even if the authorities wanted him silenced judicial murder was by no means inevitable. A trial is expensive and crucifixion (which was common) left no room for any return on the time and money invested. It is quite possible that a challenger to authority have been killed - possibly, though not necessarily judicially, but there were many alternatives for getting rid of malcontents - do you think volunteers rowed the Roman's warships and played the role of victim in the public circus?

No - if there was a script which demanded a human sacrifice a suitable enabler was essential and that enabler must have been both provided and unable to shirk his destiny - otherwise the risk of an ignominious, and probably anonymous, death would have been too great.

Martin60 - So God is that Machiavellian? That "pragmatic"? That amoral?

If you embarked on an unnecessary project which you knew in advance would lead to you murdering millions of people and wiping out almost all (blameless) life, causing billions of those you claim to love to lead painful, hungry, diseased, oppressed lives, sending the vast majority to eternal torment and (as an aside) sacrificing your own son for a couple of days I think Machiavellian and "pragmatic" would be letting you off the hook, wouldn't it?
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
The overwhelming weight of experimental evidence is said, by those involved, to deny the possibility that we act in the way you describe as "voluntary". Although we think it true that some choices are more difficult than others that is part of the story we tell ourselves to maintain what we call sanity - just like thinking the story we unconsciously construct around a few salient points is an accurate memory. Our choices are made subconsciously based on data we hold and can only be modified by further data - that's why "getting them young" is so powerful. The more our existing data is reinforced the more contrary data it takes to change our mind.

I will only note here that you are, in fact, posting on an internet forum with the goal of changing other people's minds. Your behavior therefore implies that voluntary choices exist, or why bother posting at all? Unless you go so far as to argue that your apparent choice to post is just as predetermined as my apparent choice to agree or disagree.

quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:

There are many reasons why Jesus (again assuming an existence) might have died well before 80 other than as a formal sacrificial victim. Illness, starvation, drowning, accidental bodily injury, at 30 he was getting on; heck - once he got to five he was in the minority.

Certainly he could have died by accident; that he did not I take to be a combination of prudence (on his part) and providence (on God the Father's part). As for "getting on"--33 or so was not old or even middle aged in that time period, anymore than it is now; it was in fact the age of majority (well, 30 was) for several religious functions among the Jews, such as serving in the temple. The low average lifespan does not mean that people grew old faster, but simply that so many infants and children died extremely young that they brought down the population average drastically. Those who made it to adulthood--heck, to five--were quite likely to make it to 60 or more. And these conditions still exist in much of the world today.

quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:

Even if the authorities wanted him silenced judicial murder was by no means inevitable. A trial is expensive and crucifixion (which was common) left no room for any return on the time and money invested. It is quite possible that a challenger to authority have been killed - possibly, though not necessarily judicially, but there were many alternatives for getting rid of malcontents - do you think volunteers rowed the Roman's warships and played the role of victim in the public circus?

First, I doubt that judicial murder was an absolute requirement for salvation--a mob stoning would have probably done as well. Nevertheless, I agree that the public, protracted, and humiliating nature of Jesus' actual death was something agreed upon by the Trinity-in-Council, and not a mere accident of who-got-to-him-first. The circumstances of his actual suffering and death pretty much remove any possibility that he did not realize, and suffer the realizing of, the whole horror of what was going on--with consequent fear, pain, humiliation, and so on. Stephen's death by stoning was quick and easy in comparison, and involved considerably less suffering. Which seems characteristic of God to me--if anyone is going to bear the brunt of suffering, he's going to make sure it lands on himself first of all. "In this is love," as John says. "Not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins."

So let's grant the divine preference for judicial murder. (Dang, that sounds bad) Anyway, granting that--

Do you really think the high priests etc. would be satisfied with a lesser penalty? Pilate offered them just that, after all. He scourged Jesus and that wasn't enough for them. (Read up on that--people died under the lash.) It could be argued that he implicitly offered imprisonment, as he released another prisoner in a kind of swap-style deal. No, that wasn't enough either. "Crucify him!" they demanded. Why? Besides personal animosity, there is the simple fact that a dead man isn't likely to come back and bother you in the future. Death is a (usually) permanent end to a political threat. Selling him as a galley slave won't do--the Jews of all people realized that slaves could end up free again. As for the circus, they didn't do that kind of thing in Judea. Heck, I doubt they did galley slaves either--at least the selling of them. The Jews were persnickety like that. And what would be the sense in sending him to Rome or elsewhere to enact a penalty of this sort? Not to mention the increased likelihood of escape, etc. No, they want a permanent solution to the man, and they want it now.

You talk of the expense of a trial. What expense? No lawyers, no jurors, no lengthy imprisonment--the total cost of his trials (plural) and death were probably as follows:

item, 30 pieces of silver (later recouped and spent on a municipal graveyard);
item, the cost of soldiers and officials to arrest him, scourge him, and crucify him (which cost was going to be incurred regardless, since these people were salaried, and would have been paid the same whether they were working or playing dice around the courtyard fire);
item, the cost of the first century equivalent of coffee for the Sanhedrin during the illegal night trial;
item, some rope, a whip, wood, and several nails, all of which were probably recycled from other prisoners, and may have gone on to be used again later (Romans weren't squeamish);
item, some vinegar for pouring over the scourge marks;
item, some cheap wine (donated by a soldier at the cross);
item, dry cleaning costs for a Roman cape, used in mockery.

The reed, crown of thorns, and hyssop could all be gotten for free on the side of the road.

Now that you've forced me to consider it, I have to say this sounds an incredibly cheap way to dispose of a threat to your power. And the time involved was less than 24 hours.

quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:

No - if there was a script which demanded a human sacrifice a suitable enabler was essential and that enabler must have been both provided and unable to shirk his destiny - otherwise the risk of an ignominious, and probably anonymous, death would have been too great.

risk of IGNOMINIOUS DEATH?????!!! Seriously, what do you think the cross was??

Go read Apuleius, who is completely uncontaminated with post-Christian attitudes toward crucifixion. His foul-mouthed characters curse their way through the Golden Ass with "to the cross!" here, there, and everywhere, in the same way that modern punks use "motherfucker" for everything.
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0