Judas-Good guy or Bad guy!

Sallers

With the vast amount of new books out there now on the traditional bad guy Judas, Im curious as to how many of you actually agree with the traditional way that he is portrayed i.e. as the 'betrayer' ?

PDN

I believe he was a thief and a betrayer. I've not seen anything of any credibility to challenge the traditional view.

Sallers

and would you accept everything written in the bible as fact?

Run_to_da_hills

Sallers wrote: »

With the vast amount of new books out there now on the traditional bad guy Judas, Im curious as to how many of you actually agree with the traditional way that he is portrayed i.e. as the 'betrayer' ?

Peter had denied Christ, even cursed His holy name. Later, when Peter heard the cock crow three times, he remember that Jesus had foretold of these things. Peter wept bitterly and repented.

Judas on the other hand had betrayed Jesus for thirty pieces of silver (about €6,000 today). Judas panicked when he fully thought about what he had done. Instead of repenting like Peter, Judas went and hung himself. Peter had godly sorrow, but Judas had the sorrow of the world. Worldly sorrow can eat us like cancer until we lose our health, go mad or blow our brain out.

Godly sorrow is simply being sorry to God for what we have done and asking Jesus for forgiveness.

PDN

Sallers wrote: »

and would you accept everything written in the bible as fact?

I would accept everything as fact that I believe was intended to be taken as fact.

For example, I would not take it as fact that a guy was mugged on the road to Jericho and that the Samaritan who helped him was a historical figure etc. They are obviously fictional elements in a parable. Neither would I take it as a fact that God has wings because the Bible speaks poetically about God covers us with his wings.

Sallers

someone did have the theory that Judas could not approach Jesus on Calvary because of the crowds and guards so he hung himself so that he could repent in the next life

mossieh

Judas was another of the long list of sacrificial victims to god's ego. He was born to do what he did. God made him to do what he did. Without his efforts the whole point of jesus' existence would have evaporated. Of all the people who got screwed over by a supposedly just deity, I feel for this guy, he never knew what hit him.

Judas, respect* buddy, you took a big one for the team.


*well, as much respect as I can muster for a probably fictional character.

Suff

He's a complete hipocret !

Did he believe in Christ and then betrayed him? if he did believe then it would have been impossible to deny/betray him. also how do we know that he felt bad and hung himself? who saw him greef? He betrayed Christ then went to commit a sin of killing himself...I dont think so. I think he took the money and ran away. this alleged repentance is only for us as a moral.

Belief is not a meal that you would digest after a cup of tea!

Pompey Magnus

mossieh wrote: »

Judas was another of the long list of sacrificial victims to god's ego. He was born to do what he did. God made him to do what he did. Without his efforts the whole point of jesus' existence would have evaporated. Of all the people who got screwed over by a supposedly just deity, I feel for this guy, he never knew what hit him.

Judas, respect* buddy, you took a big one for the team.


*well, as much respect as I can muster for a probably fictional character.

I second this. In the story I think that Judas had no choice in the matter, and was a vital cog in saving humanity from death, image if he didn't do it and Jesus lived until he was 60 and died of a heart attack, doesn't have quite the same ring to it. Again though, he probably never existed.

Run_to_da_hills

Sallers wrote: »

someone did have the theory that Judas could not approach Jesus on Calvary because of the crowds and guards so he hung himself so that he could repent in the next life

Purgatory was not invented until several centuries later so how could he expect to repent in the next life. Judas will be judged more than any of us because he met the maker. He heard the Gospels first hand, He knew about heaven and hell and its consequences, he sealed his faith by taking his own life instead of crying out for forgiveness so he has no excuse and is now suffering the erternal consequences.

Pompey Magnus

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Purgatory was not invented until several centuries later so how could he expect to repent in the next life. Judas will be judged more than any of us because he met the maker. He heard the Gospels first hand, He knew about heaven and hell and its consequences, he sealed his faith by taking his own life instead of crying out for forgiveness so he has no excuse and is now suffering the erternal consequences.

Is it not wierd how unconvinced so many of Jesus' contemporaries were about him? I mean if he had been as convincing as is made out today why did Judas betray him, why did Thomas not believe, why did Peter deny him, why did the other apostles not believe when they first heard he was raised from the dead, why did his own family say "He's gone mad!" and "He has lost His senses", why did the people of Jerusalem demand his death despite I assume hearing his teachings and seeing his miracles? Why was the great leader of early Christianity, St Paul, a man who had never even met Jesus or heard him speak? Could it be that Jesus was not as convincing as is made out today and that his accomplishments and miracles are later inventions?

PDN

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

Is it not wierd how unconvinced so many of Jesus' contemporaries were about him? I mean if he had been as convincing as is made out today why did Judas betray him, why did Thomas not believe, why did Peter deny him, why did the other apostles not believe when they first heard he was raised from the dead, why did his own family say "He's gone mad!" and "He has lost His senses", why did the people of Jerusalem demand his death despite I assume hearing his teachings and seeing his miracles? Why was the great leader of early Christianity, St Paul, a man who had never even met Jesus or heard him speak? Could it be that Jesus was not as convincing as is made out today and that his accomplishments and miracles are later inventions?

So you are posting about how someone you believe never existed was unconvincing?

I find the kind of references you mention to be an indication of the historicity of the Gospels. If I was to write an imaginary account of how God came to earth then I would portray him as a superman that just wowed everyone with his super powers. The fact that the Gospels record the doubts of his family, Thomas, Peter, Judas etc. make them much more believable IMHO.

This also touches on the whole issue of why God chose to communicate to us in this way rather than just sending a 100 foot giant to write the message of salvation in indelible writing across the sky (that way we would all be convinced - except for a few on the A&A forum). Faith is important. Therefore God has revealed Himself to us in a way that requires faith and so allows to exercise a genuine choice in the matter.

Pompey Magnus

PDN wrote: »

So you are posting about how someone you believe never existed was unconvincing?

I am doing the opposite, I am saying that if the Jesus of the Gospel did exist, I can't understand how he could have been anything but convincing. How can someone who has brought corpses back to life, who has walked on water, who has healed lepers and who has made food appear out of thin air be anything but convincing? If I was alive in Jerusalem at the time and saw this I would not have been calling for him to be crucified, if I had been a close follower of his, one of the 12 apostles, I would not have given up and hidden away after his crucifiction (I mean I would have already witnessed him bringing Lazarus back from the dead, why not himself?) and I certainly wouldn't sell him for silver. Some doubt is natural, but the ease at which massive doubt took over the people closest to Jesus is what stands out to me and makes me very suspicious about the whole story.

This just goes to show how different the same accounts can look when being viewed from different perspectives. From a believers perspective it helps to prove that truth of the Gospels by not being sugar coated and making the Apostles look great, whilst from an unbelievers point of view it indicates at least that the life of Jesus was not as convincing as is implied by the Gospels and at most that it is all made up.

Scofflaw

PDN wrote: »

So you are posting about how someone you believe never existed was unconvincing?

I find the kind of references you mention to be an indication of the historicity of the Gospels. If I was to write an imaginary account of how God came to earth then I would portray him as a superman that just wowed everyone with his super powers. The fact that the Gospels record the doubts of his family, Thomas, Peter, Judas etc. make them much more believable IMHO.

This also touches on the whole issue of why God chose to communicate to us in this way rather than just sending a 100 foot giant to write the message of salvation in indelible writing across the sky (that way we would all be convinced - except for a few on the A&A forum). Faith is important. Therefore God has revealed Himself to us in a way that requires faith and so allows to exercise a genuine choice in the matter.

That would make sense were it not for the penalties attached to failing to be convinced. It would be much more believable if instead of eternal punishment, the unbeliever simply ceased to be exactly as they themselves believe.

cordially,
Scofflaw

robindch

PDN wrote:

Faith is important. Therefore God has revealed Himself to us in a way that requires faith and so allows to exercise a genuine choice in the matter.

That's a startlingly weak justification. Do you really believe that god provided no convincing evidence so that we can freely choose whether or not to believe that he exists? What happened to the rational deity that I seem to recall you mentioning a while back (please forgive me if I'm wrong here).

And as Scofflaw says, where does that leave god's lovingly ominous threat to burn two-thirds of humanity in hell for all eternity because they've exercised their choice not to believe in one specific thing for which there is no evidence? And what about all the other things for which there's no evidence?

.

stevejazzx

PDN wrote: »

Faith is important. Therefore God has revealed Himself to us in a way that requires faith and so allows to exercise a genuine choice in the matter.

An observations on that if I may:

Has God revealed himself equally to everyone since the begining?
If the answer is no and frankly it has to be then the only logically progressive assertion we can make is that some people have been favoured in that they got to see or feel more of God than others.
So unless all peoples of the world are equally exposed to this diety his plan for them coming to their own conlcusions about faith are preposterously imbalanced. Surely an all knowing deity wouldn't favour one set of people over another.
It is another ludricous attempt IMO to get around the very simple probelm that

a) No one has ever seen God in any testable or 'indisputable recordable sense'.
b) there is absolutely no evidence for his existence that can be tested and verified

Soul Winner

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

If I was alive in Jerusalem at the time and saw this I would not have been calling for him to be crucified, if I had been a close follower of his, one of the 12 apostles, I would not have given up and hidden away after his crucifiction (I mean I would have already witnessed him bringing Lazarus back from the dead, why not himself?)..

That smacks exactly of what Peter said when Jesus prophesised Peter’s denial? "If they slay me I will not deny you” Peter underestimated the power of Satan. He got too close to the enemies of Christ by warming himself at their fire. He was recognise as one of the condemned man's followers and became threatened himself. That's why he denied his Lord and I would love to see you in that very same position to see what you would have done. If it were me I would have done the same. It was only when the Spirit came down on the day of Pentecost in Acts 2 that Peter stood up to the mob. He was filled with the Holy Spirit which gave him utterance and courage. Before that all the apostles were cowering in fear in the upper room of John Mark's mother's home.

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

..and I certainly wouldn't sell him for silver. Some doubt is natural, but the ease at which massive doubt took over the people closest to Jesus is what stands out to me and makes me very suspicious about the whole story.

Again what you and many people today do is under estimate the power of Satan. The Jewish Leaders wanted Jesus dead this is clear from the record. Why? Because they seen Jesus as a threat to their position in the community. They were the respected leaders of the people. The people looked to them as their shining example, until Jesus came along. Jesus understood the scriptures better than they and publicly humiliated them in front of the people with the very scriptures they tried to trick Jesus with. The people heard Him gladly but the Jewish Leaders hated Him and plotted His demise from the get go. As long as Jesus performed miracles and fed the people thousands followed Him. But once He preached "Take up your cross and follow me" they all left Him except the 12. And when it came time to perform the ultimate sacrifice for all mankind the scripture says they all fled and left Him. He died on the cross alone. The people feared the Jewish leaders and went along with them against the by now unpopular Jesus. The Roman Army also feared the Jewish Leaders because they could have incited a riot that they would inevitably have to mop up so they too got in on the act, they had no gripe with Jesus. The Jewish Leaders lied to the Roman authorities that Jesus claimed to be King. It was the only way that they could get the Romans to crucify Him (as stoning under the Law of Moses was outlawed under Roman Rule) and even that charge didn't stick with Pilot which is why he washed his hands of the matter. But the pressure from the Jewish leaders was such that the Roman Authorites had to do somehting or else there would be bedlem.

As for Judas. Well Judas I believe believed in Jesus the most but he had a flaw, he thought he knew better than Jesus. He betrayed Jesus because he thought that once the soldiers came for Him that he would destroy them and set up His Kingdom right there. It was only after the fact that he realised that Jesus was going to die that he wanted to give the money back. He realised that his plan was not going to come to pass and that Jesus was going to die. He knew everyone now was going to hate him for what he did. They were all there in the garden when Judas came with the priests and soldiers. And instead of asking God to forgive he decided to kill himself. He never repented of what he did. If he had done Jesus would have forgave him. Look at Peter, he failed Jesus the most but what did Jesus say to the women who reported the Resurrection? "Go tell my Disciples and Peter" Peter is singled out here, Jesus says make sure that Peter getes the message. Peter repented of his failure that was the difference between him and Judas. Jesus would have forgiven Judas in the blink of an eye had he (Judas) just asked for it but Judas was proud and never did.

PDN

robindch wrote: »

That's a startlingly weak justification. Do you really believe that god provided no convincing evidence so that we can freely choose whether or not to believe that he exists? What happened to the rational deity that I seem to recall you mentioning a while back (please forgive me if I'm wrong here).

And as Scofflaw says, where does that leave god's lovingly ominous threat to burn two-thirds of humanity in hell for all eternity because they've exercised their choice not to believe in one specific thing for which there is no evidence? And what about all the other things for which there's no evidence?

.

As I have stated ad nauseam in other threads, God has provided evidence - evidence that millions of us have found to be very convincing indeed and therefore a basis upon which to step out in faith. My point was that evidence that requires some step of faith is different from conclusive
proof (the 100 foot giant writing on the sky) that would appear to leave no room for faith at all.

As for hell, I have stated my own personal opinion in other threads that hell is more an absence of God than anything else. Just an eternity where Pol Pot, Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Genghis Khan and other people can work out among themselves how to treat one another with no pesky Christians to get in their way, and no death to provide a release. You want a life without God? He let's you have it - not much to complain about there, I think.

PDN

stevejazzx wrote: »

It is another ludricous attempt IMO to get around the very simple probelm that

a) No one has ever seen God in any testable or 'indisputable recordable sense'.
b) there is absolutely no evidence for his existence that can be tested and verified

If b is true then the demand for a is plainly unreasonable, isn't it?

Pompey Magnus

PDN wrote: »

Just an eternity where Pol Pot, Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Genghis Khan and other people can work out among themselves how to treat one another with no pesky Christians to get in their way

I'd say if there is a hell there will be a fair share of Christians there to be honest.

Run_to_da_hills

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

I'd say if there is a hell there will be a fair share of Christians there to be honest.

It mentions of this in the Gospel of Matthew. "Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity". (Matthew 7 22)

PDN

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

I'd say if there is a hell there will be a fair share of Christians there to be honest.

It depends on what you define as a Christian. If we go by the usual definition on the A&A Board (ie anyone who wants to call themselves a Christian) then I certainly agree with you. All the sadistic sickos that ran the Inquisition or burned witches in Salem should be there.

Soul Winner

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

I'd say if there is a hell there will be a fair share of Christians there to be honest.

If they are real Christians that is to say true followers of Christ I can guarentee you that they won't. Just because some label themselves as Christian down here does not mean they follow Christ in their hearts. Only God knows who the real Chrsitians are. The so called Chrsitians that will end up in hell are not nor ever were Chrisitians in the true sense of the word.

Spyral

They RCC does not teach that anyone is in Hell. It is possibly empty.

Also there were 2 judas's ; judas iscariot and judas (jude) thaddeus.

PDN

Spyral wrote: »

Also there were 2 judas's ; judas iscariot and judas (jude) thaddeus.

Three - if you count Jude, the brother of Jesus, who wrote the epistle of Jude in the New Testament.

SubjectSean

PDN wrote: »

Three - if you count Jude, the brother of Jesus, who wrote the epistle of Jude in the New Testament.

Four if you count Didymus Judas Thomas the doubting 'twin' or is this the same person as Jude? There are an awful lot of similar names in the NT and sometimes I wonder if in the retelling of the stories one person may have become two or more people.

stevejazzx

PDN wrote: »

If b is true then the demand for a is plainly unreasonable, isn't it?

left out the word 'other' there inpart b...I was being over zealous I suppose - it must be contagious round these parts !

Any thoughts on the other bit? You know? ...the tricky bit....

PDN

stevejazzx wrote: »

Any thoughts on the other bit? You know? ...the tricky bit....

About anyone seeing God? Not much point since it's been discussed many times in other threads. I can go through any number of people, both in or out of the Bible, who have seen or experienced God - then you will find an excuse to reject their evidence. It would be an exercise in futility.

pdebarra

PDN wrote: »

I would accept everything as fact that I believe was intended to be taken as fact.

That's a little open-ended, is it not?

PDN

pdebarra wrote: »

That's a little open-ended, is it not?

No - it's not open-ended at all. My sentence starts with a capital letter and finishes with a full stop.

Or were you expecting me to understand that you are using 'open-ended' in a metaphorical sense? If so, then what is wrong with applying the same kind of reasonable approach to language in regards to the Bible as we use to other forms of writing (including your post).

pdebarra

Nothing wrong with that, PDN, as long as you allow each of us to take the same liberties in interpreting the Bible.

PDN

pdebarra wrote: »

Nothing wrong with that, PDN, as long as you allow each of us to take the same liberties in interpreting the Bible.

You can interpret the Bible whatever you want. I can't allow or prevent you from interpreting any book how you choose, can I?.

I have no problem with anyone who is genuinely seeking the truth and comes up with an honest interpretation that is different to mine. I am happy to discuss with such a person. Maybe they will learn from me and maybe I will learn from them.

If, however, someone deliberately seeks an interpretation to suit their own ends then that is their problem, not mine. I have little interest in entering into a discussion with them since they don't want to know the truth anyway.