JUDAS

peakpilgrim

Hi

RE: JUDAS

I often wondered about the character of Judas; was he a traitor or a Victim?

Having witnessed all the wonderful works of Christ why did he then go against Him.

Does anyone have an opinion on this.

kind Regards,

DublinWriter

One of the 'forgotten' gospels is that of Judas himself.

Arugably, without Judas, there would not have been a crucifixation and/or resurrection.

Fanny Cradock

He was a willing perpetrator.

Seoid

Why does anybody sin or do anything bad?

It seems that (for whatever motives) Judas betrayed Jesus of his own free will and according to the gospel, he was so remorseful later that he couldn't live with himself and committed suicide. Probably he didn't understand the consequences until it was too late.

DublinWriter wrote: »

Arugably, without Judas, there would not have been a crucifixation and/or resurrection.

Was Jesus - who spent his whole career preaching - really so good at hiding that they couldn't have found him without a guide?
I think there could be prophecies about Christ being betrayed (I can't think of one now but I think there are...) so Judas betraying Jesus was important as fulfilling prophecy.

philologos

Judas played a role in the Crucifixion. Judas merely carried out what he had to do to fulfil the Biblical prophesy concerning the death of the Messiah as in the Biblical scripture. This view may not be kosher with many others but it is the only way I can rationally put together what Judas did in the narrative. Jesus knew before the event happened that Judas would do this to him, which indicates that it must have been God's plan for it to have taken place.

Just my two cents on the matter of Judas

Seoid: The Gospel says that the one who betrays Him will wish that he were never born. This was the case with Judas.

Twin-go

Jakkass wrote: »

Judas played a role in the Crucifixion. Judas merely carried out what he had to do to fulfil the Biblical prophesy concerning the death of the Messiah as in the Biblical scripture. This view may not be kosher with many others but it is the only way I can rationally put together what Judas did in the narrative. Jesus knew before the event happened that Judas would do this to him, which indicates that it must have been God's plan for it to have taken place.

Just my two cents on the matter of Judas

Seoid: The Gospel says that the one who betrays Him will wish that he were never born. This was the case with Judas.

So who/what affected Judas' actions?

Was is Satan as in the Gospels of Luke and John? or,

Was it greed/Gods will a perscribed in Mark and Matthew?

You have to admit there is a huge difference and implications depending on if it was truly Satan, Greed or Gods will.

Seoid

That doesn't make Judas any less guilty.

philologos

Not really. There is numerous ways in which those three can be reconciled.

Greed is a passion of the flesh, which is usually to do with Satans tempting.
However in chapter 1 of the book of Romans it also explains that God handed over those in sin to their passions due to the fact that they would not repent. I'm reading the book of Jeremiah in the Old Testament at the minute and as God is punishing Israel he says that He has been patient but He will hand them over to their iniquity until they repent.

All of these three can go together. The book of Exodus also explains that the Pharoahs heart was hardened so that God's name would be glorified in the land of Egypt after the oppression of the Israelites. So Pharoahs hard heartedness was actually God working in him so that He would set a precadent, that He would punish those who maligned the people of God.

As I say numerous examples exist. Other Christians here have disagreed with me on my point of view that Judas' role in the Crucifixion was God's will though. Basically it had to happen to fulfil Biblical prophesy.

smcgiff

The view has been put forward that MANY of Jesus' followers (these extended well beyond the 12 apostles) were disillusioned with the non-fulfilment of his promises and Judas was one of these.

But, if you take the view that Jesus performed easily identifiable miracles, then it is indeed very hard to explain why someone would betray a God.

Twin-go

Jakkass wrote: »

Not really. There is numerous ways in which those three can be reconciled.

Greed is a passion of the flesh, which is usually to do with Satans tempting.
However in chapter 1 of the book of Romans it also explains that God handed over those in sin to their passions due to the fact that they would not repent. I'm reading the book of Jeremiah in the Old Testament at the minute and as God is punishing Israel he says that He has been patient but He will hand them over to their iniquity until they repent.

So if satan entered Judus before or during the last super (Gospels of Luke and John disagree on this) it was Satans actions through Judus that set in motion the final acts that fulfilled the prophices that founded the Christian church? If Satan did not enter Judas and, Jesus was not betrayed, what would have happened?

Jakkass wrote: »

All of these three can go together. The book of Exodus also explains that the Pharoahs heart was hardened so that God's name would be glorified in the land of Egypt after the oppression of the Israelites. So Pharoahs hard heartedness was actually God working in him so that He would set a precadent, that He would punish those who maligned the people of God.

There is no evidence of the Israelites ever been in Egypt. So we should not take this as an example. It was a story.

Jakkass wrote: »

As I say numerous examples exist. Other Christians here have disagreed with me on my point of view that Judas' role in the Crucifixion was God's will though. Basically it had to happen to fulfil Biblical prophesy.

So according to 2/4 Gospels, Satans actions helped found the Christian Church?

philologos

Twin-go wrote: »

So if satan entered Judus before or during the last super (Gospels of Luke and John disagree on this) it was Satans actions through Judus that set in motion the final acts that fulfilled the prophices that founded the Christian church? If Satan did not enter Judas and, Jesus was not betrayed, what would have happened?

First things first. If you are going to say that Luke and John disagree on this please provide quotations. It's very hard to deal with peoples objections if they don't show exact passages.

If Jesus was not betrayed by Judas, Jesus would not be the Messiah, and it would have been a hoax. That's exactly what it would have been. For Jesus to have been the Messiah he must have been betrayed, he must have died, and he must have risen again. All of these prophesies are in the Old Testament concerning the Messiah. These checks serve as a test to show that Jesus was who He said He was.

Twin-go wrote: »

There is no evidence of the Israelites ever been in Egypt. So we should not take this as an example. It was a story.

If you are going to come here to discuss the Bible. You should expect quotations from other parts of the Bible. You are discussing God's nature as described in the Bible, hence the Bible should be a focal point of discussion. Otherwise if you quote one part of the Bible and refuse to allow citation of another you are copping out of the discussion.

I argue that in the Bible, God hardened peoples hearts, and God does occasionally hand people over to sin if they are unwilling to repent. This explains why Judas betrayed Jesus in my opinion. It was a part of His divine plan and God organised it in that way.

Twin-go wrote: »

So according to 2/4 Gospels, Satans actions helped found the Christian Church?

Temptation was a part of fulfilling divine prophesy yes. Just as God hardened the heart of the Pharoah, God handed Judas over to Satan to fulfil His divine plan.

Hotspace

The crucifixion just doesn't stand up to honest scepticism. By this I shall expound: God surely put his plan to sacrifice His own Son into jeopardy by letting the events leading up to the crucifixion unfold and hoping that each step would drive inexorably toward Jesus' fate of sacrificial redemption.

If Judas didn't betray him then Jesus might have lived a long life and died a natural death and God's plan would have failed. We can substitute Judas' role in the story for Pontius Pilate and his judgment or if the mob actually believed Jesus to be the Messiah.

Judas should be worshipped as an accessory to God’s plan; instead, he is vilified in many theologies.

One must conclude that either God gambled on the outcome: that Jesus was crucified; or God intervened in the story and guided key players or stopped them from exercising their own decisions and dare I say, free will

Seoid

The bible doesn't indicate that Judas was actually posessed so IMHO Satan entering him is a metaphor and doesn't excuse him personally from the guilt. Neither do the prophecies or the fact that God knew it was going to happen - it could have been someone else. Personally I think Judas is to be pitied, rather than villified or worshipped!

God can and does use a lot of pain and sin to work his plans and make good come out of bad but that doesn't mean that pain and sin are a good thing.

Twin-go

Jakkass wrote: »

First things first. If you are going to say that Luke and John disagree on this please provide quotations. It's very hard to deal with peoples objections if they don't show exact passages.

[/quote]Luke 22:1-6 - Satan enters and affects Judas before the Last Supper

Now the Feast of Unleavened Bread drew near, which is called the Passover. 2 And the chief priests and the scribes were seeking how to put him to death, for they feared the people.
3 Then Satan entered into Judas called Iscariot, who was of the number of the twelve. 4 He went away and conferred with the chief priests and officers how he might betray him to them. 5 And they were glad, and agreed to give him money. 6 So he consented and sought an opportunity to betray him to them in the absence of a crowd.[/quote]

[/quote]John 13:27 - Satan enters and affects Judas during the supper

Then after he had taken the morsel, Satan entered into him. Jesus said to him, “What you are going to do, do quickly.”

If Jesus was not betrayed by Judas, Jesus would not be the Messiah, and it would have been a hoax. That's exactly what it would have been. For Jesus to have been the Messiah he must have been betrayed, he must have died, and he must have risen again. All of these prophesies are in the Old Testament concerning the Messiah. These checks serve as a test to show that Jesus was who He said He was.[/quote]

Jakkass wrote: »

If you are going to come here to discuss the Bible. You should expect quotations from other parts of the Bible. You are discussing God's nature as described in the Bible, hence the Bible should be a focal point of discussion. Otherwise if you quote one part of the Bible and refuse to allow citation of another you are copping out of the discussion.

I argue that there is evidence, apart from the Bible, that a man called Jesus lived and was cruxified 2000 years ago. There is no documented evidence apart from the Bible for the Isrealites in Egypt.

Jakkass wrote: »

I argue that in the Bible, God hardened peoples hearts, and God does occasionally hand people over to sin if they are unwilling to repent. This explains why Judas betrayed Jesus in my opinion. It was a part of His divine plan and God organised it in that way.


Temptation was a part of fulfilling divine prophesy yes. Just as God hardened the heart of the Pharoah, God handed Judas over to Satan to fulfil His divine plan.

So, does God work in tandem with Satan? If Judas was taken over by Satan as the Gospels say he did not betray Jesus. He was just a pupet of Satan.

prinz

Perhaps if Judas had repented and sought God's forgiveness then he could have gone on to actually be a productive Christian ( like St Paul and his previous incarnation as persecutor of the Christians, as Jesus said what you do o the least of my brethren you do unto me, but Paul was in God's favour later on ).

Instead Judas forgot everything Jesus had been teaching of mercy, redemption, forgiveness and took his own life, thereby rejecting a second of God's gifts to him ( Jesus, and his own life ).

Húrin

I agree with Jakkass, that Judas was probably necessary for God's plan to be fulfilled. Thus I don't think that Judas deserves to be vilified. "But he killed our Lord" - well, Jesus was incarnated in order to be killed.

philologos

Seoid wrote: »

The bible doesn't indicate that Judas was actually posessed so IMHO Satan entering him is a metaphor and doesn't excuse him personally from the guilt. Neither do the prophecies or the fact that God knew it was going to happen - it could have been someone else. Personally I think Judas is to be pitied, rather than villified or worshipped!

I personally don't support vilifying Judas and I think it may not be the most accurate response to the Gospel on the matter.

As for the Bible not indicating that Judas was possessed. Of course it does. Satan entering him is what indicates that Judas was possessed. When the Pharisees said that Jesus cast out demons using Beelzebul (Satan), Jesus said that Satan would not divide his own house. Rightfully so. Now why would this sentence be used in a different context elsewhere in the same Gospel? I don't understand this. Jesus viewed possession as a very real thing and even explains the difficulty to the disciples that after demons are driven out, seven more can enter than were already there. Why would Jesus spend so much time on demons if they were not a real possibility? I'm just curious as to what you think about that given what we know about the text of the New Testament.

Seoid wrote: »

God can and does use a lot of pain and sin to work his plans and make good come out of bad but that doesn't mean that pain and sin are a good thing.

I personally see the Crucifixion as a good thing. In the Gospel of John, Jesus says the following before the Crucifixion:

John 16:20-21 wrote:

Very truly, I tell you, you will weep and mourn, but the world will rejoice; you will have pain, but your pain will turn into joy. When a woman is in labour, she has pain, because her hour has come. But when her child is born, she no longer remembers the anguish because of the joy of having brought a human being into the world.

I agree with this. Sorrow did turn into joy, Christians now regard the Crucifixion as a joyous occasion, but it would have been extremely painful for the disciples.

Hotspace

Judas was a key player in Jesus’ path to Calgary; without him Jesus might have died a natural death in vain. Surely Judas is to be held up high and given a status equal to say other prominent characters in the Christianity story. Surely he must be placed above John the Baptist or St. Paul. Without Judas there would be no Christians and no redemption in Christ.

Why would the devil possess Judas in order to betray Jesus? Surely Satan would want Jesus to die a natural non-sacrificial death. This would result in everyone going to hell.

If God was somehow pulling on the strings of fate for every part of this story to fall into place then he must have controlled or beguiled the devil to possess Judas. This raises more questions like if he is both capable and unwilling to control evil – except when it chooses him – then he is immoral to let evil pass.

philologos

Hotspace wrote: »

Judas was a key player in Jesus’ path to Calgary;

Jesus died in Canada? I know Jesus of Montreal was a great hit in late 80's but Jesus of Calgary?
(I think you meant Calvary, not Calgary )

Hotspace wrote: »

without him Jesus might have died a natural death in vain. Surely Judas is to be held up high and given a status equal to say other prominent characters in the Christianity story. Surely he must be placed above John the Baptist or St. Paul. Without Judas there would be no Christians and no redemption in Christ

Do you not get the point? Jesus died because it was God's plan to do so. If it weren't God's plan, Jesus could have died a natural death certainly. He wouldn't have been the Messiah or the Son of God then. However, Jesus was martyred as the Messianic prophesies of Psalm 22, and Isaiah 53 amongst others suggest.

As for John the Baptist, he played a role in Messianic prophesy too. In Isaiah 40 it speaks of a man crying out in the desert to make way for the Lord. The New Testament quotes this passage when it was referring to John. John also fulfilled the Messianic prophesy of being the Elijah before the one to come as prophesied in the book of Malachi chapter 3.

As for without Judas, x. Judas was there merely because God had him there to fulfil Messianic prophesy. You seem to go through these points as if Judas had the power to change events. Of course he didn't. God was in control. It wasn't because of Judas that we have Christs redemption, but because of the grace of God.

Hotspace wrote: »

If God was somehow pulling on the strings of fate for every part of this story to fall into place then he must have controlled or beguiled the devil to possess Judas. This raises more questions like if he is both capable and unwilling to control evil – except when it chooses him – then he is immoral to let evil pass.

God was pulling on the strings for Messianic prophesy to be fulfilled. As for evil, evil can often bring forth good in the Judeo-Christian tradition. One might bear much pain, but through bearing that pain one will find it was merely the means of acheiving what was good.

As for immoral. Immoral by whose standards?

God is like a father to us. A Father will try to teach and teach His children, but eventually He has to let His children grow up and try things for themselves so that they can learn and mature. This is exactly what God does for us. If we are unwilling to repent, He respects our decision and allows us to experience evil so as to bring us to repentance. If we do not repent, we have decided our own fate. This is what is called free will. Rather different to fulfilling Messianic prophesy or keeping to His promises which is basically what God did with Jesus, He kept His promise to Abraham that His people would bless the Gentiles (Galatians 3 - 4).

Seoid

Jakkass wrote: »

As for the Bible not indicating that Judas was possessed. Of course it does. Satan entering him is what indicates that Judas was possessed. When the Pharisees said that Jesus cast out demons using Beelzebul (Satan), Jesus said that Satan would not divide his own house. Rightfully so. Now why would this sentence be used in a different context elsewhere in the same Gospel? I don't understand this. Jesus viewed possession as a very real thing and even explains the difficulty to the disciples that after demons are driven out, seven more can enter than were already there. Why would Jesus spend so much time on demons if they were not a real possibility? I'm just curious as to what you think about that given what we know about the text of the New Testament.

I'm not disputing the reality of demonic possession in the Gospels or the importance of exorcism in Jesus' mission but I don't think that Judas was a case of full-blown possession. If it was, he couldn't have been held responsible for his actions - possession seems to be comparible to a disease in the bible.
In my opinion (and I know others disagree), where the gospels say Satan entered Judas (and not all of them do) it is figurative, representing the fact that Judas had temporarily given his mind and heart to Satan - he was following Satan, not God. But it was Judas who controlled his actions, not Satan directly.
We use the same kind of language talking about God, asking Jesus to enter our hearts.

Hotspace wrote: »

Why would the devil possess Judas in order to betray Jesus? Surely Satan would want Jesus to die a natural non-sacrificial death. This would result in everyone going to hell.

I could be wrong, but I think God is the only one who knows everything. Maybe Satan didn't know the consequences until it was too late.

Jakkass wrote: »

As for without Judas, x. Judas was there merely because God had him there to fulfil Messianic prophesy. You seem to go through these points as if Judas had the power to change events. Of course he didn't. God was in control. It wasn't because of Judas that we have Christs redemption, but because of the grace of God.

But Judas as an individual human made a choice. God, from his perspective outside time knew it was going to happen but does that make it less of a choice? The prophecies just say that somebody close to the Christ would betray him - but that could have been any number of people. Maybe somebody else was tempted too but rejected Satan - if Judas had personally chosen not to follow Satan and reject God, somebody else would have but it doesn't lessen his responsibility for his own actions.

Hotspace

Jakkass wrote: »

Jesus died in Canada? I know Jesus of Montreal was a great hit in late 80's but Jesus of Calgary (I think you meant Calvary, not Calgary )

Apologies, I notice a username in the forums of BrianCalgary I must have had his/her username on my mind when writing. I only wish I had a proof reader

Jakkass wrote: »

Do you not get the point? Jesus died because it was God's plan to do so. If it weren't God's plan, Jesus could have died a natural death certainly. He wouldn't have been the Messiah or the Son of God then. However, Jesus was martyred as the Messianic prophesies of Psalm 22, and Isaiah 53 amongst others suggest.

Apparently the point has escaped me. Or I could say that you are failing to view the story with sceptical eyes and only with believing eyes. If he didn’t die a sacrificial death he wouldn’t have been the Son of God? Huh, God sent him down and chose to gamble that too many variables would fall into place to allow him to be crucified. I’m talking of variables like God possessing the devil to in turn possess Judas and a weak Pontius Pilate who listened too closely to a baying mob. If he didn’t die a sacrificial death then he would have still have been borne of the Holy-Spirit.

Seoid wrote: »

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hotspace
Why would the devil possess Judas in order to betray Jesus? Surely Satan would want Jesus to die a natural non-sacrificial death. This would result in everyone going to hell.

I could be wrong, but I think God is the only one who knows everything. Maybe Satan didn't know the consequences until it was too late.

Thanks for trying to engage. It’s rather easy for the theist to answer conundrums. God can be used to answer everything; he is the ultimate get-out-of-jail-free-card.

Let’s move on to the Messianic prophesies of Psalm 22, and Isaiah 53. There has been, and will continue to be much contention over Isaiah 53 between Jews and Christians. When I read it I am struck that it is written totally in the wrong tense. It’s written in the past tense. Rather the wrong tense to choose when one is making a prophecy, wouldn’t you say? As for Psalm 22, why would he say that, “God has forsaken him”. How can this be? Doesn’t to forsake mean to turn away from and forget. Don’t you think that this is an odd thing to say at the culmination of God’s plan? Isn’t it more probable that New Testament authors have again plundered the Old Testament looking for quotes to insert to make it look like prophecy has been fulfilled? Bart Ehrman has indeed discovered proof of this technique in many places. I’m just not sure if this one is included in his examples.

Jakkass wrote: »

As for immoral. Immoral by whose standards?

I’m looking to the ineffable moral law that is held within each of us.

Jakkass wrote: »

God is like a father to us. A Father will try to teach and teach His children, but eventually He has to let His children grow up and try things for themselves so that they can learn and mature. This is exactly what God does for us. If we are unwilling to repent, He respects our decision and allows us to experience evil so as to bring us to repentance. If we do not repent, we have decided our own fate. This is what is called free will. Rather different to fulfilling Messianic prophesy or keeping to His promises which is basically what God did with Jesus, He kept His promise to Abraham that His people would bless the Gentiles (Galatians 3 - 4).

I’ve not experienced evil.

I fail to see the free will involved. I’m borne into a life of sin and I cannot help but sin. And the only exercise of free will I’m allowed is to believe based on his terms? How is the free will? Free will should surely encompass a multitude of possible choices to take.

peakpilgrim

Seoid wrote: »

I'm not disputing the reality of demonic possession in the Gospels or the importance of exorcism in Jesus' mission but I don't think that Judas was a case of full-blown possession. If it was, he couldn't have been held responsible for his actions - possession seems to be comparible to a disease in the bible.
In my opinion (and I know others disagree), where the gospels say Satan entered Judas (and not all of them do) it is figurative, representing the fact that Judas had temporarily given his mind and heart to Satan - he was following Satan, not God. But it was Judas who controlled his actions, not Satan directly.
We use the same kind of language talking about God, asking Jesus to enter our hearts.




I could be wrong, but I think God is the only one who knows everything. Maybe Satan didn't know the consequences until it was too late.




But Judas as an individual human made a choice. God, from his perspective outside time knew it was going to happen but does that make it less of a choice? The prophecies just say that somebody close to the Christ would betray him - but that could have been any number of people. Maybe somebody else was tempted too but rejected Satan - if Judas had personally chosen not to follow Satan and reject God, somebody else would have but it doesn't lessen his responsibility for his own actions.

Hi

I agree that the use of Satan is figurative; often the use of satanic possession is used, even today, for behaviour that is hard to understand.

Judas had a choice and he is, solely, responsible for it.

Why did he act that way, though, having been with Jesus throughout several miracles? There could not have been any doubt in Judas' mind as to who Jesus was.

However: Jesus deliberately, throughout His time on Earth surrounded Himself with 'dodgy' characters, as the Pharisees might say; the Apostles, themselves, were a tough bunch; the Lepers, the Prostitutes, even Tax Collectors ( Hard to Understand! ); this was to show that everyone was included; not just the 'Chosen' people.

I do not agree that, without Judas, Jesus would not be crucified.

Jesus knew what Judas was going to do; He didn't try to dissuade him; so was the character of Judas used to show that even the most vile traitor was capable of being saved?

Should we be more sympathetic to the wretched Judas? who hanged himself out of remorse for what he had done.

wolfsbane

Judas is presented as a traitor, one who betrayed his Friend, and more importantly, betrayed the One he knew was from God. He knew enough to be utterly guilty.

Not only this revealed his character, but he was also a thief from the beginning - stealing the communal funds which he was in charge of. He was betraying his friends all along, so the ultimate betrayal was but the fruition of his seed of iniquity.

The Bible makes no provision for him to be forgiven - he is classified as the son of perdition. Judas is a solemn warning to any who profess Christ but are using Him to cover their sinful practices.

Yes, God used Judas to fulfil the prophecies. He permitted Judas to fully express himself, and Satan to fill him for that purpose.

Satan himself is used to accomplish God's purposes: all the evil he dreams up only goes to further God's final plan. Satan has been aptly described as God's blacksmith, heating us in the fire, hammering us on the anvil and drowning us in the water. All he produces, however, is fine steel tools for God's use.

Mickeroo

wolfsbane wrote: »

Judas is presented as a traitor, one who betrayed his Friend, and more importantly, betrayed the One he knew was from God. He knew enough to be utterly guilty.

Not only this revealed his character, but he was also a thief from the beginning - stealing the communal funds which he was in charge of. He was betraying his friends all along, so the ultimate betrayal was but the fruition of his seed of iniquity.

The Bible makes no provision for him to be forgiven - he is classified as the son of perdition. Judas is a solemn warning to any who profess Christ but are using Him to cover their sinful practices.

Yes, God used Judas to fulfil the prophecies. He permitted Judas to fully express himself, and Satan to fill him for that purpose.

Satan himself is used to accomplish God's purposes: all the evil he dreams up only goes to further God's final plan. Satan has been aptly described as God's blacksmith, heating us in the fire, hammering us on the anvil and drowning us in the water. All he produces, however, is fine steel tools for God's use.

So satan works for god now?? Doing all the dirty work for him so he can keep his public image clean? Kind of like God's CIA. Interesting view point

wolfsbane

Mickeroo wrote: »

So satan works for god now?? Doing all the dirty work for him so he can keep his public image clean? Kind of like God's CIA. Interesting view point

No, not doing the dirty work for Him - just doing the dirty work and God turning that to our good. Even mortals can at times turn their enemies assaults to their own favour; How much more the infinitely wise and powerful God?

Phototoxin

I'm a fan of the theory that it was how JC got to meet the high priest.

Mickeroo

wolfsbane wrote: »

No, not doing the dirty work for Him - just doing the dirty work and God turning that to our good. Even mortals can at times turn their enemies assaults to their own favour; How much more the infinitely wise and powerful God?

Wolfie, if they ever make a movie about your life i will personally campaign that Christopher Lee play you

Hotspace

wolfsbane wrote: »

Yes, God used Judas to fulfil the prophecies. He permitted Judas to fully express himself, and Satan to fill him for that purpose.

Satan himself is used to accomplish God's purposes: all the evil he dreams up only goes to further God's final plan. Satan has been aptly described as God's blacksmith, heating us in the fire, hammering us on the anvil and drowning us in the water. All he produces, however, is fine steel tools for God's use.

Ok, so we’ve agreed and reached a consensus that God has allowed Satan to possess Judas.

I can think of two problems with this:

1. We could say that Satan did not know God’s final plan of sacrifice for redemption of sins. And Satan thought that Jesus would remain dead once betrayed and crucified.

There are two problems with this:

a). Satan saw Jesus raise Lazarus from the dead so he must have known that Jesus could do that to himself. So, Satan, being a lazy Devil, would have thought, “What’s the point of killing Jesus – He’ll only rise up again”. I suspect something is going on here…
b). To say that Satan was tricked and controlled by the stranglehold of fate just means that Satan does not have free will (like we are supposed to). If Satan does have free will then we must assume that God gambled on Satan making the wrong decision. Just as He gambled on a baying mob not believing Jesus was the messiah and He again gambled on Pontius Pilate acquiescing to that baying mob. Too many variables have to fall into place in order for the sacrifice to be carried out.

2. We could say that God possessed Satan who in turn possessed Judas.

There are a few problems with this:

a) My credulity has been stretched to its utter limit and even in thinking it I have stepped outside the bounds of rationality.
b) In order for God to possess Satan we must ask the following hypothetical questions: when God possessed Satan does God become Evil? Can God know evil? Wouldn’t God be carrying out evil? Would the Devil become good? Would the Devil and God enter a state between good and evil?

wolfsbane

Hotspace said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane

Yes, God used Judas to fulfil the prophecies. He permitted Judas to fully express himself, and Satan to fill him for that purpose.

Satan himself is used to accomplish God's purposes: all the evil he dreams up only goes to further God's final plan. Satan has been aptly described as God's blacksmith, heating us in the fire, hammering us on the anvil and drowning us in the water. All he produces, however, is fine steel tools for God's use.
Ok, so we’ve agreed and reached a consensus that God has allowed Satan to possess Judas.

Agreed.

I can think of two problems with this:

1. We could say that Satan did not know God’s final plan of sacrifice for redemption of sins. And Satan thought that Jesus would remain dead once betrayed and crucified.

This is indeed the solution.

There are two problems with this:

a). Satan saw Jesus raise Lazarus from the dead so he must have known that Jesus could do that to himself. So, Satan, being a lazy Devil, would have thought, “What’s the point of killing Jesus – He’ll only rise up again”. I suspect something is going on here…

He, by His sovereign power could raise Lazarus to bodily life again, but He Himself was going to die. The idea that the dead could exercise such power is not obvious.

b). To say that Satan was tricked and controlled by the stranglehold of fate just means that Satan does not have free will (like we are supposed to). If Satan does have free will then we must assume that God gambled on Satan making the wrong decision. Just as He gambled on a baying mob not believing Jesus was the messiah and He again gambled on Pontius Pilate acquiescing to that baying mob. Too many variables have to fall into place in order for the sacrifice to be carried out.

Neither Satan nor us have free-will in the sense you use. Satan once had it, as did Adam and Eve - but after their falls, they were naturally evil. Satan and man will to do that which is according to their natures. God determines how successful they are in that, and in the case of man He often causes us to respond to our conscience and moderate our naturally evil instincts.

The Christian, however, is one whose heart God has changed, so that our nature now is to do good, even though we struggle with the old nature too.

2. We could say that God possessed Satan who in turn possessed Judas.

There are a few problems with this:

a) My credulity has been stretched to its utter limit and even in thinking it I have stepped outside the bounds of rationality.
b) In order for God to possess Satan we must ask the following hypothetical questions: when God possessed Satan does God become Evil? Can God know evil? Wouldn’t God be carrying out evil? Would the Devil become good? Would the Devil and God enter a state between good and evil?

No need for such far-out pondering. God steers the sinful heart to decide according to the way that suits His plan. They do so freely, acting according to their natures:
Revelation 17:12 “The ten horns which you saw are ten kings who have received no kingdom as yet, but they receive authority for one hour as kings with the beast. 13 These are of one mind, and they will give their power and authority to the beast. 14 These will make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb will overcome them, for He is Lord of lords and King of kings; and those who are with Him are called, chosen, and faithful.”
15 Then he said to me, “The waters which you saw, where the harlot sits, are peoples, multitudes, nations, and tongues. 16 And the ten horns which you saw on the beast, these will hate the harlot, make her desolate and naked, eat her flesh and burn her with fire. 17 For God has put it into their hearts to fulfill His purpose, to be of one mind, and to give their kingdom to the beast, until the words of God are fulfilled. 18 And the woman whom you saw is that great city which reigns over the kings of the earth.”

Coriolanus

peakpilgrim wrote: »

Hi
RE: JUDAS
often wondered about the character of Judas; was he a traitor or a Victim?
Having witnessed all the wonderful works of Christ why did he then go against Him.
Does anyone have an opinion on this.
kind Regards,

You should definitely try and find the Gospel of Judas. I picked up a nice copy of it with some interpretive essays on amazon.
Definitely forces you to sit up and think, especially when you realise that the "orthodox" position was just one of many competing views for centuries.

Hotspace

wolfsbane wrote: »

He, by His sovereign power could raise Lazarus to bodily life again, but He Himself was going to die. The idea that the dead could exercise such power is not obvious.

Well, of course, you would say it’s not obvious. Our discourse has led you to a blind alley way where you have to admit that, to the devil, Jesus being able to rise up bodily from the dead was not obvious. It’s blatantly obvious to me, even though I believe none of it, of course, I’m forced to think in purely hypothetical images. And, if it’s obvious to me – a mere mortal – then it is even more obvious to Satan. Satan must have read the prophecies.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Neither Satan nor us have free-will in the sense you use. Satan once had it, as did Adam and Eve - but after their falls, they were naturally evil. Satan and man will to do that which is according to their natures. God determines how successful they are in that, and in the case of man He often causes us to respond to our conscience and moderate our naturally evil instincts.

How? How does God restrict our free will to our nature? Your theology (which I like to term: rumination on one sacred book) merely cares that these things do happen without caring for the how. No other subject in human knowledge is like this. And, primarily, for this reason I wouldn’t even class it as a subject.

wolfsbane wrote: »

The Christian, however, is one whose heart God has changed, so that our nature now is to do good, even though we struggle with the old nature too.

And struggle you do. However, your theology of dead-in-man and alive-in-Christ just doesn’t square with the facts we see of Christians and non-Christians. Look at the following news reports that show that there’s nothing special about Christians - they are just forgiven. Mmm, sounds like an idea for a bumper sticker to me… In fact, by your theology every sin on the Ten Commandments can be forgiven, and ones far graver - like child rape. But, the greatest of all sins (by my notion, an absurd one): sinning against the Holy Spirit, can never be forgiven.

http://exchristian.net/2/2008/02/pastor-charged-with-murder.html
http://exchristian.net/2/2008/02/pastor-convicted-of-molesting-foster.html
http://exchristian.net/2/2009/06/baptist-ministers-facing-sex-charges.html

wolfsbane wrote: »

…God steers the sinful heart to decide according to the way that suits His plan. They do so freely, acting according to their natures:...

Again, How? How can God steer a sinful heart according to the way that suits His plan, and yet, conversely, they [man] still do so freely according to their nature? You would have to propose that God would have to design the fallen nature of man and Satan to be amenable, by some steering, to His nature. This is absurd – it is almost like He knew Satan and Man would fall even before their creation, so it was unfair and unjust to put the temptation of knowledge of good and evil in their way.

wolfsbane

Hotspace said:

Originally Posted by wolfsbane
He, by His sovereign power could raise Lazarus to bodily life again, but He Himself was going to die. The idea that the dead could exercise such power is not obvious.
Well, of course, you would say it’s not obvious. Our discourse has led you to a blind alley way where you have to admit that, to the devil, Jesus being able to rise up bodily from the dead was not obvious. It’s blatantly obvious to me, even though I believe none of it, of course, I’m forced to think in purely hypothetical images. And, if it’s obvious to me – a mere mortal – then it is even more obvious to Satan. Satan must have read the prophecies.

Yes, the Jewish leaders also read the prophecies of the Messiah who would be put to death - but neither they nor the apostles understood them. Satan too was blind to God's plan. Christ had to open the understanding of His apostles to see what Scripture plainly said. See this from Luke:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2024:13-32%20;&version=50;

And this:
1 Corinthians 2:7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, the hidden wisdom which God ordained before the ages for our glory, 8 which none of the rulers of this age knew; for had they known, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Neither Satan nor us have free-will in the sense you use. Satan once had it, as did Adam and Eve - but after their falls, they were naturally evil. Satan and man will to do that which is according to their natures. God determines how successful they are in that, and in the case of man He often causes us to respond to our conscience and moderate our naturally evil instincts.
How? How does God restrict our free will to our nature? Your theology (which I like to term: rumination on one sacred book) merely cares that these things do happen without caring for the how. No other subject in human knowledge is like this. And, primarily, for this reason I wouldn’t even class it as a subject.

That's like asking how energy exists and rejecting science because it can only say it just does. Our natures determine the sort of choices we naturally make. Why? Because that's how it is.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
The Christian, however, is one whose heart God has changed, so that our nature now is to do good, even though we struggle with the old nature too.
And struggle you do. However, your theology of dead-in-man and alive-in-Christ just doesn’t square with the facts we see of Christians and non-Christians. Look at the following news reports that show that there’s nothing special about Christians - they are just forgiven. Mmm, sounds like an idea for a bumper sticker to me… In fact, by your theology every sin on the Ten Commandments can be forgiven, and ones far graver - like child rape. But, the greatest of all sins (by my notion, an absurd one): sinning against the Holy Spirit, can never be forgiven.

http://exchristian.net/2/2008/02/pastor-charged-with-murder.html
http://exchristian.net/2/2008/02/pastor-convicted-of-molesting-foster.html
http://exchristian.net/2/2009/06/bap...x-charges.html

Two points:
1. Yes, even real Christians can fall into sin. But their sin will be an exception to their behaviour, not characteristic of it.

2. Those who practice sin, where sin is their habit and delight, are not true Christians. They are no more Christian than Judas was - he was a serial thief who became a betrayer of innocent blood.

Do not be surprised to find Judases in the Church. Wolves come in secretly among the sheep. It is the Churches job to detect and expel them.

Having said that, many of the churches today are not true churches of Christ, so having notorious sinners among them is not much of a surprise anyway. Religion is a good cover for predators, and religions that are not particular about following God's way are going to be easy pickings.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
…God steers the sinful heart to decide according to the way that suits His plan. They do so freely, acting according to their natures:...
Again, How? How can God steer a sinful heart according to the way that suits His plan, and yet, conversely, they [man] still do so freely according to their nature? You would have to propose that God would have to design the fallen nature of man and Satan to be amenable, by some steering, to His nature.

Yes, indeed. All creatures are in His control. Fallen natures will always choose to do evil, but God makes sure they do not choose or do anything that frustrates His plan. As my example from Revelation 17 showed: For God has put it into their hearts to fulfill His purpose, to be of one mind, and to give their kingdom to the beast, until the words of God are fulfilled.

This is absurd – it is almost like He knew Satan and Man would fall even before their creation,

Of course He did.

so it was unfair and unjust to put the temptation of knowledge of good and evil in their way.

No, for they were morally perfect, able not to sin. And as perfectly free persons, they had a responsibility not to. Temptation was no excuse for sin.

Hotspace

wolfsbane wrote: »

Yes, the Jewish leaders also read the prophecies of the Messiah who would be put to death - but neither they nor the apostles understood them. Satan too was blind to God's plan. ...
And this:
1 Corinthians 2:7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, the hidden wisdom which God ordained before the ages for our glory, 8 which none of the rulers of this age knew; for had they known, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory

Yes, why is scripture and God so inscrutable? We must posit that scripture should be clear enough to be understood by all ranges of intellects; it is, after all, the key to our salvation.

So you are saying that Satan couldn’t have understood it because he didn’t believe, may I remind you that even Satan believes. Seeing Christ first hand would be equivalent to having the Holy-Spirit, would it not? I think you are arguing that scripture can only be understood with the Spirit. As the quote that you cite just a few passages on reads: 1 Corinthians 2:14 "The man without the spirit does not accept things that come from the spirit of God, they are foolishness to him and he cannot understand them.

I’m interested in this circular logic. This gives me impetus to start a new thread on: does religious practice and belief have an affect on Christian epistemology. But, for now, I will just say that I think it absurd that belief has an affect on epistemology. If you feel a need to counter this here then you can do so but you may have to repeat yourself when my new thread is posted.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Neither Satan nor us have free-will in the sense you use. Satan once had it, as did Adam and Eve - but after their falls, they were naturally evil. Satan and man will to do that which is according to their natures. God determines how successful they are in that, and in the case of man He often causes us to respond to our conscience and moderate our naturally evil instincts.

How? How does God restrict our free will to our nature? Your theology (which I like to term: rumination on one sacred book) merely cares that these things do happen without caring for the how. No other subject in human knowledge is like this. And, primarily, for this reason I wouldn’t even class it as a subject.

That's like asking how energy exists and rejecting science because it can only say it just does. Our natures determine the sort of choices we naturally make. Why? Because that's how it is

Firstly, these are philosophical issues being discussed here and not scientific ones and, secondly: because that’s how it is! We must always strive to question one more tenet: we must always strive to answer one more question. The unexamined religion is a religion not worth having. Let’s posit that God directs a group of, for this example, three individuals (according to their natures). He needs to ensure at some point in the future they don’t do X otherwise that would ruin His plan. Each person of the group has an innumerable number of choices to make leading up to X as each choice will affect the outcome of X. Let’s say, to keep the example understandable, that each person has 20 choices to make with 3 possible outcomes to each choice. Let’s do some quick maths. If each choice has 3 outcomes then that’s 3 to the power of 20 = 31,381,059,609, because there are 3 people in our one possible outcome then the total number of possible outcomes for X is 31,381,059,609 to the power of 3, which is a number 32 digits long. So God has to control possible outcomes like this and at the same time listen to a billion prayers per second! To illustrate the point again: if Jesus lived 30 years and couldn’t have died by natural means before His martyrdom then there must have been potentially thousands of incidents that might have led to His accidental death and there must have been thousands of people who came into contact with Him some of which might have been murderers. The number of outcomes that God would need to control (whilst allowing free will according to a post fallen designed nature) must total more atoms than there are in the entire universe. And Jesus and God accomplished this and at the same time turned water into wine!

wolfsbane wrote: »

No, for they were morally perfect, able not to sin. And as perfectly free persons, they had a responsibility not to. Temptation was no excuse for sin.

Why does it always come back to the absurd notion of the sinful act of scrumping? How could Eve have given into temptation of good and evil when she had no knowledge of good and evil? Surely, to be tempted by something you must have knowledge of that which tempts you. Furthermore, if giving into temptation is a sin then she was incapable of sin. On both counts I feel a logical law has been broken. If you think that giving into temptation is not a sin then why did Satan try to tempt Jesus? The answer is simple - to get the one that is perfect to sin. Satan really did know God’s plan of sacrificial redemption.

wolfsbane

Hotspace said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Yes, the Jewish leaders also read the prophecies of the Messiah who would be put to death - but neither they nor the apostles understood them. Satan too was blind to God's plan. ...
And this:
1 Corinthians 2:7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, the hidden wisdom which God ordained before the ages for our glory, 8 which none of the rulers of this age knew; for had they known, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory
Yes, why is scripture and God so inscrutable? We must posit that scripture should be clear enough to be understood by all ranges of intellects; it is, after all, the key to our salvation.

It is clear enough for our salvation - to those who are to be saved. But the reprobate mind is naturally blinded by its sin and by Satan's deception. Satan too sees only what God permits.

So you are saying that Satan couldn’t have understood it because he didn’t believe, may I remind you that even Satan believes. Seeing Christ first hand would be equivalent to having the Holy-Spirit, would it not? I think you are arguing that scripture can only be understood with the Spirit. As the quote that you cite just a few passages on reads: 1 Corinthians 2:14 "The man without the spirit does not accept things that come from the spirit of God, they are foolishness to him and he cannot understand them.

I’m interested in this circular logic. This gives me impetus to start a new thread on: does religious practice and belief have an affect on Christian epistemology. But, for now, I will just say that I think it absurd that belief has an affect on epistemology. If you feel a need to counter this here then you can do so but you may have to repeat yourself when my new thread is posted.

Suffice it to say that the Scripture itself is clear enough on matters of salvation; it is the mind of the reader/hearer that causes the problem.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Neither Satan nor us have free-will in the sense you use. Satan once had it, as did Adam and Eve - but after their falls, they were naturally evil. Satan and man will to do that which is according to their natures. God determines how successful they are in that, and in the case of man He often causes us to respond to our conscience and moderate our naturally evil instincts.

How? How does God restrict our free will to our nature? Your theology (which I like to term: rumination on one sacred book) merely cares that these things do happen without caring for the how. No other subject in human knowledge is like this. And, primarily, for this reason I wouldn’t even class it as a subject.

That's like asking how energy exists and rejecting science because it can only say it just does. Our natures determine the sort of choices we naturally make. Why? Because that's how it is
Firstly, these are philosophical issues being discussed here and not scientific ones and, secondly: because that’s how it is! We must always strive to question one more tenet: we must always strive to answer one more question. The unexamined religion is a religion not worth having. Let’s posit that God directs a group of, for this example, three individuals (according to their natures). He needs to ensure at some point in the future they don’t do X otherwise that would ruin His plan. Each person of the group has an innumerable number of choices to make leading up to X as each choice will affect the outcome of X. Let’s say, to keep the example understandable, that each person has 20 choices to make with 3 possible outcomes to each choice. Let’s do some quick maths. If each choice has 3 outcomes then that’s 3 to the power of 20 = 31,381,059,609, because there are 3 people in our one possible outcome then the total number of possible outcomes for X is 31,381,059,609 to the power of 3, which is a number 32 digits long. So God has to control possible outcomes like this and at the same time listen to a billion prayers per second! To illustrate the point again: if Jesus lived 30 years and couldn’t have died by natural means before His martyrdom then there must have been potentially thousands of incidents that might have led to His accidental death and there must have been thousands of people who came into contact with Him some of which might have been murderers. The number of outcomes that God would need to control (whilst allowing free will according to a post fallen designed nature) must total more atoms than there are in the entire universe. And Jesus and God accomplished this and at the same time turned water into wine!

Certainly - God is GOD. Not limited in His power. And to imagine that one could find out all there is to know about God and His actions is to think oneself His equal.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
No, for they were morally perfect, able not to sin. And as perfectly free persons, they had a responsibility not to. Temptation was no excuse for sin.
Why does it always come back to the absurd notion of the sinful act of scrumping?

Disobedience against the Holy God is no minor matter.

How could Eve have given into temptation of good and evil when she had no knowledge of good and evil?

Yes, but she knew God had commanded one thing, and she decided to do another. No need for a label, for it to be sinful.

Surely, to be tempted by something you must have knowledge of that which tempts you.

Yes, she had knowledge of wanting that which God had forbidden.

Furthermore, if giving into temptation is a sin then she was incapable of sin.

Incapable of sin? I don't follow you.

On both counts I feel a logical law has been broken. If you think that giving into temptation is not a sin then

It is a sin.

why did Satan try to tempt Jesus? The answer is simple - to get the one that is perfect to sin. Satan really did know God’s plan of sacrificial redemption.

Satan wanted to get Jesus to obey him. No need for him to know God's plan of substitutionary atonement. Just so long as Jesus was no longer God's anointed.

Hotspace

wolfsbane wrote: »

It [scripture] is clear enough for our salvation - to those who are to be saved. But the reprobate mind is naturally blinded by its sin and by Satan's deception. Satan too sees only what God permits.

I find this some of the utmost inanity I have ever encountered. Is it any wonder that John W. Loftus (http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/) often talks about spinning plates to justify the intellectual gerrymandering needed for making a coherent whole of Christianity? You claim that sin has an affect on epistemology. This, if true, would be a process that would be directly observable and even testable. We (well, only you) could set up a test of, say seven, propositions designed to prove that the non-Christian could not tie them together into a workable theory or framework. And that the Christian could form a coherent framework from them. We could get the non-Christian to try this exercise whilst sinning, maybe looking at pornography, and, again, sat alone in a room with no outside influence. Conversely, we could do this same experiment for a number of Christians. No other area of human knowledge can be affected whilst a student of a discipline disregards commands from a higher power.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Hotspace:
To illustrate the point again: if Jesus lived 30 years and couldn’t have died by natural means before His martyrdom then there must have been potentially thousands of incidents that might have led to His accidental death and there must have been thousands of people who came into contact with Him some of which might have been murderers. The number of outcomes that God would need to control (whilst allowing free will according to a post fallen designed nature) must total more atoms than there are in the entire universe. And Jesus and God accomplished this and at the same time turned water into wine!

Certainly - God is GOD. Not limited in His power. And to imagine that one could find out all there is to know about God and His actions is to think oneself His equal.

Also (I felt like I had to wait for your rejoinder) isn’t it lucky that a being (God) just happened to pre-exist in a complex form (complex enough to handle variables of 32 digits long on a second by second basis) and also be pre-formed, in an uncreated form, with a ready made Son for sacrifice.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Incapable of sin? I don't follow you.

Adam and Eve were made in the image of God, without sin, without knowledge of sin. How could they sin?

wolfsbane

Hotspace said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
It [scripture] is clear enough for our salvation - to those who are to be saved. But the reprobate mind is naturally blinded by its sin and by Satan's deception. Satan too sees only what God permits.
I find this some of the utmost inanity I have ever encountered. Is it any wonder that John W. Loftus (http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/) often talks about spinning plates to justify the intellectual gerrymandering needed for making a coherent whole of Christianity? You claim that sin has an affect on epistemology. This, if true, would be a process that would be directly observable and even testable. We (well, only you) could set up a test of, say seven, propositions designed to prove that the non-Christian could not tie them together into a workable theory or framework. And that the Christian could form a coherent framework from them. We could get the non-Christian to try this exercise whilst sinning, maybe looking at pornography, and, again, sat alone in a room with no outside influence. Conversely, we could do this same experiment for a number of Christians. No other area of human knowledge can be affected whilst a student of a discipline disregards commands from a higher power.

I'm referring to spiritual blindness, not intellectual blindness. Not to the ability to understand geology, linguistics, or any other material science on its own. I'm talking about the understanding of spiritual things. Or the ability to understand the truths of God's word. They are not always open to the enquirer.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Certainly - God is GOD. Not limited in His power. And to imagine that one could find out all there is to know about God and His actions is to think oneself His equal.
Also (I felt like I had to wait for your rejoinder) isn’t it lucky that a being (God) just happened to pre-exist in a complex form (complex enough to handle variables of 32 digits long on a second by second basis) and also be pre-formed, in an uncreated form, with a ready made Son for sacrifice.

Lucky? The fact is, or is not. God is there, or He is not. If I described a mountain, would you say, Isn’t it lucky that a mountain just happens to exist?

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Incapable of sin? I don't follow you.
Adam and Eve were made in the image of God, without sin, without knowledge of sin. How could they sin?

Ah, I see. They were made in God's image, but that did not mean they were in all respects like God. The image relates to their person-hood as moral beings. They were perfect, as is God, but they were given free-will, an ability to sin or not to sin.

Hotspace

wolfsbane wrote: »

I'm referring to spiritual blindness, not intellectual blindness. Not to the ability to understand geology, linguistics, or any other material science on its own. I'm talking about the understanding of spiritual things. Or the ability to understand the truths of God's word. They are not always open to the enquirer.

OK, I'm intrigued. Please elaborate on how sin (or the devil's deception) successfully succeeds in someone not being able to grapple with spiritual truths. Also, please elaborate on how spiritual knowledge differs from any other branch of human knowledge.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Ah, I see. They were made in God's image, but that did not mean they were in all respects like God. The image relates to their person-hood as moral beings. They were perfect, as is God, but they were given free-will, an ability to sin or not to sin.

This still does not address the logical law that has been broken. It still leaves the unanswered question: how can a perfect being do evil? Does this also entail that God does not have free-will to sin or free-will per se?

Zombrex

I'm not following the argument that Satan was unwittingly part of the plan.

Why would Satan, knowing who Jesus was, knowing why he was on Earth, and knowing the Old Testament prophecies, willingly participate in his execution?

That seems a bit odd. What am I missing?

wolfsbane

Hotspace said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
I'm referring to spiritual blindness, not intellectual blindness. Not to the ability to understand geology, linguistics, or any other material science on its own. I'm talking about the understanding of spiritual things. Or the ability to understand the truths of God's word. They are not always open to the enquirer.
OK, I'm intrigued. Please elaborate on how sin (or the devil's deception) successfully succeeds in someone not being able to grapple with spiritual truths.

Sin prevents us seeing clearly the Truth. Our natural minds are perverted morally and antagonistic to holiness and truth - because these are of God.

Add to that the active manipulation of Satan on man, to prevent - as much as he can - the individual's conscience warning that God is real and they are sinners in need of a Saviour.

Result: Spiritual blindness.

Also, please elaborate on how spiritual knowledge differs from any other branch of human knowledge.

Spiritual knowledge concerns things with moral weight. Our conscience does not warn us about an error we might make in mathematics or chemistry, but it does in spiritual matters. Because spiritual things are moral, sin and Satan have an impact on our spiritual understanding.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Ah, I see. They were made in God's image, but that did not mean they were in all respects like God. The image relates to their person-hood as moral beings. They were perfect, as is God, but they were given free-will, an ability to sin or not to sin.
This still does not address the logical law that has been broken. It still leaves the unanswered question: how can a perfect being do evil?

Because he/she chooses to do so. Yes, it may sound a complex idea - but logically it must be valid if unless we say free-will can only be possessed by imperfect beings.

Does this also entail that God does not have free-will to sin or free-will per se?

Free-will of the unfallen creature does not imply anything about the will of the Creator .

God is not able to sin, so if we use free-will in Adam's terms, then God has no free-will. But if we mean it regarding freedom to do all that our will desires, then God indeed has a free-will. He cannot sin because His will is always righteous - His will is bound to His nature. He freely always does only that which is holy and just.

Hotspace

wolfsbane wrote: »

Spiritual knowledge concerns things with moral weight. Our conscience does not warn us about an error we might make in mathematics or chemistry, but it does in spiritual matters. Because spiritual things are moral, sin and Satan have an impact on our spiritual understanding.

I think what we are getting down to here is a clash in worldviews: Naturalism Vs. Theism (or Supernaturalism). You seem to think that Moral understanding is brought about by a spiritual knowledge (whatever that is – and you haven’t explained it adequately). I believe it is adequately explained by evolutionary psychology.

But, your position that sin and Satan have an impact on our moral understanding just doesn’t square with the facts of our everyday observation. There are very many atheists and members of other religions who are well capable of making very sound moral decisions – even though some of the atheist camp engage in sinful activities on a regular basis.

Again we could test your hypothesis that sin has an affect on moral decision making by designing a test of various moral dilemmas and other moral questions designed not to be a dilemma where the path to be taken is quite clear. This test could be undertaken by atheists and Christians alike. They could both take one set of questions while engaging in sinful activity and when not engaging in sinful activities. I’ve not heard of such a test whilst engaging in sinful activity but I have heard of a test between theists and non-theists and the results, for you, are very worrying. There appears to be no difference in moral decision making between a theist and non-theist. The experiments show that there is a universal moral law. I don’t think that psychologists would take your claim seriously and so wouldn’t design the same test whilst engaging in sinful activities. This is a pity – at least to support my case.

In short, I think your claim that moral understanding is affected by a mythical creature living in the underworld is highly fatuous.

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote: »

I'm not following the argument that Satan was unwittingly part of the plan.

Why would Satan, knowing who Jesus was, knowing why he was on Earth, and knowing the Old Testament prophecies, willingly participate in his execution?

That seems a bit odd. What am I missing?

Satan didn't know all those things. Like with the rest of us, they had to be revealed. The prophecies were there, but their meaning was not clear, not to the prophets nor their hearers, nor to the demonic world. Even when Christ told the disciples plainly He was to die and rise again, they did not understand. Spiritual dullness in the elect; spiritual blindness in the reprobate.

1 Corinthians 2:7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, the hidden wisdom which God ordained before the ages for our glory, 8 which none of the rulers of this age knew; for had they known, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.


Maybe Satan expected the Messiah to immediately take His glory and reign, so killing Him would finally frustrate God's plan.

wolfsbane

Hotspace said:

I think what we are getting down to here is a clash in worldviews: Naturalism Vs. Theism (or Supernaturalism). You seem to think that Moral understanding is brought about by a spiritual knowledge (whatever that is – and you haven’t explained it adequately). I believe it is adequately explained by evolutionary psychology.

But, your position that sin and Satan have an impact on our moral understanding just doesn’t square with the facts of our everyday observation. There are very many atheists and members of other religions who are well capable of making very sound moral decisions – even though some of the atheist camp engage in sinful activities on a regular basis.

You misunderstand me. Sin does not remove our moral faculties - it just distorts them/suppresses them. We all know it is wrong to murder, even if we justify this one as being deserved or unavoidable. Same for theft, etc. Yet our conscience will raise some objection. How strongly depends on how we have abused it in the past.

Again we could test your hypothesis that sin has an affect on moral decision making by designing a test of various moral dilemmas and other moral questions designed not to be a dilemma where the path to be taken is quite clear. This test could be undertaken by atheists and Christians alike. They could both take one set of questions while engaging in sinful activity and when not engaging in sinful activities. I’ve not heard of such a test whilst engaging in sinful activity but I have heard of a test between theists and non-theists and the results, for you, are very worrying. There appears to be no difference in moral decision making between a theist and non-theist. The experiments show that there is a universal moral law.

Christians insist there is a universal moral law. Everyone's conscience will object to sin, to one degree or another.

But I challenge your idea that both theists and non-theists will reach the same moral decisions. Their consciences will inform them both about the sin, but they have their minds filled with their own reasoning also. Non-theists will have a lot of stuff the theist will not accept and vv. The Christian, for example, will be informed by the Bible that fornication and taking the Lord's name in vain are always sinful. Many non-theists will intellectually have no problem with either. Only on some matters will the theist and non-theist share a morality.

I don’t think that psychologists would take your claim seriously and so wouldn’t design the same test whilst engaging in sinful activities. This is a pity – at least to support my case.

When Christians engage in sinful activities they do so just like the non-theists: justifying it to themselves, resisting conscience. The only difference is the Christian has a lot more trouble overcoming conscience's objections.

In short, I think your claim that moral understanding is affected by a mythical creature living in the underworld is highly fatuous.

My real claim was that sin and Satan affect our spiritual understanding. Our moral understanding is distorted, but our spiritual understanding is almost obliterated. It takes God to reveal to us what should be obvious, had we not inherited Adam's fallen nature and also been blinded by Satan.

BrianCalgary

Wicknight wrote: »

I'm not following the argument that Satan was unwittingly part of the plan.

Why would Satan, knowing who Jesus was, knowing why he was on Earth, and knowing the Old Testament prophecies, willingly participate in his execution?

That seems a bit odd. What am I missing?

Satan thought that by removing Jesus from the face of the Earth that He would win.

But, he was wrong. Death on earth is not the end. It is a new beginning.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

Satan didn't know all those things. Like with the rest of us, they had to be revealed. The prophecies were there, but their meaning was not clear, not to the prophets nor their hearers, nor to the demonic world. Even when Christ told the disciples plainly He was to die and rise again, they did not understand. Spiritual dullness in the elect; spiritual blindness in the reprobate.

1 Corinthians 2:7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, the hidden wisdom which God ordained before the ages for our glory, 8 which none of the rulers of this age knew; for had they known, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.


Maybe Satan expected the Messiah to immediately take His glory and reign, so killing Him would finally frustrate God's plan.

That doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

Are you saying that not even Satan knew that the messiah would die at the hands of men an that this would be atonement for the sins of man?

Is that not supposed to be perfectly clear from the prophecies? Do we not have that argument all the time on this forum, that Jesus fulfilled the prophecies? Someone cannot fulfill a prophecy if no one knows that they are supposed to do?

Zombrex

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Satan thought that by removing Jesus from the face of the Earth that He would win.

But, he was wrong. Death on earth is not the end. It is a new beginning.

It is sort of difficult to believe Satan was that stupid. Was it not prophecised that the messiah would come and be killed by men for the purpose of atonement of man's sins before Jesus came? John the Baptist said that Jesus was the lamb of God? How did Satan not figure that out if everyone else knew, considering Satan actually knew Jesus was the Son of God?

If that wasn't prophecised then how do Christians know that is what actually happened as a result of Jesus' death? Did they only find out after he died?

I'm not being argumentative, I'm happy to accept that there is probably an answer I'm missing. But the argument that Satan just didn't know this was going to happen when lots of others did doesn't seem to stand up very well.