The Problem of Judas

unfortunately

I was thinking about Judas's betrayal of Jesus and I thought that it might be an argument that casts doubt on Jesus being the messiah. I want feed back to see if there is a flaw in the argument; and this argument seems so obvious that it must have been used before so I'm wondering what the response is to it.

Judas was one of the 12 apostles who followed Jesus around for whatever number of years he was preaching. He was obviously dedicated to Jesus seeing as he followed him at all. Presumably he was there for the sermons and various miracles and he also knew the personal side of Jesus. This is someone who was in close contact with Jesus and knew him.

And after all that he betrays him for 30 pieces of silver? Wouldn't that suggest that Judas didn't really believe that Jesus was the messiah at all. If you truly believed he was the son of God you would never betray him. The fact that he did casts doubt on the divine nature of Jesus when one of the inner circle; one of the closest people to Jesus, wasn't convinced of his divinity. It suggests that Jesus was just a regular preacher/social agitator and was the victim of power struggles and greed.

I am aware that some say that the devil possessed Judas, or that Jesus told Judas to betray him so that his plan (crucifixion -> resurrection ->somehow all sins are then forgiven) can work. If either of these are true then Judas cannot be held responsible and must be innocent (well, not guilty).

That's the argument - either Jesus isn't god or Judas is innocent.

One eyed Jack

unfortunately wrote: »

And after all that he betrays him for 30 pieces of silver? Wouldn't that suggest that Judas didn't really believe that Jesus was the messiah at all.

It would suggest that Judas, like most people, was thinking more in the present than planning for the future.

Bird in the hand and all that, or in this case - 30 pieces of silver immediately into his hand at that point, was worth more than the promise of eternal life at some point in the distant future.

unfortunately

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It would suggest that Judas, like most people, was thinking more in the present than planning for the future.

Bird in the hand and all that, or in this case - 30 pieces of silver immediately into his hand at that point, was worth more than the promise of eternal life at some point in the distant future.

So you believe that Judas actually believed that Jesus was the messiah, sent by God, and that he would have everlasting life in Heaven, and yet still betrayed him for some silver?

Seriously?!

If Judas knew Jesus was God why would you ever betray him, even for all the money and power in the world, it's nothing compared to the reward of Heaven.

Now, if Judas though Jesus was just another man; a man that the authorities didn't like; then there is no problem. People betray people all the time.

But a person betraying the messiah (for a bit of cash) when they apparently "know" and believe they're the messiah is ludicrous.

Peregrinus

Well, the Gospel accounts of this - taking them, for the purposes of discussion, to be historical - are of course highly coloured. They are written by people (and for people) who know how Judas’s actions worked out, and who have strong views about it. So don’t expect a dispassionate and even-handed account of Judas’s reasoning or motivations, or of what he hoped to achieve.

That doesn’t stop later commentators speculating, of course.

These speculations happen against the undeniable background fact that the gospels present all the disciples, not just Judas, as being distinctly slow-witted when it comes to understanding who Jesus was and what he was on about. Yes, they became his dedicated followers. But they are constantly failing to understand what he says, jumping to the wrong conclusions or getting the wrong end of the stick.

While some of this may be a literary construct so that the authorial voice can explain for the benefit of the reader what it is that the disciples have failed to grasp, there may also be a degree of truth in it, because Jesus was deeply counter-cultural. A common speculation about Judas is not that he concluded that Jesus was not the promised messiah; rather he thought, or at least hoped, that Jesus was the promised messiah, but his expectations of what the messiah would do were way off beam, measured against what Jesus saw as his mission. The messiah was conventionally expected to be a great political leader; he would restore the nation to independence and prosperity; he would establish a rule of justice and benevolence - widows and orphans protected, a chicken in every pot, etc, etc. He was going to be a second King David. And in the circumstances of first-century Palestine, he was going to start by getting rid of the occupying Romans and their collaborators, just like David had seen off the Philistines.

In other words, the messiah was going to be confrontational and violent. And, on this view, what Judas was hoping to do was to prod that along. The Temple authorities (widely derided as collaborators of the Romans) were known to be keen to take Jesus on. Judas was keen for Jesus to take the Temple authorities on. The time was ripe! How better to advance the march of history than by bringing this confrontation about?

His motivation was never the money - in fact he threw it away. And if we are to believe the gospel accounts he was extremely distressed by how the events played out, indicating that he expected a completely different outcome. It’s possible - but this is an even wilder speculation - that after the arrest, trial and execution of Jesus Judas concluded that he wasn’t the messiah, since the messiah was supposed to be victorious.

On edit: One important point to grasp is that the messiah was not expected to be divine; he was to be human. And he was not expected to award anybody eternal life; his rule of virtue,justice, benevolence and prosperity was to be an earthly rule.

One eyed Jack

unfortunately wrote: »

So you believe that Judas actually believed that Jesus was the messiah, sent by God, and that he would have everlasting life in Heaven, and yet still betrayed him for some silver?

Seriously?!

If Judas knew Jesus was God why would you ever betray him, even for all the money and power in the world, it's nothing compared to the reward of Heaven.

Now, if Judas though Jesus was just another man; a man that the authorities didn't like; then there is no problem. People betray people all the time.

But a person betraying the messiah (for a bit of cash) when they apparently "know" and believe they're the messiah is ludicrous.

What you're describing there is the difference between faith, and fact.

Judas could well have believed all Jesus' promises, but isn't that the whole point of being lead into temptation? The immediate payoff is a much more irresistible prospect than the promise of a potential payoff a thousand times that.

Judas in that moment could have been thinking about short term gains, rather than anything long term - "What's the worst that could happen?" so to speak.

El_Duderino 09

The OT has plenty of this type of thing. Moses led the Jews out of Egypt with all kinds of miracles, plagues on faro, death of first born sons of Egypt, parting of red sea, mana from heaven. You would think that if you saw all this happen with your own eyes you would be fairly convinced. However when Moses goes up mt Sinai, the Jews build a golden calf to worship. Imagine the total stupidity of building a golden calf after all they had supposedly seen and experienced.

unfortunately

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, the Gospel accounts of this - taking them, for the purposes of discussion, to be historical - are of course highly coloured. They are written by people (and for people) who know how Judas’s actions worked out, and who have strong views about it. So don’t expect a dispassionate and even-handed account of Judas’s reasoning or motivations, or of what he hoped to achieve.

That doesn’t stop later commentators speculating, of course.

These speculations happen against the undeniable background fact that the gospels present all the disciples, not just Judas, as being distinctly slow-witted when it comes to understanding who Jesus was and what he was on about. Yes, they became his dedicated followers. But they are constantly failing to understand what he says, jumping to the wrong conclusions or getting the wrong end of the stick.

While some of this may be a literary construct so that the authorial voice can explain for the benefit of the reader what it is that the disciples have failed to grasp, there may also be a degree of truth in it, because Jesus was deeply counter-cultural. A common speculation about Judas is not that he concluded that Jesus was not the promised messiah; rather he thought, or at least hoped, that Jesus was the promised messiah, but his expectations of what the messiah would do were way off beam, measured against what Jesus saw as his mission. The messiah was conventionally expected to be a great political leader; he would restore the nation to independence and prosperity; he would establish a rule of justice and benevolence - widows and orphans protected, a chicken in every pot, etc, etc. He was going to be a second King David. And in the circumstances of first-century Palestine, he was going to start by getting rid of the occupying Romans and their collaborators, just like David had seen off the Philistines.

In other words, the messiah was going to be confrontational and violent. And, on this view, what Judas was hoping to do was to prod that along. The Temple authorities (widely derided as collaborators of the Romans) were known to be keen to take Jesus on. Judas was keen for Jesus to take the Temple authorities on. The time was ripe! How better to advance the march of history than by bringing this confrontation about?

His motivation was never the money - in fact he threw it away. And if we are to believe the gospel accounts he was extremely distressed by how the events played out, indicating that he expected a completely different outcome. It’s possible - but this is an even wilder speculation - that after the arrest, trial and execution of Jesus Judas concluded that he wasn’t the messiah, since the messiah was supposed to be victorious.

On edit: One important point to grasp is that the messiah was not expected to be divine; he was to be human. And he was not expected to award anybody eternal life; his rule of virtue,justice, benevolence and prosperity was to be an earthly rule.

How common is the speculation that Judas betrayed Jesus in order to start the revolution, so to speak? Like what positions do the major branches of Christianity take on it? Does the Roman Catholic Church say he did it for the money?

You say that the messiah was expected to be human and be a great leader, so what was Judas expecting to happen when he handed Jesus over to the authorities?

If you truly believed Jesus was the messiah and you followed him surely you would trust him? Surely he knows better, he was sent by God.

unfortunately

One eyed Jack wrote: »

What you're describing there is the difference between faith, and fact.

Judas could well have believed all Jesus' promises, but isn't that the whole point of being lead into temptation? The immediate payoff is a much more irresistible prospect than the promise of a potential payoff a thousand times that.

Judas in that moment could have been thinking about short term gains, rather than anything long term - "What's the worst that could happen?" so to speak.

I don't think this is a good path to argue down, talking about temptation and payoffs make sense in day-today interactions between ordinary people. But knowingly betraying the person you believe to be God's representative on earth for some precious metal is laughable.

This isn't cheating on a partner or committing some fraud - it's betraying the person who you believe was sent by God.

katydid

unfortunately wrote: »

Wouldn't that suggest that Judas didn't really believe that Jesus was the messiah at all. If you truly believed he was the son of God you would never betray him. The fact that he did casts doubt on the divine nature of Jesus when one of the inner circle; one of the closest people to Jesus, wasn't convinced of his divinity. It suggests that Jesus was just a regular preacher/social agitator and was the victim of power struggles and greed..

How does it suggest that? It suggest that one individual didn't believe it, but one individual's belief is just one individual's belief. If I believe the moon is made of cheese, does that cast doubts on the composition of the moon? :P

Right to the very end, his closest circle were showing their humanity and saving their own skins, just as Judas tried to profit from his connection. Look at the story of Peter, his right hand man, the guy he had handed over to, who betrayed him three times..

One eyed Jack

unfortunately wrote: »

Judas was one of the 12 apostles who followed Jesus around for whatever number of years he was preaching. He was obviously dedicated to Jesus seeing as he followed him at all. Presumably he was there for the sermons and various miracles and he also knew the personal side of Jesus. This is someone who was in close contact with Jesus and knew him.

That's the flaw in your own argument right there. As Peregrinus points out, many sources have theorised that Judas never actually bought the idea of Jesus being the Messiah at all. It could be said that Judas was just along for the ride and what he could actually get out of it. Judas Iscariot was a thief turned money-minder, so he had form for this kinda craic.

Peregrinus wrote: »

His motivation was never the money - in fact he threw it away. And if we are to believe the gospel accounts he was extremely distressed by how the events played out, indicating that he expected a completely different outcome. It’s possible - but this is an even wilder speculation - that after the arrest, trial and execution of Jesus Judas concluded that he wasn’t the messiah, since the messiah was supposed to be victorious.

Given what I've written above and from what I've read about him, it's hard to figure he wasn't motivated by greed, and given that he didn't really believe Jesus was the messiah he'd hoped for, I imagine he didn't think too hard when he got denarii signs in his eyes. It was only afterwards when he was consumed by guilt, following his betrayal of Jesus (who he always referred to as 'Rabbi', rather than the messiah), that Judas handed back the money to the priests, who then bought the field in which Judas later was found to have taken his own life.

I couldn't say Judas was innocent, but it doesn't indicate that Jesus wasn't the messiah, it only indicates that Judas didn't believe he was the messiah, or at least the messiah he was hoping for. On that basis OP, you couldn't really argue that Jesus wasn't the messiah based on Judas' belief, or even his absence of belief.

Absolam

I think, given that you've declared the idea that someone would betray the son of god to be ludicrous and laughable, you must conclude, based on your declaration, that Judas did not think that Jesus was the son of god. Which doesn't preclude Judas from believing that Jesus was a messiah, or preclude Jesus from being the son of god. Just, if you accept that it is impossible for someone to actually betray their god, that Judas didn't believe he was.

recedite

Judas is the solution, not the problem.

If you take these events as fiction, then the problem is that the hero in a story can never be beaten "fair and square" otherwise he is not a hero. So he must go down after some act of betrayal, or in some glorious fight against overwhelming odds. So here we have Jesus going down after the Romans and the Jewish elders combined against him, and also there is an act of betrayal from within his own group of followers.

If these events are fact based, then Peregrinus' explanation holds. The popular meaning of the word "messiah" has changed, but originally it was a great political/military leader who would come to lead (and save) the tribe. If Judas believed that Jesus was the great messiah of the prophesies, he may have thought that he was helping to fulfill Jesus' destiny. He may have thought the time for talking was over. A show trial in which Jesus declares himself to be the messianic king of the Jews could have been the catalyst for a Jewish uprising. If that was Judas' thinking, then he would have been devastated when Jesus was executed, and later killed himself too.
As it happens, the revolution kicked off a few decades later in 68 CE, and no doubt there were other "would be messiahs" who also went down at that time, when it failed.

Also it could be argued that both Judas and Jesus ultimately won, in that their blood sacrifice led to a situation in which Rome later adopted the cult of Christanity and eventually became the means of spreading it throughout the world.

I would even compare this to Pearse going ahead with 1916 rebellion, despite him knowing that it lacked the numbers and the popular support to succeed. He thought that the action of the "blood sacrifice" was needed to dispel the inaction of the majority collaberators who were too accepting of the "army of occupation". He also was proved right, posthumously.

So this is not an altogether unusual theme in history. But from the point of view of modern ethics and thinking, it is not really an acceptable way to go about political or social change, and therefore a bit "awkward" to celebrate.

Brian Shanahan

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

The OT has plenty of this type of thing. Moses led the Jews out of Egypt with all kinds of miracles, plagues on faro, death of first born sons of Egypt, parting of red sea, mana from heaven. You would think that if you saw all this happen with your own eyes you would be fairly convinced. However when Moses goes up mt Sinai, the Jews build a golden calf to worship. Imagine the total stupidity of building a golden calf after all they had supposedly seen and experienced.

The Moses bit is just another piece of evidence showing that early judaism was henotheistic in nature. In the Canaanite precursor to judaism, the god el was the chief deity and one of his representative images was as a bull. It seems the separate deities el and yhwh were absorbed into each other as judaism became increasingly more monotheistic.

So the original Moses myth probably had some Israelites praising yhwh for deliverance and some praising el, which later became the current story of Moses clearing out the worshippers of the Golden Calf and destroying the idol, in order to a) keep a central element of the Israelite's creation myth in the holy books, and b) to make it conform to the more stringent and intolerant monotheism of late judaism.

@OP, the whole Judas betraying thing is probably an insert to fulfill a misinterpreted passage from the Torah or Tanakh, like with pretty much every other story of Jesus' "life" written into the bible (e.g. the virgin birth fabrication being both due to a mistranslation from Hebrew to Greek when the Torah migrated to the Septuagint, and a misinterpretation of a prophecy to a Jewish king that the invaders troubling his land would disappear before a known young woman {who was probably pregnant} gave birth, in an incident which purportedly took place 700 years previously). It, in all likelihood was a post-hoc justification for the placing of divinity status on the personage of Jesus, when the cult moved from being an offshoot of Zealotry to that of christianity.

Peregrinus

unfortunately wrote: »

How common is the speculation that Judas betrayed Jesus in order to start the revolution, so to speak? Like what positions do the major branches of Christianity take on it? Does the Roman Catholic Church say he did it for the money?

Churches for the most part have not been terribly interested in analysing or categorising the motivation of Judas. As far as they’re concerned this story - the passion and death of Jesus, followed by the resurrection, is about (a) Jesus and (b) humanity. Judas’s actions are significant and necessary to the story; his motivations, not so much. I don’t think there is an “official Catholic church position” (or an official any church position) on why Judas did what he did. Individual scriptural historians may theorise about it, along the lines I have indicated, and the occasional theologian will grapple with the problem of whether Judas’s evil choice was necessary and, if so, what “necessary evil” implies. But there is no party line on these questions.

unfortunately wrote: »

You say that the messiah was expected to be human and be a great leader, so what was Judas expecting to happen when he handed Jesus over to the authorities?

In this speculation, Judas was expecting Jesus to confront the authorities, denounce them, rally his followers, inflame the mob and start the revolution.
Remember, in when Jesus is arrested, one of the other disciples, identified as Peter in the Gospel of John, draws a sword and attacks one of the arresting party; Jesus puts a stop to this. But the fact that at least one disciple is carrying arms and is disposed to use them suggests that Judas wasn’t alone in expecting a confrontation that would become violent. Also, remember that the arrest of Jesus comes at a time when he has recently returned to Jerusalem (from Galilee) after being warned by his disciples that it is dangerous for him to do so. So it’s not impossible that more that just Judas thought that a violent confrontation was part of the plan.

unfortunately wrote: »

If you truly believed Jesus was the messiah and you followed him surely you would trust him? Surely he knows better, he was sent by God.

In this speculation, Judas did trust him - he trusted him to be the messiah that Judas expected, and thought necessary, and believed God would send.

Peregrinus

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Given what I've written above and from what I've read about him, it's hard to figure he wasn't motivated by greed, and given that he didn't really believe Jesus was the messiah he'd hoped for, I imagine he didn't think too hard when he got denarii signs in his eyes. It was only afterwards when he was consumed by guilt, following his betrayal of Jesus (who he always referred to as 'Rabbi', rather than the messiah), that Judas handed back the money to the priests, who then bought the field in which Judas later was found to have taken his own life.

I couldn't say Judas was innocent, but it doesn't indicate that Jesus wasn't the messiah, it only indicates that Judas didn't believe he was the messiah, or at least the messiah he was hoping for. On that basis OP, you couldn't really argue that Jesus wasn't the messiah based on Judas' belief, or even his absence of belief.

Sure. My suggesting reading in which Judas is seeking to bring on the revolution and the money is an irrelevance is just one possibility. You can equally theorise that Judas was mainly motivated by the money.

That wouldn’t mean, though, that he didn’t think Jesus was the messiah. We know from common experience that people will do things that they know to be profoundly wrong for a sufficient amount of money. If we take Judas to have done it for the money, that tells us that Judas in the end put his faith in wealth, not in the messiah. Substitute “messiah”’ with almost anything else, and that’s a very common story. People make all kinds of compromises of their relationships, their family, their lifestyle, their environmental concerns, and much more in order to get more money. This doesn’t mean that they don’t believe in love, in family, etc; it just means that when push comes to shove money is more important to them that these other things. They expect money to bring them a kind of security that other things won’t or can’t.

Yet another reading is that Judas entirely accepted that Jesus was the messiah, but the messiah was going to do great good for the whole people of Israel, whereas 30 pieces of silver was going to do great good for Judas. In other words, when faced with a choice between acting for the benefit of all and acting for the benefit of himself (and, to be fair to him, let’s assume for his family also) Judas choose the more personal interest.

kylith

Judas was set up from the start, though. It doesn't matter what his personal feelings were; he could have believed in Jesus with his whole heart, but Yahweh needed a fall guy so all it would take was for Daddy Jesus to harden Judas' heart, or to have whispered 'take the cash' in his ear and Judas would have had no choice but to follow his new programming. The fact that he committed suicide would seem to support the fact that he couldn't live with what he had done/been forced to do.

And remember that Yahweh has form for this kind of direct puppeteering - when Moses was looking to get the Hebrews out of Egypt the pharaoh was shown to be considering it until God hardened his heart. The Christian god has no problem f_cking people over for his own ends.

Cantremember

What is this thread doing here? It's in the wrong forum.

Brian Shanahan

Cantremember wrote: »

What is this thread doing here? It's in the wrong forum.

If it were in the christianity forum too many people would be perambanned for pointing out the contradictory and fabulistic nature of the whole Judas story, and for showing up the bible to be a badly written fantasy novel.

All too often the only place you find a honest and frank discussion of a religion is far away from the halls of said religion.

uck51js9zml2yt

Interesting to see this thread here, but here goes.
Nobody has mentioned that the betrayal by judas was foretold in jeremiah. The betrayal, the money even the buying of the potters field and judas hanging himself, the branch breaking and his guts spilling out when he fell.

The gospels allude to judas being a theif, be held the purse and Jesus knew about it.
He was most likely in it for the prestige and in the end the money.
I'm not sure he realised what the results of his betrayal would be, hence wanting to give the money back.
Was Jesus the Messiah? I've no doubt that He was and is.
Was he caught out by events? No. Was there a plan? Most definitely and it was executed (pardon the pun) perfectly.

recedite

Adalynn Raspy Cap wrote: »

Was Jesus the Messiah? I've no doubt that He was and is.

Depends what you mean by "messiah". He and his Jewish followers lost to the Romans, hence he was not a messiah in the accepted meaning of the word at the time. The only way to make him a messiah is to change the meaning of the word to someone who is a loser, but allegedly can win moral battles and win souls. Which is exactly what his followers did.

Brian Shanahan

Adalynn Raspy Cap wrote: »

Interesting to see this thread here, but here goes.
Nobody has mentioned that the betrayal by judas was foretold in jeremiah.

Where? Seeing as such other "predictions" as the "virgin" birth and the non-temporal nature of the messiah's mission are whole tissue of cloth used to try and ret-con Jesus into the torah, I'm going to have to see evidence here.

The betrayal, the money even the buying of the potters field and judas hanging himself, the branch breaking and his guts spilling out when he fell.

Ah I see you are going for the Acts mythos as to Judas. Can I ask what is wrong with the Matthew mythos? I thought that would be given primacy seeing as its gospel and all.

So yeah the whole Judas thing is bs too.

The gospels allude to judas being a theif, be held the purse and Jesus knew about it.
He was most likely in it for the prestige and in the end the money.
I'm not sure he realised what the results of his betrayal would be, hence wanting to give the money back.

The gospel both alludes to and states patently false things. What are the odds that this characterisation of Judas was simply a ret-con by a later anti-semitic church?

Oh, wait this characterisation was from John, the anti-semitic gospel writer. Yeah it was put in as a smear on all Jews, especially when you consider that the earlier gospels have virtually nothing to mention about the betrayal by Judas.

Was Jesus the Messiah? I've no doubt that He was and is.

No he wasn't. There is even strong grounds for doubting his existence.

Was he caught out by events? No. Was there a plan? Most definitely and it was executed (pardon the pun) perfectly.

Don't kid yourself. The whole bible story of Jesus is at best a reimagining by Paul of Tarsus' cult to try and recreate the man Yeshua bar Yehoseph as the god Iesu Christos.

My theory about Yeshua, assuming that he existed, is that he was a member of a group of Zealots (or their more violent offshoot the Sicarii), an extremist group who were violently opposed to the Roman settlement in Iudea Palestina, and wanted to restore the old Jewish Theocracy (but at the same time getting rid of the aristocratic factions the Essenes and the Sadducees, the old theocrats who had bedded down with the Romans and replacing them with new priests, the rabbis), and the introduction of full observance for the whole Jewish population (prior to Roman overlordship, only the priesthood and aristocracy fully observed the laws). He probably was leader of a small band of Zealots who were plotting (probably quite amateurishly) to rise up in Jerusalem, and were found out. Yeshua was tried, and convicted of treason (quite correctly under Roman law). For a good while afterwards his followers sat around moping despondantly in and around Jerusalem, until Paul seeing an opportunity tried to meld himself into the group and turn it into a religious cult. After a tussle with the original followers he won, and started creating the myth of Jesus Christ (Superstar), which later picked up a violent strain of anti-semitism (probably due to the Jewish revolt of the 130's. It would be sensible to distance yourselves from that), and gradually morphed into the many-tentalcled giant vampire squid-medusa we all know and love today.

uck51js9zml2yt

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Where? Seeing as such other "predictions" as the "virgin" birth and the non-temporal nature of the messiah's mission are whole tissue of cloth used to try and ret-con Jesus into the torah, I'm going to have to see evidence here.



Ah I see you are going for the Acts mythos as to Judas. Can I ask what is wrong with the Matthew mythos? I thought that would be given primacy seeing as its gospel and all.

So yeah the whole Judas thing is bs too.



The gospel both alludes to and states patently false things. What are the odds that this characterisation of Judas was simply a ret-con by a later anti-semitic church?

Oh, wait this characterisation was from John, the anti-semitic gospel writer. Yeah it was put in as a smear on all Jews, especially when you consider that the earlier gospels have virtually nothing to mention about the betrayal by Judas.



No he wasn't. There is even strong grounds for doubting his existence.



Don't kid yourself. The whole bible story of Jesus is at best a reimagining by Paul of Tarsus' cult to try and recreate the man Yeshua bar Yehoseph as the god Iesu Christos.

My theory about Yeshua, assuming that he existed, is that he was a member of a group of Zealots (or their more violent offshoot the Sicarii), an extremist group who were violently opposed to the Roman settlement in Iudea Palestina, and wanted to restore the old Jewish Theocracy (but at the same time getting rid of the aristocratic factions the Essenes and the Sadducees, the old theocrats who had bedded down with the Romans and replacing them with new priests, the rabbis), and the introduction of full observance for the whole Jewish population (prior to Roman overlordship, only the priesthood and aristocracy fully observed the laws). He probably was leader of a small band of Zealots who were plotting (probably quite amateurishly) to rise up in Jerusalem, and were found out. Yeshua was tried, and convicted of treason (quite correctly under Roman law). For a good while afterwards his followers sat around moping despondantly in and around Jerusalem, until Paul seeing an opportunity tried to meld himself into the group and turn it into a religious cult. After a tussle with the original followers he won, and started creating the myth of Jesus Christ (Superstar), which later picked up a violent strain of anti-semitism (probably due to the Jewish revolt of the 130's. It would be sensible to distance yourselves from that), and gradually morphed into the many-tentalcled giant vampire squid-medusa we all know and love today.

Ah... Now, I see why this threads in here. Silly me
Another opportunity for those who choose not to believe in God to have a shot at those of us who do.
Seriously people do you have nothing else to discuss in this forum except God and Jesus and Christianity.
By the way, I assume you have proof that the assertion that Judas was a theif was false and that Paul hijacked the early church for his own ends.


As for Jesus being a looser, we'llhhave to differ there as well.

Absolam

Adalynn Raspy Cap wrote: »

Ah... Now, I see why this threads in here. Silly me Another opportunity for those who choose not to believe in God to have a shot at those of us who do. Seriously people do you have nothing else to discuss in this forum except God and Jesus and Christianity. By the way, I assume you have proof that the assertion that Judas was a theif was false and that Paul hijacked the early church for his own ends. As for Jesus being a looser, we'llhhave to differ there as well.

I think the thread is here because the op wanted some applause for what they imagined to be a radical and cunning logical argument against the viability of the basis for christianity.

I think it has remained because there is some interesting discussion to be had about the presentation of the character of Judas both when considered in the historical context his story is set, and the context the authors intended to create as well as the lessons the character was intended to impart (not forgetting the resulting modern narratives and attitudes that have resulted), such as that presented by Peregrinus and Recedite.

Then on top of that we get the theist and anti-theist commentary based on entrenched viewpoints which really have little to do with the subject and lots to do with enforcing worldviews, such as that presented by kylith and Adalynn Raspy Cap, and we end up with a smorgasbord of attitudes that probably wouldn't last long anywhere other that A&A (without descending into the chaos that is After Hours).

For what it's worth, that's why I think it's here

unfortunately

The reason I posted it in A&A was because I put it forward as argument that cast doubt on Jesus being God. Arguments against gods is generally what atheism is about so I am a bit perplexed by the confusion some of you are having.

Absolam wrote: »

I think the thread is here because the op wanted some applause for what they imagined to be a radical and cunning logical argument against the viability of the basis for christianity.

OK, let's see what I actually wrote in the OP:

I was thinking about Judas's betrayal of Jesus and I thought that it might be an argument that casts doubt on Jesus being the messiah. I want feed back to see if there is a flaw in the argument; and this argument seems so obvious that it must have been used before so I'm wondering what the response is to it.

I feel Peregrinus gave the best response to my post. Personally, I feel the most likely thing was that Judas just betrayed what he saw as another man. Judas could have been provoking Jesus to "reveal" himself, that is a valid response to the argument and I thank Peregrinus for that (and for giving a little context). I don't think it's true that Judas believed that but I can't really argue against it. You either believe or you don't.

Saipanne

unfortunately wrote: »

I was thinking about Judas's betrayal of Jesus and I thought that it might be an argument that casts doubt on Jesus being the messiah. I want feed back to see if there is a flaw in the argument; and this argument seems so obvious that it must have been used before so I'm wondering what the response is to it.

Judas was one of the 12 apostles who followed Jesus around for whatever number of years he was preaching. He was obviously dedicated to Jesus seeing as he followed him at all. Presumably he was there for the sermons and various miracles and he also knew the personal side of Jesus. This is someone who was in close contact with Jesus and knew him.

And after all that he betrays him for 30 pieces of silver? Wouldn't that suggest that Judas didn't really believe that Jesus was the messiah at all. If you truly believed he was the son of God you would never betray him. The fact that he did casts doubt on the divine nature of Jesus when one of the inner circle; one of the closest people to Jesus, wasn't convinced of his divinity. It suggests that Jesus was just a regular preacher/social agitator and was the victim of power struggles and greed.

I am aware that some say that the devil possessed Judas, or that Jesus told Judas to betray him so that his plan (crucifixion -> resurrection ->somehow all sins are then forgiven) can work. If either of these are true then Judas cannot be held responsible and must be innocent (well, not guilty).

That's the argument - either Jesus isn't god or Judas is innocent.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Judas#Overview

One eyed Jack

unfortunately wrote: »

The reason I posted it in A&A was because I put it forward as argument that cast doubt on Jesus being God. Arguments against gods is generally what atheism is about so I am a bit perplexed by the confusion some of you are having.

Just a quick point of note on that idea -

Arguments against gods is generally what anti-theism is about. Atheism doesn't acknowledge the existence of gods at all.

Atheism is an absence of belief. In order to argue against something, you'd need to first acknowledge the possibility that it may or may not exist.

Peregrinus

unfortunately wrote: »

I feel Peregrinus gave the best response to my post. Personally, I feel the most likely thing was that Judas just betrayed what he saw as another man. Judas could have been provoking Jesus to "reveal" himself, that is a valid response to the argument and I thank Peregrinus for that (and for giving a little context). I don't think it's true that Judas believed that but I can't really argue against it. You either believe or you don't.

Thank you for the kind words. But, just to be clear:

1. My position is that Judas did regard Jesus as "another man", i.e. he did not consider Jesus to be divine, or the incarnation of God.

2. But, I'm suggesting, he did regard him as the Messiah.

3. There is no contraction here. In the Jewish tradition the Messiah is expected to be another man. He is not expected to be divine, the incarnation of God, etc.

4. None of this undermines Christian faith. Whether or not Judas considered Jesus to be the Messiah, I agree that he did not consider him to be divine (so far as we know). But so what? Christianity does not assert that Judas, or indeed anyone else, considered Jesus to be divine, at any rate before the resurrection. They may (or, in Judas's case, may not) have considered him to be the Messiah, to be a prophet, to have a special or unique relationship with God, etc, etc, but there is no reason to think that they considered him divine. Nor had he ever unambiguously claimed to be so, so in not considering him divine they were not rejecting anything he had said to them. A belief in the divinity of Jesus only emerged later. (You could argue about when it emerged, but it was certainly after the crucifixion.)

5. Consequently, even if it's true that Judas's actions conclusively show that he didnt believe what modern Christians believe about the divinity of Jesus, that doesn't matter. It's in no sense a refutation of modern Christian belief, since modern Christian belief doesn't rest on Judas (or anyone else) having accepted the divinity of Christ at this time.

recedite

I wish to congratulate Peregrinus on winning the competition, and I present to him this atheist Biscuit of Appreciation.
Enjoy, and well done.

Brian Shanahan

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Arguments against gods is generally what anti-theism is about. Atheism doesn't acknowledge the existence of gods at all.

Actually to be even more correct (pedantry alert!), arguments against gods is more often what religion is about, especially the monotheistic religions. Because in order to accept their god as the true highest most being, they have to deny everybody else's gods. Thus they have very heated and sometimes very violent arguments with other believers.

Adalynn Raspy Cap wrote: »

By the way, I assume you have proof that the assertion that Judas was a theif was false and that Paul hijacked the early church for his own ends.

Don't need any, because what I did was put out a conjecture. I never once said that it was reality, just my opinion as to the most likely reflection of reality.

And in fact given the historical development of various religions, the formation of mythologies and the context within the story was developed (which, incidentally the bible itself gets very wrong in many places, a shocking result for a document held to be both a historical account and infallible word of an omniscient god), I would suggest to you that my reading (scant and all as I have developed it in my previous reply to you) is far more likely and plausible a viewpoint to take than yours, that Yeshua bar Yehoseph was actually the son of god, and not some radical Jewish rebel (alliteration ftw!).

Oh and I also notice that you fail to deal with the logical inconsistencies and mutual impossibilities that I brought up with regards to the Judas story between the differing gospels, and even between the gospels and acts. Instead of making unevidenced claims (that Jesus is/was god) you would be far more profitably engaged researching the substantive issues I have raised, and seeing if you could refute them (my money is that you can't).

seamus

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Just a quick point of note on that idea -

Arguments against gods is generally what anti-theism is about. Atheism doesn't acknowledge the existence of gods at all.

Atheism is an absence of belief. In order to argue against something, you'd need to first acknowledge the possibility that it may or may not exist.

Indeed, although this discussion is all very fascinating and interesting, from an atheist's point of view, finding discrepancies in the story of Judas to disprove the divinity of Jesus is like using plot holes in Star Wars to show that Luke couldn't be the saviour of The Force.
An interesting exercise in discussion of course, but of little consequence.

unfortunately

seamus wrote: »

Indeed, although this discussion is all very fascinating and interesting, from an atheist's point of view, finding discrepancies in the story of Judas to disprove the divinity of Jesus is like using plot holes in Star Wars to show that Luke couldn't be the saviour of The Force.
An interesting exercise in discussion of course, but of little consequence.

It works if people believe the events of the film to be literally true. My approach to a believer is "okay, for the sake of argument assume it is true...then x, y, and z contradicts itself."