Was Judas just following orders?

[Bet51987]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12186080/

Thats what it looks like to me. I would like to see any other links that anyone has....

Bee

[RoBoT]

In John 12:3-6, the Bible records the incident in which Mary pours a very expensive ointment over Christ:

Then took Mary a pound of ointment of spikenard, very costly, and annointed the feet of Jesus...
Then saith one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, Simon's son, which would betray him,
Why was not this ointment sold for three hundred pence [about $60; it'd be worth hundreds by today's standards], and given to the poor?
This he said, not that he cared for the poor; but because he was a thief, and had the bag, and bare what was put therein.

Apart from Luke, John goes into some pretty fine details in his account of Christ's ministry. He actually bothers to name names, which none of the other three accounts of this same incident did. He must've already caught Judas dipping into the group finances before, as he's the only disciple to actually give Judas the title of \"thief\".

Later, at the Last Supper, Christ reveals who would betray him:

Jesus answered, He it is, to whom I shall give a sop
[According to Webster's: 1 chiefly dialect : a piece of food dipped or steeped in a liquid], when I have dipped it. And when he had dipped the sop, he gave it to Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon.
And after the sop Satan entered into him. Then said Jesus unto him, That thou doest, do quickly.\" -John 13:26-27

I have yet to see a single Christian possessed with a demon, least of all Satan himself. That would only mean that Judas was not a true believer in Christ. With all the talk of Christ reclaiming His throne and liberating His people, Judas must've figured he would become the treasurer, giving him free access to all the money he could wish for. Satan loves people who think this way.

For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows. -I Timothy 6:10

Satan must've stirred up some anger in Judas (my Bible says Judas left immediately after Christ handed him the sop, meaning he must've ran out, possibly in a rage), leading him to accept a bribe from the religious leaders to betray Him. I mean, money's money, right? Since the so-called \"King of Kings\" wasn't makng Judas any richer, he must've figured he could just pawn Him off for thirty silver pieces, which in his mind, would be better than nothing.

After the crucifixion, however, Judas shows remorse for his actions, and tries to right his wrongs.

Then Judas, which had betrayed him, when he saw he condemned, repented himself, and brought again the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders,
Saying, I have sinned in that I have betrayed the innocent blood. And they said, What is that to us? See thou to that. -Matthew 27:3-4

He tried to give the money back to the religious leaders, but they refused to take it. What does he do in response?

And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself. -v.5

Ouch.

And the chief priests took the silver pieces, and said, It is not lawful for to put them into the treasury, because it is the price of blood.
And they took counsel, and bought with them the potter's field, to bury strangers in.
Wherefore that field was caled, The field of blood, unto this day. -v.6

They couldn't put \"blood money\" into the treasury, so they bought a plot of land to use as a graveyard.


So Judas betrayed Christ out of his love for money. Afterwards, he repented, but when he couldn't right his wrong, he killed himself. The scene where they cut him down in Acts 1:18 gets kinda messy, but I won't post that here. I'll let you look that up yourself.

Here's a Bible study on ol' Judas.

EDIT: I just put the definition in the post. For some reason the link to the Webster's website's refusing to work.

[Bet51987]

Thanks. You didn't write this for nothing. I'm going to read it all. Your [def] doesn't work btw...

Bee

[Samuel Dravis]

Even with all that being true, was the betrayal a necessary act? That is, was there going to be someone forced to do it if Judas wasn't around?

[RoBoT]

With all those prophecies saying that Christ would be betrayed by one of his own followers? I'm pretty sure if Judas had not been picked, somebody of equal character certainly would have been.

[Shadowfury333]

I'm not sure about Judas pawning off Jesus. He was the treasurer, thus he didn't need the 30 silver pieces. However, throughout the Gospels we see that several disciples are trying to push Jesus into physical power, or are trying to make Christ the messiah they expected. Don't forget, they were Jewish for at least 80% of their lives, they had the slightly misinterpreted idea of the \"Messiah\" deeply rooted in them. Also, they were under control of the Roman's for their whole lives, so they probably expected the saviour to free them literally from the Roman persecution.

[Weyrman]

As to whether Judas was \"Picked\", the bible teaches that we all have free will and that God does not and cannot force our free will.

What I believe is that Jesus picked Judas as one of the 12 because he knew, that when the time came, Judas, of his own volition, would turn his back and betray him. He therefore served the purposes of God without God having to \"Force\" him to do it.

[Shoku]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12186080/

Thats what it looks like to me. I would like to see any other links that anyone has....

Bee

There are hundreds of such writings. The new find about Judas is perhaps unique in its subject matter, but it is not unique that it exists - The fact that nothing like it has yet been discovered is probably an indication that it was not widely circulated and therefore known to be spurious.

From the second century forward there has developed an immense body of writings making claim to divine inspiration and canonicity and pretending to relate to the Christian faith. These writings represent efforts at imitating the Gospels, Acts, letters, and the revelations contained in the canonical books of the New Testament. A large number of these are known only through fragments extant or by quotations from them or allusions to them by other writers.

These writings manifest an attempt to provide information that the inspired writings deliberately omit, such as the activities and events relating to Jesus’ life from his early childhood on up to the time of his baptism, or an effort to manufacture support for doctrines or traditions that find no basis in the Bible or are in contradiction to it. Thus the so-called Gospel of Thomas and the Protevangelium of James are filled with fanciful accounts of miracles supposedly wrought by Jesus in his childhood. But the whole effect of the picture they draw of him is to cause Jesus to appear as a capricious and petulant child endowed with impressive powers. (Compare the genuine account at Lu 2:51, 52.) The Apocryphal “Acts,” such as the “Acts of Paul” and the “Acts of Peter,” lay heavy stress on complete abstinence from sexual relations and even depict the apostles as urging women to separate from their husbands, thus contradicting Paul’s authentic counsel at 1 Corinthians 7.

Commenting on such postapostolic Apocryphal writings, The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible (Vol. 1, p. 166) states: “Many of them are trivial, some are highly theatrical, some are disgusting, even loathsome.” (Edited by G. A. Buttrick, 1962)

Just as the earlier Apocryphal writings were excluded from among the accepted Old Testament Scriptures, so also these later Apocryphal writings were not accepted as inspired nor included as canonical in the earliest collections or catalogs of the New Testament.

The historian Eusebius, in summing up the position, sets out three categories of writings. First the acknowledged ones are enumerated and then the disputed ones, both classes being considered canonical. The third group, in which he names the Shepherd of Hermas, Barnabas and others, he calls spurious, although they were read in various congregations at times. (Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius, p. 110) The Muratorian fragment states that the Shepherd could be read but was never to the end of time to be recognized as canonical.

When it was found that the apocryphal Gospel of Peter was being read publicly at the end of the second century, it was ordered to be rejected as false. (Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius, p. 231) Tertullian tells us that the author of the “Acts of Paul” was punished for posing as a first-century writer. (De Baptismo 17) In a letter written by Theodore of Egypt in the fourth century the apocryphal writings are referred to as “the lying waters of which so many drank,” and the Muratorian list speaks of them as gall which should not be mixed with honey. So the Christian community was careful to protect the integrity of its writings.

Internal evidence confirms the clear division made between the inspired and the spurious works. The apocryphal writings are much inferior and often fanciful and childish. They are frequently inaccurate. Note the following statements by scholars on these noncanonical books:

“There is no question of any one’s having excluded them from the New Testament: they have done that for themselves.”—M. R. James, The Apocryphal New Testament, p. xii.

“We have only to compare our New Testament books as a whole with other literature of the kind to realise how wide is the gulf which separates them from it. The uncanonical gospels, it is often said, are in reality the best evidence for the canonical.”—G. Milligan, The New Testament Documents, p. 228.

“Much of the Gospel of Thomas is plainly later and untrustworthy tradition . . . of no use for determining what Jesus said and did.”—F. V. Filson, The Biblical Archaeologist, 1961, p. 18.

“There is no known extra-cononical Gospel material which is not (when it can be tested at all) in some way subject to suspicion for its genuineness or orthodoxy.”—C. F. D. Moule, The Birth of the New Testament, p. 192.

“It cannot be said of a single writing preserved to us from the early period of the Church outside the New Testament that it could properly be added today to the Canon.”—K. Aland, The Problem of the New Testament Canon, p. 24.

[Samuel Dravis]

As to whether Judas was "Picked", the bible teaches that we all have free will and that God does not and cannot force our free will.

What I believe is that Jesus picked Judas as one of the 12 because he knew, that when the time came, Judas, of his own volition, would turn his back and betray him. He therefore served the purposes of God without God having to "Force" him to do it.

AFAIK, a limited being cannot do something outside of its nature, of its ability. God created a limited being with specific characteristics in Judas, the same as he did with the other apostles. Just makes me wonder how (if) God can so much as grant true free will, given that it seems impossible for God to be other than the totality of himself...

[Bet51987]

I don't believe in god or the trinity and I never will. However I do believe in Jesus as a person who thought there was a god and died for me.

I'm going to be really upset if I find out that Jesus set Judas up for the fall. I'm still checking it out.

Bee

[Weyrman]

Bee, do you mean that you believe that Jesus existed and that he thought that he was doing something good for humanity by trying to take the perceived punishment that the evil world deserved on his shoulders by dying?

It's just that your statements of \"I don't believe in God\" and \"who died for me\" seem to be opposites. What possible good could someone trying to \"die on your behalf\" be if you reject the concept of God and therefore any basis for divine judgement or punishment.

As you can see from the above excellent posts, the early church sat down and decided to list what was truth and what wasn't, in an effort to stop heresy creeping into christianity due to fanciful or just plain wrong writings. While I commend your desire to look into the subject as deeply as possible, your judgement will be from your interpretation and I would urge you to choose the judgement of people who were much, much closer in time to the actual events.

[Samuel Dravis]

So I read NewAdvent's (a Catholic encyclopedia) take on free will. The proofs it gives are not exactly satisfactory. The first says that since everyone percieves that your actions are free, that they in fact are. I don't see how that follows; we are limited and our perceptions are limited to match that. We don't know if it is free will or not.

The second says that since we percieve we have free will, we actually do have it. Again, the perception of a limited being is not exactly the standard at which you should hold the justice of God.

Both answers seem to 1)ignore the limitations of humanity, and 2) overlook the fact that since we are limited, and God is not, he by necessity must know of our natures because he created us. He created us in such a manner that we would do everything that we have done and will do, regardless of the morality of the action - and what is more, he knew we would do it too. Just like little clockwork toys.

Practically, we should act as if we do have free will because to do otherwise is untenable. Whether it's real or not is another question entirely. Personally, I'm kind of feeling sorry for Judas.

[Top Gun]

I'm familiar with New Advent, but I haven't read that before. I'll have to give it a look and see if I agree with your assessment of it.

Practically, we should act as if we do have free will because to do otherwise is untenable. Whether it's real or not is another question entirely.

In terms of everyday wisdom, that's pretty good advice. If you really don't think that you have any free will at all, what then? How will you be able to function on a daily basis? If you just leave the question up to someone else and continue to live out your life in a manner you feel is consistent with what you believe, you'll be able to avoid all sorts of headaches. However, those people whose job it is to ponder questions like that don't have that luxury.

Personally, I'm kind of feeling sorry for Judas.

I see that as a good thing, because Judas was meant to be a figure of pity, not utter hatred or revulsion (although apparently Dante felt differently). In the Gospels, Judas, like many of the other apostles, initially believes that Jesus will be a powerful military leader who will free the Jewish people from Roman rule; this was a somewhat common perception of the Messiah at that time. However, as Judas begins to realize that that isn't what Jesus' mission is all about, the whole world he's constructed for himself in his mind begins to crumble. I don't believe that Judas ever truly wanted Jesus to be killed; I think that his betrayal was meant almost as a way of forcing Jesus into taking some sort of dramatic action to save himself. When Jesus did not, when Judas realized that Jesus would actually let himself be handed over and killed, he was overcome with despair for what he had done, and wound up killing himself. That's the way I see things, at least, and by that definition, Judas is definitely someone to be pitied.

[Shadowfury333]

In the Gospels, Judas, like many of the other apostles, initially believes that Jesus will be a powerful military leader who will free the Jewish people from Roman rule; this was a somewhat common perception of the Messiah at that time. However, as Judas begins to realize that that isn't what Jesus' mission is all about, the whole world he's constructed for himself in his mind begins to crumble. I don't believe that Judas ever truly wanted Jesus to be killed; I think that his betrayal was meant almost as a way of forcing Jesus into taking some sort of dramatic action to save himself. When Jesus did not, when Judas realized that Jesus would actually let himself be handed over and killed, he was overcome with despair for what he had done, and wound up killing himself. That's the way I see things, at least, and by that definition, Judas is definitely someone to be pitied.

Thanks. That's what I was trying to express earlier, although you phrased it much more eloquently.

[Bet51987]

Bee, do you mean that you believe that Jesus existed and that he thought that he was doing something good for humanity by trying to take the perceived punishment that the evil world deserved on his shoulders by dying?

It's just that your statements of "I don't believe in God" and "who died for me" seem to be opposites. What possible good could someone trying to "die on your behalf" be if you reject the concept of God and therefore any basis for divine judgement or punishment.

As you can see from the above excellent posts, the early church sat down and decided to list what was truth and what wasn't, in an effort to stop heresy creeping into christianity due to fanciful or just plain wrong writings. While I commend your desire to look into the subject as deeply as possible, your judgement will be from your interpretation and I would urge you to choose the judgement of people who were much, much closer in time to the actual events.

Weyrman... Every Sunday I'm up on the altar singing and looking very holy. In back of me is this very HUGE cross and when I first walk up, I kneel before it, spread my arms out like wings, gaze at the man nailed to it, and truly feel humbled by what I see. When I sing, I uncontrollably have tears come down my face because of the music, the people looking at me, and the person nailed on that cross.

However, I don't see this person as god. I just don't believe in it for very personal reasons and for what I see happening in the world today. I can, however, love this man because I really believe he died thinking he was dying for me. I just don't believe there was anyone up there listening to him when he was dying on that cross.

He was just a prophet of the times like Billy Graham is today, but I respect him for what he thought was true and it would bother me if Judas was used by him. I am going to find out the truth.

Top Gun..... thanks for that.

Bettina

[Kilarin]

Good post Shoku! I was going to go post something along the same lines, but you did a MUCH better job than I would have. Our very first reference to this "Gospel of Judas" rejects it as fiction. We have little reason to doubt it belongs in the same VERY large pile of other fake "gospels".

I don't believe that Judas ever truly wanted Jesus to be killed; I think that his betrayal was meant almost as a way of forcing Jesus into taking some sort of dramatic action to save himself.

I agree.

As a matter of fact, the suicide of Judas was one of the greatest LOSSES of Christianity.

Think about it. Peter and Judas, BOTH betray Christ on the same night. And in a way, Peter's betrayal was worse. Judas may have just been trying to tip Christ's hand, to force him to move in the direction Judas thought best. But PETER denied that he even KNEW Christ. Judas never did that.

And then both of them, after the betrayal, realize what they have done.

Now up to this point, the stories are VERY similiar, but then they diverge. Peter runs back to the garden and throws himself upon the mercy of God, begging forgivness. He comes out a changed man, one who no longer relies upon himself, but realizes that all of his own righteousness is as filthy rags, and his only hope is to let Christ transform him into the type of person who doesn't DO things like he has done. And wow! What a change!

But Judas, rather than facing humiliation, rather than giving up on himself, tries to find his OWN solution to his failure. And his solution is suicide.

What a DIFFERENT story we would have had if he had thrown himself upon God's mercy instead. What an INCREDIBLE witness. Just imagine if Judas had repented and been forgiven the same as Peter. Can you imagine the sermon he would have preached at Pentecost? "You think YOU'VE sinned to much to be forgiven? Jesus took ME back, the man who betrayed Him to his death. If he could forgive ME, of COURSE he could forgive you!"

Alas, that's the story we can't tell, the sermon we can never preach, because Judas didn't let us. It's a loss, a terrible loss to Christianity.

[Lothar]

The \"new\" writings that came out that say Jesus asked Judas to betray him have been known about for hundreds of years. The only thing that's \"new\" is that they found an original-language version of this writing so they don't have to study it indirectly (through quotes from others, etc.)

A lot of people, especially about 200-300 years after Jesus lived, created fictional accounts to try to \"fill in\" missing details of His life, especially in order to justify their own moral positions. One dead giveaway is that most of those writings talk about these as being the \"secret\" teachings of Jesus, rather than speaking of the public teachings and public actions of Jesus. I haven't yet read the newest \"gospel of Judas\", but I don't have high hopes for it being authentic; it sounds very much like it's one of the aforementioned fictional accounts. In particular, the articles I've read say it dates to about 300 AD and suggest it teaches the gnostic idea of \"flesh bad, spirit good\" -- that Jesus had to die in order to get out of his \"evil flesh\" and into a \"spirit body\".

I seriously doubt there's anything of worth in the gospel of Judas.

[RoBoT]

THe Bible records all the details relevant to Christ's ministry. That's why you never see any accounts of His childhood outside His birth, the arrival of the wise men (considering where they came from and the fact that the Bible uses the word \"house\" during that record, He had to have been about 3-5 by then), and the Passover feast He attended at age 12 (where He dumbfounded the teachers and religious men with his knowledge). Outside of that, not much is said, because most of it has little to nothing to do with His earthly ministry. Unless Mary and Joseph kept a diary or something recording Christ's childhood, anything anyone can say is pure speculation. The Gospels' accounts, in total, only amount to a fraction of the 3.5 years Christ was preaching. Again, anything said outside the Gospels as to what may have taken place sans the events in the Gospels is nothing more than speculation.

[Palzon]

this is what happens when one group prefers its own fictional account to another groups fictional account - it is concluded simply that the minority view is spurious and without merit.

i personally find the Judas scroll account more compelling, and Harvey Keitel is a badass who would never betray Jebus.

[Jeff250]

Again, anything said outside the Gospels as to what may have taken place sans the events in the Gospels is nothing more than speculation.

Why is this necessarily true? Answer without begging the question.

[snoopy]

He was just a prophet of the times like Billy Graham is today, but I respect him for what he thought was true and it would bother me if Judas was used by him. I am going to find out the truth.

Top Gun..... thanks for that.

Bettina

So I guess between Liar, Lunatic, and Lord you're deciding that Jesus was a liar.

[Samuel Dravis]

So I guess between Liar, Lunatic, and Lord you're deciding that Jesus was a liar.

Eh, I'd like to point out that none of those are necessarily exclusive... for instance, a young earth creationist may believe in a God that effectively lies to him.

[Lothar]

:roll: this is what happens when one group prefers its own fictional account to another groups fictional account

Oh please...

It's what happens when one group's account was written by people who actually knew the guy in question and wrote within a generation of his death, and their account corresponds to the publicly available knowledge... and the other group's account was written a couple hundred years later and is all about "secret" teachings nobody else knew about. Typically these "secret" teachings include a heavy dose of hatred of the physical and of physical pleasure -- hatred of food, hatred of sex, statements about being freed from the physical world and perfected as spirits, and so on. (You'd think those who have a beef with Conservative Churchianity wouldn't be big fans of the Gnostics, since they're the ones who introduced such unhealthy views into Christian theology in the first place. Guess it's an "enemy of my enemy" thing.)

The account might in fact be more compelling. But then, Lord of the Rings is quite compelling. Doesn't make it true, just makes it a good story. The gnostic writings are interesting, sometimes compelling, and probably not true... and why the heck would you want to identify with people who think the path to righteousness is hating your own body anyway?

[Bet51987]

He was just a prophet of the times like Billy Graham is today, but I respect him for what he thought was true and it would bother me if Judas was used by him. I am going to find out the truth.

Top Gun..... thanks for that.

Bettina

So I guess between Liar, Lunatic, and Lord you're deciding that Jesus was a liar.

Snoopy, I don't think I've ever said that and as it stands right now this debate could go on for years. So, in the meantime, I will put it aside and continue to be humbled by the person nailed to the cross but thats as far as I can go with it.

Bee

[Birdseye]

this is what happens when one group prefers its own fictional account to another groups fictional account - it is concluded simply that the minority view is spurious and without merit.

i personally find the Judas scroll account more compelling, and Harvey Keitel is a badass who would never betray Jebus.

hahaha i agree

[Jeff250]

So I guess between Liar, Lunatic, and Lord you're deciding that Jesus was a liar.

Eh, I'd like to point out that none of those are necessarily exclusive... for instance, a young earth creationist may believe in a God that effectively lies to him.

Nor are those three the only sensible options to pick from. Other options could be that Jesus was either fabricated or exaggerated, or even that he was misunderstood. In fact, being that these, today, are the most popularly held beliefs (other than that he was "Lord"), I'm surprised that you didn't mention them instead.

[Jeff250]

I remember reading about biblical textual criticism, and apparently biblical scholars, when they have to choose between two equally popular passages in manuscripts of the Bible, with all other things being equal, they always choose the most theologically troublesome passage. This is because of the number of revisionists who attempted to solve biblical issues by making tweaks.

[Lothar]

yeah Jeff, that position appears hundreds of times in the scholars notes for NET Bible. When it's not clear what the original was just from looking at manuscript ages, usually the \"harder\" or \"edgier\" reading is preferred. Most people who edited the text made it easier, rather than harder, to follow.

[snoopy]

So I guess between Liar, Lunatic, and Lord you're deciding that Jesus was a liar.

Eh, I'd like to point out that none of those are necessarily exclusive... for instance, a young earth creationist may believe in a God that effectively lies to him.

Nor are those three the only sensible options to pick from. Other options could be that Jesus was either fabricated or exaggerated, or even that he was misunderstood. In fact, being that these, today, are the most popularly held beliefs (other than that he was "Lord"), I'm surprised that you didn't mention them instead.

There are logical reasons to eliminate those. First, as for being misunderstood: John 4:25, 26 says "The woman said, "I know that Messiah" (called Christ) "is coming. When he comes, he will explain everything to us." Then Jesus declared, "I who speak to you am he."" So, if you're claiming that people misunderstood what Jesus was saying, and somehow construed him to be Christ out of that, then the Bible (and Jesus) directly disagree with that.

As for Him being fabricated, it would follow logically that it would have been by the disciples. What kind of people does it take to stand behind something that you fabricated when you are being persecuted and even murdered for that very fabrication? 99% of the time a person will abandon their fabrication when faced with the choice between death and their fabrication. Now, imagine 100+ people all standing behind the same fabrication and suffering immensely for it? Not likely. You would also be hard pressed to claim insanity with the number of people involved. I don't see any way that Christ could have been fabricated at the time- hundereds of thousands of people saw Jesus and witnessed him performing miracles.

As for exaggerated, The same agrument applies. Why would the disciples stick to their new found faith when faced with persecution if they knew they where exaggerating something that really wasn't a big deal. Also, Jesus himself would have been exaggerating (thus making himself a liar) by claiming to be the Christ.

[Jeff250]

I suspect that you have \"logical\" reasons for ruling out Jesus from being a liar and lunatic too. My point is that you were unfairly limiting the available options.

There are logical reasons to eliminate those. First, as for being misunderstood: John 4:25, 26 says \"The woman said, \"I know that Messiah\" (called Christ) \"is coming. When he comes, he will explain everything to us.\" Then Jesus declared, \"I who speak to you am he.\"\" So, if you're claiming that people misunderstood what Jesus was saying, and somehow construed him to be Christ out of that, then the Bible (and Jesus) directly disagree with that.

Well, you're begging the question. You first assumed that the Bible is true and not written out of misunderstanding before you demonstrated that the Bible is true and not written out of misunderstanding.

I don't see any way that Christ could have been fabricated at the time- hundereds of thousands of people saw Jesus and witnessed him performing miracles.

Begging the question again, are we?