Why isn't Judas considered the greatest hero in Christianity? (1 Viewer)

I thought that clip was exceptionally poignant - one of my favorite moments of his, certainly, and maybe even besides
 
Warning: long post. Let’s look at some of the verses in question.

(John 6:64) For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him.

"From the beginning" means from the start of something, but it’s a non-specific phrase. It doesn’t specify when that start was. And usually the start pertains to whatever the subject matter is (from the start of whatever it is we’re talking about). And in John 6 what he’s talking about is Judas’ betrayal of Jesus. So the most natural reading of this phrase is, “From the time that Judas was going to betray Jesus, Jesus knew it.” From the time Judas resolved it in his heart. From the beginning of when it became a reality in Judas’ heart, Jesus knew it. But it doesn’t mean from the beginning of Jesus’ ministry, let alone from the beginning of the world. It just means from the moment Judas determined to betray him, it was a done deal.

Let me object to something right off the bat.

You highlighted "from the beginning", but didn't take into consideration "which of them did not believe".

So if we read the phrase " Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe", we don't need to rationalize what's meant by "from the beginning". It's clear that it means from the moment Judas became a follower, he knew Judas didn't really believe in him, and that he knew Judas was going to betray him.

And that's just that phrase. But there is more to it that just than one phrase.

Do you believe that Yahweh sent his only son to Earth to die for our sins?
Do you believe in the concept of the Holy Trinity, that Yahweh, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are one?

If you believe in both concepts, then you have a god who purposely send his son (how's also the same as god) to die, and therefore knew he was going to die not of natural causes, but in some sort of sacrifice, to atone for our sins.
 
On a side note, I see the usual suspects peddling their particular brand of shallow evangelical atheism in yet another unnecessary thread jack. Have you no awareness that you have become that which you claim to despise?

Cute.
 
Jumping back a page, the link below provides a pretty good break down of where a lot of the martyrdom stories came from (generally second century apocryphal texts) and why they're of questionable reliability (and links are provided within so you can read the primary sources). A couple of examples are below.


Peter: Although Peter’s death is vaguely alluded to in some parts of the New Testament (e.g. John 21:18; 2 Peter 1:13-15), the actual scene and manner of his death is nowhere to be found within it. Instead, the legendary account of saint Peter being crucified upside down in Rome is first recorded possibly over a century later in the apocryphal Acts of Peter (c. 150 – 200 CE). Modern scholars have doubts that Peter ever even went to Rome (seeing as Paul makes no mention of Peter being there in his Epistle to the Romans, even though tradition claims that Peter traveled there first, and the fact that Peter allegedly founding the church at Rome would serve as propaganda for the leadership of the city’s congregation). The Acts of Peter also includes events such as Peter causing a dog to speak human language, raising a smoked tuna fish from the dead, and battling a magical flying magician named Simon. Apologists quote mine one of the four events above to bolster their arguments. Guess which one it is?

Andrew (Peter’s Brother): After Paul and Peter, the New Testament says even less about the other apostles and many of the later apocryphal accounts of their deaths become even further distant and less reliable (yes, I know that is hard to believe). For one, the Acts of Andrew (c. 150 – 200 CE) records that he was crucified in the Achaean city of Patras. This account is written possibly over a century later, but it could be believable, right? Well, if you also believe the first couple paragraphs of the Acts of Andrew, where Andrew cures a blind man, raises a boy from the dead, and magically summons an earthquake to kill a woman who was trying to have sex with her own son (rather than just killing the woman directly). Andrew later magically heals everyone else who was hurt by the collateral damage of this magical earthquake.

John the son of Zebedee: Apologists will tell you that John was alone of the disciples not to face a grisly death. Too bad the early 2nd century church father Papias (whom apologists try to use as a source for the authorship of Matthew and Mark) instead records that John was killed alongside his brother James in Herod’s persecution (see F.P. Badham in “The Martyrdom of John the Apostle”). That sure does throw a wrench into the “disciple whom Jesus loved” living a long life and writing the 4th Gospel. Tertullian tells us that he was boiled alive in oil, but that it felt to him like a warm bath. Irenaeus has him live until the reign of Trajan. Pick whatever unreliable source you like.

Papias creates a nice segue back to Judas, as he claimed Judas died by neither suicide nor hanging. He was quoted from his Exposition of the Sayings of the Lord stating (short and long versions):

“Judas lived his career in this world as an enormous example of impiety. He was so swollen in the flesh that he could not pass where a wagon could easily pass. Having been crushed by a wagon, his entrails poured out.”

Judas walked about as an example of godlessness in this world, having been bloated so much in the flesh that he could not go through where a chariot goes easily, indeed not even his swollen head by itself. For the lids of his eyes, they say, were so puffed up that he could not see the light, and his own eyes could not be seen, not even by a physician with optics, such depth had they from the outer apparent surface. And his genitalia appeared more disgusting and greater than all formlessness, and he bore through them from his whole body flowing pus and worms, and to his shame these things alone were forced [out]. And after many tortures and torments, they say, when he had come to his end in his own place, from the place became deserted and uninhabited until now from the stench, but not even to this day can anyone go by that place unless they pinch their nostrils with their hands, so great did the outflow from his body spread out upon the earth.

Anyway, not trying to thread jack or evangelize, that's just some additional side information I find interesting and thought others might as well.
 
Let me object to something right off the bat.

You highlighted "from the beginning", but didn't take into consideration "which of them did not believe".

So if we read the phrase " Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe", we don't need to rationalize what's meant by "from the beginning". It's clear that it means from the moment Judas became a follower, he knew Judas didn't really believe in him, and that he knew Judas was going to betray him.
The broader issue I was speaking to was the notion that Judas was destined to betray Jesus before he was even born, even from the foundations of the world. Which is something that unfortunately many people believe.

Do you believe that Yahweh sent his only son to Earth to die for our sins?
Do you believe in the concept of the Holy Trinity, that Yahweh, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are one?

If you believe in both concepts, then you have a god who purposely send his son (how's also the same as god) to die, and therefore knew he was going to die not of natural causes, but in some sort of sacrifice, to atone for our sins.
I'm not precisely sure what your point is.
 
As it's been said and hinted here and elsewhere, doesn't God know all? If He knows all, doesn't that also mean the future? And if He knows someone will destroy themselves, isn't that destiny? And by having the power to prevent that person from being born, isn't God complicit in that destruction?

I am certainly not well versed in theology like others here
That is a good question and one I have asked myself. The truth is, that if God stopped every bad thing then humanity would be nothing more than pets.
 
I am certainly not well versed in theology like others here
That is a good question and one I have asked myself. The truth is, that if God stopped every bad thing then humanity would be nothing more than pets.
Okay, but wouldn't that be better than an ETERNITY of misery?
 
Okay, but wouldn't that be better than an ETERNITY of misery?
Yes. It would. But the concept of hell as "eternal conscious torment," while widely accepted by evangelicals, is only one view among many throughout traditional, orthodox Christian thought. I tend to favor some form of the Annihilationist view.

There is a whole lot more out there to Christian theology than just the pop-evangelical brand, for those willing to give other views a fair hearing.
 
Okay, but wouldn't that be better than an ETERNITY of misery?

the answer to that is going to depend on who you ask which is kinda the whole point about choice and free will

but then you have to consider that the concept of hell is also a matter of great debate so who knows what it really is?
 
Well, I've been to Atlanta, so I have some expertise in this matter.

well there you go. pet or the potential to spend eternity in Atlanta?
 
The broader issue I was speaking to was the notion that Judas was destined to betray Jesus before he was even born, even from the foundations of the world. Which is something that unfortunately many people believe.
There are many things that unfortunately many people believe, but you can't ascertain that Yahweh didn't know or predestined Judas to betray Jesus from rationalizing a passage in the NT.


I'm not precisely sure what your point is.
The point is, Yahweh sent his son to be sacrificed by humans so he could forgive humans of their sins. Unless you believe Yahweh took a chance and didn't really know what was going to happen, he had to know Jesus was going to be sacrificed. So there is predetermination there.
 
I thought that clip was exceptionally poignant - one of my favorite moments of his, certainly, and maybe even besides

To me is not poignant, it is masochist, someone showing his love for you by punishing you, and you thinking that punishment is a gift. "Thank you Sir! May I have another?"
 
The point is, Yahweh sent his son to be sacrificed by humans so he could forgive humans of their sins. Unless you believe Yahweh took a chance and didn't really know what was going to happen, he had to know Jesus was going to be sacrificed. So there is predetermination there.
But does having the foresight to know what will happen and the ability to prevent it equate to predetermination? He sent his son knowing what the result would be and allowing that result for a purpose. I don't think that means that he controlled those who fulfilled the prophecies.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users who are viewing this thread

    Back
    Top Bottom