Offline
Which is?
Why isn't Judas considered the greatest hero in Christianity? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starterCage1
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
Which is?
- Moderator
- #62
Offline
Offline
Meaning?
Offline
I had a feeling that someone was gonna ask.
Like I was going to let that one go ... pfff!
Offline
So Mark Antony seemingly in defense of Brutus, et al but really was a reminder of the great things Caesar did
Similarly Jesus is like ‘yeah OT/prophets are super awesome’ but here’s where they need to be fixed
Jeff Miller
Shaw 1988, NYIT 2009
Offline
It’s utter baloney. Humans can’t accept that bad things happen to good people for no reason, so the invent the security blanket that it’s part of a plan that will work out in the end. All you ha e to do is kiss the but of the god that just handed you the plate full of misery (and give 10%) and sky daddy will work it all out, eventually, someday.
Offline
That's not what "I am not here to abolish the Law or the Prophets" means.
Offline
People have willingly died for their ideologies since humans came up with ideologies. It isn't a rare occurrence.
Just a very few: jihadists habitually kill themselves in the name of their god; cults/religions like Heaven's Gate or Jonestown killed themselves over their ideology; Buddhist monks set themselves on fire over their ideology; kamikaze pilots killed themselves over their ideology.
So early Christians willingly dying over their ideology is not an extraordinary occurrence.
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2016
- Messages
- 6,597
- Reaction score
- 9,412
- Age
- 33
- Location
- Land of the Kombucha Mushroom People
Offline
I agree. But by and large, the Bible is most definitively not one of those books. At least considering the proportion of violence to humanitarianism.
play action
All-Pro
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2004
- Messages
- 2,214
- Reaction score
- 697
Offline
Judas really gets nothing from the whole stolen er borrowed license fiasco. It really is a clever switcheroo con. Quite a slick takeover,but those state issued ones expire every four years for a reason,so it's not that slick,not for long anyway.
It boils down to this:
1) He did something he clearly didn't want to do.
2) If he hadn't done it, billions of people would have been condemned to an eternity of hell.
3) History has largely reviled him for his actions. I mean who names their kid Judas? He and Thaddeus are the only apostles whose names are not in wide circulation.
1) He did something he clearly didn't want to do.
2) If he hadn't done it, billions of people would have been condemned to an eternity of hell.
3) History has largely reviled him for his actions. I mean who names their kid Judas? He and Thaddeus are the only apostles whose names are not in wide circulation.
Offline
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.
Secondly this phrase “doomed to destruction.”
(John 17:12b) None has been lost except the one doomed to destruction...
The Greek phrase literally means, “son of destruction.” The Semitic concept of “son of” simply means “suited for” or “fitted for” or “expresses the nature of.” The name Barnabas means “son of encouragement.” It just means he has an encouraging nature. There’s nothing destined about it. So what Jesus is saying is, I haven’t lost any of them except the one who has made himself fit for destruction. His nature is now suited for destruction. But it doesn’t mean that it was that way from the foundation of the world or from the start of Jesus’ ministry. It means at the time that Jesus is saying this, Judas has this nature.
But there’s nothing destined about it. It’s a mistranslation when a version states it, “Judas was destined for destruction.” No, he had the nature of destruction. And that’s all the phrase simply means.
(John 13:18) “I am not referring to all of you; I know those I have chosen. But this is to fulfill this passage of Scripture: ‘He who shared my bread has turned against me.’
We tend to read into this phrase something that I don’t think that phrase entails. We tend to read that phrase as though it was predicting something that had to be fulfilled. We come at it from a similar perspective as that of a horoscope or a Zodiac or a Nostradamus or an Edgar Casey. So we think that when it says “this happened to fulfill something else” we assume it always means that something was prophesied and it had to happen. I’m going to suggest to you that that is not always the case.
The passage that Jesus refers to here goes back to Psalm 41, which reads:
Psalm 41:9 Even my close friend,
someone I trusted,
one who shared my bread,
has turned against me.
This is David speaking. Notice that this verse doesn’t say anything about the future, let alone something that has to happen in the future. David is just complaining that a friend betrayed him. There’s nothing predictive about it. But if there was something predictive about that phrase, wouldn’t you think there’d be something predictive about the phrase before it? It’s always good to consider a verse in context. So let’s look at the verses that come immediately before this one.
Psalm 41:4 I said, “Have mercy on me, Lord;
heal me, for I have sinned against you.”
Is that verse predicting something that Jesus would need to pray in the future? I don’t think so, because Christians confess Jesus was without sin.
Psalm 41:7-9 All my enemies whisper together against me;
they imagine the worst for me, saying,
8 “A vile disease has afflicted him; [Apparently David is writing this during a time when he’s very sick.]
he will never get up from the place where he lies.” [and now]
9 Even my close friend,
someone I trusted,
one who shared my bread,
has turned against me.
Well, if that last phrase is specifying something that has to happen when Jesus comes onto the scene, don’t the other phrases have to as well? So we have to ask, Did Jesus ever have to pray for forgiveness? No, because he never sinned. Was Jesus ever stricken by a vile disease? Not that we know of. It’s not the gospels. Do his enemies ever say about him that he’ll never recover from this disease? Not that we’re told in the gospels. Did he ever have people suspecting that God was judging him because of the disease he was going through? We don’t find any of this. So if those verses don’t specify something that has to happen in the future, why assume that this last verse about him being betrayed is something that had to happen?
I’ll give you another example of this. In John 19, Jesus is on the cross and John says this:
(John 19:28-29) Later, knowing that everything had now been finished, and so that Scripture would be fulfilled, Jesus said, “I am thirsty.” 29 A jar of wine vinegar was there, so they soaked a sponge in it, put the sponge on a stalk of the hyssop plant, and lifted it to Jesus’ lips.
“So that Scripture would be fulfilled.” You might get the impression that this guard had to give Jesus vinegar when he was thirsty to fulfill this verse that was written 1,000 years ago. So it must have been destined for this guard to give Jesus vinegar. But let’s look at the verse that was fulfilled. And here David, or whoever wrote this psalm, says:
Psalm 69:21 They put poison in my food
and gave me vinegar for my thirst.
Again, this is the Psalmist complaining. But notice, he’s not predicting anything about the future. He’s just stating what’s been happening to himself. And ask this: If the last half of this sentence is a prophecy that had to be fulfilled, how could the first half of this sentence not be a prophecy that had to be fulfilled? But we never hear about Jesus being given poison for food. Something else is going on here.
The problem is we come to this text with a sort of occult understanding for something to fulfill Scripture. A Nostradamus, divination sort of understanding. There are genuine predictions in the Bible that are fulfilled. Absolutely. But usually when the Bible talks about something fulfilling Scripture that’s not what it means.
For most Hebrews, to say that an event “fulfills Scripture” it means that event “fills out the full meaning of Scripture.” It “fills to the full.” It “fulfills” Scripture. So when the gospel authors note that Jesus was given vinegar and that it fulfills the Scripture about David being given vinegar to quench his thirst, they don’t mean that what happened to David had to happen to Jesus as well. They simply mean that when Jesus was given vinegar for his thirst, Jesus is bringing new, transcendent meaning to what happened to David. He was illustrating the kind of mistreatment that God’s servants always go through. But it’s not that that had to happen.
If Jesus had never been given vinegar for his thirst, we wouldn’t be sitting around going, “Man, there’s a prophecy in the Bible about being given vinegar that didn’t get fulfilled.” And the proof of that is that none of us are sitting around going, “Man, there’s a prophecy in the Bible about being given poison that didn’t get fulfilled.” Because no one gave Jesus poison for food.
So when Judas betrays Jesus to fulfill Scripture, it’s not saying that David’s betrayal required that Jesus had to be betrayed. It’s simply saying, “Now that Jesus is betrayed, we can make a parallel here. Jesus fills out the full meaning of what happened to David.” God’s servants have often been betrayed by close friends. He fills out the full meaning of it. But it wasn’t that it was predicted.
What happens is that the gospel authors, as they reflect on the events of Jesus’ life, they go back and they read the Hebrew Bible and they find these parallels. And so they’re looking at how Jesus fills out the full meaning of the Old Testament. But they’re not saying that because these things happened to David or whomever, they had to happen to Jesus. Now that they’ve happened they retroactively look back and say, “Ah! Jesus fills out the full meaning.” But it’s not that that had to happen.
And that’s how it is for most of the “prophecies” that are fulfilled in the gospels. When it says they cast lots for his garments. Or the guard who put the spear in his side. Or his fleeing into Egypt and coming out of Egypt. If you go back and read the verses that supposedly required this to happen, you’ll see that they don’t predict anything. But now that it happens with Jesus, the gospel authors look back and they see the parallel, and that Jesus fills out the full meaning of these verses. So no one had to betray Jesus. But given that Jesus was betrayed, there’s a parallel here, and Jesus fulfills the Scripture.
Now you may be wondering, “If Judas betrayed Jesus, then how would Jesus have been crucified, because we know that was decreed.” There are a thousand, maybe a million ways Jesus could have gotten crucified. This is the way it in fact went down, so we find parallels to the Old Testament. But if had gone down some other way…maybe he would’ve been poisoned…Now, we’d be looking at the first half of that verse and saying, Jesus fulfilled that verse. But it didn’t have to happen that particular way.
The bottom line is that Judas was not destined for destruction. No one is destined for destruction. Because God is all-good, and an all-good God doesn’t destine people for destruction.
(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.
Secondly this phrase “doomed to destruction.”
(John 17:12b) None has been lost except the one doomed to destruction...
The Greek phrase literally means, “son of destruction.” The Semitic concept of “son of” simply means “suited for” or “fitted for” or “expresses the nature of.” The name Barnabas means “son of encouragement.” It just means he has an encouraging nature. There’s nothing destined about it. So what Jesus is saying is, I haven’t lost any of them except the one who has made himself fit for destruction. His nature is now suited for destruction. But it doesn’t mean that it was that way from the foundation of the world or from the start of Jesus’ ministry. It means at the time that Jesus is saying this, Judas has this nature.
But there’s nothing destined about it. It’s a mistranslation when a version states it, “Judas was destined for destruction.” No, he had the nature of destruction. And that’s all the phrase simply means.
(John 13:18) “I am not referring to all of you; I know those I have chosen. But this is to fulfill this passage of Scripture: ‘He who shared my bread has turned against me.’
We tend to read into this phrase something that I don’t think that phrase entails. We tend to read that phrase as though it was predicting something that had to be fulfilled. We come at it from a similar perspective as that of a horoscope or a Zodiac or a Nostradamus or an Edgar Casey. So we think that when it says “this happened to fulfill something else” we assume it always means that something was prophesied and it had to happen. I’m going to suggest to you that that is not always the case.
The passage that Jesus refers to here goes back to Psalm 41, which reads:
Psalm 41:9 Even my close friend,
someone I trusted,
one who shared my bread,
has turned against me.
This is David speaking. Notice that this verse doesn’t say anything about the future, let alone something that has to happen in the future. David is just complaining that a friend betrayed him. There’s nothing predictive about it. But if there was something predictive about that phrase, wouldn’t you think there’d be something predictive about the phrase before it? It’s always good to consider a verse in context. So let’s look at the verses that come immediately before this one.
Psalm 41:4 I said, “Have mercy on me, Lord;
heal me, for I have sinned against you.”
Is that verse predicting something that Jesus would need to pray in the future? I don’t think so, because Christians confess Jesus was without sin.
Psalm 41:7-9 All my enemies whisper together against me;
they imagine the worst for me, saying,
8 “A vile disease has afflicted him; [Apparently David is writing this during a time when he’s very sick.]
he will never get up from the place where he lies.” [and now]
9 Even my close friend,
someone I trusted,
one who shared my bread,
has turned against me.
Well, if that last phrase is specifying something that has to happen when Jesus comes onto the scene, don’t the other phrases have to as well? So we have to ask, Did Jesus ever have to pray for forgiveness? No, because he never sinned. Was Jesus ever stricken by a vile disease? Not that we know of. It’s not the gospels. Do his enemies ever say about him that he’ll never recover from this disease? Not that we’re told in the gospels. Did he ever have people suspecting that God was judging him because of the disease he was going through? We don’t find any of this. So if those verses don’t specify something that has to happen in the future, why assume that this last verse about him being betrayed is something that had to happen?
I’ll give you another example of this. In John 19, Jesus is on the cross and John says this:
(John 19:28-29) Later, knowing that everything had now been finished, and so that Scripture would be fulfilled, Jesus said, “I am thirsty.” 29 A jar of wine vinegar was there, so they soaked a sponge in it, put the sponge on a stalk of the hyssop plant, and lifted it to Jesus’ lips.
“So that Scripture would be fulfilled.” You might get the impression that this guard had to give Jesus vinegar when he was thirsty to fulfill this verse that was written 1,000 years ago. So it must have been destined for this guard to give Jesus vinegar. But let’s look at the verse that was fulfilled. And here David, or whoever wrote this psalm, says:
Psalm 69:21 They put poison in my food
and gave me vinegar for my thirst.
Again, this is the Psalmist complaining. But notice, he’s not predicting anything about the future. He’s just stating what’s been happening to himself. And ask this: If the last half of this sentence is a prophecy that had to be fulfilled, how could the first half of this sentence not be a prophecy that had to be fulfilled? But we never hear about Jesus being given poison for food. Something else is going on here.
The problem is we come to this text with a sort of occult understanding for something to fulfill Scripture. A Nostradamus, divination sort of understanding. There are genuine predictions in the Bible that are fulfilled. Absolutely. But usually when the Bible talks about something fulfilling Scripture that’s not what it means.
For most Hebrews, to say that an event “fulfills Scripture” it means that event “fills out the full meaning of Scripture.” It “fills to the full.” It “fulfills” Scripture. So when the gospel authors note that Jesus was given vinegar and that it fulfills the Scripture about David being given vinegar to quench his thirst, they don’t mean that what happened to David had to happen to Jesus as well. They simply mean that when Jesus was given vinegar for his thirst, Jesus is bringing new, transcendent meaning to what happened to David. He was illustrating the kind of mistreatment that God’s servants always go through. But it’s not that that had to happen.
If Jesus had never been given vinegar for his thirst, we wouldn’t be sitting around going, “Man, there’s a prophecy in the Bible about being given vinegar that didn’t get fulfilled.” And the proof of that is that none of us are sitting around going, “Man, there’s a prophecy in the Bible about being given poison that didn’t get fulfilled.” Because no one gave Jesus poison for food.
So when Judas betrays Jesus to fulfill Scripture, it’s not saying that David’s betrayal required that Jesus had to be betrayed. It’s simply saying, “Now that Jesus is betrayed, we can make a parallel here. Jesus fills out the full meaning of what happened to David.” God’s servants have often been betrayed by close friends. He fills out the full meaning of it. But it wasn’t that it was predicted.
What happens is that the gospel authors, as they reflect on the events of Jesus’ life, they go back and they read the Hebrew Bible and they find these parallels. And so they’re looking at how Jesus fills out the full meaning of the Old Testament. But they’re not saying that because these things happened to David or whomever, they had to happen to Jesus. Now that they’ve happened they retroactively look back and say, “Ah! Jesus fills out the full meaning.” But it’s not that that had to happen.
And that’s how it is for most of the “prophecies” that are fulfilled in the gospels. When it says they cast lots for his garments. Or the guard who put the spear in his side. Or his fleeing into Egypt and coming out of Egypt. If you go back and read the verses that supposedly required this to happen, you’ll see that they don’t predict anything. But now that it happens with Jesus, the gospel authors look back and they see the parallel, and that Jesus fills out the full meaning of these verses. So no one had to betray Jesus. But given that Jesus was betrayed, there’s a parallel here, and Jesus fulfills the Scripture.
Now you may be wondering, “If Judas betrayed Jesus, then how would Jesus have been crucified, because we know that was decreed.” There are a thousand, maybe a million ways Jesus could have gotten crucified. This is the way it in fact went down, so we find parallels to the Old Testament. But if had gone down some other way…maybe he would’ve been poisoned…Now, we’d be looking at the first half of that verse and saying, Jesus fulfilled that verse. But it didn’t have to happen that particular way.
The bottom line is that Judas was not destined for destruction. No one is destined for destruction. Because God is all-good, and an all-good God doesn’t destine people for destruction.
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?
Offline
Not necessarily. There is a whole stream of Christian thought called "Open Theism" or the "Open View." You can learn about it here.
Offline
On some level he was a good guy, or at least had the capacity for good. He was one of the twelve and was called by Jesus to ministry. That said, he had some serious character flaws, like wanting to take control of others' wealth for his own benefit using the pretext of giving it to the poor. He's not a hero. He's a traitor of his own volition who gave into despair.
What you're touching on is the paradoxical nature of the Passion of Christ. It's the reason the commemoration of his death is called Good Friday and not Bad Friday. The most tragic moment in all of human history is also that which brings about the most good. We can say this about any pain and suffering, really. Of course you would pray and desire not to experience it. But even pain and death are redemptive in God's grace.
Oddly enough, Steven Colbert expresses this sentiment pretty well talking about his own experiences in life.
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?
Last edited:
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.