Judas: Loyal Disciple, Betrayer Of Jesus, or Myth?

[Dachs]

Hey hang on you guys, I'll just ask my dad.

Wait...

Ah, got it. Apparently it was all a big misunderstanding. Also your source is 100% literal and in no way an amalgamation of a dozen different texts written by different individuals with varying political opinions of pre- and post-Roman Israel.

If you've got any more questions please direct queries to 1st Circle Holdings Pty Ltd.

Pro username reference for this thread is pro.

 

[Nick Carpathia]

Seriously my idiot cousin was mostly to blame. My dad was happy to give him a job, but noooo, he preferred to hang out with street scumbags and agitate the proles. I have no idea how he got so much support in a society with massive socio-economic disparities and deeply entrenched corruption and brutal militarism by starting grassroots social networks amongst poor people. What could have possibly said?

 

[Ataxerxes]

Corinthians isn't even authentic. Anyways, don't care. There are plenty of books out there for you to read on this which you obviously have not.

Plotinus is right. 1 Corinthians is an authentic letter according to scholars who study this. Some scholars are Christian, some aren't. Besides, what does the "authenticness" have to do with the discussion? If Paul didn't write some of the epistles, someone else did at roughtly the same time. I think there's enough evidence out there from the gospels, epistles, Josephus and others that there was a historical Jesus. Believing in his divinity or not isn't a historical question, but a matter of faith. If you disbelieve in his divinity, that's fine and a valid opinion. But just to say you don't believe he existed doesn't show you've considered or researched the subject much.

There is some differences between the gospels, but that's common with sources of any historical figures. Trying to get precise agreement on something that happened 10 years ago is hard enough.

 

[GhostWriter16]

This is very simple, Jesus knew Judas would betray him, but he still chose him as a disciple since Christ needed to be betrayed. He also chose 11 men he knew would not betray him, and he could have chosen a different group, of 12 men that would not betray him, if his plan was not ultimately to be betrayed. HOWEVER, Judas was not in any way forced to betray Christ, Christ just knew he would, so he chose him as one of the 12. If Judas did not desire in his heart to betray Christ, Christ would have chosen a 12th disciple who would. But Christ didn't make Judas betray him at all. Judas chose it. Now, Christ chose to pick him as a disciple (Which made it possible for him to do it) but he still chose it and so is responsible for his choice.

As for Hell, he wouldn't have gone to Hell for that, but for being a sinner in the first place. And he could still have repented after doing it and come to Salvation (IIRC there is a Scripture passage saying this never actually happened, but I don't remember for sure. In any case, if there is it was written after Judas was dead. There was clearly still hope for him for as long as he lived that he could repent.)

 

[Aegis]

This is very simple, Jesus knew Judas would betray him, but he still chose him as a disciple since Christ needed to be betrayed.

He didn't need anyone to betray him. Why would he? He could have just turned himself in. The selfless act of offering oneself up as a sacrifice should have been right up his alley, but he didn't do that. Jesus did not want to be apprehended. He specifically hid from Roman troops looking for him. If he was really intent on becoming a martyr to die for our sins, he would have simply turned himself in to the authorities.

It is situations like this that cause me to believe that a lot of the bible was romanticized in order to draw in more believers. They turned the terrible, sympathetic events of "Omg, Jesus was betrayed! The Romans murdered Jesus! How could God Incarnate be killed??" into: Ohhhh, He meant to sacrifice himself. He let himself be betrayed and captured etc etc... "

Spin Doctoring, FTW.

 

[GhostWriter16]

I don't think so. Christ, according to the Scripture, wanted to be captured at a certain time. According to the Scriptural account, when Christ said "I Am who I am", the Roman soldiers fell to the ground. His speech alone sent them down on their faces! Now, you probably think the Scriptural account is incorrect, in which case you are entitled to that opinion. But according to the Bible he clearly gave himself up.

 

[Ataxerxes]

This is very simple, Jesus knew Judas would betray him, but he still chose him as a disciple since Christ needed to be betrayed. He also chose 11 men he knew would not betray him, and he could have chosen a different group, of 12 men that would not betray him, if his plan was not ultimately to be betrayed. HOWEVER, Judas was not in any way forced to betray Christ, Christ just knew he would, so he chose him as one of the 12. If Judas did not desire in his heart to betray Christ, Christ would have chosen a 12th disciple who would. But Christ didn't make Judas betray him at all. Judas chose it. Now, Christ chose to pick him as a disciple (Which made it possible for him to do it) but he still chose it and so is responsible for his choice.

As for Hell, he wouldn't have gone to Hell for that, but for being a sinner in the first place. And he could still have repented after doing it and come to Salvation (IIRC there is a Scripture passage saying this never actually happened, but I don't remember for sure. In any case, if there is it was written after Judas was dead. There was clearly still hope for him for as long as he lived that he could repent.)

Didn't Jesus also say that the 12 disciples would be the judges of the 12 tribes of Israel? How are 11 disciples going to judge 12 tribes if Judas is condemned? Whether this is all part of Christ's plan or not is a theological question that can't be answered historically.

I agree that we can't say whether or not Judas went to Hell. Repentance is allowed and there is reference in the Bible that he did so. Besides, we aren't the ones to be judging Judas.

In Mark, which most scholars believe is the earliest gospel, Jesus asked that the cup be taken from him but submitted to God's will. Sorry, I'm a Christian but a bit of a heretic.

@Aegis - let's not go too far the other way. I don't know where you get the reference that Jesus was hiding. He certainly hadn't been trying not to be noticed with his sermons. Which he knew were dangerous because of the power the Sadduces had.

 

[BuckyRea]

Parts of this debate remind me of that revisionist storybook about the Three Little Pigs as told by the Big Bad Wolf.

 

[Plotinus]

He didn't need anyone to betray him. Why would he? He could have just turned himself in. The selfless act of offering oneself up as a sacrifice should have been right up his alley, but he didn't do that. Jesus did not want to be apprehended. He specifically hid from Roman troops looking for him. If he was really intent on becoming a martyr to die for our sins, he would have simply turned himself in to the authorities.

I must admit I have never really understood this either. From a theological point of view, if Jesus really wanted to be captured, he could have just turned up at the Temple or wherever and given himself up to the guards. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me that a person should enter the city in triumph, make a scene in the Temple overturning tables, cause such a fuss that the High Priest decides he needs to be got rid of, and yet require one of his closest followers to identify him to the guards in order for an arrest to be made.

I assume that from the High Priest's point of view, doing it this was preferable. He could have had his men march through Jerusalem during the day, identify Jesus by asking people, and drag him off, but that would be a pretty incendiary act. Better to do it quietly at night, at which time they might indeed need somebody to lead them to him. From that point of view, the usefulness of Judas is clear. But if you believe that Jesus actually wanted this to happen, then it's not nearly so clear, because he would have been perfectly capable of giving himself up without needing Judas as a middle man. It seems that if you believe all of this was intended by Jesus, you must think that he actively wanted Judas to betray him, not merely wished to use the betrayal as an unfortunate but necessary element of his own Passion.

Didn't Jesus also say that the 12 disciples would be the judges of the 12 tribes of Israel? How are 11 disciples going to judge 12 tribes if Judas is condemned?

To be fair, he didn't say there would be one disciple per tribe. In fact it's not really certain whether there were actually twelve of them. Jesus certainly had lots of disciples (a lot more than twelve). "The Twelve" were the inner core, as it were. And it seems likely that Jesus called them "the Twelve" and that this had obvious symbolic importance. But it doesn't necessarily mean that there were literally twelve of them. The fact that the different Gospels can't agree on what their names were supports this. In which case, it probably wouldn't really matter if one disciple dropped out; "the Twelve" may have had fluctuating membership anyway even in Jesus' day.

He certainly hadn't been trying not to be noticed with his sermons. Which he knew were dangerous because of the power the Sadduces had.

The Sadducees weren't very powerful or indeed numerous. In any case, there was nothing particularly dangerous about Jesus' teachings, judging by the Gospels. He said much the same thing as many Pharisee teachers, and they didn't get physically attacked for it.

That's monophysitism, and also implying that the purpose of the trinity is to deceive.

Monophysitism is a doctrine about christology, not the Trinity (it's the view that Christ had only a single nature).

Side note: I never really understood why the Holy Spirit was considered separate from the Son, considering it's basically Jesus' ghost up in heaven.

No it's not! Jesus is supposed to be resurrected, so he's not a ghost, he's a physical person. The Holy Spirit is a distinct divine person who is sent by the Son but is not identical with him.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Didn't Jesus also say that the 12 disciples would be the judges of the 12 tribes of Israel? How are 11 disciples going to judge 12 tribes if Judas is condemned? Whether this is all part of Christ's plan or not is a theological question that can't be answered historically.

Not sure, but I do know they chose Mattiathas (I don't think I spelled his name correctly, I can't be bothered to look it up ATM) to replace Judas.

I agree we can't tell 100% if Judas went to Hell

Considering he killed himself, I find it unlikely his repentence was genuine or true, but I am not 100% willing to judge. In any case, if he did go to Hell, it was for his Sinful actions in general and failure to repent of them, not merely for betraying Christ.

 

[ParkCungHee]

I must admit I have never really understood this either. From a theological point of view, if Jesus really wanted to be captured, he could have just turned up at the Temple or wherever and given himself up to the guards. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me that a person should enter the city in triumph, make a scene in the Temple overturning tables, cause such a fuss that the High Priest decides he needs to be got rid of, and yet require one of his closest followers to identify him to the guards in order for an arrest to be made.

It might be because that wouldn't be really a sacrifice.
I'm reminded of the (supposed, I'm sure you know the factual basis or lack thereof) Christian who ran into the Roman Senate shouting that he was a Christian, forcing the Roman Senate to condemn him to death. It raised the question about the limits of Martyrdom vs. Suicide.

Monophysitism is a doctrine about christology, not the Trinity (it's the view that Christ had only a single nature).

D'oh.

 

[Plotinus]

It might be because that wouldn't be really a sacrifice.
I'm reminded of the (supposed, I'm sure you know the factual basis or lack thereof) Christian who ran into the Roman Senate shouting that he was a Christian, forcing the Roman Senate to condemn him to death. It raised the question about the limits of Martyrdom vs. Suicide.

Ancient Christians did that sort of thing all the time; there are even accounts of Christian children harassing the civil authorities until the latter finally felt they had no choice but to execute them. And the Circumcelliones would throw themselves off cliffs in mass suicides, which were regarded as martyrdoms.

Of course if Jesus had turned himself in, there would be a question mark over whether his death was really a martyrdom or just a sort of suicide. But that doesn't seem a very good response to me, because:

(1) On the view that Jesus knew what was going on and chose to allow Judas to betray him, he was deliberately choosing to be arrested and killed anyway. So whether he used Judas or marched up to Pilate of his own accord, it was still his choice; if one is a sort of suicide, so is the other.

(2) I don't think most theories of the atonement require Jesus' death to be a martyrdom. There's certainly no suggestion that a sacrifice has to be passive; on the contrary, we have the concept of self-sacrifice.

So, theologically speaking, I don't see much motivation for the idea that Jesus somehow required Judas to betray him.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Ancient Christians did that sort of thing all the time; there are even accounts of Christian children harassing the civil authorities until the latter finally felt they had no choice but to execute them. And the Circumcelliones would throw themselves off cliffs in mass suicides, which were regarded as martyrdoms.

I always wanted to ask you if the things I've heard about the Circumcellions were true. Did they also threaten people with clubs?

So, theologically speaking, I don't see much motivation for the idea that Jesus somehow required Judas to betray him.

I would agree that Judas was not neccesary, but I don't think just going up and handing himself in would work. That also might create the awkward issue of that might reflect well on him in sentencing.

 

[GoodGame]

I think Plotinus said most that can be reasonably said, though Wiki says that Josephus said Judas founded a "4th" Hebrew sect that led to revolt.

 

[Plotinus]

That's a different Judas.

On the problem of evil and the purpose of human nature, please take those sorts of things to OT.

 

[Ataxerxes]

I must admit I have never really understood this either. From a theological point of view, if Jesus really wanted to be captured, he could have just turned up at the Temple or wherever and given himself up to the guards. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me that a person should enter the city in triumph, make a scene in the Temple overturning tables, cause such a fuss that the High Priest decides he needs to be got rid of, and yet require one of his closest followers to identify him to the guards in order for an arrest to be made.

To be fair, he didn't say there would be one disciple per tribe. In fact it's not really certain whether there were actually twelve of them. Jesus certainly had lots of disciples (a lot more than twelve). "The Twelve" were the inner core, as it were. And it seems likely that Jesus called them "the Twelve" and that this had obvious symbolic importance. But it doesn't necessarily mean that there were literally twelve of them. The fact that the different Gospels can't agree on what their names were supports this. In which case, it probably wouldn't really matter if one disciple dropped out; "the Twelve" may have had fluctuating membership anyway even in Jesus' day.

The Sadducees weren't very powerful or indeed numerous. In any case, there was nothing particularly dangerous about Jesus' teachings, judging by the Gospels. He said much the same thing as many Pharisee teachers, and they didn't get physically attacked for it.

He did say his disciples would judge the twelve tribes. I agree that there weren't necessarily 12, especially if we include female followers (such as the two who went to his tomb first). I agree with you, I simply don't see the claim that Judas was especially a saint for doing what he did if it turned out necessary. By that logic, Pontius Pilate would be a saint.

True, the Sadducees weren't numerous - they were in fact a rather small group. They did have the ear of the Romans more than any other group, however. And there were others saying what Jesus said. However, during the week of the passover things were quite tense in Jerusalem. I don't think that saying things interpreted or actually against the temple would have him killed at another time and certainly wouldn't outside of Jerusalem. Also, there was the disturbance Jesus caused in the temple.

 

[Plotinus]

Moderator Action: I have moved the argument about religion to here.