Betrayal: Should we hate Judas Iscariot?

[gunslingingbird]

At the Last Supper, Jesus knew that it would be the last, and that he would be dead by the next day. Each of the Evangelists tells the story differently, but, according to John, Jesus spent the time he had left re-stating to the disciples the lessons he had taught them and trying to prop up their courage. At a certain point, however, he lost heart. “Very truly,” he said to his men, “one of you will betray me.” Who? they asked. And he answered, “It is the one to whom I give this piece of bread when I have dipped it in the dish.” He then dipped a piece of bread into a dish and handed it to Judas Iscariot, a disciple whom the Gospels barely mention before the scene of the Last Supper but who now becomes very important. Once Judas takes the bread, Satan “entered into” him, John says. Is that a metaphor, meaning that Jesus’ prediction enables Judas to betray him? Maybe so, maybe not, but Jesus soon urges him directly. “Do quickly what you are going to do,” he says. And so Judas gets up from the table and leaves. That night (or perhaps even before the Last Supper), he meets with the priests of the Temple, makes the arrangements for the arrest, and collects his reward, the famous thirty pieces of silver.

That is the beginning of Jesus’ end, and of Judas’s. Jesus is arrested within hours. Judas, stricken with remorse, returns to the priests and tries to give them back their money. They haughtily refuse it. Judas throws the coins on the floor. He then goes out and hangs himself. He dies before Jesus does.

Did Judas deserve this fate? If Jesus informs you that you will betray him, and tells you to hurry up and do it, are you really responsible for your act? Furthermore, if your act sets in motion the process—Christ’s Passion—whereby humankind is saved, shouldn’t somebody thank you? No, the Church says. If you betray your friend, you are a sinner, no matter how foreordained or collaterally beneficial your sin. And, if the friend should happen to be the Son of God, so much the worse for you.

I know that many of you won't take this very seriously, but this is an article that I thought contained some interesting points, so I thought I'd share it. It discusses a topic that the Catholic church is definitely not very comfortable with.

I had read elsewhere that Judas was actually the head apostle, and that the others envied him because he was Jesus' closest confidant. His betrayal had actually been an order from Jesus Himself because it was the only way through which Jesus could complete His mission, but he was asked not to divulge his orders to the other apostles. After the betrayal, the Passion, and the crucifixion, the others saw only the outcome of Judas' orders and condemned him for his actions. What Christian doctrine has always preached is that Judas betrayed Jesus for 30 pieces of silver. It never mentions that the betrayal was actually an order that came from Jesus himself.

The codex that the article talks about gives a very different twist to the story and directly contradicts Christian doctrine.

Anyway, the article's a bit long, so, if you have some time, give it a read. It's actually quite interesting.

Also, THIS IS NOT A RELIGIOUS ARTICLE, but rather a discussion of how orthodox Christian views have impacted history and how this finding could be the evidence that proves that Christianity hasn't necessarily been right all this time.

Article

 

[Ainttalkinlove]

Even when I was a little kid I thought Jesus told him to do it. It kinda suprises me that alot of people dont think that way the bible has been edited and censored to the point of flat out butchery. It is not acurate at all and the church tries to paint judas as evil when it reality he may have had his own cross to bare, He was in his own way a martyre and Jesus thought he could handle the burden. the cross he bore was to heavy a weight fo his shoulders. The allmighty church needs adhere to its own teachings of forgiveness and forgive Judas.

 

[D-rock]

It seems like you would have to stretch things pretty far to come to the conclusion that did. Sometimes the simplest most obvious answers are the correct one instead of one coming to some roundabout revisionist reasoning all of a sudden. Not that there is anything wrong with challenging something, but at when it happens the burden of proof is by far on the people that want to reinterpret things like that.

 

[Johan]

How could we hate someone I never met, someone who's dead 2000 years ago.

Judas betrayed Jesus he got his money and then, realising what he has done, he hang himself.
Peter denied being a friend of Jesus and never asked for forgiveness. If Jesus didn't have asked him "Do you love me ?" Peter who have spent the rest of his life with this. He doesn't even seem to feel remorse towards his denial.

 

[mastagambit]

It was destiny.
It was 'suppose' to happen that he got betrayed and died.
Judas only fulfilled the prophecy.
Question is,if he helped in fulfilling the prophecy and allowing Jesus to die and be resurrected,where is Judas now?
In heaven or hell?:dunno:
He killed himself,and in Catholic faith once you kill yourself your soul is damned.

 

[Dman25]

Scorcese's The Last Temptation of Christ also portrayed Judas in a positive light. It's controversial subject matter upset many critics but i thought it was a powerful movie.

 

[gunslingingbird]

It seems like you would have to stretch things pretty far to come to the conclusion that did. Sometimes the simplest most obvious answers are the correct one instead of one coming to some roundabout revisionist reasoning all of a sudden. Not that there is anything wrong with challenging something, but at when it happens the burden of proof is by far on the people that want to reinterpret things like that.

Would it really? What if the only reason that it has to be reinterpreted is because an authoritative entity, in this case the Catholic church, hid the truth from the beginning to accommodate its own agenda? This codex could be the credible eyewitness that the judge dismissed as evidence because it would exonerate the defendant and make the prosecution look bad. This would definitely be some bad PR for the Catholic church if they admitted to what it says.

It was destiny.
It was 'suppose' to happen that he got betrayed and died.
Judas only fulfilled the prophecy.
Question is,if he helped in fulfilling the prophecy and allowing Jesus to die and be resurrected,where is Judas now?
In heaven or hell?:dunno:
He killed himself,and in Catholic faith once you kill yourself your soul is damned.

Right, but if what the document says is true he's getting into Heaven regardless of what he did because 1. he had already been chosen, and 2. he had obeyed an order from Jesus. If the Catholic church admits this document then that caveat that you just mentioned could very well be void.

 

[skechers]

Lamb by Cristopher Moore. All I really wanted to add to the discussion. Not important. But a greatly entertaining read, for anyone interested

 

[habo9]

Fuck Judas!!! I would have killed Jesus for nothing :nanner:

 

[Hot Mega]

It was destiny.
It was 'suppose' to happen that he got betrayed and died.
Judas only fulfilled the prophecy.
Question is,if he helped in fulfilling the prophecy and allowing Jesus to die and be resurrected,where is Judas now?
In heaven or hell?:dunno:
He killed himself,and in Catholic faith once you kill yourself your soul is damned.

Exactly my thoughts. If he effected the fulfillment of prophecy then his act was neither good nor bad it was part of something that needed to happen.

 

[mrtrebus]

We should worship Judas not Jesus!
























JUDAS PRIEST THAT IS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
:banger::banger::banger:

 

[BlueBalls]

"He's not the Messiah, he's a very naughty boy!"

 

[amoni094]

Ive heard theories on this. Some people say that Judas is the real hero as he knew he was going to suffer for all eternity from his actions, and that is a greater sacrifice than dieing on a cross. But there is a problem with this: why would he hang himself afterwards if Jesus told him to do it? Doesn't seem like the actions of a hero to me.

 

[gunslingingbird]

Ive heard theories on this. Some people say that Judas is the real hero as he knew he was going to suffer for all eternity from his actions, and that is a greater sacrifice than dieing on a cross. But there is a problem with this: why would he hang himself afterwards if Jesus told him to do it? Doesn't seem like the actions of a hero to me.

If your best friend told you that in order to save mankind you had to start a chain of events that would ultimately result in his death you would probably feel pretty guilty too. Even if it was his will that you cause his death, that thought would linger in your conscience. Would you be able to live with that knowledge?

 

[Ceska]

Would it really? What if the only reason that it has to be reinterpreted is because an authoritative entity, in this case the Catholic church, hid the truth from the beginning to accommodate its own agenda? This codex could be the credible eyewitness that the judge dismissed as evidence because it would exonerate the defendant and make the prosecution look bad. This would definitely be some bad PR for the Catholic church if they admitted to what it says.

The same skepticism could be applied in reverse, perhaps with even greater validity.
One could just as easily say, why take a document (Codex Tchacos) authored 60-100 years after the Gospel of Mark as "credible evidence" over the Synoptic Gospels?

Couldn't it also have been "reinterpreted" to "accommodate an agenda"?

Right, but if what the document says is true he's getting into Heaven regardless of what he did because 1. he had already been chosen, and 2. he had obeyed an order from Jesus. If the Catholic church admits this document then that caveat that you just mentioned could very well be void.

According to the original article you posted (2nd page) it states that in the Codex Tchacos (Gospel of Judas), Judas is not saved: "Jesus now says to Judas, “You will not ascend on high” to join those in Heaven."

... this finding could be the evidence that proves that Christianity hasn't necessarily been right all this time.
[/URL]

:2 cents:
Why would this finding (Codex Tchacos) finally be "the evidence" to do that?
Yes, it contradicts standard Christian doctrine in many ways, but even the Gospels themselves are not completely consistent with each other.

If fundamentalists are not bothered by other contradictions, why would they be overly concerned about a later document (est. 130-170) that is also fragmentary, anonymous and not self-consistent.

Many writers (both ancient and modern) have written (or modified / expanded previous writings) and made interpretations based on their own perspectives, prejudices and desired outcomes.

For any of them, what counts as "proof" or evidence"?
In the end, does "proof" and "evidence" really matter to most people in matters of belief, faith and doctrine?

The current trend by some to paint Judas Iscariot as an innocent hero is perhaps guided by a similar revisionist mindset that may have persuaded some authors in the past to cast him as increasingly villainous.

Mark's account, for instance, is one of the earliest. It is one with the least embellishment as well as one of the most neutral in tone. This is probably not a coincidence.
Yet, (of course) it too is not nearly enough to clarify the whole history, particularly with respect to Jesus' intentions vis-à-vis Judas.
Even a certified first-hand account would not give us that with complete certainty.

Interesting article. Thanks.

 

[Will E Worm]

John 6:70-71 (KJV)
70: Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil?
71: He spake of Judas Iscariot the son of Simon: for he it was that should betray him, being one of the twelve.

John 6:64-65 (KJV)
64: But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.
65: And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.

John 13:2 (KJV)
2: And supper being ended, the devil having now put into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon's son, to betray him;


Judas


He was always an unbelieving devil. :hatsoff:

 

[Namreg]

I know that many of you won't take this very seriously, but this is an article that I thought contained some interesting points, so I thought I'd share it. It discusses a topic that the Catholic church is definitely not very comfortable with.

I had read elsewhere that Judas was actually the head apostle, and that the others envied him because he was Jesus' closest confidant. His betrayal had actually been an order from Jesus Himself because it was the only way through which Jesus could complete His mission, but he was asked not to divulge his orders to the other apostles. After the betrayal, the Passion, and the crucifixion, the others saw only the outcome of Judas' orders and condemned him for his actions. What Christian doctrine has always preached is that Judas betrayed Jesus for 30 pieces of silver. It never mentions that the betrayal was actually an order that came from Jesus himself.

The codex that the article talks about gives a very different twist to the story and directly contradicts Christian doctrine.

Anyway, the article's a bit long, so, if you have some time, give it a read. It's actually quite interesting.

Also, THIS IS NOT A RELIGIOUS ARTICLE, but rather a discussion of how orthodox Christian views have impacted history and how this finding could be the evidence that proves that Christianity hasn't necessarily been right all this time.

Article

no religion, just a story... :

- since god intends for everything to happen just the way it does, he foresaw the betrayal and chose not to stop it. more than that, he created the universe and all creatures in it, and chose to make judas this way. thus god effectively caused the betrayal - betraying his own son, who was also himself at the same time - and judas is free of blame.

- if god created the universe and mankind in a way that forbids free thought and free action (only things he intends to happen do happen), then how can man have original sin? he must have foreseen adam eating the evil apple the talking snake gave him.

- if adam is therefore not responsible for eating the apple, then mankind should not be burdened with original sin.

- if mankind has no original sin, then why sacrifice jesus at all?

 

[Miner69r]

The Catholic church is a joke, God doesn't exist and Jesus is no one.
My true beliefs.

 

[Namreg]

oh, and did judas go to hell? for doing what he was supposed to do? should he not have been rewarded instead?

now, all kidding aside: the roman-jewish industrial complex killed jesus to protect their influence and power in the region when jesus started telling people to share with their neighbours. i was quite young at the time but i remember it like it was yesterday.

 

[Will E Worm]

if adam is therefore not responsible for eating the apple, then mankind should not be burdened with original sin.

It was Eve not Adam. It's Eve's fault, Adam's sin was he listened to Eve and not God.

1 Timothy 2:14 (KJV)
14:And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.