Should Judas Iscariot Be Beautified??

[Spetsnaz]

If Christ's torture and death were essential to the "divine plan" to save humankind from sin, then Judas (and all those murdered Christ) should be honored and esteemed, no? :confused: Just trying to understand the "divine logic" which appears to be a dialectical riddle.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Sure,why not? There are some religious texts which were left out of the Bible which actually portray Judas in a very positive light and contradict everything that the original story says.

[La Comédie Noire]

Borges wrote a pretty interesting story on just this topic, the title escapes me at the moment.

[Apoi_Viitor]

Just trying to understand the "divine logic" which appears to be a dialectical riddle.

- God is all loving and forgiving.
- If you don't believe in him you will rot in hell for all of eternity.

:confused:

[tfb]

Borges wrote a pretty interesting story on just this topic, the title escapes me at the moment.

http://southerncrossreview.org/49/borges-judas-eng.htm


Also: The word you're looking for is "beatified", but this way is much funnier.

[Zostrianos]

Beautified also works. Judas has a pretty ugly reputation :laugh:

[Astarte]

If Christ's torture and death were essential to the "divine plan" to save humankind from sin, then Judas (and all those murdered Christ) should be honored and esteemed, no? :confused: Just trying to understand the "divine logic" which appears to be a dialectical riddle.

This is an interesting theological point. This is actually a fairly frequently encountered theological angle in Christianity - the wounded redeemer - thereby in creating the wound, the blood is released and used to heal - like the imagery of the Pelican, making itself bleed to feed its young ... The "wounding" of Jesus indeed represents the kenosis of his "spiritual substance" in terms of the concept of salvation.

The below is quoted from Mysterium Coniunctionis by Jung:

"from a Libellus Desideriorum Joannis Amati: "I have learnt an art, and have become an archer, good intentions is my bow and the ceaseless desires of my soul are the arrows. The bow is spanned continually by the hand of God's gracious grant that I may learn to shoot better, and one day hit the Lord Jesus."

In the "Gospel of Judas", Judas was essentially picked by Jesus to betray him as he was fulfilling the "plan".

[Le Socialiste]

- God is all loving and forgiving.
- If you don't believe in him you will rot in hell for all of eternity.

:confused:

Hell, most Christians don't even believe that!

I was brought up for a short time in a church that argued there was no such thing as a "Hell" or "eternal damnation". It was about as open and accepting as a church congregation can be. The same can't be said for the vast majority of Christians, however.

[Tablo]

Hell, most Christians don't even believe that!

I was brought up for a short time in a church that argued there was no such thing as a "Hell" or "eternal damnation". It was about as open and accepting as a church congregation can be. The same can't be said for the vast majority of Christians, however.
What church/denomination was that? That sounds like what my beliefs were the last couple years of my time as a christian.

[Le Socialiste]

What church/denomination was that? That sounds like what my beliefs were the last couple years of my time as a christian.

The denomination was Disciples of Christ, but I grew up in its northern California region which was the most liberal/progressive of all the others. It's one of the few Christian regions/groups that are genuinely progressive in its views and social outlook. That said, though, it's mostly in the Democratic camp. Aside from its views on homosexuality, racism, sexism and the like (the region is firmly committed to being open and accepting of all peoples, cultures, and outlooks) it doesn't venture far from the basic staples of liberalism. I still have quite a few contacts in the region who are my age - curiously enough, there's a large "movement" going on right now amongst young teens and adults who are arguing that Christ was never divine. It's kind of strange.

[Tablo]

The denomination was Disciples of Christ, but I grew up in its northern California region which was the most liberal/progressive of all the others. It's one of the few Christian regions/groups that are genuinely progressive in its views and social outlook. That said, though, it's mostly in the Democratic camp. Aside from its views on homosexuality, racism, sexism and the like (the region is firmly committed to being open and accepting of all peoples, cultures, and outlooks) it doesn't venture far from the basic staples of liberalism. I still have quite a few contacts in the region who are my age - curiously enough, there's a large "movement" going on right now amongst young teens and adults who are arguing that Christ was never divine. It's kind of strange.
Interesting. Religious views definitely seem to be changing quite radically amongst youth in this country.

[Nehru]

Should Judas Iscariot Be Beautified??

With proper makeup, why not?:laugh:

Seriously, in Christian theology, God uses evil for his own (good) purposes. But that doesn't blur the distinction between good and evil - evil is still regarded as evil, even if it were used by God for a divine plan.

[Thirsty Crow]

Such a thing would never pass in the "mainstream" religious communities, be they Protestant or Catholic, since the whole of their transcendent moral code rests on a clear division between good and evil.

And this would significantly relativize this division. But sure, this seems pretty reasonable to me since the very act of salvation was enabled by the betreyal, thus rendering it (Judas' betrayal) a vital part of the whole "plan".

[Nehru]

Such a thing would never pass in the "mainstream" religious communities, be they Protestant or Catholic, since the whole of their transcendent moral code rests on a clear division between good and evil.

And this would significantly relativize this division. But sure, this seems pretty reasonable to me since the very act of salvation was enabled by the betreyal, thus rendering it (Judas' betrayal) a vital part of the whole "plan".

Not quite. Look at it this way. God has the capacity to 'use' evil as part of his divine plan. Judas is evil, and God uses him to achieve his plan. Conclusion: Judas is still evil, just that God has used him wisely.

[ComradeMan]

Note- the word is "beatified".

Judas is usually "condemned" because unless you accept ideas of pre-destination then it was "pre-destined" someone should betray Jesus, but it was not predestined that it should be Judas. However, the New Testament does not say anything about Judas burning in Hell for eternity etc. While dying on the cross Jesus was supposed to have forgiven them for they "know not what they do". Luke 23:24 indicating the redemption of all, including, we must presume, Judas. Judas himself also repented of what he had done Matthew 27:3-5, however his real sin, from a Biblical point of view, is the sin of suicide. Certainly some gnostic sects viewed Judas in much more of a positive light, as an instrument of divine will.

[Smyg]

I highly approve of Judas, based on the interpretation that the local priest over here in Sweden gave me once. From his view, Judas was a disillusioned revolutionary who had wanted Jesus to rise up and lead a rebellion against the Romans, rather than act non-violently and turn the other cheek.

[00000000000]

Also...why are the Jews so vilified by some christ-fundies?
'The Jews killed Our Lord!!'....Yeah, which is basically what your entire faith is based on...you use the thing he died on as your symbol...frankly, you should be thanking Judas, the Jews AND Pilate for hooking up JC with his dad and giving us Easter.

[Smyg]

^To quote Wikipedia:



Spong's conclusion is that early Bible authors (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authors_of_the_Bible), after the First Jewish-Roman War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Jewish-Roman_War), sought to distance themselves from Rome (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Rome)'s enemies. They augmented the Gospels (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospels) with a story of a disciple, personified in Judas as the Jewish state, who either betrayed or handed-over Jesus to his Roman crucifiers. Spong identifies this augmentation with the origin of modern Anti-Semitism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Semitism).

[hatzel]

...and also remember that many Jews thought that bar Kokhba may have been the Messiah, which obviously didn't sit all that well with the emergent Christian sects, causing them to distance themselves from other Jewish groups...but in general, I would suggest that it's safe to say that the bar Kokhba rebellion (and the retaliatory massacres afterwards) was instrumental in the Jewish-Christian split.

[ComradeMan]

...and also remember that many Jews thought that bar Kokhba may have been the Messiah, which obviously didn't sit all that well with the emergent Christian sects, causing them to distance themselves from other Jewish groups...but in general, I would suggest that it's safe to say that the bar Kokhba rebellion (and the retaliatory massacres afterwards) was instrumental in the Jewish-Christian split.

That's how I was always led to understand it too. The rejection of Simon Bar Kockhba as "messiah" by the Jewish-Christians and the subsequent divides led to acrimony and the final split.

However, I'd like to add- the Jewish Jesus is something that people seem to forget- be they Christian or Jew! If you read through the New Testament carefully you'll note some "funny" things, like how Jesus went to dinner with Pharisees, how some of the Pharisees even tried to warn him of what was going to happen, how his followers were all Jews, how the people who spoke to were all Jews and how the people who had him crucified were Romans or pro-Roman.... yet it was the Jews' fault..... :confused::crying:

Rabbi Shmuley has some interesting things to say on the New Testament interpretations in view of the "Jews"

Km9Up16oa7A

[Revolution starts with U]

Im loving to hear this guy talk :lol:
I want more!

[RedGrunt]

Gnostic Gospel of Judas Iscariot presents a different view of Judas, however it's also just based off different philosophy and premises than what became of the New Testament.

[Astarte]

That's how I was always led to understand it too. The rejection of Simon Bar Kockhba as "messiah" by the Jewish-Christians and the subsequent divides led to acrimony and the final split.

However, I'd like to add- the Jewish Jesus is something that people seem to forget- be they Christian or Jew! If you read through the New Testament carefully you'll note some "funny" things, like how Jesus went to dinner with Pharisees, how some of the Pharisees even tried to warn him of what was going to happen, how his followers were all Jews, how the people who spoke to were all Jews and how the people who had him crucified were Romans or pro-Roman.... yet it was the Jews' fault..... :confused::crying:

Rabbi Shmuley has some interesting things to say on the New Testament interpretations in view of the "Jews"

Km9Up16oa7A

The reason why Jews mistakenly get blamed for "Jesus's death", revolves around the below:


Barabbas or Jesus Barabbas (son of the father and Jesus, son of the father respectively) is a figure in the Christian narrative of the Passion of Jesus, in which he is the insurrectionary whom Pontius Pilate freed at the Passover feast in Jerusalem.
The penalty for Barabbas' crime was death by crucifixion, but according to the four canonical gospels and the non-canonical Gospel of Peter there was a prevailing Passover custom in Jerusalem that allowed or required Pilate, the praefectus or governor of Judaea, to commute one prisoner's death sentence by popular acclaim, and the "crowd" (ochlos) — which has become "the Jews" and "the multitude" in some translations — were offered a choice of whether to have Barabbas or Jesus Christ released from Roman custody. According to the closely parallel gospels of Matthew,[1] Mark,[2] and Luke,[3] and the more divergent accounts in John[4] and the Gospel of Peter, the crowd chose Barabbas to be released and Jesus of Nazareth to be crucified. A passage found only in the Gospel of Matthew has the crowd saying, "Let his blood be upon us and upon our children".[5]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barabbas

Its stupid logic though, since by that thinking, Jesus himself could be "blamed" for his death - since he even said in Matthew 26:53 in reference to escaping execution by the Roman State:


Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels?

[Smyg]

Twelve legions of angels? Very specific.

[Astarte]

Twelve legions of angels? Very specific.

Twelve plays a big role in Abrahamism - i.e. the 12 Tribes of Israel.

[Manic Impressive]

Not quite. Look at it this way. God has the capacity to 'use' evil as part of his divine plan. Judas is evil, and God uses him to achieve his plan. Conclusion: Judas is still evil, just that God has used him wisely.
tYdJqSG3K6c

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

The story surrounding the death of Jesus, assuming his historicity for the purposes of this argument, has always struck me as nonsensical.

God supposedly creates us with the ability to sin, and then forgives us for it later in the form of Jesus. But why create organisms capable of sinning in the first place?

[Zostrianos]

In the Bible, God uses many individuals as tools to accomplish his will, but they remain villains nonetheless. I think this is the case with Judas in the canonical scriptures. The parallell I was thinking of is the pharaoh in Exodus, whose heart God hardens so that he'll keep the Hebrews enslaved, so that later God may demonstrate his power by drowning the Egyptians.


Also...why are the Jews so vilified by some christ-fundies?
'The Jews killed Our Lord!!'....Yeah, which is basically what your entire faith is based on...you use the thing he died on as your symbol...frankly, you should be thanking Judas, the Jews AND Pilate for hooking up JC with his dad and giving us Easter.

Christian anti-semitism was often based on the disgusting premise that all Jews were responsible for Christ's death, kind of like a collective punishment.
There was a scholar once, I don't recall who, who said that the New Testament story of the Jews clamoring for Christ's execution before Pilate was either distorted, or never took place. His basis is that apparently Pilate was very autocratic and prone to violence, and if a crowd of Jews gathered in front of his residence he would have probably sent his guards to slaughter them, lest they cause a revolt against Rome.

The fact is that crucifixion in the Roman empire was only reserved for treason and crimes against the Roman state. Jesus was killed because the Romans thought he might inspire zealots into a revolt. The Jewish priest Caiaphas who arrested him, was acting not out of rivalry toward Jesus as most Christians claim, but out of fear that if Jesus started a rebellion he would be the first to pay the consequences. Caiaphas was entrusted with maintaining good relations with Rome and would be held responsible if anything went awry.

[ComradeMan]

The reason why Jews mistakenly get blamed for "Jesus's death", revolves around the below:

I think it's more than that and I mostly agree with Rabbi Shmuley in terms of the (later) interpretations. There is also a lot of controversy over who is being referred to as a "Jew"- it's all lost in translation. Jesus was supposed to be of the tribe of Judah so this is a problem if the term refers to the "Yehudim" or the Judaeans. Or is it referring to those of the Davidic line strictly? Or is it referring to the Sanhedrin and the Sadducees- this is problematic because they were of the tribe of Manasseh. Or has the whole thing been interpolated (badly) to exhonerate the Romans and place the Jews as whole in a bad light?

[freepalestine]

However, I'd like to add- the "Jewish" Jesus is something that people seem to forget- be they Christian or Jew! If you read through the New Testament carefully you'll note some "funny" things, like how Jesus went to dinner with Pharisees, how some of the Pharisees even tried to warn him of what was going to happen, how his followers were all Jews, how the people who spoke to were all Jews and how the people who had him crucified were Romans or pro-Roman.... yet it was the Jews' fault..... :con

yes they belonged to the jewish religion,the irony is that they were ancestry of modern day palestinians of whatever religion.;




religious bigotry is worse than national bigotry





I think it's more than that and I mostly agree with Rabbi Shmuley in terms of the (later) interpretations. There is also a lot of controversy over who is being referred to as a "Jew"- it's all lost in translation. Jesus was supposed to be of the tribe of Judah so this is a problem if the term refers to the "Yehudim" or the Judaeans. Or is it referring to those of the Davidic line strictly?[bs] Or is it referring to the Sanhedrin and the Sadducees- this is problematic because they were of the tribe of Manasseh.[bs]

Or has the whole thing been interpolated (badly) to exhonerate the Romans and place the Jews as whole in a bad light?

[Prairie Fire]

I seemed to have stumbled into a seminary of theological discussion...

To the OP, you believe that Judas Iscariot was a historical persyn that actually existed?

[Astarte]

I seemed to have stumbled into a seminary of theological discussion...

To the OP, you believe that Judas Iscariot was a historical persyn that actually existed?

You did notice this is the "Religion" forum, right?

[Prairie Fire]

I did not ( I was almost certain that this was "learning") :lol:. Oh, dear...

My question stands though: If you're talking about Judas Iscariot (or any biblical figure,), are you speaking of him as an actual historical persyn that existed?

[Revolution starts with U]

We're taking the assumption of his historicity at face value merely for the sake of argument