Question for Christians about Judas

[albeto]

Hi albeto,

How are things going? I hope you’ve been well.

Pretty well, thank you.

I finally have some time. Our movie, a spoof on Minority Report, is done. It was a hit. No revenues, though. :-) The editing took all my free time before, so now I actually have some.

Sounds like a satisfying project.  I would be remiss, though, if I didn't take the opportunity to express my wishes that you use your talents towards something that is beneficial to humanity and not detrimental. 

You ask a question that is always interesting.

I know, right?

My first question would be, how do you know that Jesus didn’t try to stop Judas from betraying him?

Same reason you know:  The Holy Mother Church believes herself to  be the keeper of the faith and the repository of God's Grace.  Information like this wouldn't have been lost. 

But let's look at it theologically.  As a Catholic, and a faithful one, I know you and I can speak the same language.  My apologies to those protestants who will read this with their eyebrows furrowed trying to figure out what I'm saying.  I'm happy to translate as needed, but I know SC will know what I'm talking about.

Sacrifice.

The bible, we know, is divided (quite condescendingly) into "old" and "new" testaments and although Martin Luther made it popular to dismiss the Jewish scriptures as oldy moldy stories, good for knowing the power of God, the RCC has always maintained the bible in its entirety is but one sacred source of divine knowledge.  As one source, no one part of it is more or less important than another, even if the stories and information contained therein are more or less well known.  Catholics know that the roots of the sacrifice of the Mass are as deep as the very first stories in scripture - the sacrifices of Cain and Abel.  The big connection is of course the Passover and the sacrifice of the perfect lamb for the sake of the safety of the inhabitants of those homes with the blood of the lamb covering the door and the events of the meal to be executed just so.  Because yhwh traditionally requires a sacrifice and is ever so merciful that he would allow a scapegoat in lieu of the real perpetrator, Catholics know there needs to be a pure victim for immolation and a valid priest to offer the sacrifice.  Because the man/god character of Jesus fulfills both roles, the church can be satisfied offering the lesser requirement of bread and wine reminiscent of our mysterious friend Melchizedek way back in Genesis (holy cow, google chrome spell check recognizes that name). 

Anyway, the sacrifice of the mass can only be accomplished if the man/god character was the perfect sacrificial lamb as well as the perfect priest.  Without a sacrifice ywhw would still require a scapegoat, and because Paul was determined to make his religion no longer dependent upon Jewish rituals, he encouraged a new rituals.  The breaking of the passover bread became the ritual of the "new covenant," the very last in a line of covenants.  Without Jesus' sacrifice, there would be no covenant to end all covenants and the new religion wouldn't have something over the old one - the perfect sacrifice to end all sacrifices (well, kinda). 

So he had to be sacrificed and betrayal is as good a way as any to show the love of god and the enemy's power.  Besides, the Jesus story is such a nice mimic of the Horus story that death and resurrection had to be included in some way and no hero dies an old man, incontinent and struggling with dementia. 

[albeto]

As you have said, Christians are full of praise about the sacrifice, however most Christian come to the point of wondering if they are worth the pain that Jesus went through. My self included. One of the biggest question that Christians face is the question of Am I worth it. Or they believe that they are the ones that God can not forgive. Because they are not good enough.

That's one of the natural strengths of any religion.  People are social creatures, we naturally desire to be included into the social network and understand our inclusion to be because we are worthy of it.  To suggest god loves us all ever so much to include us into his social network just strokes our egos in the nicest way.  We get to feel like Steve Martin in The Jerk when he finds his name in The Good Book (phone book) and exclaims, "I'm SOMEBODY!"

But honestly Riley, just because something feels good doesn't make it real.  Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and the only evidence your religion can give you is this feel-good experience.  The thing is, you can get that experience outside your religion, and you don't need to hurt anyone to get it. 

[albeto]

The temptations for evil are there for all of us. The love of Jesus is as well. Both Peter and Judas went through (almost) the same experiences with Jesus. They both learned what Jesus taught, both preached the good news. They both knew what Jesus was about and the love and mercy he had for everyone. It is the difference in each of us that makes the difference. The choices we make are what make our fate.

But see, where Judas shows remorse by trying to give back the blood money he'd earned, while Peter does no such thing for his betrayal.  Judas is understood to be in the pits of hell even now while Peter was given the very keys to the gates of heaven.  Why?  Why is what Judas did worse than what Peter did?  Peter could have vouched for Jesus and perhaps save him.  If he knew he was the living son of god, he wouldn't be afraid to walk into Pilot's court to do what he could to set the story straight.  Instead, Peter is the hero despite his being a coward whereas Judas is the enemy despite his considerable repentance.   Why would Jesus have let Satan enter Judas while being bff's with Peter when he knew how it would turn out? 

[albeto]

Hmm, you go quite far afield pretty quickly. Why do you assume that if Judas had not betrayed Jesus that Jesus would try to slip away and avoid arrest by the Jews (not the Romans)?

Do you mean other than the idea he sweat blood and prayed to himself to get out of his predicament that night in the garden? 

[riley2112]

As you have said, Christians are full of praise about the sacrifice, however most Christian come to the point of wondering if they are worth the pain that Jesus went through. My self included. One of the biggest question that Christians face is the question of Am I worth it. Or they believe that they are the ones that God can not forgive. Because they are not good enough.

That's one of the natural strengths of any religion.  People are social creatures, we naturally desire to be included into the social network and understand our inclusion to be because we are worthy of it.  To suggest god loves us all ever so much to include us into his social network just strokes our egos in the nicest way.  We get to feel like Steve Martin in The Jerk when he finds his name in The Good Book (phone book) and exclaims, "I'm SOMEBODY!"

But honestly Riley, just because something feels good doesn't make it real.  Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and the only evidence your religion can give you is this feel-good experience.  The thing is, you can get that experience outside your religion, and you don't need to hurt anyone to get it.

I don't feel the need to hurt anybody and the people that do and use religion for an excuse would find another excuse if it was not religion.  As for the evidence, the only reason I have and the single strongest reason, I feel, for believing in God, comes from personal experience. (It also seems to be the only major reason (apart from social pressures or convenience) for changing religions.) Many people feel that God is watching out for them--they've discovered blessings in their lives because of keeping God's commandments, for example, or perhaps they've received powerful answers to prayers. They've heard voices of warning or had feelings of premonition, cautioning them against danger. They've had feelings of peace or happiness as they go to church or read the scriptures. Others have had other inexplicable, incommunicable "religious experiences". Perhaps words are given or ideas suddenly appear from an unknown source--a person says something or does something spectacular and admits that it felt as if "something (or someone) else" was working through him. Such personal experiences are commonly found throughout the religious community. I've noticed myself that of the atheists I've known, most of them are atheists due to a complete lack of any such experiences or "evidences" of God's existence. Conversely, most of the strong theists I know have had many such experiences. Some rely almost wholly on the experiences of others, but even with such, they've experienced some little "evidences" of their own. Perhaps the theists are just deluded or feigning these experiences. Perhaps the atheists have many such experiences but they choose to ignore them. Honestly, I don't really know. It seems likely to me that, truly, the theists do experience such things just as factually as the atheists don't. I wish I could share with you the feeling I have even with the doubt that I at times feel.

[albeto]

I would define self hatred the same as you . However that is not what I feel as a Christian. And I feel no negative self image about my self nor do I know any Christians that has that feeling with in them. Please understand that I don't know every Christian. I can only speak about the ones I know. I am curious of what would make you thing that a negative self image is part of the Christian doctrine.

That's part of the cognitive dissonance.  It's been suggested to you that you were created in such a state that even yhwh couldn't handle being in the same room as you until you apologize to him for being this way and get baptized and "washed clean" of your filthy nature.  That's the whole point of this gratitude - to be accepted by the one who can overlook this crap in you and even go so far as to pay the price so you don't have to.  But that's the cognitive dissonance - he's the very one who made you full of crap, according to your religion, and demands a payment for a guilt he assigned to you. 

[riley2112]

I would define self hatred the same as you . However that is not what I feel as a Christian. And I feel no negative self image about my self nor do I know any Christians that has that feeling with in them. Please understand that I don't know every Christian. I can only speak about the ones I know. I am curious of what would make you thing that a negative self image is part of the Christian doctrine.

That's part of the cognitive dissonance.  It's been suggested to you that you were created in such a state that even yhwh couldn't handle being in the same room as you until you apologize to him for being this way and get baptized and "washed clean" of your filthy nature.  That's the whole point of this gratitude - to be accepted by the one who can overlook this crap in you and even go so far as to pay the price so you don't have to.  But that's the cognitive dissonance - he's the very one who made you full of crap, according to your religion, and demands a payment for a guilt he assigned to you.

wow. kinda sounds like my teenage son. I love him but he need to calm the hell down.

[albeto]

I don't feel the need to hurt anybody and the people that do and use religion for an excuse would find another excuse if it was not religion. 

You don't have to want to feel any need to hurt anyone to be hurtful.  Religion isn't a neutral thing.  It teaches people they are worthless and to be grateful for being accepted anyway.  It teaches people to suppress their natural curiosity and their natural moral growth and to be obedient or face an eternity of punishment.  It justifies whole scale suppression and oppression and encourages people to look the other way when others suffer.  It retards intellectual and moral growth and that negatively affects everyone. 

As for the evidence, the only reason I have and the single strongest reason, I feel, for believing in God, comes from personal experience.

That's not evidence, though.  That's not how evidence works.  Evidence is objective.  It's gained through neutral means.  Feeling something strongly isn't evidence for it's validity any more for you and your religion than it is for Nancy Reagan's astrology.   

 

(It also seems to be the only major reason (apart from social pressures or convenience) for changing religions.) Many people feel that God is watching out for them--they've discovered blessings in their lives because of keeping God's commandments, for example, or perhaps they've received powerful answers to prayers. They've heard voices of warning or had feelings of premonition, cautioning them against danger. They've had feelings of peace or happiness as they go to church or read the scriptures. Others have had other inexplicable, incommunicable "religious experiences". Perhaps words are given or ideas suddenly appear from an unknown source--a person says something or does something spectacular and admits that it felt as if "something (or someone) else" was working through him. Such personal experiences are commonly found throughout the religious community. I've noticed myself that of the atheists I've known, most of them are atheists due to a complete lack of any such experiences or "evidences" of God's existence. Conversely, most of the strong theists I know have had many such experiences. Some rely almost wholly on the experiences of others, but even with such, they've experienced some little "evidences" of their own. Perhaps the theists are just deluded or feigning these experiences. Perhaps the atheists have many such experiences but they choose to ignore them. Honestly, I don't really know. It seems likely to me that, truly, the theists do experience such things just as factually as the atheists don't. I wish I could share with you the feeling I have even with the doubt that I at times feel.

I know that feeling, I was once a very faithful Christian.  Each one of these ideas you suggest can be explained using objective, neutral means, means that have nothing to gain or lose for a change of mind.  They all happen to be easily discredited but are maintained as evidence because of the powerful emotional experiences.  This is one of the reasons religions are harmful - they encourage (if not celebrate and reward) ignorance and unconditional loyalty to whatever authority has convinced you they are worthy.  Think about it, of all the Christians in the world, why are those you know and trust right whereas others are wrong?  That doesn't make sense of there is a god of truth and his spirit is leading others. 

[SimpleCaveman]

They are not assumptions.  They are speculations based on "it doesn't say otherwise".

If I go back to your original post I can see that maybe you were trying to be sarcastic. Unfortunately, sarcasm doesn’t work well in the forums. I try to use a <sarcasm></sarcasm> tag (or the square brackets, if you’d like) to make that clear.

So please fill me in on your intention in that post. There are a few possibilities and maybe more than one of them intended. I see now that you might be responding in a sarcastic way to my question “how do you know that Jesus didn’t try to stop Judas from betraying him?”

Another is that Jesus might want to avoid arrest by the Romans. Maybe you didn’t care about that in particular, just using it to make the point. Were you?

Then the point about “. . . yhwh needed the betrayal.” Or was that just the sarcasm again?

If the other points were only for the sarcasm, then we can ignore them. If not, then we can discuss.

[SimpleCaveman]

Hi velkyn,

If he had no problem with being crucified, then why the request for god to not allow it to be done?  He acquesieces to it but doesn’t go without questioning this god. 

Thanks for pointing that out. I wish I had your memory. He does ask for the cup to pass if it be the Father’s will. However, doing the Father’s will is the most important thing. He had no problem doing it if it was the Father’s will.

So, you are arguing that the crucifiction didn’t need to happen, that we could have all been saved without a blood sacrifice in the form of the bloody murder of one man?  Seems that the bible disagrees.

Whether God needed it to be done this way is an interpretation. We certainly needed it for our salvation.

As for the rest of it, velkyn, I’m sorry. I’m willing to talk about any one thing with you, but not the half dozen or more things you bring up in your post. I don’t even know where to begin. And when I do, we can’t go into any depth because there are a half dozen more things that come up in the next post. I appreciate your passion and would love to discuss these things with you. But I won’t do it that way.

If you want to pick one point related to the original question, then I will discuss it with you. When we’re done with that we can move to the next.

[SimpleCaveman]

I would be remiss, though, if I didn't take the opportunity to express my wishes that you use your talents towards something that is beneficial to humanity and not detrimental. 

Wow. That’s pretty harsh. Detrimental? I hardly think so. Not sure why you would say that.

I’m very impressed with your post. Up to a point I would give the same explanation, though sometimes different words. You stop short of transubstantiation, though. Why? Nothing to do with the discussion, I’m just curious. The rest was well said.

You gave a good enough description of why there had to be a sacrifice. But that doesn’t necessarily mean that there had to be a betrayer, though the passages velkyn quoted do indicate that. I say not necessarily because it sure seems like the Sanhedrin would have found a way even without a betrayer.

But even if there did have to be a betrayer, it doesn’t seem to me to necessarily follow that it had to be Judas. Maybe there’s some deeper importance in ancient Jewish culture that I don’t know about so that someone from the “inner circle”, i.e. the Apostles, would be needed. Other than that, I would think that anyone who knew Jesus could have done it. Judas did know that he would be at Gethsemane, though. Maybe that was something only the Twelve would know?

But those really aren’t the point of my question. Judas spent three years with Jesus. Besides seeing the miracles and hearing the teachings – enough for thousands of other people – do you really think that Jesus would not have talked with Judas during that time? According to the Catholic “party line” Jesus knew who his betrayer was going to be. Given what the Bible says about Jesus I don’t see how that wouldn’t have torn him up. Not that he would be betrayed, as much as that Judas’ soul was lost. (If it was.) He loved Judas as much as any of us. He died for Judas, too. I can’t imagine Jesus not trying to reach Judas at least once in those three years.

You’re right. It’s not in the Bible and the Church doesn’t teach that he did. I’m just saying.

[SimpleCaveman]

But see, where Judas shows remorse by trying to give back the blood money he'd earned, while Peter does no such thing for his betrayal.  Judas is understood to be in the pits of hell even now while Peter was given the very keys to the gates of heaven.  Why?  Why is what Judas did worse than what Peter did?  Peter could have vouched for Jesus and perhaps save him.  If he knew he was the living son of god, he wouldn't be afraid to walk into Pilot's court to do what he could to set the story straight.  Instead, Peter is the hero despite his being a coward whereas Judas is the enemy despite his considerable repentance.   Why would Jesus have let Satan enter Judas while being bff's with Peter when he knew how it would turn out?

Couple of things. Maybe people think Judas to be in hell, but the Church does not say that he is. The Church doesn’t say that anyone is in hell. Yes, Judas did repent! That’s part of why we can hope that he is not in hell. However, it was his despair that seems to be what did him in. He lost hope in the mercy of God.

Yes, Peter’s fear and cowardice got the better of him. (Hmm, reminiscent of another conversation. :-)) However, we don’t know what Peter did to repent of his betrayal. Going by the stories, he did something. screwtape won’t like this, but just because the Bible doesn’t explicitly mention it doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. (The Bible doesn’t say anything about anyone going to the bathroom. Makes you think they were on Star Trek. :-)) Peter is with the Apostles Saturday night/Sunday morning. When Jesus appears, he does not smite Peter. Somehow, Peter repented.

Finally, you ask why would Jesus have let Satan enter Judas while being bff’s with Peter. . . ? Satan can’t violate anyone’s free will. Satan was able to enter Judas because Judas let him. Jesus won’t violate anyone’s free will, so he let Satan do that. It’s another interesting question (for another thread) as to whether Jesus would have stopped Satan from entering Peter’s heart or just whether Jesus didn’t need to. Fear and cowardice isn’t the same as submitting to Satan at that level, though I suppose it might lead to it.

[Ambassador Pony]

The Bible doesn’t say anything about anyone going to the bathroom.

AFAIK, yes, it does. When it's not making rules about where and when to pinch a loaf, it has it's central characters doing fucked up things with their feces, from cooking with it to rubbing it in people's faces.

Sounds like an artifact of a language-using primate species closely related to bonobos (who, by the way, bang constantly).
 

[Brakeman]

The Bible doesn’t say anything about anyone going to the bathroom.

Jebus was a jew and jews at his time had very explicit instructions on how to poo, I've been told.

[screwtape]

I can see that maybe you were trying to be sarcastic.

It was not so much sarcasm as it was an attempt to show you the flaws of your own argument (the bible doesn't say X didn't happen...).  I dunno what you call that.  Reverse psychology? 

I made some obviously preposterous claims and then used your defense, which is admittedly difficult to work around.  I can admit that the bible does not include every bit of information pertaining to yhwh, jesus et al. But that does not give license to you, me or anyone else to suggest what those missing parts are without evidence.  And that is good advice even if you think the bible is an accurate chronicle of history. 

Another is that Jesus might want to avoid arrest by the Romans. Maybe you didn’t care about that in particular, just using it to make the point. Were you?

Yes.  Well, sort of.  It was one preposterous claim after another, but I cannot imagine the actual jesus[1], if there was one, actually wanted to die.  I can imagine a deluded David Koresh kind of guy who was caught up in the jewish rebellions and the popular messianism of the day. 

I can imagine that his grip on reality was tenuous and he had grandiose ideas about saving his people from the Romans.  He saw himself as that messiah and quite possibly thought he was invincible.  He gathered a few gullible idiots around him who bought into his delusion and wandered around rattling cages.  Then the Romans killed him. 

I do not think any of those prophesies are real.  I think they were made up after the fact because his followers were so stunned that he actually died, they needed a way to rationalize it.  "Well, he didn't really die.  He'll be back.  He planned it all anyway.  Remember that time he said 'they're gonna kill me'?  It's like he knew it was going to end this way.  Spooky."

I'm not saying that is how it was.  I'm just saying that is a plausible scenario we have actually seen play out in our lifetimes.

Then the point about “. . . yhwh needed the betrayal.” Or was that just the sarcasm again?

No, that was an actual point.  No Judas, no salvation.  If salvation was the plan, ywhw needed Judas (or someone) to do the dirty work.  That applies equally to all the traditional villains in the jesus story.  The whole point was to kill jesus.  Without that, there is no scape goat, no sacrificial lamb, no payment of sin.  What would have happened had jesus not been able to find someone to kill him? 

1.	non-miracle working, itinerant rabbi, otherwise regular man, who shot his big mouth off and made a lot of authorities pissed

[Anfauglir]

.....I cannot imagine the actual jesus[1], if there was one, actually wanted to die......

1.	non-miracle working, itinerant rabbi, otherwise regular man, who shot his big mouth off and made a lot of authorities pissed

Actually, having thought about it, I can - whether he was "really" the Son of God^TM or just believed he was.  This would be the crowning pinnacle of his earthly life, after which he would go to heaven and god's right hand and gain (or regain) all the power imagineable.

If he really was who he claimed to be, then (as many Christians have pointed out to me) a great deal of his sacrifice was the way he had been "shut off" from his godly status for the last 33 years.  So if that WAS such a bad deal for him, then I'd expect that death - with the certain knowledge of a return to "big cheese" status - would be something he'd be quite looking forward to, regardless of any "plan" there might be.

Perhaps his base earthly nature was giving him enough of the "okay then, lets get this plan over with so I can back to being omnipotent" to make him do everything in his power to move things along?

[changeling]

The Bible doesn’t say anything about anyone going to the bathroom.

AFAIK, yes, it does. When it's not making rules about where and when to pinch a loaf, it has it's central characters doing fucked up things with their feces, from cooking with it to rubbing it in people's faces.

Sounds like an artifact of a language-using primate species closely related to bonobos (who, by the way, bang constantly).

The bible also tells them clearly where to poop.
God told them to poop outside the camp so he wouldn't step in it when he walked around in the camp.

Deuteronomy 12You shall have a place also without the camp, where you shall go forth abroad: 13And you shall have a paddle on your weapon; and it shall be, when you will ease yourself abroad, you shall dig therewith, and shall turn back and cover that which comes from you: 14For the LORD your God walks in the middle of your camp, to deliver you, and to give up your enemies before you; therefore shall your camp be holy: that he see no unclean thing in you, and turn away from you.

[Anfauglir]

The Bible doesn’t say anything about anyone going to the bathroom.

The bible also tells them clearly where to poop.

Deuteronomy 23:12-14, to be exact.  I had to check this to make sure it was real.  Wow.

What interests me is that SimnpleCaveman was quite specific about the Bible.  And he has been shown to be wrong.  I have to confess - it does make me wonder how correct he is on other parts of the Bible.   

[SimpleCaveman]

Deuteronomy 23:12-14, to be exact.  I had to check this to make sure it was real.  Wow.

What interests me is that SimnpleCaveman was quite specific about the Bible.  And he has been shown to be wrong.  I have to confess - it does make me wonder how correct he is on other parts of the Bible.   

LOL

Yes, when I don’t check my statements I can be wrong about the Bible. I am glad when others correct my statements. I don’t want to be wrong about it and I’m learning new things about the Bible all the time. And when I’m right, I hope others learn, as well. However, in my defense that verse is related to what I said, but not the same. While it gives instructions on how, it’s not explicitly describing anyone that did. So, technically I wasn’t wrong, and I know how you all like to be technical. :-)

Now, can we get away from the scatological posts and get back to the eschatological ones? :-)

[SimpleCaveman]

Thanks for explaining.

I can admit that the bible does not include every bit of information pertaining to yhwh, jesus et al. But that does not give license to you, me or anyone else to suggest what those missing parts are without evidence. 

Your response was to a question I asked albeto. If you read our follow up discussion (last night), then you see the direction I was actually going.

I'm not saying that is how it was.  I'm just saying that is a plausible scenario we have actually seen play out in our lifetimes.

My comments are more than speculation. They are based on the description that the Bible gives us about Jesus. One of the Bible’s point about Jesus is that he’s not like anyone else. Given the description of Jesus in the Bible your claims are very far afield.

No, that was an actual point.  No Judas, no salvation.  . . .  What would have happened had jesus not been able to find someone to kill him?

Please see my post to albeto. The Sanhedrin had it out for Jesus from early on. He threatened their status quo, called them to the carpet, and showed how they were not living the fulfillment of the Law. It seems to me to be possible that they would have found a way even without Judas. Maybe not, though. I could be wrong.

[albeto]

Wow. That’s pretty harsh. Detrimental? I hardly think so. Not sure why you would say that.

I don't say this lightly, SC.  I took my faith very seriously, I honestly, genuinely believed there is an entity beyond our natural world who is both the epitome of perfect love and the creator of it (and all things, ultimately).  I smiled when I heard those "Catholics come home" commercial on Catholic radio.  I loved the idea the Church founded orphanages, developed the scientific method, founded universities to study nature based on the scientific method, led the way with philosophical arguments to protect the natives of newly discovered lands. 

But what I was ignoring is the treatment children still get in Catholic orphanages and institutions today and although I recognize child rape isn't limited to Catholics and the children in their care, the utter dismissal of the children's physical and mental health to pursue the legal safety of the perpetrators is horrifying and without excuse.  The scientific method was not developed by Catholic monks alone but was simultaneously being developed in Muslim lands.  Meanwhile, in Europe, the budding scientific method was utilized in conjunction with systematic, formal antisemitism as the devil was considered a part of science and the Jews brought demons into Europe with them, terrorizing and threatening otherwise "good" people.  The idea that natives were respected by Catholics as evidenced by Charles I I think, dismisses the violent oppression of the natives, protestants and Jews.   I don't know if you're familiar with Pat Condell but he can explain it better than I, if you have a few minutes to listen.

 

I’m very impressed with your post. Up to a point I would give the same explanation, though sometimes different words. You stop short of transubstantiation, though. Why? Nothing to do with the discussion, I’m just curious. The rest was well said.

No reason.  My focus wasn't on the mechanics of the operation but the function of it. 

You gave a good enough description of why there had to be a sacrifice. But that doesn’t necessarily mean that there had to be a betrayer, though the passages velkyn quoted do indicate that. I say not necessarily because it sure seems like the Sanhedrin would have found a way even without a betrayer.

But even if there did have to be a betrayer, it doesn’t seem to me to necessarily follow that it had to be Judas. Maybe there’s some deeper importance in ancient Jewish culture that I don’t know about so that someone from the “inner circle”, i.e. the Apostles, would be needed. Other than that, I would think that anyone who knew Jesus could have done it. Judas did know that he would be at Gethsemane, though. Maybe that was something only the Twelve would know?

I don't suggest there had to be a betrayer, I'm asking why, if Jesus knew the betrayal would happen and the consequences of that betrayal (Judas losses his faith in god's mercy and being relegated to hell for that), why wouldn't he try to stop him?  I would stop one of my kids from doing something terribly dangerous and deadly even if it turned out to be convenient to me.  Why would a god of love do less than that? 

But those really aren’t the point of my question. Judas spent three years with Jesus. Besides seeing the miracles and hearing the teachings – enough for thousands of other people – do you really think that Jesus would not have talked with Judas during that time? According to the Catholic “party line” Jesus knew who his betrayer was going to be. Given what the Bible says about Jesus I don’t see how that wouldn’t have torn him up. Not that he would be betrayed, as much as that Judas’ soul was lost. (If it was.) He loved Judas as much as any of us. He died for Judas, too. I can’t imagine Jesus not trying to reach Judas at least once in those three years.

We can speculate about this but ultimately it there is no explanation that can justify Jesus' abandonment of Judas.  Satan entered into Judas and for that reason alone god abandoned Judas because god could have stopped Satan.  Jesus/god sitting right next to him telling him to go and do what he must do is an illustration of god abandoning Judas.  There's no reason offered in sacred scripture or sacred Tradition to believe Jesus tried to stop Judas.

[albeto]

Couple of things. Maybe people think Judas to be in hell, but the Church does not say that he is. The Church doesn’t say that anyone is in hell. Yes, Judas did repent! That’s part of why we can hope that he is not in hell. However, it was his despair that seems to be what did him in. He lost hope in the mercy of God.

Today we understand emotions so much better than we did even a couple generations ago.  How is it that god, who created emotions, would be unable to recognize the reason Judas lost hope? 

Yes, Peter’s fear and cowardice got the better of him. (Hmm, reminiscent of another conversation. :-)) However, we don’t know what Peter did to repent of his betrayal. Going by the stories, he did something. screwtape won’t like this, but just because the Bible doesn’t explicitly mention it doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. (The Bible doesn’t say anything about anyone going to the bathroom. Makes you think they were on Star Trek. :-)) Peter is with the Apostles Saturday night/Sunday morning. When Jesus appears, he does not smite Peter. Somehow, Peter repented.

Screwtape isn't the only one who doesn't like it.  This argument from ignorance is illogical and therefor useless to bring up.  Sacred Tradition teaches only that Peter became the first pope, so of course there was something about him, but we need not assume it was something Peter did.  After all, Jesus struck S/Paul down without his invitation because he supposedly had plans for him.  We are told god works in mysterious ways so Peter's cowardice could easily have been a lifelong condition and his repentance never forthcoming.  We really don't know but we do know that Judas repented and was still blamed by the Church, the repository of the faith, for his betrayal.

Finally, you ask why would Jesus have let Satan enter Judas while being bff’s with Peter. . . ? Satan can’t violate anyone’s free will. Satan was able to enter Judas because Judas let him. Jesus won’t violate anyone’s free will, so he let Satan do that. It’s another interesting question (for another thread) as to whether Jesus would have stopped Satan from entering Peter’s heart or just whether Jesus didn’t need to. Fear and cowardice isn’t the same as submitting to Satan at that level, though I suppose it might lead to it.

Besides the fact that "free will" is a misnomer and a god who created neurology would know that, we see violations of this idea all the time from the pharaohs with Moses to S/Paul, not to mention any time a Saint intervenes for prayer for another person this concept is violated.  I used to pray for my son all the time, ask that your god would bring the right therapists into our lives but that right there violates their free will because this supernatural "nudge" they would follow would be first planted without their approval.  They could decide to follow or ignore it, but to have it implanted into their thinking would be against their will simply because it wasn't a part of their will before your god made it a part of their will.   This doesn't even touch the idea of extortion against one's free will to "freely" believe this god is good or face an eternity of torment. 

[SimpleCaveman]

Wow. That’s pretty harsh. Detrimental? I hardly think so. Not sure why you would say that.

I don't say this lightly, SC.  I took my faith very seriously, . . .

LOL. . .  I’m sorry to laugh, but the sentence structure (“project” to “talents” to “detrimental”) in your post made me think that you were saying that our movie was detrimental to humanity. I was pretty shocked.

I almost responded with something like “Not sure why you would say that about our movie. You haven’t even seen it.” That would have cleared it up right away. You know, these forums are interesting, but, as I’ve said way too many times, they don’t make it easy to communicate. I try to use more nouns and less pronouns or indirect references when I communicate. Just another example of why.

I’ll respond to your other points later, but wanted to share that laugh with you.

[SimpleCaveman]

But what I was ignoring . . .

Wow. You make a lot of incredible claims here. Some I’ve heard before and others are new to me. I’m sure you’ve done all the research to verify the scientific and historic evidence of each of these. You wouldn’t just believe these things without that evidence, would you?

I don't know if you're familiar with Pat Condell but he can explain it better than I, if you have a few minutes to listen.

Wow. Can I say he’s a nutter? Is that allowed? It’s like he’s taken every bizarre attack against the Catholic Church (in this case. I realize he hates all religions) and throws them all together into one groundless diatribe. He’s not your evidence is he?

I don't suggest there had to be a betrayer, I'm asking why, if Jesus knew the betrayal would happen and the consequences of that betrayal (Judas losses his faith in god's mercy and being relegated to hell for that), why wouldn't he try to stop him?  I would stop one of my kids from doing something terribly dangerous and deadly even if it turned out to be convenient to me.  Why would a god of love do less than that? 

We can speculate about this but ultimately it there is no explanation that can justify Jesus' abandonment of Judas.  Satan entered into Judas and for that reason alone god abandoned Judas because god could have stopped Satan.  Jesus/god sitting right next to him telling him to go and do what he must do is an illustration of god abandoning Judas.  There's no reason offered in sacred scripture or sacred Tradition to believe Jesus tried to stop Judas.

You’re using the argument from ignorance yourself. It’s like the difference between agnosticism and atheism. Rather than just saying “we don’t know whether Jesus tried to stop Judas or not” you jump to the conclusion that Jesus did not try to stop him, which is contrary to what the Bible does tell us about Jesus.

When I ask why, all you answer with is “there’s no reason . . . offered to believe” that he did. While there are no definitive statements saying that he did, there’s plenty of reason to believe.

A side note. I was in this discussion because the debate between screwtape and I was going to be delayed. It sounds like that debate can move on. As it does, I’m going to drop these.

[velkyn]

Thanks for pointing that out. I wish I had your memory. He does ask for the cup to pass if it be the Father’s will. However, doing the Father’s will is the most important thing. He had no problem doing it if it was the Father’s will.

I do have an excellent memory, but you don’t need to in order to know some of the very basic things in your supposed handbook on how to please god.  You just need to actually read it.  You also need to remember what you initially claimed “None of the gospels show Jesus with a problem about being crucified. I didn’t say anything to the contrary. “needs to be done” is your interpretation of what the gospels say.” which was false.  You have a person who doesn’t want to be crucified and that is the most important thing, that he questions this god, which makes little sense if he is god or he knows the purpose of this act.  Yes, he will do it if it is god’s will, but that never indicates that he doesn’t want to do it. 

Whether God needed it to be done this way is an interpretation. We certainly needed it for our salvation.

  And hmmm, you said earlier ““needs to be done” is your interpretation of what the gospels say.”  I love your trying to ignore your bible.  Pretty amusing.   Gee, everything that you dont’ like suddenly is just someone’s “interpretation”.  Well, dearie, your interpretation is what?  Show me how you support that my interpretation is somehow wrong.  if your god didn’t need it to be this way, why did he make it happen this way?  Pesky omnipotence, omniscience gets in the way when you want to play word games.  And as I pointed out, to be the prophesying wonder that JC claimed to be, it needed to be done just like was claimed.  Prophecy is a problem since it sets things in stone in theory. 

As for the rest of it, velkyn, I’m sorry. I’m willing to talk about any one thing with you, but not the half dozen or more things you bring up in your post. I don’t even know where to begin. And when I do, we can’t go into any depth because there are a half dozen more things that come up in the next post. I appreciate your passion and would love to discuss these things with you. But I won’t do it that way.

Nice running away here, SC.  What a pathetic whine.  Start at the beginning, that’s where most people start.  You have my post, address it as you can.  I’m not in a hurry.  and yep, your bible is full of problems which lead to other problems.

If you want to pick one point related to the original question, then I will discuss it with you. When we’re done with that we can move to the next.

They are all related, despite your baseless claims that they are not.  You make me grin, SC with your attempts to get out dealing with the problems of your bible.  You make ignorant false claims and you are shown how you are wrong.  I take the time to show you even further on how you are wrong and how ignorant you are of your bible.

As the others have also shown, your claims about Judas don’t work if one reads the bible and its various claims on what happened. We have a god that needs things done in a certain way.  We have a fall guy, Judas, whose actions are anything but those of someone with free will.  I have taken the time to point out where in your magic book it supports those conclusions.  You seem to want to do no more than make believe that they don’t exist, by trying to cast me as some villain who overwhelms you with tangential points.  You have yet to show them as tangential, irrelevant or inconsequential, other than waving your hands and saying that they are.  They are directly involved with the discussion about Judas and his eventual fate. You are the one who has brought up the claims about free will and I have merely shot them down.  And I have pointed out where your bible has nothing to do with free will considering the actions of your god which allow no free will.  You make claims, I’m quite happy to show how you are wrong.  You don’t want to be called on those claims then do some research before you make them.

You gave a good enough description of why there had to be a sacrifice. But that doesn’t necessarily mean that there had to be a betrayer, though the passages velkyn quoted do indicate that. I say not necessarily because it sure seems like the Sanhedrin would have found a way even without a betrayer.

I love this.  Gee, velkyn shows verses that do indicate that a betrayer is needed this but magically SC knows better than his bible.  Then we have baseless claim after baseless claim, trying to invoke some magical mysterious information that might make you right, SC.  Funny how it’s been, what, 2000+ years and that still hasn’t magically appeared.  You sound like the creationist idiots who are real sure that real soon now they’ll get their evidence.  Again, we have a Christian unable to come to grips that his bible is flawed and that humans need to constantly make up things to make this primitive nonsense valid. 

According to the bible (and the catholic party line) yep, JC did know his betrayer.  Pointed him out right to the apostles who were “huh?”  And had to have that betrayer.  Your god picked this betrayer out.  And again, we have no free will as claimed.  As JC himself says, there are people intended to be damned.  Poor Judas and poor everyone else who doesn’t get the magic grace bestowed.

You consistently make appeals to emotion, that surely surely your god isnt’ so viciously stupid and surely surely JC did try.  But the stories as presented don’t follow.
It’s also funny when you want it to be the fault of Judas.  I’d certainly lose hope in the mercy of god since well, it’s not to be seen.  Funny how this god fails at actually demonstrating anything claimed about it.

The stories of the bible are just that, and having been written by different people at different times they are like the worst game of “telephone” ever, for supposedly being “divinely” inspired.   You try to excuse this mess by making claims like

Finally, you ask why would Jesus have let Satan enter Judas while being bff’s with Peter. . . ? Satan can’t violate anyone’s free will. Satan was able to enter Judas because Judas let him. Jesus won’t violate anyone’s free will, so he let Satan do that. It’s another interesting question (for another thread) as to whether Jesus would have stopped Satan from entering Peter’s heart or just whether Jesus didn’t need to. Fear and cowardice isn’t the same as submitting to Satan at that level, though I suppose it might lead to it.

wow, forget Job much?  You really do need to read your bible, SC.  Satan violated Job’s free will, his family’s free will, etc, and your god just watched on.  There is as usual, *nothing* to support your claim and plenty to support the opposite. 

My comments are more than speculation. They are based on the description that the Bible gives us about Jesus. One of the Bible’s point about Jesus is that he’s not like anyone else. Given the description of Jesus in the Bible your claims are very far afield.

And we have seen you focus on only one description of Jesus and ignore the ones that don’t fit into your nonsense.



EDIT: alas, I have been informed by SC that unless I obey his requirements for a discussion he won’t answer my questions and points.  take that as you will.

[changeling]

Deuteronomy 23:12-14, to be exact.  I had to check this to make sure it was real.  Wow.

What interests me is that SimnpleCaveman was quite specific about the Bible.  And he has been shown to be wrong.  I have to confess - it does make me wonder how correct he is on other parts of the Bible.   

It is even more interesting that god created man to have to poop,
but he would turn away from his chosen people if he even  saw their poop. 

[albeto]

Wow. You make a lot of incredible claims here. Some I’ve heard before and others are new to me. I’m sure you’ve done all the research to verify the scientific and historic evidence of each of these. You wouldn’t just believe these things without that evidence, would you?

They are incredible claims, aren't they.  They quite upset me when I realized I couldn't pretend I didn't learn about them.  And yes, the historical evidence is valid, none of this is based on hearsay. 

Wow. Can I say he’s a nutter? Is that allowed? It’s like he’s taken every bizarre attack against the Catholic Church (in this case. I realize he hates all religions) and throws them all together into one groundless diatribe. He’s not your evidence is he?

I'd like to think I can trust you to listen to what he says and ignore the emotional presentation.  The information he provides is accurate to my knowledge, including the fact that Jews were forced to wear yellow hats and sometimes scarves in public to identify themselves (I believe this was laid out in the Council of Basil or Florence, I can't remember which but it's easy enough to find the Church documents themselves if you're curious). 

You’re using the argument from ignorance yourself. It’s like the difference between agnosticism and atheism. Rather than just saying “we don’t know whether Jesus tried to stop Judas or not” you jump to the conclusion that Jesus did not try to stop him, which is contrary to what the Bible does tell us about Jesus.

My position is that the bible and the Church are silent about any attempt to persuade Judas to reconsider his plan.  My question is why is this?  Why would such an important piece of information, a characteristic of the man/god be lost to history?  Because you and I know the RCC is rooted in the sacraments, with the sacrament of the Eucharist as the pinnacle of her responsibility and privilege, we know the need for Jesus to die as a perfect victim.  No other way would be consistent with yhwh and his relationship with his chosen people of the past.  There must be a sacrificial victim and that means death.  The man/god character would be no good dying a natural death.  Whether or not Judas or anyone betrayed him is of periphery importance maybe, but the fact is there is no support for the hypothesis that Jesus tried to stop Judas, and there is ample support for the hypothesis that Jesus would have accepted Judas as part of the divine plan to offer Jesus as the paschal lamb to himself (himself as god the father, which is where it gets even weirder and Catholics are encouraged not to ponder that part too much.  After all, it's a mystery why god would demand he be sacrificed to himself as payment for a crime in humanity he created (sin), but I digress. 

When I ask why, all you answer with is “there’s no reason . . . offered to believe” that he did. While there are no definitive statements saying that he did, there’s plenty of reason to believe.

I would argue there's more reason to believe he needed to be executed to fulfill the divine plan as is referenced in Genesis (chapter 3, maybe?).  Stopping Judas would have put his divine plan on hold and the man/god character Jesus would have to be sacrificed in another way.  Eventually, someone would have to offer him as the perfect victim.  Whoever that someone or someones would be would inspire the same question - knowing the consequence of killing god, why would god allow anyone to take that on? 

Oh, and btw, your last post made me giggle too.  I only assumed your movie was in support of the christian religion and that religion is what I consider detrimental.  If your movie was about something completely unrelated then I can only imagine the confusion. 

[Ambassador Pony]

My Oxford study bible informs me that the idea of sin in Deut. is kind of like cooties. If you touched a girl at certain times you got it, if you were near poop at the wrong times...etc and you had to do all sorts of magical things to make them go away.

Again, not far beyond what one would expect given the population making up the rules and attributing them to their preferred magic sky man.

[Anfauglir]

Deuteronomy 23:12-14, to be exact.  I had to check this to make sure it was real.  Wow.

It is even more interesting that god created man to have to poop,
but he would turn away from his chosen people if he even  saw their poop. 

God, presumably, does not poop.  And he is a perfect being.

Why would a perfect being create an imperfect being that has to poop?  Surely this is simply deliberately adding something a bit nasty into his creation - like you say, Yahweh doesn't evn like to be around poop.  And yet he made it anyway - seems thoroughly bizarre to me.

But then again the whole idea of creating things in a state that is different to the state he actually wants them to be in is quite ridiculous.  Its why the Bible is, from page one, such a silly and unbelievable book.