C
Church_Militant
Guest
BTW…all Caps is considered yelling in a forum. I wouldn’t.
- Status
V
Voco_proTatiano
Guest
There is evidence in the Gospels that Judas did not betray Our Lord, but arranged His surrender, according to Our Lord’s instructions, having been chosen by the sop.
The latin word which we read as ‘betray’ actually means no more than ‘hand over’
This being the case, the subsequent actions of Judas are very understandable, and pitiable. He must have been utterly devastated.
E
EphelDuath
Guest
26:24. The Son of man indeed goeth, as it is written of him. But woe to that man by whom the Son of man shall be betrayed. It were better for him, if that man had not been born.
Though according to Matthew, they took communion immediately after this, which would indicate Judas has already left.
A
Atemi
Guest
So you can offer absolutely no reason why your opinion carries more weight than St. Aquinas or other church fathers.
Understood.
Understood.
A
Atemi
Guest
Yes, Peter.
The Scriptures alone are clear enough, as long as we do not look on them with an agenda.
“And having taken the chalice, he gave thanks, and said: Take, and divide it among you: For I say to you, that I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, till the kingdom of God come. And taking bread, he gave thanks, and brake; and gave to them, saying: This is my body, which is given for you. Do this for a commemoration of me. In like manner the chalice also, after he had supped, saying: This is the chalice, the new testament in my blood, which shall be shed for you. But yet behold, the hand of him that betrayeth me is with me on the table.”
We must look on the texts honestly and accept the evidence and witness of the Spirit.
The Spirit testifies that Judas ate the Eucharist. Supposed Catholic greats such as Augustine, Aquinas, and Chrysostom agree as well.
I do understand why some would seek to deny this at any cost, but to sacrifice the truth here is not worth it, IMO.
…
H
HailMary
Guest
I have no problem with understanding that Jesus could have indeed given him the Holy Eucharist, which would have confirmed Judas in his treachery and hardened his heart even more, as God willingly hardened Pharaoh’s heart for his own Glorys sake.
Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup (1 Cor. 11:27–28).
Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup (1 Cor. 11:27–28).
R
Riley259
Guest
Thanks for the link.
V
Voco_proTatiano
Guest
This supports the conjecture that Judas was not a betrayer, but an agent of surrender.
That Our Lord, knowing what he was about to do, permitted it, and blessed him supports this.
The Sins of Judas wre his dispair and his suicide.
H
HailMary
Guest
No, it doesn’t.
G
Ghosty
Guest
Atemi: Since you’re so interested in what Aquinas says, let’s review it, shall we?
Peace and God bless!
H
HailMary
Guest
G
Ghosty
Guest
Ironically it’s from the link Atemi posted earlier on this very thread.
Peace and God bless!
H
HailMary
Guest
lol, I should have figured!Ironically it’s from the link Atemi posted earlier on this very thread.
Peace and God bless!
A
Ani_Ibi
Guest
And he did not drink the fourth cup until he took the sour wine on the Cross just before he said “It is finished.”
He was definitely talking in a present sense here, but was he not also talking in a future sense. When did the Kingdom come? At the Last Supper? Or after the Crucifixion?
If the bread was the Eucharist at the Last Supper then what was the wine? How could there be a discrepancy between the wine and the bread at the Last Supper? And the wine was definitely not the blood at the Last Supper; it could not be the blood until after Jesus said “it is finished.”
Speaking about sacrifice, would the Lamb not have to be sacrificed first for the bread and wine to become Eucharistic?
Well true, but I just would like someone to read the links I have given and tell me when the bread and wine was the Eucharist. Was it at the Last Supper? Or was it after Jesus said “It is finished”? Would anyone take a look please? Thank you.
P
Peter_Da_Rock
Guest
?
Please define "Agent of Surrender"
A
Atemi
Guest
You confuse my merely posting a link to Aquinas to somehow mean that I endorse all his conclusions?
LOL, no.
I readily pointed out earlier that I find some of his conclusions to be the weakest I have heard.
For one, it has already been shown that Judas was not a “hidden” sinner. Plenty of folks knew of his treachery.
Now you can say, like another Catholic here did, that even if over a hundred people knew of his sin, it thus still could be a “hidden” sin, but that would not be the wisest route IMO.
Secondly, and this is a biggie…but no accuser?
Christ accused Judas right at the Table before all!
If Christ counts as “no accuser,” than there is nothing more that can be said. And if one must claim that Christ had no proof (as if He needed to present it!), then even less can be said.
…
C
Church_Militant
Guest
The fact is that the New Testament accounts of this actually make it appear that what Our Lord said to Judas was done so in so quiet a way that no one else overheard it. Knowing the impetuous nature of many of the apostles, it certainly reads as if Jesus kept the accusation to himself because the apostles might well have attempted to interfere and that would have possibly derailed the fulfillment of the events as foretold.
But if you read the accounts…you can see that Jesus was very discrete with Judas that night.
But if you read the accounts…you can see that Jesus was very discrete with Judas that night.
A
Atemi
Guest
Jhn 12:6 “he (Judas) was a thief; as keeper of the money bag, he used to help himself to what was put into it.”
Judas was the accountant to the Apostles. He kept the money bags and was the treasurer.
He also helped himself to much of it.
Not quite.
Christ was literally addressing Satan himself, not exactly Peter.
Christ did call Judas himself “a devil,” however.
…
A
Atemi
Guest
The only difference between Judas and the Pharoah would be that God commanded the Pharoah to do good (“Let my people go”) while He commanded Judas to commit a sacrilege and do evil (“Eat this, all of you”).
This is extremely problematic.
…
E
EphelDuath
Guest
Jesus accuses Judas before they take communion. It’s likely he left before the institution of the Eucharist.
Luke is silent. Jesus consecrates the bread before he condemns Judas, but it doesn’t say when they actually took communion.
According to the other Gospels, this happens before they take communion. In junction with the others, Judas left immediately after being condemned, and then the apostles took the Eucharist.
- Status