Do you ever feel sorry for Judas Iscariot?

[hays1122]

Yes, he would; Caiaphas would have found out some other way where to find Jesus on Holy Thursday night. It’s not like Jesus’ movements were top-secret, and Caiaphas was determined to find out where he was; he wanted Him dead before the Passover.

I find it interesting that some people say Judas had a choice. Yet we know that Judas was not needed.
This proves that Judas was suppose to betray Jesus and hang himself and go to hell. It was in the plan. Otherwise Caiaphas would have found Jesus and Judas would have been off the hook.
If God doesn’t want someone to go to hell he can save them.
God saved Saul. Saul was heading straight down the road to hell,but Jesus saved him. Jesus spoke to Saul and personally saved Saul’s life from the fires of hell. Saul was a murderer and also probably loved money. What made him better then Judas. Nothing. The only difference is Judas was born to be “the son of perdition” and Saul was born to be the great apostle Paul.

 

[redrosetea]

Judas wasn’t predestined …he chose for himself…God knew how he would choose, before he made the choice…God knows everything…We have a free will…Our choices aren’t forced by God…We plot our own course…Judas could have said no…God knew that he wouldn’t because he preferred money over Christ…God is outside of time…We know time from past to present, and anticipate the future…God knows it all at once…We live in a world where we must have a past , present ,and future…God doesn’t

Judas wasn’t created to betray Christ, he chose to do it…big difference

 

[hays1122]

Judas wasn’t predestined …he chose for himself…God knew how he would choose, before he made the choice…God knows everything…We have a free will…Our choices aren’t forced by God…We plot our own course…Judas could have said no…God knew that he wouldn’t because he preferred money over Christ…God is outside of time…We know time from past to present, and anticipate the future…God knows it all at once…We live in a world where we must have a past , present ,and future…God doesn’t

Judas wasn’t created to betray Christ, he chose to do it…big difference

So you are saying that Saul chose to be the apostle Paul?
In Acts chapter nine you can read how God himself spoke to Saul.
Saul didn’t even know who was speaking to him.
It seems to me that Saul was chosen by God to be a the great apostle.
The only difference between Saul and Judas is that Judas was a sneak. Saul was openly full of hate for Christians.

 

[Tracyms1974]

I’ve always wondered about something.

If Judas did not sell Jesus for silver, then how would the Romans have found Him to begin with? If they never found him, then He could not have died for our sins.

Same thing with Peter: If he had admitted to knowing and loving Christ on the day of His execution, would he then have been imprisoned and executed? If so, who would have been our first pope at that point? John?

Just curious.

Tracy

 

[redrosetea]

As soon as Christ raised Lazarus from the dead the Sanhedrin plotted to get him

It wouldn’t have been hard to find out where Christ was in that era…He alway drew crowds…

I am not sure who would have taken Peter’s place… God knew that Peter would deny Christ, so I guess He figured Peter was a shoo in and he would be OK

 

[Paul_Folbrecht]

The amazing work of Bl. Anne Catherine Emmerich, approved by the Church, reveals that Judas was, in fact, damned. Our Lord says as much.

At least, that is my recollection - it has been 15 years since I read the work completely. However, this stuck with me, as I found it very important, as I had never before encountered an official Church teaching or approved private revelation that indicated that any specific person was actually in Hell.

And, even in the Gospel, does Christ not state that it would have been better for the man who betrays him if he’d never been born? Every soul has one of two ends - Paradise or Hell. Obviously, Christ would never say that it would be better if a soul had never existed if that soul would spend its eternity in Paradise - therefore, I think we can conclude that He was implying the opposite.

 

[Whdevo]

As soon as Christ raised Lazarus from the dead the Sanhedrin plotted to get him.

It wouldn’t have been hard to find out where Christ was in that era…He alway drew crowds…

Hi,

This is the very point I made a few posts ago …

Yet so many Catholics (and other of thise if other denominations of “Christian”), if you ask them, will tell you that Judas Kissed Jesus Christ to “identify” Him, when it was actually to “betray” him…

Inattention to that by which we say we live is very dangerous, and allows our Faith, if we are not careful, to be betrayed, and even destroyed from the inside.

Does not Revelation tell us that this is exactly what will happen in the End Times?

I wonder whether it is time for Catholics to check their faith against against what is required by the Bible (the written word of God).

God Bless

William

 

[Mike_Dye]

Do you consider the fact that every time you accept wages for working on a Sunday or a Holy Day of Obligation, you’ve done what Judas Iscariot did? And probably for less than he got, too!!

I suppose that if on a Sunday, your loved one… you choose… spouse, mom, dad, son, daughter, niece or nephew…the list goes on, were to have a major medical emergency that could result in life or death. Would you expect the emergency room staff to put it off until Monday morning because they would be sinful like Judas. Come on.

 

[Wirraway]

Do you consider the fact that every time you accept wages for working on a Sunday or a Holy Day of Obligation, you’ve done what Judas Iscariot did? And probably for less than he got, too!!

where does that come from?

 

[Whdevo]

The amazing work of Bl. Anne Catherine Emmerich, approved by the Church, reveals that Judas was, in fact, damned. Our Lord says as much.

At least, that is my recollection - it has been 15 years since I read the work completely. However, this stuck with me, as I found it very important, as I had never before encountered an official Church teaching or approved private revelation that indicated that any specific person was actually in Hell.

And, even in the Gospel, does Christ not state that it would have been better for the man who betrays him if he’d never been born? Every soul has one of two ends - Paradise or Hell. Obviously, Christ would never say that it would be better if a soul had never existed if that soul would spend its eternity in Paradise - therefore, I think we can conclude that He was implying the opposite.

Hi,

Again, exactly my point … is it not highly pesumptuous of man (or else, a vain attempt at “improving the Word of God” on man’s part) to assume (or imply, or conjecture) into God’s Word that which is not written?

Is it indeed, ours to “conclude”, or is it for us to accept what is written as sufficient for our salvation.

Do not all these “concludings” lead us -sometimes very far- from the path?

Would it not actually have been (Matthew 26) “better for that man [if we consider “that man” as Judas] if he had not been born.” … I mean, his very name is an insult; his act, if not his whole life and existence, is detested … would that not be enough to have it said of the life of any man that “it would have been better…”?

Or, wait a minute: am I not, now, indulging, myself, in the very conjecture culture that so disconcerts me … ?

I choose to accept simply: “but woe to that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! It would have been better for that man if he had not been born”, and make it my business to try not to “betray” the “Son of man” …

Am I wrong in this?

And I wonder whether this is a message to ANY man who would so act …

Dominus vobiscum, et cum spiritu tuo

William

 

[Whdevo]

I suppose that if on a Sunday, your loved one… you choose… spouse, mom, dad, son, daughter, niece or nephew…the list goes on, were to have a major medical emergency that could result in life or death. Would you expect the emergency room staff to put it off until Monday morning because they would be sinful like Judas. Come on.

Hi,

if you look at the Scriptures, you will find that Jesus Christ, himself, “worked” on the Sabbath (he plucked the ears of corn, and he healed the sick -if I remember corectly-)

Your statement, I believe, is born of an imperfect understanding of the idea of “work on the Sabbath” … Jesus himself illustrated that, in cases of dire need, it is permitted, and so the directive is against “servile” work.

When we work at our ordinary jobs or on ordinary things, domestic or whatever, we benefit from that work (either by being paid, or by having a home improvement, or whatever …) that reward in return makes, I believe, the work “servile”, and, therefore, prohibited.

When somebody works WITHOUT REWARD to save someone else, for instance, then that altruism of action, again, I believe, makes that work “non-servile” and allowed.

NOw, to me, the above makes perfect sense, accepting the words and example of Jesus Christ in the Bible, but, if you are a factory owner, country runner, or whatever -even if you purport to be Christian-, how could you possibly reap the full benefits or remain in power if everything had to stop, just because God commanded it, on the Sabbath Day?

Better to mis-state the command, and offer it as “ridiculous in this day and age” …

God’s wisdom is timeless and ageless … time and ages change, but God’s word does not (even when there are very strong attempts to corrupt it) change.

The Book of Revelation warns us that what is happening today will happen, and it also tells us of the results.

(Oh, and in regard to the “emergency room staff” mentioned above -although I would have no intention -indeed no right- to judge them personally, in regard to the work they do on the Sabbath, I would refer you to my attempted definition of “servile” and “non-servile” work, above, and ask that you to come to your own conclusions …).

Dominus vobiscum, et cum spiritu tuo

Wiliam

 

[Paul_Folbrecht]

Hi,

Again, exactly my point … is it not highly pesumptuous of man (or else, a vain attempt at “improving the Word of God” on man’s part) to assume (or imply, or conjecture) into God’s Word that which is not written?

Is it indeed, ours to “conclude”, or is it for us to accept what is written as sufficient for our salvation.

Do not all these “concludings” lead us -sometimes very far- from the path?

Would it not actually have been (Matthew 26) “better for that man [if we consider “that man” as Judas] if he had not been born.” … I mean, his very name is an insult; his act, if not his whole life and existence, is detested … would that not be enough to have it said of the life of any man that “it would have been better…”?

Or, wait a minute: am I not, now, indulging, myself, in the very conjecture culture that so disconcerts me … ?

I choose to accept simply: “but woe to that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! It would have been better for that man if he had not been born”, and make it my business to try not to “betray” the “Son of man” …

Am I wrong in this?

And I wonder whether this is a message to ANY man who would so act …

Dominus vobiscum, et cum spiritu tuo

William

Of course Catholics should not engage in self-interpretation of Scripture here. Drawing one’s own best guess for the sake of discussion is different.

This is a trivial point - what difference does it make if Judas was damned? I think the Scriptures indicate he was, Christ says he was in a private revelation that’s been giving Church blessing, but does it really make any difference? Not a lot.

But I really don’t see what you see here - people being “presumptuous” and being led astray.

Since I cannot see a lot of relevance in the question, I’m going to step out of the discussion now - good luck.

 

[thistle]

The amazing work of Bl. Anne Catherine Emmerich, approved by the Church, reveals that Judas was, in fact, damned. Our Lord says as much.

At least, that is my recollection - it has been 15 years since I read the work completely. However, this stuck with me, as I found it very important, as I had never before encountered an official Church teaching or approved private revelation that indicated that any specific person was actually in Hell.

And, even in the Gospel, does Christ not state that it would have been better for the man who betrays him if he’d never been born? Every soul has one of two ends - Paradise or Hell. Obviously, Christ would never say that it would be better if a soul had never existed if that soul would spend its eternity in Paradise - therefore, I think we can conclude that He was implying the opposite.

I do not find the works of Anne Emmerich amazing and what you call a Church “approval” does not mean what she wrote is necessary for our salvation or even has to be believed. It also does not even mean what she wrote is correct.

 

[Whdevo]

where does that come from?

Hi,

I believe that o have been answered at several points within this thread …

God Bless

William

 

[redrosetea]

Hi,

This is the very point I made a few posts ago …

Yet so many Catholics (and other of thise if other denominations of “Christian”), if you ask them, will tell you that Judas Kissed Jesus Christ to “identify” Him, when it was actually to “betray” him…

Inattention to that by which we say we live is very dangerous, and allows our Faith, if we are not careful, to be betrayed, and even destroyed from the inside.

Does not Revelation tell us that this is exactly what will happen in the End Times?

I wonder whether it is time for Catholics to check their faith against against what is required by the Bible (the written word of God).

God Bless

William

He identified him to betray him both are correct, it is a very minor point and doesn’t alter salvation in the slightest…I don’t understand what you mean about checking your faith against what is required by the Bible?

The church doesn’t teach error…My faith is based on the Church’s interpretation of scripture…It is easy to see from Luke that the Sanhedrin were out to get Christ…drawing a conclusion from facts is not the same thing as interpretation

The book of Revelation was written in code, and is not to be interpreted as it is written…I take the word of Scripture Scholars who have studied scripture for many many years before I do someone who opened a book of the Bible and begins to read it

The New Testament is hidden in the old and the Old Testament is revealed in the new…You need to understand what was going on politically and what the social customs were in the day and times the scripture was written, to accurately get the meaning of the text…It is not a newspaper, and we are not fundamentalist…We interpret scripture contextually, not literally

 

[Whdevo]

Of course Catholics should not engage in self-interpretation of Scripture here. Drawing one’s own best guess for the sake of discussion is different.

This is a trivial point - what difference does it make if Judas was damned? I think the Scriptures indicate he was, Christ says he was in a private revelation that’s been giving Church blessing, but does it really make any difference? Not a lot.

But I really don’t see what you see here - people being “presumptuous” and being led astray.

Since I cannot see a lot of relevance in the question, I’m going to step out of the discussion now - good luck.

Hi,

in response to your question … and statement …

(Catholic Encyclopedia, Church Fathers, Summa, Bible and more)

His Holiness Pope Leo XIII
On the Church in Hungary
September 2, 1893
To Our Venerable Brothers, the Primate, the Archbishops, Bishops and other Ordinaries, in Peace and Communion with the Holy See.
Venerable Brothers, Health and Apostolic Benediction. … … …

We, therefore, exhort you, more urgently than ever before, to spare neither effort nor labor to ward off such peril from your flock and from your native land. It must be your primary care that all your people, strengthened by your authority and example, undertake with courage and zeal the cause of religion and always defend it firmly.

Further, under “Catholicism in Conflict with Protestantism”, the Catholic Encyclopaedia states: …

In like manner, the rise of heretical sects in the three centuries preceding the Reformation led to an accentuation of the fundamental principles of Catholicism, notably in Moneta’s “Summa contra Catharos et Waldenses” (about 1225), and Torquemada’s “Summa de Ecclesiâ” (1450). So to a far greater extent, in the outpouring from many sources of Protestant ideas, it became the duty of the hour to defend the true nature of the Church of Christ, to vindicate its authority, its divinely authorized hierarchy under the primacy of the Pope, its visibility, unity, perpetuity, and infallibility, along with other doctrines and practices branded as superstitious.

Now, I would, accepting that it is the duty of every Catholic to “defend” the Catholic Faith (and part of that “defence”, I believe, is to be able to advocate and demonstrate the faith and to refute the claims of heretics, etc., who would pervert it), ask: “How can one be expected to “defend” that with which one is not familiar?”

Therefore, it is, is it not, important that each Catholic be familiar with the Bible (as the Word of God), and to use it as the regulator of their lives, so that they can be sure that they are carrying out the Commandments of God to the best of their ability?

So, with respect, I would suggest that Catholics should, indeed, engage in self-interpretation of Scripture, else how can they know what it is that they asre supposed to believe?

What I have postulated as a possibility is that it may be wrong for Catholics (or, indeed, anyone) to infer, or conjecture, or otherwise imply into the Word of God that which God (in His infinite wisdom) has chosen not to reveal.

To do this can be seen as, at best, taking time away from the worship of God as his words have taught us, or, if we think we have “found a solution”, to think that we have improved on the revelation of God (and this is what I have suggested is “presumptuous”).

For you to dismiss the “point” as “trivial”, however, I feel has been inappropriate (or at least “uncharitable”), and, indeed, I believe it is belied by the number of contributors to the thread.

But I do agree that, in its not having been revealed in the Bible, God has decided that it is not “important” for us to know … if, that is, we accept the Bible as the Word of God (and this, it is my understanding, is one of several prerequisites for truly being called a Catholic … and, again, how can one consider oneself as accepting the Bible as the Word of God when one is not familiar with its content?).

Regards and God Bless

William

 

[Whdevo]

He identified him to betray him both are correct, it is a very minor point and doesn’t alter salvation in the slightest…I don’t understand what you mean about checking your faith against what is required by the Bible?

The church doesn’t teach error…My faith is based on the Church’s interpretation of scripture…It is easy to see from Luke that the Sanhedrin were out to get Christ…drawing a conclusion from facts is not the same thing as interpretation

The book of Revelation was written in code, and is not to be interpreted as it is written…I take the word of Scripture Scholars who have studied scripture for many many years before I do someone who opened a book of the Bible and begins to read it

The New Testament is hidden in the old and the Old Testament is revealed in the new…You need to understand what was going on politically and what the social customs were in the day and times the scripture was written, to accurately get the meaning of the text…It is not a newspaper, and we are not fundamentalist…We interpret scripture contextually, not literally

Hi,

Matthew 26:48 Now the betrayer had given them a sign, saying, “The one I shall kiss is the man; seize him.”
Matthew 26:49 And he came up to Jesus at once and said, “Hail, Master!” And he kissed him.

Mark 14:44 Now the betrayer had given them a sign, saying, “The one I shall kiss is the man; seize him and lead him away under guard.”
Mark 14:45 And when he came, he went up to him at once, and said, “Master!” And he kissed him.

Hi again,

in the above, Judas is identified as the “betrayer” and not the "identifier …

Betrayers “betray”, identifiers “identify” …

A minor point indeed, but illustrative of what can be a major problem if it illustrates thast Catholics, being unfamiliar with the Scriptures, are ill-prepared to defend the Faith in these troubled times.

WE are all fully entitled to “take the word” of whomsoever we put our trust in, but, at the same time, should (should we not) be very aware that, on the Day of Judgement, when faced with our transgressions, “I only did it because so-and-so told me it was right” will only receive the answer: “but, I told you so in the Bible; did you not pay any attention to that?”

Surely, to leave all the thinking up to someone -anyone-else, and just accept their word, is to give up the God given gift of reason (which I believe to be the driving force behind the actions of the Free Will), and God did not give us the power of reasoning for nothing (God does nothing for nothing …)?

Is it not that the thoughts and examples of others shoud be regarded for the “guidance” they can give, but only in comparison with what we ourselves know from the Word of God?

In your statement regarding the Old and New Testaments and regarding Revelation being written in code (presumably so that we cannot understand…) are you suggesting that God has been so perverse as to give us directions on the path to salvation, only in information that we cannot understand?

Would that be the action of a “beneficent” God?

If God’s salvation is available to all, and I would suggest that this is alluded to many times in the Bible, then it has to be true that each and every one of “all” has the intellectual (reasoning) capacity to understand it “as is”.

Sometimes -if not always-, it is better to “read” rather than to “read into”…

God Bless

William

 

[redrosetea]

I don’t accept the word of just anyone, I accept the word of Holy Mother Church…Her purpose is to get me to heaven…She was given to us by Christ for that very purpose,I identify you as some man, and I certainly won’t be taking your advice…I will listen to my priest who has been taught in a seminary

The last book of the Bible is the one most misunderstood by readers. In many, reading the Book of Revelation instills fear and anxiety. Rather than look at this book as a blueprint for Armageddon or the great endtime, the battle to come between the powers of good and evil, this Youth Update is intended to help you understand Revelation from a Catholic Christian perspective.

You are invited to look at the book from a contextualist viewpoint—examining the Book of Revelation’s writing style and historical setting. The book’s major theme will be explored. You will be better able to make a book nearly 1,900 years old relevant right now.

1. What is apocalyptic literature (the style of the Book of Revelation)?

Apocalyptic literature is a type of literature that flourished in Judaism and early Christianity from roughly 200 B.C. to 200 A.D. The Old Testament Book of Daniel is apocalyptic in style. This kind of writing looks ahead to the end of history and the coming of the New Age, God’s kingdom. The central message is that God is in control.

1. A crisis inspired the Book of Revelation.
   What was it?

In the mid-90’s A.D., two crises were afoot. The first was the Roman emperor Domitian who persecuted Christians who did not offer incense to him. The second crisis was what to do about the first! John of Patmos, author of Revelation, did not want Christians to compromise and honor the emperor as a god.

1. Why is Revelation so hard to understand?

The Book of Revelation was written in secret code so that the Romans couldn’t understand it. Sometimes it’s hard for us as well! John of Patmos used coded images and descriptions familiar to his audience. For instance, the author used lots of numbers such as 666. Three sixes is the number of the beast. Given that six is a number that symbolizes imperfection, repeated three times it signifies total failure. The symbols in the book needed to be secret, because the book was subversive, undercutting the popular idea that the empire and the emperor were the ultimate powers.

1. What can we learn from the Book of Revelation for our times?

Three main lessons for today—which is like the times of pagan Rome in many ways—can be gained from Revelation. First, you are a believer first and a citizen second. Second, you must be an agent of hope. Third, you must remain faithful.

Carla Alderman (15), Sarah Andrew (16), Bridget A. Commons (15), Natalie E. Corey (16), Angela A. Long (15) and Annie Lander (15) gathered at Camp Rancho Framasa in Nashville, Indiana, where they are counselors in training, to review this issue. They represent parishes in Fishers, Indianapolis and Plainfield, all in the Indianapolis Archdiocese. They posed the following questions which have been answered by the authors.

Q. How can you be sure what the various symbols in the Book of Revelation mean? It certainly isn’t clear to me!
A. Your question stems from thinking that Revelation is unique. It’s difficult to understand something without anything to compare it to. This book is part of a literary genre known as “apocalyptic.” By examining and comparing other examples of the genre, such as the Sibylline Oracles and the Book of Enoch, common themes and symbols can be seen. What at first seems cloudy and confusing, like the use of numbers and colors in the Book of Revelation, becomes much clearer and understandable by comparison.

Q. The readers of the Book of Revelation were brand-new Christians. How can we be called pagan when we’ve had the words of Jesus and the whole New Testament for so long?
A. First, the Christians of Asia Minor for whom John writes are not “new,” but are the second generation of the Church, removed some 60 years from the death and resurrection of Jesus. Second, you must distinguish between being a citizen and being a believer. Looking at our society as reflected in music, TV and news media, you can’t help but notice many examples of selfishness, individualism and immorality. In this light, our society can be described as pagan. The Christian challenge isn’t simply to hear about Jesus, but also to live like him.

Q. If the Book of Revelation is meant to inspire hope, why does it scare people instead?
A. Many people’s understanding of Revelation is dictated by the media and popular culture which emphasize the book’s supposed doomsday scenarios. All you have to do is look at a newspaper rack to find stories linking the Book of Revelation to the end of the world. Disaster movies like Armageddon, which draws its title from the Book of Revelation, also encourage incorrect associations. Finally, many people who read the Bible are unfamiliar with the book’s literary style and distort its meaning by taking it literally. That’s how a book about Jesus Christ and hope is twisted into a book about

 

[redrosetea]

In your statement regarding the Old and New Testaments and regarding Revelation being written in code (presumably so that we cannot understand…) are you suggesting that God has been so perverse as to give us directions on the path to salvation, only in information that we cannot understand?

Would that be the action of a “beneficent” God?

It shows to me that you don’t undertand scripture…The New testament was foretold in the old. by the writings of the prophets…The New Tesment reveals how Christ was the end result of all of the things that were fotetold in the old

Siant Augustine, perhaps the finest mind in the church said this

gloria.tv/?video=d0cibopbzo0noooszp2l

 

[Whdevo]

In your statement regarding the Old and New Testaments and regarding Revelation being written in code (presumably so that we cannot understand…) are you suggesting that God has been so perverse as to give us directions on the path to salvation, only in information that we cannot understand?

Would that be the action of a “beneficent” God?

It shows to me that you don’t undertand scripture…The New testament was foretold in the old. by the writings of the prophets…The New Tesment reveals how Christ was the end result of all of the things that were fotetold in the old

Siant Augustine, perhaps the finest mind in the church said this

gloria.tv/?video=d0cibopbzo0noooszp2l

Hi,

Firstly, please do not take my postings as anything other than a genuine search for what “is” (and. if anything in the wording of my postings leads you to think otherwise, please forgive my lack of clarity).

I should like, firstly, to state that I unequivocally accept your right to believe what you believe and, likewise, to be advised by whomsoever you feel it right to have confidence in.

Also, when I said “anybody”, it was not meant in the derogatory sense in which you seem to have taken it … “just anybody”, but, rather, I meant literally “anybody”, whomsoever you or anybody
chooses to take guidance or inspiration from.

(As I have said, it is my belief that to take guidance is beneficial, but to accept another’s imterpretation of the Word of God without “checking it out” in the Bible, may prove to be anything but “beneficial”

I do not see it as mine to judge what you have chosen to accept, and, when I put points of my understanding, it is not to contradict yours, but, by your response, to better understand my own understanding (or, indeed, when appropriate, to change my understanding).

When I made my “statement about the Old and New Testaments”, I was questioning a previous posting (and, indeed, I believe I quoted it), and pointing out that it may be the case that the premise of that posting may have been logically flawed.

I make it my point not to say that I am right and somebody else is wrong (because, at the end of the day, I do not believe that I can “know” that somebody else is wrong … only that he may hold opinions or perform actions which are not in concert with mine).

Neither do I seek to “convert” anyone to any “point of view” … I simply wish to learn from the people who “live a Catholic life” how best to relate my life to God.

With sincere best wishes

God Bless

William