Has history done Judas Iscariot a grave injustice?

[The_Truthinator]

I agree with the above comment.

Hopelessness and despondence are not signs of forgiveness, of a conscience that understands it has been made clean. Judas neither sought nor understood God’s forgiveness. He died in sin. Peter, on the other hand, ran to meet with the risen Lord, and reaffirmed his love for him thrice over. I think that though the Scriptures do not specifically state that Peter sought forgiveness and confessed, his reaction to me demonstrates a clear contrast between him and Judas.

 

[Valke2]

When I read the bible, I don’t see Pilate being displayed with sympathy.

The problem might be that the portrayal is straight forward with no commentary on Pilate’s actions. So some might feel sympathy for him but this isn’t the fault of the narrative.

The gospels also comment that Pilate and Herod, who at one time disliked one another, became friends due to the way they each handled Jesus’ case. Considering how negative Herod is portrayed in the New Testament, I doubt this would be included if the writers wanted to give Pilate a positive spin.

Pilate didn’t have to kill Jesus, he seems pretty cowardly to me. Even his wife warned him and he knew Jesus hadn’t done anything serious enough to warrant punishment but he still went ahead and crucified Jesus.

The ideal of the Jewish Messiah was one of a military leader, especially among 1st century Jews. Rome knew this as well and that is why it was in it’s own interest to kill any alleged Messiah. Any supposed friendship between Pilate and Herod is besides the point. At the time the New Testament was written, Rome had anti-christian legislation in place. The only way the new christians could get Rome to allow them to continue, was to paint Rome’s participation in the death of Jesus as a horrible mistake, and to blame it on another party – the Jews.

 

[childofmary1143]

It seems to me that Judas really got the short end of the stick. In order for Jesus to fulfill the prophecies and save humanity, someone had to turn him in. In a way, there would have been no Christianity without Judas!

That is an interesting perspective. This is why prophecy is so complicated. The fact that it was predetermined before Judas was born he would betray God and hang himself. Fortunately only Jesus was the only one who knew that.

 

[Sixtus]

Valke2 posted:

Pilate was one of the most vicious, violent men to rule.

Actually the image I get is the opposite.

Here is a man who has been posted by Rome to some part of the Empire where insurrection is rift. This ‘strange’ religion of the people means they just will not submit to the powerful Roman Invaders. Most people subdued by the Romans just accepted Roman rule and got on with life. But not the Jews, even threat of crucifixition does not deter them.

Soldiers have to be careful when they go out at night that wandering back to barracks they do not get jumped and knifed in the back. It must have been a real nightmare for any civil authority. Rome would not look kindly on a Govenor who could not govern. Pilate must have been marking the days off his calendar on this posting. Daily he must have feared some insurrection and ‘being recalled to Rome to give an account of his mis-govenorship’. He must have lived a frightful existence.

Then he comes up against a man he clearly sees as innocent. Were he a bad man, would not have wasted a moments thought in dispatching a foreigner to the execution squad, particularly it if appeased the unruly masses, with whom he was clearly struggling to control. But, being a good man at heart has no wish to see an innocent man crucified. For a Roman Govenor to humbly say ‘I will have no part in this man’s death’ shows he had thought about it and was not happy. A cruel man would have simply handed him over to the soldiers without even seeing Him, much less so to listen to His testimony.

I see Pilate in my own dealings with the world. It has been politically expedient in the past to take the same attitude to ‘dispatch folk considered by society to be less than human, to be dealt with by the full force of the law’. But, having read how Pilate dealt with the Lord, am now prepared to stand up and be counted even if it means going against political interests.

It is really tough going against power structures, we can only do what we can and leave the rest to Almighty God. Pilate sadly did not have that option. He was trained in the ways of Rome which was pagan. My heart really goes out to Pilate. May God have mercy on his soul

 

[Valke2]

Well, I guess my point is that I don’t believe he wasted a moment’s thought. His record indicates that a case of moral guilt would have been highly unlikely for this individual. He had absolute power, curcified hundreds if not thousands without blinking an eye, and was eventually removed from his post, after slaughtering a bunch of Samarians, because Rome felt that this bloody mode of ruling was so bad that it would encourage further rebellion.

But whoever’s right, the important thing is the lesson you’ve taken from the story, which was very inspiring to me.

 

[deb1]

The ideal of the Jewish Messiah was one of a military leader, especially among 1st century Jews. Rome knew this as well and that is why it was in it’s own interest to kill any alleged Messiah. Any supposed friendship between Pilate and Herod is besides the point. At the time the New Testament was written, Rome had anti-christian legislation in place. The only way the new christians could get Rome to allow them to continue, was to paint Rome’s participation in the death of Jesus as a horrible mistake, and to blame it on another party – the Jews.

What you have just posted, I have read many times written by those who wish to discredit Christianity. I don’t think that is your intent but you have obviously been influenced by such writings.

Let me give you an example:

Reading historical books on Roman culture and then reading Paul’s letters, one is struck by the fact that he is going against the Roman culture. Take homosexuality, for instance. Roman males did not view homosexuality the same as we do. As long as the man did the penetrating, then sex with other men were okay.

I have a copy of Suetonius’s The Twelve Cesars and there is a part where Julius Caesers gets angry and tells the senate, basically, I am going to have sex with you all and you’ll be in the female position. Um…I had to do some research on Roman sexual practices to understand that.

My point is that Paul was going against something that was considered all right in Roman society. Paul spoke out against homosexuality. It would have been a lot easier to not do so. It certainly couldn’t have made the majority of Romans happy.

Also there are documents about Christianity written by the authorities that accuse Christians of cannabllisom due to their celebration of the Eucharist. If the early Christians wanted to simply please Rome then they would not have insisted on celebrating the Eucharist.

 

[Valke2]

What you have just posted, I have read many times written by those who wish to discredit Christianity. I don’t think that is your intent but you have obviously been influenced by such writings.

Let me give you an example:

Reading historical books on Roman culture and then reading Paul’s letters, one is struck by the fact that he is going against the Roman culture. Take homosexuality, for instance. Roman males did not view homosexuality the same as we do. As long as the man did the penetrating, then sex with other men were okay.

I have a copy of Suetonius’s The Twelve Cesars and there is a part where Julius Caesers gets angry and tells the senate, basically, I am going to have sex with you all and you’ll be in the female position. Um…I had to do some research on Roman sexual practices to understand that.

My point is that Paul was going against something that was considered all right in Roman society. Paul spoke out against homosexuality. It would have been a lot easier to not do so. It certainly couldn’t have made the majority of Romans happy.

Also there are documents about Christianity written by the authorities that accuse Christians of cannabllisom due to their celebration of the Eucharist. If the early Christians wanted to simply please Rome then they would not have insisted on celebrating the Eucharist.

I think there’s a difference in softening the story about Pilate and posting anything that would directly contradict Christian doctrine.

 

[Sixtus]

Helisreal posted:

:Originally Posted by Sixtus
Actually ‘no man is without sin’ is a very Catholic view.

The CC also holds that ‘nothing defiled will enter heaven’.

Both statements of course come from the bible. They are teachings of the Lord. Now the two mean that no-one can therefore enter heaven seeings ‘nothing defiled [by sin] can enter heaven’ while 'no man is without defilement [sin]: enter the concept of purgatory

I guess Jesus and Mary are going to be surprised to hear this news.

My dear helisreal, I doubt the Lord will be so surprised as I imagine He will remember what He taught.

But for references:
Js 3:2 ‘that no one is without sin’ and Rev 21: 27 ‘nothing unclean shall enter heaven’!

 

[Hellisreal]

Helisreal posted:

Those words were spoken after the birth of JTB and Mary, and Jeremiah, so I dont know if you are taking that into account or not.

 

[Jerome42]

Lilly M posted:

Agree we do, but I think we should pray spefically for the repose of the soul of Judas Iscariot.

First we should be praying for the repose of the souls of the millions of tiny pre-born infants which have been aborted over the years. Judas Iscariot needs to get to the back of the line for prayers.

 

[deb1]

I think there’s a difference in softening the story about Pilate and posting anything that would directly contradict Christian doctrine.

That is where we disagree. I don’t think the story was softened. I simply think that it was reported without commentary.

A similar occurrence happens in the story of Lot and his incestuous relationship with his two daughters. I have heard some stories of fathers excusing their perverted behavior toward their daughters with the story of Lot. Yet the bible is not condoning Lot’s behavior, only just reporting the facts without comment.

The same thing is being done to Pilate. Never does the gospels make any judgment at all about Pilate. This was probably done because as a non Jew or non Christian, Pilate was not being held to a high standard. In other words, he was acting as the writers expected a Roman to do. The bar for non Jewish, non Christian behavior was apparently not that high.

 

[jay29]

First we should be praying for the repose of the souls of the millions of tiny pre-born infants which have been aborted over the years. Judas Iscariot needs to get to the back of the line for prayers.

I agree. Judas was the son of perdition. END OF STORY

 

[Valke2]

That is where we disagree. I don’t think the story was softened. I simply think that it was reported without commentary.

A similar occurrence happens in the story of Lot and his incestuous relationship with his two daughters. I have heard some stories of fathers excusing their perverted behavior toward their daughters with the story of Lot. Yet the bible is not condoning Lot’s behavior, only just reporting the facts without comment.

The same thing is being done to Pilate. Never does the gospels make any judgment at all about Pilate. This was probably done because as a non Jew or non Christian, Pilate was not being held to a high standard. In other words, he was acting as the writers expected a Roman to do. The bar for non Jewish, non Christian behavior was apparently not that high.

I don’t see it being reported without commentary. Doesn’t the Gospels claim to be privy to a conversation held between Pilate and his wife?

 

[Valke2]

First we should be praying for the repose of the souls of the millions of tiny pre-born infants which have been aborted over the years. Judas Iscariot needs to get to the back of the line for prayers.

why? If the unborn have souls, they haven’t done anything that would need praying for.

 

[Mirdath]

why? If the unborn have souls, they haven’t done anything that would need praying for.

Sometimes I love you.

I know the conversation you spoke of, but I’m not sure it was in the gospels.

 

[Hellisreal]

why? If the unborn have souls, they haven’t done anything that would need praying for.

the reason for praying for them has no bearing on if they have done anything or not.

The reason for praying for them, is they are God’s creation and were brutally murdered, and chance to have a life in this world outside of the womb was taken from them.

 

[Sixtus]

Jerome posted:

First we should be praying for the repose of the souls of the millions of tiny pre-born infants which have been aborted over the years. Judas Iscariot needs to get to the back of the line for prayers.

While I agree, God’s plan for creation will not be undone by man. I would imagine their little souls developed in Heaven are actually probably praying for us.

But poor ole Judas, come on, he has been waiting for 2000-years, I mean…how long must someone wait!!

 

[Hellisreal]

But poor ole Judas, come on, he has been waiting for 2000-years, I mean…how long must someone wait!!

Till something freezes…um, I mean we just dont know how long.

To God a day could be a thousand years the bible says. Maybe he is still on day 2 or 3…

 

[Mirdath]

the reason for praying for them has no bearing on if they have done anything or not.

The reason for praying for them, is they are God’s creation and were brutally murdered, and chance to have a life in this world outside of the womb was taken from them.

Don’t pray for them – according to your religion, they’re back in Heaven. Pray for those who did them in, and ask them to intercede for you and for the abortionists, if you’re so concerned.

 

[jonespm]

I have hought about this topic before an the conclusion is that it is only up to God. Judas betrayed Jesus and gave him up to his enemies. This was a terrible thing that he did but, forgivable. Peter denied Jesus three times which was bad as well, but the difference is that Peter asked forgiveness and picked himself up again. Judas gave in to his despair and committed suicide which is a mortal sin in itself and perhaps flirting with the unforgivable sin (Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit). In Acts when they are chosing the one to take Judas’ place among the twelve we can get a glimpse of his fate as well. Judas did not betray Jesus against his will, he did it with his free choice. So that is my conclusion to the question, looking forward to your response.

Pinoyjones