I feel so sad and moved with pity for judas

[Mintaka]

Given that we pray for all the dead, for all the poor souls, and for all those in need of Jesus’ mercy…

I would say that we are already praying for Judas.

So if you want to pray more, good for you!
If you don’t, too late to stop now!

You can bring up this point about any baddie or non-Christian or sapient being in all of history.
Cavemen? Prayed for!
Kids you might have someday? Prayed for!
Future starship captains? Prayed for!
Aliens? Prayed for!

 

[Dimmesdale]

I’m going to get a boat load of flack for this, but so be it…

I’m not convinced that Judas was a real person. That Jesus chose him to be in his inner circle knowing that he was a reprehensible character (a thief with his hand in the money bag, as one of the Gospels say) and that others were not aware of his bad character, that no, he was saintly, he was no more liable to betraying Jesus than any of the other apostles… but he betrayed Jesus for thirty pieces of silver? Really? Even considering the notion that Jesus selected Judas just so that someone could betray him to set the divine plan into motion… well, what does that say for free will? And on top of all this… if Judas really was the seedy type, that he only cared about money… why did he hang himself? Why didn’t he party instead?

None of this makes sense to me, and so I don’t believe he was a real person, or the figure in the gospels is an extreme exaggeration at best.

 

[Lion_IRC]

This is called an argument from incredulity.
You can apply it to heaps of other biblical figures as a means of equally dismissing their historicity.

 

[Dimmesdale]

This is called an argument from incredulity.
You can apply it to heaps of other biblical figures as a means of equally dismissing their historicity.

I’m not saying the Judas figure is false. I’m just unconvinced it is true. Incredulity can be an asset at times, as we all know…

 

[Lion_IRC]

Are you therefore agnostic/neutral with regards to whether or not Judas Iscariot actually existed?

Or do you think the biblical account of his actions is false?

 

[meltzerboy2]

My own feeling as a non-Christian, so take this with large grains of salt, is that if YOU feel sadness and pity for Judas, then G-D must feel even more sadness and pity. I believe that our feelings of pity, compassion, and love for another can only be magnified infinitely by G-d in whose likeness and image we are created.

 

[Dimmesdale]

Are you therefore agnostic/neutral with regards to whether or not Judas Iscariot actually existed?

Or do you think the biblical account of his actions is false?

I think the account of Judas as described is false, but not necessarily false. It could be true. I’m just not convinced.

Wikipedia on the Argument from Incredulity Fallacy:

"Arguments from incredulity can take the form:

1. I cannot imagine how F could be true; therefore F must be false.
2. I cannot imagine how F could be false; therefore F must be true.[2]"

I don’t think it must be false that Judas was real as described. I could be wrong and I’m open to correction. Again, I’m not convinced of the claim. In a sense I am akin to an agnostic weak atheist regarding this proposition.

 

[Lion_IRC]

Thanks for the explanation of your (agnostic) position.

Yes, I accept that you aren’t asserting a necessary inference that X therefore Y.

But what you are asserting is X (hard to believe) therefore probably Y (probably isn’t true.)

None of this makes sense to me, and so I don’t believe he was a real person

A logical fallacy can exist even when we present a probabilistic line of reasoning. In other words, we don’t have to be on guard against logical fallacies only when asserting an absolutely necessary inference (coercive logic) that X therefore Y

 

[Dimmesdale]

But what you are asserting is X (hard to believe) therefore probably Y (probably isn’t true.)

Dimmesdale:

None of this makes sense to me, and so I don’t believe he was a real person

A logical fallacy can exist even when we present a probabilistic line of reasoning. In other words, we don’t have to be on guard against logical fallacies only when asserting an absolutely necessary inference (coercive logic) that X therefore Y

There are other background assumptions that go into this though. Come to think of it, if this was a legal document in our modern time, and there was an equally queer figure who happened to meet the criteria of thief-disciple-mentally unstable, and this was verified by multiple witnesses, through official channels, then yes, I would be very much “compelled” to accept, by dint of corroboration, that such a figure indeed existed. And admittedly there have been a number of such strange figures throughout history, more or less well attested to. The difference here, though, is why should I believe the reportage of these Gospels, which, among other things, have Jesus raising people from the dead and expelling demons into pigs, saying that there was a three hour period of darkness with NO outside corroboration, Jesus not being accepted by his own family, etc…… Not to mention that there’s no reason why the Gospels couldn’t have had other agendas the same way other ancient wisdom literature “probably did.” (consolidating power, etc) – would you agree?..… I suspect at least some level of chicanery was going on here and I think incredulity is a rational response regarding these types of religious documents, especially given their proliferation and the lack of cohesion among them.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

I’m going to get a boat load of flack for this, but so be it…

I’m not convinced that Judas was a real person.

Secular historians pretty much agree he existed, so he was most probably a real person.

 

[Dimmesdale]

Secular historians pretty much agree he existed, so he was most probably a real person.

Yeah, I think that’s an argument ad populum & or authority (as I’ve been accused of on this forum, heh), so I would question that. Why do they think that rather than that they just think that…

Can they show scientifically that he definitely existed? You might say, well history isn’t science. That seems true enough. But I don’t see why we should accept history as written without doing our own research. If something doesn’t seem right, we should question. People have been wrong before. History has been re-written before. Sometimes by the victors.

 

[EndTimes]

Personally I feel very sad for Judas Iscariot as I can see in the passion of Christ movie he was tortured by the devil…like Jesus had to only choose Judas for his betrayal

Jesus did not choose Judas. So, feel better.

_

 

[Mintaka]

We know more about Judas Iscariot than we know about many kings and queens. That doesn’t mean the kings and queens didn’t exist.

Thirty pieces of silver was a pretty good chunk of change in Jesus’ time. It was enough to buy a whole field’s worth of real estate, close to a major city!

And Jesus chose Judas to become a priest and Apostle. Judas chose Judas to become a traitor, and Jesus knew it and was sad.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

If you don’t want to accept scholars’ peer-reviewed conclusions on history, that’s your choice.

However, it makes it a bit difficult to have any sort of logical discussion with you when you dismiss good evidence against your viewpoint by simply saying you don’t agree with it and instead demand some other unavailable form of proof. It suggests that your mind is not open on the subject and you are going to continue to think what you think and reject any good argument to the contrary.

 

[Dimmesdale]

If you don’t want to accept scholars’ peer-reviewed conclusions on history, that’s your choice.

However, it makes it a bit difficult to have any sort of logical discussion with you when you dismiss good evidence against your viewpoint by simply saying you don’t agree with it and instead demand some other unavailable form of proof. It suggests that your mind is not open on the subject and you are going to continue to think what you think and reject any good argument to the contrary.

I am open to all sorts of evidence. We are all skeptical about various things. Are you open to believing that the Exodus from Egypt never happened? A lot of scholars have weighed in and said there is very little evidence of it. It “probably” didn’t happen. But I take it you would not be open to this, because it goes against your faith (or maybe not, I’m not sure)… I myself don’t have faith that there “can’t possibly” have been a Judas as described. I’m just not convinced from the evidence I’ve seen, and for the reasons I have delineated which militate against it.

 

[Dimmesdale]

Thirty pieces of silver was a pretty good chunk of change in Jesus’ time. It was enough to buy a whole field’s worth of real estate, close to a major city!

So why did Judas hang himself? Why didn’t he enjoy his wealth if that was what he had determined to do? Was he mentally ill?

 

[Gorgias]

Yeah, I think that’s an argument ad populum & or authority (as I’ve been accused of on this forum, heh), so I would question that.

Actually, consensus defeats the “appeal to authority” argument. And, in this case, the assertion being made wasn’t that it was incontrovertible proof, but rather, leads to a “most probable” conclusion. Pretty reasonable, in my book.

Can they show scientifically that he definitely existed?

The question isn’t in good faith. Can you show scientifically that any arbitrary person in antiquity definitely existed? If not, then the request is unreasonable.

Are you open to believing that the Exodus from Egypt never happened? A lot of scholars have weighed in and said there is very little evidence of it.

“Absence of evidence isn’t evidence of absence”, though, right? (Unless, of course, you’re asserting that the null hypothesis has been proven, in which case you’ll share that evidence with us, no?)

So why did Judas hang himself? Why didn’t he enjoy his wealth if that was what he had determined to do?

Scripture gives the answer: he felt remorseful. See Matthew 27:3. (He hanged himself because, in his remorse, he felt unable to be forgiven, it would seem.)

 

[Dimmesdale]

Actually, consensus defeats the “appeal to authority” argument. And, in this case, the assertion being made wasn’t that it was incontrovertible proof, but rather, leads to a “most probable” conclusion. Pretty reasonable, in my book.

One counterexample can foil an entire consensus. One inconsistency can upturn an entire paradigm.

Probability… Indeed, I am not sure what to make of this. How can we know anything with “probable” certainty? In other words, on what basis is this “probability” grounded. I’m not sure… I accept certain things as true, but even then, maybe they aren’t.

I believe we need a truly fool-proof source of knowledge. I am not sure the modern historical method can assuredly provide this.

Can they show scientifically that he definitely existed?

The question isn’t in good faith. Can you show scientifically that any arbitrary person in antiquity definitely existed? If not, then the request is unreasonable.

I suppose you are right, as long as we are all accepting that the historical method can give us knowledge. I am beginning to think it has to be buttressed by some other epistemological support. Some more assured source of knowledge…

Are you open to believing that the Exodus from Egypt never happened? A lot of scholars have weighed in and said there is very little evidence of it.

“Absence of evidence isn’t evidence of absence”, though, right? (Unless, of course, you’re asserting that the null hypothesis has been proven, in which case you’ll share that evidence with us, no?)

I suppose you are right.

So why did Judas hang himself? Why didn’t he enjoy his wealth if that was what he had determined to do?

Scripture gives the answer: he felt remorseful. See Matthew 27:3. (He hanged himself because, in his remorse, he felt unable to be forgiven, it would seem.)
[/quote]

I still find this type of psychology strange. It still gives me doubt, and I don’t see it as unreasonable. I can’t make myself believe in something if I don’t. If I don’t believe, I don’t believe.

 

[Gorgias]

Gorgias:

Scripture gives the answer: he felt remorseful. See Matthew 27:3. (He hanged himself because, in his remorse, he felt unable to be forgiven, it would seem.)

I still find this type of psychology strange. It still gives me doubt, and I don’t see it as unreasonable. I can’t make myself believe in something if I don’t. If I don’t believe, I don’t believe.

I guess the way many interpret this passage is that Judas realized that he had condemned a good and innocent man to death, and one whom he had followed for three years. That guilt and remorse led him to the notion that he could never undo the damage he’d done or be forgiven for it. Not sure I’d see that as “strange”, even if – in an objective sense – I’d say that he was mistaken.

 

[Dimmesdale]

I guess the way many interpret this passage is that Judas realized that he had condemned a good and innocent man to death, and one whom he had followed for three years. That guilt and remorse led him to the notion that he could never undo the damage he’d done or be forgiven for it. Not sure I’d see that as “strange”, even if – in an objective sense – I’d say that he was mistaken.

In my experience, I don’t normally see such a sudden change of heart. In my experience, criminals generally keep being criminals. Psychopaths remain psychopaths. The unrepentant GENERALLY remain set in their ways. Sure, occasionally they might be “born again” and become Christians but that seems to be something that occurs not from them but from the outside agency of “grace.” And that’s positive, not a suicide. I’m not a Christian, but I get this experiential type of thing. I’ve flirted with Calvinism in the past, and Calvinism seems to zero in on the Christian message in a way Catholicism doesn’t, imo.

Then again, I’m not saying this is impossible. I don’t know enough about human nature to categorically say it’s impossible. It’s just that I see very little evidence and if it does happen then its very uncommon imo.