Psalm 22 "reproach of men"

[Clovis]

I recently began thinking that the ‘son of perdition’ isn’t Judas, but as Christ said, “whoa to him by whom He is betrayed!” (betrayed as in resembles, not snitched on as in Judas) hinting at Psalm 22 in which the ‘worm and reproach of men’ is tormented in a way resembling Christ. Perhaps the worm is the son of perdition, and why all will mourn upon Christ return is because it was actually the son of perdition which deserved such a vile end and by no means Christ!

 

[jcrichton]

I recently began thinking that the ‘son of perdition’ isn’t Judas, but as Christ said, “whoa to him by whom He is betrayed!” (betrayed as in resembles, not snitched on as in Judas) hinting at Psalm 22 in which the ‘worm and reproach of men’ is tormented in a way resembling Christ. Perhaps the worm is the son of perdition, and why all will mourn upon Christ return is because it was actually the son of perdition which deserved such a vile end and by no means Christ!

Hi, Clovis!

…you are merging two different terms… you must read Psalm 22 in light of Isaiah 52:13 through 53:12–both of these passages speak about John’s Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world; Jesus becomes the abomination that humans are in order to rescue us from the clutches of sin. It is not that Jesus is a sinner but that He chose to take onto Himself our sin. This choice led Him to that state of being seen as a “worm” or someone whom the world “reproaches.”

Have you ever had the experience of making a personal loan (money, equipment…); if the person refuses to return/payback, have you noticed how that person shuns you and velifies you? It is the same with Jesus–man does not want to recognize Jesus’ Sacrifice for his sake so he demeans and vilifies Him; he made Him the object of scorn and loathing.

…Judas… there is no escape for his title since Jesus, God, called him the son of perdition. The term you use (snitch) does not reflect what Judas did. Had Judas been a person outside of Jesus’ circle (audience, neighbor, business acquaintance, passer by, an agent of the Temple or the Empire) then we could very well say that he snitched on Jesus. But that was not the case. Judas was one of Jesus chosen (selected) Twelve: he lived with Jesus; he traveled with Jesus; he ate at Jesus’ table; he managed the purse of Jesus’ group…

Judas was a disciple of Christ and he chose to inform on Jesus’ whereabouts; but not only that, Judas, quite consciously, accepted money for the capture of Jesus–Judas was aware that Jesus would suffer bodily harm and possibly death at the hands of those who wished to apprehend Him.

Did Judas have a choice? No! His mind was closed to the truth till almost the very end–once aware of what he had done he did attempt to take it back; it was not to be so.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Hmmm…

I don’t quite understand what the original post is substituting for the son of perdition in preference to Judas – but I would comment that Judas’ handling of the purse, and several other items in scripture show he was more than a snitch. He was greedy in various ways.

Notice at the last supper when John asks Jesus who the betrayer is, Jesus says it is the one who has dipped his hand into the dish with me.

Who is the master of the table except Jesus, and if he is the one breaking and giving the bread and other items out – why would Judas who is neither the youngest (eg: John was) or the eldest (Peter was) who were at the places of honor – nor was Judas a servant – So, why would HE be in competition with Jesus for a morsel of food?

Although that is at least “bad table manners” and at most “theft”, the scriptures reveal the same pattern over and over again with Judas. When the woman annointed Jesus feet with precious oil and perfume, Judas becomes angry because it could “have been sold” and the proceeds “given to the poor”.

Yet just as Judas reached his own hand into the dish with Jesus in competition for a small trifle – it was Judas who carried the money purse for the Apostles. It was Judas who decided which poor person got any money – including himself.
The temple tax was not paid from Judas’ purse – peter had to catch a seperate fish for that.

Sometimes people note that the trade of Jesus was for money, and that too is greedy ( thirty pieces of silver – the price of a slave’s life the monetary value of a human being in the Mosaic scheme of things ) – if he were a snitch, why do it for pay? Many speculate that the very fact he throws the money back, is not in repentance, but in self loathing. Jesus acted as servant at the last supper, even granting the apostles symbolic authority over himself in some way.

Slaves can be sold.

Perhaps judas did not expect Jesus to be executed – every moment of every day, in every trial – NO one could catch, keep, or entrap Jesus on the law. When confronted, he could outwit all the scribes and pharisees at once – and turn the death sentence back on them.

So Judas, by association (and by stealth) receives small amounts of money, food, honor, and other such nicities that a parasite like Judas could filch – and Jesus allowed even this, for he even made the bread for the 1000’s which he gave Judas a full basket to gather up – and so on – but like the farmer who kills the “Golden Goose” – Judas’ decided to make things go quickly in his own favor – Realize that Jesus clearly could get out of if he wanted to, and Judas had witnessed this multiple times. He puts Jesus to the test, in that scenario.

Also, at least, in the Gospel of Luke, the text makes it clear that the bread was already consecrated “my body” when Judas dipped his hand in the dish.
Luke 22:19-22. Whether he ate it or not, he handled it.

And it is very poinient in Luke that Jesus does not even accuse Judas of betraying him for money, nor for hand picking the soldiers and guards or any petty crime (Judas did not drive the nails in, did he?) – but rather Jesus’ asks the question in Luke 22:47 – “Judas, would you betray the Son of man with a kiss?”

Jesus does not even use the term messiah here – but an appelation that refers to the offspring of Adam – by the kiss of peace. Judas betrays every one of us. Pure Guile – the same way the devil killed Eve – by pretending to be a friend in the very act of murder.

He who eats and drinks the body and blood of the Lord unworthily drinks judgement on himself.

There are other interpretations, and I am not saying that anyone has to believe Judas went to hell – but I will agree that JChriton’s interpretation is extraordinarily strong and Judas is explicitly the betrayer named in John 18:2;
Judas is the one whom Jesus answers differently in Matthew 26:25, 26:46-47.

On the other hand, Jesus came not to judge the world but to save it – it is the prince of the world whom he came to Judge.

It was not Jesus’ purpose to judge his friends, including Judas, at this time.

And notice what Jesus says to Pilate about “a greater sin” than Pilates cowardice – even sentencing Jesus to death. To Pilate Jesus proclaims the greater sin is held by “he/she/it” (singular) who handed me over to you. John 19:11.

If Jesus means “he” collectively it is all such persons, but the text is in the singular.
And the sentence itself implies that the power to hand Jesus over did not come from above (?!) , but from what is below.

No one else was Judas’ slave that could be sold, than Jesus who washed their feet. No one else was a blood relative – but if he had taken of the Covenental food, Judas was family by covenant – and perhaps imagined the right to sell his brother as was Joseph into Egypt.

Herod is the only other single human contender.

And that is Ironic – for Herod was called “King of the Jews” rather than the more honorable “the Jewish king” as a pharisaical slight – for the one statement implied hostage force, whereas the more honorable implies the familial relationship.

The Parisees minimize the honor of Herod, and Pilate throws it back at them by crucifying Jesus under the insult leveled against Herod – whom sends him back in royal apparel to Pilate. If jesus is guilty, it is of being more powerful than you.

Thoughts?

 

[Joe_Kelley]

. . .
Notice at the last supper when John asks Jesus who the betrayer is, Jesus says it is the one who has dipped his hand into the dish with me.
. . .

I don’t know which translation you are using. I think the RSV-CE may be more accurate.

26* Jesus answered, “It is he to whom I shall give this morsel when I have dipped it.” So when he had dipped the morsel, he gave it to Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot.

There was a custom for the leader to dip a bit of bread into one of the sauces * and give it to a guest as a sign of favor or honor. Here Jesus gives Judas one last sign of His love for him. *

 

[Huiou_Theou]

I don’t know which translation you are using. I think the RSV-CE may be more accurate. There was a custom for the leader to dip a bit of bread into one of the sauces * and give it to a guest as a sign of favor or honor. Here Jesus gives Judas one last sign of His love for him. *

Now, Joe, I don’t doubt Jesus loved Judas – but if you are trying to trace a hebrew custom using the RSV-CE, read it from the Book of Matthew.
(Ignatius study bible.)

RSV-CE, Matthew 26:23
“He answered, he who has dipped his hand in the dish with me, will betray me”

RSV-CE, Mark 14:20
"Hw said to them, It is one of the twelve, one who is dipping bread in the same dish with me

RSV-CE, Luke 22:21 – on the very heels of the consecration of Wine – “but behold, the hand of him who betrays me is with me at the table.”

Ps. I read the Greek, and occasionally paraphrase from memory, but the last bible I read on this was the RSV-CE. I normally use the KJV, not cause it’s good – but because nothing is more fun than to prove Catholic points from protestant bibles…

BTW – which chapter and verse of the RSV-CE are you using?

 

[jcrichton]

Many speculate that the very fact he throws the money back, is not in repentance, but in self loathing.

Hi, Huiou Theou!

I agree with your description of Juda’s greed–he seemed to be a human leech sucking the financial energy from the Apostles’ purse–but I do not agree with the speculation (have seen it presented in other forums) about Juda’s intentions… it is evident from Scriptures that he came to an awakening (St. Matthew 27:3-5); granted he dismissed Jesus’ Teachings throughout his discipleship but it was necessary for him to be blind to the truth–how else could Jesus call him the son of perdition? …how else could Judas ignore being called the betrayer and continue to do exactly as it is told of him (compare with Kephas’ denial and the disciples on the road to Emmaus; also the prophetic words of Caiphas, the High Priest, “better one man die for the nation…” and the almost complete rejection of Jesus by the relgios elite…)?

Some would argue that he did not trully repent because he killed himself and they counterpose Peter’s denial… Peter was under duress–he feared being arrested or even killed… but Peter did not reject Christ’s Teachings during his discipleship… and Peter was such a “fool” for Christ that he outdid everyone else’s devotion to Christ… so it was a matter of conditioning that Kephas did not lose his bond with the Master. Juda’s was up the proverbial creek–his only recourse (plead for Jesus’ life) blew up on his face… in that enlightened moment Judas was still sorrounded by darkness (spiritual stifling) since he could not negotiate Jesus’ release, this is my own summation, Judas sought to right the wrong by doing what he erroneously thought would please God, “it would be better for him not to have been born…”

There are other interpretations, and I am not saying that anyone has to believe Judas went to hell –

I concur. The fact that Jesus, on the Cross, asked the Father to “…forgive them for they know not what they do,” cannot be interpreted as “with the exception of Judas…” Judas failed terribly by not accepting Jesus as the Messiah; but, it was Judas who was ordained not as a vessel for good but as a vessel for wicked things ("…did I not chose all of you, the Twelve, and one of you is a devil…")–he could do nothing else but execute his role as the “friend who eats and worships with me is the one that betrays me,” Psalm 55–paraphrased.

To Pilate Jesus proclaims the greater sin is held by “he/she/it” (singular) who handed me over to you. John 19:11.

…as far as I can recall all of my Bibles state “he” or “the one” or “the man;” though it is understood that the prince of Darkness is behind all rebellious acts against God, here Scriptures are referring to Caiphas, the High Priest, without whom Jesus’ apprehension, transfere to the Gentiles’s authority, and sentence to death could not have been carried out.

The Parisees minimize the honor of Herod, and Pilate throws it back at them by crucifying Jesus under the insult leveled against Herod – whom sends him back in royal apparel to Pilate. If jesus is guilty, it is of being more powerful than you.

I do not see it quite like that… I see the religious and even the mass mocking Jesus–some are still spinning from His response to thier complaint on His triumphant entrence into Jerusalem (St. Matthew 21:9-16); and I see Pilate dismissing Jesus accusers, if only symbolicly, as he would be well-versed in Judaism and would know that their only true King would be Yahweh. I also see those who took offense to Pilate’s determination rejecting God’s Kingship once again, 1 Samuel 8.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[Joe_Kelley]

. .

BTW – which chapter and verse of the RSV-CE are you using?

I took it from John 13:26. Figured he was most apt to have really heard what Jesus said to him.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Hi, Huiou Theou!

Hi!, JChriton / Angel

… --but I do not agree with the speculation (have seen it presented in other forums) about Juda’s intentions… it is evident from Scriptures that he came to an awakening (St. Matthew 27:3-5);

 

[Huiou_Theou]

I recently began thinking that the ‘son of perdition’ isn’t Judas, but as Christ said, “whoa to him by whom He is betrayed!” (betrayed as in resembles, not snitched on as in Judas) hinting at Psalm 22 in which the ‘worm and reproach of men’ is tormented in a way resembling Christ. Perhaps the worm is the son of perdition, and why all will mourn upon Christ return is because it was actually the son of perdition which deserved such a vile end and by no means Christ!

As a slight rephrasing, are you thinking of the worm like the serpent in the desert – which was lifted up – and to whom Jesus himself references, the son of man must be lifed up like the serpent in the desert?

I mean, the serpent was a false fertility God whom was more or less crucified in the desert as a sign to which the death of would provide healing of to those rightfully bitten by the poison of this fertility God because of false worship.

However, this is a terribly ironic comparison – Jesus and the Serpent – Which he himself makes of his own crucifixion.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

I took it from John 13:26. Figured he was most apt to have really heard what Jesus said to him.

Long resspone, to your short one

I am sure Jesus did say what is recorded in the Gospel of John, as well as Matthew, Mark and Luke. John is recording his interpretation of what happened after a lapse of many years – and this was a traumatic event – and John was an old man when he wrote his memoirs, wheras he was the youngest of the Apostles when it actually happened. All other Gospel writers wrote before him, Matthew being particularly Jewish – Mark being the disciple of Peter recording his information early on, and Luke writing to a less Jewish audience based on research from the Apostels, and probably knew John and Jesus’ mother Mary personally.

Think about the supper setup as recorded in scripture, Peter is unable to talk to John or Jesus directly for some reason at the table – and so he signals John to ask Jesus who the betrayer was. Clearly, since Jesus took Peter James and John alone in a priveleged way to virtually every special outing, (the transfiguration, the special prayer in the agony in the garden, etc.) These three are quite favored among the apostles.

Also, in traditional form, the youngest child – the child of old age for Jacob/Israel was the favored one – which caused his brothers to hate him. He corresponds to John, for Jesus in constituting the 12 Apostles is purposely making himself the new Israel / Abraham among his “sons”. The youngest for more reason than one, would be the one to be at the chest of the patriarch. Easiest to teach, ask the traditional passover question of the father, etc. etc. etc. This is borne out by John “leaning back against Jesus’ chest” to ask the question.

Also, they reclined at table, so they leaned on their left arm to allow their right arm free to grab food – head being toward the table. So when John asks this question, his head is backward to Jesus face – and John can’t see what is happening behind Jesus while asking the question.

The other child of note was to be the eldest, which in the Case of the Apostles was Peter. Peter should have been behind Jesus as the other person closest to his ear and totally out of sight of John.

But something is evidently amiss in the Gospels – for rather than ask the question himself, Peter gets John to do it after the washing of feet. The location of Peter and Judas is indeterminate – but before you take John’s comment fully, consider he was leaning over backward to talk to Jesus privately – and his view was blocked over part of the table – John didn’t necessarily see everything that happened although others would have.

A couple of other interesting facts, it was John and Peter whom Jesus asked to prepare the passover meal – John was reclining at this moment in his customary place.

The out of place washing of the feet comes in John’s gospel to underscore a mysterious point – John writes immediately preceeding it: “And during supper, when the devil had already put it into the heart of Judas to betray …”
Why then is it important that Judas had already decided to betray Jesus, in order to explain the mysterious washing of feet?

In other words, the washing of the feet is in direct connection with the betrayal of Judas. The immediate effect of the washing of the feet is to cause Peter to be confronted with a threat of ex-communication. The final ambigous phrase is addressed in general but as a rebuke to Peter: “and you(plural) are clean, but not all” .

Without reading the clarification offered by St. John in the next sentence the sentence itself indicates that at Peter (at least) had dirty feet, (else why excommunicate him???) but at the same time it could mean someone else. Peter already stands partially condemned in a social sense – and the only way out is if Jesus meant this in common with all the apostles, or if he was doing it to hide the identity of one of them.

Now we know that at this point, after the washing of the feet, Peter was able to clearly see what was going on becasue either he was doing service of some kind in deference to Jesus’ rebuke, or because his posture or stature had changed in some way – eg: he was lowered in preference around the table. Hence the only other person with Jesus’ private ear being John, he asks him to find out.

But that does not mean John had all the information, nor does it mean that Judas didn’t dip his hand in the dish in competition, for there were certainly multiple dippings – and Judas was clearly seen by others dipping his hand in the dish.

Consider also Luke, who is writing to a far more Greek audience – notice how his statement is a little different from the other two in deference to Greek ideas. That also supports that the event had to do with manners or custom of the Jews, as you note for Luke has to use a different expression to convey the idea to a more Greek audience.****

 

[jcrichton]

Quote:
… --but I do not agree with the speculation (have seen it presented in other forums) about Juda’s intentions… it is evident from Scriptures that he came to an awakening (St. Matthew 27:3-5);

Certainly you are not only entitled to an opinion, but if I have over-read anything you said – I apologize for over referencing your words. As to the evidence, this is quite a deep question mark for me.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Huiou Theou;3388855:

Quote:
… --but I do not agree with the speculation (have seen it presented in other forums) about Juda’s intentions… it is evident from Scriptures that he came to an awakening (St. Matthew 27:3-5);

I am not suggesting any error on your part… I was simply responding to the noted speculation (which I have argued on other foroms). The evidence is state in Scriptures: (St. Matthew 27:3)
Ignatius: “he repented”
NJB: “was filled with remorse”
Good News: “he repented”
NAB: “deeply regretted what he had done”
NIV: “he was seized with remorse”
(…others just have the same variations as above)

We can choose to ignore Scripture or we can accept that he repented.

Yes I got that, I was just noticing that my post as a whole might have been taken to be putting extra words in your mouth, and I felt it best to clarify.

As to the repentance, I am not ignoring scriputre at all – I do not know whether Judas is eternally damned or not. I do know that about the smartest priest I ever had, and about the most faithful I have ever seen – except for Msgr. Vanderzanden, did a fairly lengthy homily on Judas’ condemnation to hell based on the scriptures. This priest wasn’t a lightweight, and it gives me great pause to realize that he in juxtaposition to other less faithful prests – he strongly held that view in light of Jesus’ words – not as a personal Judgement.

As to the words themselves, I am temporarily at a disadvantage, as all my notes are on a piece of hardware which is presently in-operable, and it will be some time before I have the comprehensive tools operating again to cross check.

I do note that in the particular passage of matthew that the verb form of to return/repent seems to be – “e-stre(p-s)en” – The noun form of this word I have studied exhaustively, and I compared all verb forms of the word. It is ambiguous.
It is a word used with respect to a path one takes physically returning to a place they have already been. It is NOT describing the internal orientation of Judas, but the external. The rest of the sentence suggests a metaphor or something where this physical return is “repentance”. The sentence which follows shows that Judas acknowledges his guilt – “I have sinned in betraying innocent blood”, but the translated word “repentance” does not, in the Greek it is superficial.
When conversion is implied, or a cause of repentence the word strefE – is prefixed by “epi” upon – eg: a reason, or physical cause, or another prefix which means “with” or “unity” turning – these are the two ways that word can be used to designate a conversion of some kind – neither is used in Matthew, but only a stripped “turned back to where he came from” is posited by Matthew.

Consider Acts 2:38, “Repent and be baptized every one of you…”

The word for repentence of the Jews who were Guilty of putting Jesus to death in gross, is: meta-noE-sate fE-sin ]. I don’t have my notes, but that looks to me like the changing of one’s mind “After-mind/knowledge”

I don’t have the fullness of the argument now, which is why my earlier posts are carefully phrased – but I am just being very cautious with respect to scripture as exposited so far, because there is something quite subtle going on that even priests appear to disagree on, strongly.

Jesus’ words support my argument: Judas is the son of perdition: i.e.: Judas is the vessel made for the task of betraying the Lamb of God!

Sure. But, it is a mistake to view this making as a pure act of the will of God.

Conversely, Kephas too was blinded, though temporarily, to truth as he denies Jesus on three separate occasions just a few hours after his own proclamation that he would die for Jesus. Was Peter feeble or absentminded or did Jesus’ prophecy had to come true?

And NOT either/or.
All the above, but Jesus didn’t cause or make Peter feeble, absentminded, etc.

…they seem similar… but you forget that Jesus was not subject to Judas’ coup d’état!

No, I don’t forget – I question. The scriptures also say that Jesus was not granted to Pilate from what was above – but then, how is it possible that he were handed over at all? Does the devil have power over the son of man he is not given from above? This is mysterious. I would like to accept your statement emotionally, but there is more meaning here somewhere. Perhaps, Jesus was not – but the rest of the Apostles were. Does not Jesus turn his own cheek to save the others in the Garden of sorrow?

…I don’t mean to be disrespectful but, huh? The religious elite gave Judas the task of picking those who would apprehend their “dead man walking?”

Scripture says so: “John 18:3 – So Judas procuring a band of soldiers and some officers from …”

The role is spoken of in the active, not the passive – the ruling body did entirely choose them for him – he procured them. It is his active choice – and upon approaching Jesus, they “fell down”.

Defend Jesus? …how, why? How would you reconcile Jesus’ Words “I will strike the Shepherd and the sheep will scatter…?” If any of the disciples would come to Jesus’ aide Jesus would have been superfluous in His rendition of that particular prophecy.

How so? Did Jesus strike himself? Is the cross suicide?
Again, predestination vs. double predestination.
No, Jesus knew Judas would not come to his aid – is not the same as making him that way.

The thirty pieces of silver is only mentioned as a fixed sum one other place in scripture – where the “bad” shepherds get their wages. In that passage, as I recall, the shephard himself decides to quit his job – and collect the pay he has earned so far. I think we haven’t really opened the scriptures enough to see clearly what is going on – so I am cautious.

You continue to support my point: Judas was selected apart from all others to betray Jesus!

selected, or fore-known? The sentence above is a tautology in either case, I don’t hink we disagree – but perhaps we are talking past each other.

…I cannot support your final statement since Scripture does not determine that all of those who participated in Jesus’ arrest, torture, and execution repented and were baptized. There are only three people who are noted in Scriptures as recognizing Jesus for Whom He really Is, besides the Believers: the Centurion/Captain, the criminal on the cross, and Judas.

The devils recognize him too, if for a bad reason.
No, indeed, nor is it true that all these people were in the crowd when Jesus spoke those words. I agree to the probability of your interpretaion.

I think that it is easier than what is feared… there is only One Lamb of God–

no contest. I am grasping at ideas, trying to see why certain thoughts are ridiculous – not that I hold otherwise.

I apologize for insinuating a natural concurrence where there wasn’t one… I will attempt to clarify: when Jesus stated “Father forgive them for they know not what they do.” He is making a blancket statement, from my perspective, which is inclusive of all those who had taken part of His Crucifixion. Am I suggesting that that was an automatic “get out of hell” clause? No! It was Jesus’ plea with the Father to confer forgiveness to those who sought it.

I respect your view, and find it plausable. I just am slow to come to the same conclusion because of other information which I haven’t reconciled yet.

…the translations may be ambigous, but if we follow the text we must realize that only the High Priest had the authority to demand Jesus’ death–the Romans may have been harsh but they had an established form of governance where their subject nations could not, on their own, execute capital punishment. It is very doubtful that the Sandhedrin would impose the death penalty on a Jew without the High Priest’s consent: ergo, Caiphas.

I don’t know if you wish to do it here, but I would ask you explain.
On what ground did the High priest have the authority to demand Jesus’ death?

In the very charges brought against Jesus, the high priest does not have authority to demand his death – but must in fact modify the charges to a false charge. King Herod is at least half Jewish – why isn’t he executed for this same “crime?”

…you are reading too fast… I said that Pilate was dismissive of the Jews that were accusing Jesus not of Jesus Himself.

Then, I am not the only one – God bless you.

 

[jcrichton]

Consider Acts 2:38, “Repent and be baptized every one of you…”

The word for repentence of the Jews who were Guilty of putting Jesus to death in gross, is: meta-noE-sate fE-sin ]. I don’t have my notes, but that looks to me like the changing of one’s mind “After-mind/knowledge”

Hi, Huiou Theou!

…let me begin by stating that in all the other cases the enigma that is Judas had us taking our basketball and going home…
I expect much the same this time around…

I find that position (coming back to the beginning; recognizing he was wrong, having a chance of heart/mind–anything but repenting) would be redundant as the narrator would simply be committing to text the same statement in both a concise and unabridged form. So there are either two distinct thoughts or the writter/narrator just wants to multiply his words.

Sure. But, it is a mistake to view this making as a pure act of the will of God.

…so, any of the twelve would do or anyone at all? …wouldn’t it have been safer for Jesus to suggest that “one will betray me” without committing Himself to naming Judas since it could go any way?

…but Jesus didn’t cause or make Peter feeble, absentminded, etc.

I am not suggesting that Jesus did that; my statement is that, in general, for a thinking adult man to fail to take into account Jesus’ warnings he would have to have had some type of temporary incapacitation–it is easy for you and I to reason, “hey, you just don’t betray/deny the Master.” But we have 2000 years of theology behind us… and, most importantly, God’s Salvific Plan for all of humanity is not dependent upon our personal acceptance of Christ’s Sacrifice; had Jesus prayed for Judas to come to a spiritual awakening how could a born-of-the-Spirit Judas be deceived by Satan in partaking of Jesus’ Crucifixion?

No, I don’t forget – I question. The scriptures also say that Jesus was not granted to Pilate from what was above – but then, how is it possible that he were handed over at all? Does the devil have power over the son of man he is not given from above? This is mysterious.

I think that you are misinterpreting Scriptures… Jesus is telling Pilate that had he not been granted power over Him from above (the Father) he (Pilate) could do nothing to Him since He could easily call upon myriads of angels who would come to His rescue–note that Jesus does not even state “I am your Creator and I can undo your creation with but a simple thought…”

Does Satan have power over Jesus? No! Jesus warns His disciples, “let’s go, the prince of this world arrives/comes… he has no power over me…”

I would like to accept your statement emotionally, but there is more meaning here somewhere. Perhaps, Jesus was not – but the rest of the Apostles were. Does not Jesus turn his own cheek to save the others in the Garden of sorrow?

It is prophetic: “I give them back to you… none were lost but the son of perdition.”

Scripture says so: “John 18:3 – So Judas procuring a band of soldiers and some officers from …”

The role is spoken of in the active, not the passive – the ruling body did entirely choose them for him – he procured them. It is his active choice – and upon approaching Jesus, they “fell down”.

…you may see it as emotion, I see it as common sense; the Sandhedrin is about to demand the death of their greatest religious rival and they are going to let a nickle and dime thug make the arrangements? Caiphas is going to give Judas authority over the Temple guards?

Judas met the guards and guided them to Jesus, any other interpretation is going beyond logic.

How so? Did Jesus strike himself? Is the cross suicide?
Again, predestination vs. double predestination.
No, Jesus knew Judas would not come to his aid – is not the same as making him that way.

…you’re missing the point: none of the Twelve came to Jesus’ aide; there was no way they could have without violating the prophecy that spells out: “I will strike the Shepherd and the sheep will scatter.” The one doing the striking is the Father (Jesus’ condemnation and Crucifixion); it is the Father’s demand for the Perfect Sacrifice that compels the Incarnation of the Word: “…for sacrifice and holocaust are not pleasing to you (you did not want), but you forged me a body…” (extremely paraphrased).

selected, or fore-known? The sentence above is a tautology in either case, I don’t hink we disagree – but perhaps we are talking past each other.

…so you are saying that Judas was not selected to betray Jesus? …would that not make Jesus an uncaring and imperfect Shepherd since He fore-knew that Judas would fail and instead of praying longer, deeper, and more frequently for him, He simply refused to pray for the one true lost soul that needed His Prayer more desperately?

I don’t know if you wish to do it here, but I would ask you explain.
On what ground did the High priest have the authority to demand Jesus’ death?

In the very charges brought against Jesus, the high priest does not have authority to demand his death – but must in fact modify the charges to a false charge. King Herod is at least half Jewish – why isn’t he executed for this same “crime?”

I am not suggesting that Caiphas had any legal or religious rights to demand the death of Jesus or of any other Jew; I am stating, however, that only the High Priest could make such a demand–it was Caiphas himself whom the Holy Spirit use to prophesy that One would die for the nation; it was Caiphas who persuaded the Sandhedrin to seek the opportunity to have Jesus killed; it was Caiphas that had the last word in what should be done with Jesus before bringing Him to the Gentiles–or am I wrong in understanding Caiphas role as a High Priest; is it the understanding that the High Priest only officiates once a year when he enters the Holy of Holies?

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Hi, Huiou Theou!

…let me begin by stating that in all the other cases the enigma that is Judas had us taking our basketball and going home…
I expect much the same this time around…

Well there is nothing wrong with a little confidence, but just make sure the game isn’t rugby…

I find that position (coming back to the beginning; recognizing he was wrong, having a chance of heart/mind–anything but repenting) would be redundant as the narrator would simply be committing to text the same statement in both a concise and unabridged form. So there are either two distinct thoughts or the writter/narrator just wants to multiply his words.

 

[jcrichton]

Quote:
Originally Posted by jcrichton
Hi, Huiou Theou!

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Huiou Theou;3398586:

Hi, Huiou Theou!

…no not confidence; I was thinking more in the terms of elementary school basketball courts… when things did not go as planned the kid with the basketball would grab his ball and am scram; we are at two opposite ends with no reconciliation: you will point out one philosophy, I another.

Ahhh, too bad. I did notice it was a possibility – more like rugby, eh?

If we are scoring point for linguistics, I am doomed–I hardly have a working knowledge of American English–if we allow for content, you will never convince me that a person who does not repent from his/her actions has remorse, gives up the advantage/gain and commits suicide out of wanton hunger for attention.

I don’t recall trying to convince you of all that. Of course I allow for content, as I said I believe there was a “this Rock” article on that very passage – which is exactly about content in spite of linguistics. I guess you didn’t read that one…

As I said in the above post – perhaps it is a minor point.

…so he held out till the sentencing to gain what advantage?

Now you have missed my point – why is Judas’ remorse based on the outcome of anything? If he did actions honestly, then those actions are right regardless of the outcome, and he has nothing to fear. Utilitarianism is to justify the means by the end. Judas has failed onboth counts – so how does one show the interior quality of his repentance on both counts, and not the utility of it?

In confession, there are two types of contrition – perfect, and imperfect.
Imperfect contrition saves no one without the physical confession to a priest.
Did Judas go to Jesus and ask his forgiveness directly? ( He cerainly could have at any time up to the crucifixion – even if he had to die with Jesus ).

If he were really sorry of killing a man, and had not enough fear to stop from hanging himself – has he not the guts to say “I’m sorry?” – what was he doing, trying to preserve his life?

…hence my analogy (perhaps poor) of the basketball game… we are at opposite ends and traveling in opposite directions… the distance cannot but get wider and wider apart.

I am not quite so pessimistic, my friend. True philosophers seek to understand, not just to win games – somehow I doubt you will betray me as many others have.

all left him according to Scriptures (Mt 26:56)
the other disciple was well known to the high priest (Jn 18:15)

Yet, we are taking a few verses of scripture here or there and using them to divide other scripture. So, you have a philosophy not based on linguistics – and I have a philosophy that includes linguistics – what then is the reconciliation in your philosophy of these two apparent contradictions? Or again, what of Mary who was without sin at all? is she part of “all” left him? and most importantly, in what way.

Which scripture is Jesus quoting in 26:56 – what is the content (and context) of that original prophecy? I don’t recall it, and as this is Lent it might be a good text to meditate on before next week.

Either the Biblical text is wrong or people are reading into Scritpures what is a personal belief: they all abandoned Christ as per prophecy and only two disciples made it to Jesus’ passion and crucifixion–in order for the disciple that Jesus loved to not have abandoned Him he had to be that disciple known to the high priest!

What does this knowledge of the High Priest have to do with a disciple and Mary abandoning Jesus? I don’t get that.

I think that I have stated (at least once) on this forum that I am not a theologian/scholar–not only that that I have deep reservations accepting them (my personal rule). My suggestion is that the Church has been studying the Holy Scriptures for close to 2000 years–so we have that advantage over Jesus’ contemporaries; conversely, they had a huge advantage over us as the Holy Spirit came to them (Believers) in a powerful and intimate way.

I accept church teaching as well.
I have felt the tiniest whisper of the Holy Spirit since confirmation – it is enough for me.

…they’re baaack… the apples and pineapples–so so close… Here’s Paul’s statement: In other words, if God wants to show mercy on someone, he does so, and if he wants to harden someone’s heart, he does so.

(Romans 9:18)

Again, fruity context – Pharaoh hardened his own heart. St. Paul speaks as if God makes a person the totality of what they are – but that is not entirely so.
Romans is extrodinarily difficult as a book, but have you ever molded un-refined clay before? – it can have rocks, iron imperfections, all kinds of things which make it unsuitable for one kind of product – but totally suitable for another. Perhaps with “bad” clay the best one can make is a brick – with good clay, fine china. However, it is the skill of the artisian which makes something useful out of all clays whether for a higher or lower purpose – why then does the artisian find fault, because the clay is of a certain quality. Could the artisian change the quality of clay – sometimes, yes, by refining it – using a ball mill – etc. But it isn’t always worth doing.

…but let me make your argument: “you see, Angel, it’s about the Greek/Hebrew/Aramaic/Vulgate… that text does not realy mean that… you have taken it out of exegesis…” I would, of course, counter with, “aha…” by this time one of us is picking up the basketball!

As I said, it is a minor point. You are free to go home, but is that philosophy?
I am happy to argue without the linguistics if it makes the conversation more enjoyable. I am interested in the logical interplay in English as well…

…this condition is of His own Will; it is not imposed on Him; it is the reason why He could control nature and the evil spirits summitted to Him–including Satan, “Begone!” and ole Lucifer just up and skedaddled. Though it was for our benefit that He emptied Himself of His Divinity (put It aside), when have you heard of a dead man resurrecting himself into a higher form, out side of Jesus?

Unfortunately, in mythology the claim happens quite often. For example the Greek God Zeus – do you remeber St. Paul saying “Cretans: always liars?” – what he is referencing is the theology of Crete which held that Zeus was a mortal man at one time (the father of the Cretans, even) and at death he became a demi-god.

The apologetics of St. Paul against them is purely philosophical, based on their own prophet, and the ludicrissness of the creator of the universe having been once been a man.

I agree with the omnipotence of God, and the union of the God man with God – however, God swore to Abraham – and God can’t lie. He entered a contract which bound “himself” to a certain set of rules – so I don’t quite buy the argument that God could do whatever he chose – whenever he chose. He fixed choices in time (from eternity) that affect how he would act at later times.
The free will of man enters into the temporal unfolding of God’s choice.
Granted, God sees the future – and he does whatever he wills – but his eternal choice is revealed in time, and the contingencies of earlier times still apply logically to the future. Otherwise the promises are nil. God has to give to us because he has promised of “old” and because he can’t lie – God is faithful even temporally although the will of man changes in time.

No mystery here: not yet time–consider the various instances when the crowd intimated killing Him or claiming Him as King!

The point is they failed on all earlier occasions, and they DID NOT KNOW what time it was. There was no scripture script of the new testament for Caiphas.
Logically, then, these people noticed that Jesus went unscathed – and they had to wonder why, even as blind as they were. Do you think they went around saying, wait until passover – he has celebrated two passovers with his apostles, on this third one we have the clock! let’s get him! That isn’t going to convince many people of the logic of any philosophy. If they understood the scriptures … ah but no – they were blind.

…content… it was not just a sin but a sin against Yahweh God: His Authority!

I will have to munch on some pineapple and see it it helps me understand.
I’ll spend some more time on this point, and get back to you once I have a clue.

I am speaking strictly in terms of Judaism and the Jews–clearly, being a subject of Rome did not allow for the Jews to have actual authority; just that pseudo “feel good” kind as the observance of the Temple and the temple grounds… Jesus’ trial at the hands of the Romans would never have taken place unless Caiphas had pushed for that venue–his representatives had to actually threaten Pilate with that hypocritical “we have not king but Caesar…”

Yes, good point, but it is equivalent to saying the trial would have never taken place without Judas’ handing him over, or any such break in the chain of causality of events which historiacally did take place.

Strictly in terms of Judaism – that is interesting, both King Herod and Judas are Jews, my earlier point. Pilate is not. So Caiphas who has no real power is more guilty than Herod or Judas. Could you explain why logically? Herod clearly was a Jew, was the one responsible (had real power even) for what little the sanhedren could still do – whose father built the temple, etc. Herod could have freed Jesus, but he doesn’t – he sends him back in a kingly purple robe.

That Jewish Kings were also prophets is also beyond dispute, Saul, David, both prophecied. As it is said, Is Saul too among the prophets?

I am not interested in winning the game, so to speak. I am undecided, as I have maintained from the outset – however, you are bringing up some really fascinating points, which I would like to see play out – I can’t see where the thoughts go, and the foundation is – this is the kind of conversation where I learn things.

So far, what I am actively hearing – is that prophecy drives all history – and yet I can’t see what difference it makes that things were prophecied or not, with respect to the reality of what happened. I can see that prophecy is given to aid the blind in converting, but it isn’t the essence of existence.

 

[jcrichton]

Ahhh, too bad. I did notice it was a possibility – more like rugby, eh?

Hi, Huiou Theou!
(Part 1 of 2)
…my experience with rugby has been a few glimpses on tv–don’t think it’s as bad as basketball–I, sometimes, had to allow for at lest 4 points that I would be cheated out…

I don’t recall… which is exactly about content in spite of linguistics…

…my point is that had Judas’ repentence been superficial why would he attempt to buy Jesus’ freedom by returning the silver, throw it into the Temple (grounds) and kill himself? If he did not have an awakening there would be no concern but to enjoy his loot!

– why is Judas’ remorse based on the outcome of anything? …Judas has failed onboth counts – so how does one show the interior quality of his repentance…?

But it is not! His feable mind is being assaulted by guilt and his heart begins to beat… his faulty brain offers him one unsuccessful recourse–followed by a fatal one, the latter most likely promted by Jesus’ Words (better to not have been born).

In confession, there are two types of contrition – perfect, and imperfect. Imperfect contrition saves no one without the physical confession to a priest. Did Judas go to Jesus and ask his forgiveness directly? ( He cerainly could have…

How many reasonable Christians, do you suppose, stop in midstride of their sinfull act to seek a Priest to make their Confession? Why would Judas’ unreasonable mind, the peril faced by all of the disciples, his final awakening to his error, his limited spirituality, his personal turmoil, and his limited vision bring him to a better conclusion?

…has he not the guts to say “I’m sorry?” – what was he doing, trying to preserve his life?

Again, you are demanding that a non-Believer, whose collouseness keeps him from going beyond his personal understanding, view his actions from our perspective; honestly, do you think that the missing disciples did not know they had abandoned Jesus? …yet, it was beyond their abilities to come to Jesus’ aide or at least His side–and some of these were believers!

…a few verses of scripture here or there and using them to divide other scripture. Or again, what of Mary who was without sin at all? is she part of “all” left him? and most importantly, in what way.

No, not dividing Scriptures. Allowing Scriptures to place us at the site. Perhaps because I have no knowledge of Greek, Hebrew, Latin, Aramaic… I rely on content to define my undestanding; “all abandoned Him” cannot include the Virgin Mary since she was not an active disciple; furthermore, the prophecy is not inclusive of all people but rather of the Twelve. Still, if we involve Mary we find that the prophecy dealing with her has quite the opposite value (“your heart will be pierced…”), Mary is to witness and suffer the Passion and Death of the Christ!

Which scripture is Jesus quoting in 26:56 – what is the content (and context) of that original prophecy? I don’t recall it, and as this is Lent it might be a good text to meditate on before next week.

Sadly, it is something we do much too often… my experience, though not quite as awful as when the twelve and others streaked away from Him, but in much more subtle ways, Christians end up abandoning Him as the Twelve did. You are so correct in noting that this is quite an appropriate Lent issue on which we should meditate…

What does this knowledge of the High Priest have to do with a disciple and Mary abandoning Jesus? I don’t get that.

…the abandonment suffered by Jesus is that of the Twelve, not Mary. There was one of the Twelve who was known to the High Priest–that personal relationship allowed him to go about without incurring any accusatory glances of scorn and distrust that Peter suffered.

…Pharaoh hardened his own heart. St. Paul speaks as if God makes a person the totality of what they are – but that is not entirely so. Romans is extrodinarily difficult as a book

…then if I quote form Exodus you would say the same? (Ex 9:12) …and what of Malachi? (Ml 1:2-5)

…in mythology…

…OK… let me reword: have you ever heard of an actual person, not a mythological character, resurrect from the dead on his/her own volition into a transformed body that defies time and physics?

…God can’t lie. He entered a contract which bound “himself” to a certain set of rules…

The problem with that premise is that our finite undestanding limits God’s Will; God is not bound to the letter of the contract; it is we who are bound by it. While we may think that God is invalidading the contract by going outside of the paramiters that were understood by our finite knowledge, God is only bound by His own set Boundery: “I AM!”

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

Hi, Huiou Theou!

(Part 2 of 2–I think it would be best if we keep the points to a maximum of 2 of 3; I spent more time shortening the text then writing it… and it was still too long.)

…God has to give to us because he has promised of “old” and because he can’t lie – God is faithful even temporally although the will of man changes in time.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Hi, Huiou Theou!
…my point is that had Judas’ repentence been superficial why would he attempt to buy Jesus’ freedom ::: promted by Jesus’ Words (better to not have been born).

I had the displeasure of serving on a Jury for a young man who was convicted of armed robbery for a $2 item. That is to say he used a gun, to get away with the two dollar item. If he had merely dropped the item, or threw it back at the lady in the AM/PM store, it would have been theft III.

In the trial of this young man, it came to light that other contemporaries had returned the merchandice in other failed roberies.

It also came to light, in total surprise, that the young man in question was
fully aware of this, and still didn’t return the merchandice.

His willingness to return the merchandice once in court — was feeble.

How many reasonable Christians, do you suppose, stop in midstride of their sinfull act to seek a Priest to make their Confession? …

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Huiou Theou;3400871:

Hi, Huiou Theou!

(Part 2 of 2–I think it would be best if we keep the points to a maximum of 2 of 3; I spent more time shortening the text then writing it… and it was still too long.)

Hmmmmm … welcome to my life…

Yahweh God’s Promise to Abraham was that his descendants would be like the stars in the heavens and like the sand… early man did not know…

The Greeks called it the Galaxy (lactic means milky … so in the same tradition as the Grand Tetons (French), they certainly knew there was enough out there to be unquantifyable – liquid is after all continuous…)

Also that prophecy to Abraham is recorded in scripture as fulfilled in the past.
I do not think there have been as many humans on the face of the earth as there are stars… Nor do I expect there will be, though I could be wrong.
But the figure of speech is “similie” like the stars…

Yahweh’s contractural obligations… where we may see evasion, it has already been part of the status quo from before creation!

Evasion? explain, I don’t see it. And “status quo” or “status aeternum?”
(My Latin is terribly weak.)

“…woman, it is not yet my time…” It is Jesus’ who sets the time not the people around Him!

“do whatever he tells you” ( ibid, NOW when I say so )

Exactly my point! Yahweh’s Salvific Plan is not dependent upon human will, intellect or whim; it has been decided even from before Creation!

ibid. But –
Yes, he knew me before he formed me from the clay in my mother’s womb.
Or to be more correct, he knew me all at once, and at no time at all in himself.
My name was written on his hand.

But how does this make the plan independent of my will, is it not greater than my will but inclusive of it if I agree or in spite of it if not?

Jesus spent around 3 and 1/2 years preaching and teaching… He was not an obscure Rabbi known to a few peasants…

And Josephus who lived at the same time, bragged about the Essenes, Pharisees, witnessed the fall of Jerusalem – tried to save it – and never once in his history does he even notice Jesus. The only place even the Romans notice him is in a book by Seutonious – and he says “Jesus Chrestus” – which we have to assume is a mis-spelling to even count that…

He was counted among the wicked…

From the seed, grew the whole church.

when He was arrested both the Jewish and Roman authorities knew of Him; both rejected Him on different grounds. Since Jesus did not make political overtures the Roman Empire did not see Him as a threat and Herod’s investigations would have undoubtedly lead him to conclude that He was more a sage than a king (hence his mockery of Jesus “kingly” garments). Only the religious elite saw Jesus as an actual threat and who among them had more to lose than Caiphas?

And yet when Paul is arrested just a short time later the local governors are clueless of the “way”, and it isn’t until Felix that anyone knows of Christianity at all – and the scriptures note “he was well schooled” so he even knew the obscure points.

Also, the wife of Pilate only knew of him from a dream …

I wish I could cite all the primary sources I have read. Do you recall that when St. Paul is apprehended one of the first questions asked is if he was “that Egyptian” Acts: 21:38. A reading of what history is available shows that the charges in 21:38 are as trumped up as the charges against Jesus himself. That “Egyptian” led a movement similar to John the Baptist, who sought purification through a re-enactment of the 40 years in the desert. He was even less radical than Jesus.

The sage John the baptist was killed, and he was Jesus’ herald. That’s why Herod thought he was a re-incarnated John the baptist. I think Herod knew the score when he sent Jesus back in purple … he didn’t cooperate as a puppet prophet.

The importance of prophecy is that it reveals God’s Omniscience and Omnipotence since prophecy liniates what is to come according to His Will.

the Omnipotent God wills that all men ought to be saved in the sense of a desire, but they are not all saved. Some are lost…

God bless you.