The REAL Reasons JUDAS Betrayed Jesus.

[Jaypeeto4]

Judas Did NOT betray Jesus out of some misguided, noble belief and hope that, once arrested, Jesus would publicly and miraculously prove that he was messiah in front of the Sanhedrin and everyone else.

John 5 gives us the real reasons:
Judas had become a willful, practicing, unrepentant, habitual thief
against the Son of God himself (who had bestowed many miraculous powers upon
the 12 and upon Judas himself when he, Jesus, sent them out in two’s to evangelize).

The Friday before the Crucifixion, Mary anointed Jesus with expensive oil worth 300 silver pieces. This made the greedy Judas madder than hell, and as John TELLS US, Judas, using a PHONY PRETEXT of caring for the poor, whom he cared NOTHING about, as John indicates, griped about Jesus being anointed with this oil.
Jesus, knowing Judas’s real motive, raw greed, rebuked him gently in front of every one.
That was IT. Judas was livid. He wanted that money for himself. As John tells us,
he used to steal from the money box of Jesus and the other 11. REGULARLY.
Even though he himself had many supernatural powers which Jesus had bestowed upon him. He KNEW who he was turning against. IT was RIGHT AFTER THIS MILD REBUKE that Judas went to the Priests, whom he KNEW PLANNED TO MURDER JESUS, and ASKED THEM FOR MONEY to betray him to them. They paid him, he took it,
and then HE PERSONALLY led a mob armed with knives and clubs to Gethsemane to arrest Jesus and the other apostles. JESUS urged the armed mob to let the others go, NOT JUDAS. They COULD HAVE killed Jesus right then and there, in the Garden, and the other 11 too.

Satan had entered into Judas at the Last Supper.
After the Sanhedrin condemned Jesus to die, the Devil overwhelmed Judas with
guilt over the ENORMITY of his own malice, and Judas killed himself after throwing the money back into the temple. He did not follow through on his remorse by repenting. Instead, he killed himself.

I bring all this up because I am TIRED, really TIRED, of all these Jesus movies and modern theologians (even orthodox ones) trying to overly-humanize JUDAS by saying that he had noble but misguided motives for betraying Jesus.
HE DID NOT. John tells us why he did it. He was a THIEF, a habitual thief, against the Son of God Himself, Jesus rebuked him, making him livid with rage, and that anger and spite led to the betrayal, for which he had the gall to ask the Priests to pay him in advance to arrange. Please, no more of these “deep down really nice” Judas Iscariot theories. Well-intentioned by some, I’m sure, but totally, terribly, wrong.

 

[steve53]

I’m tired of people trying to put a positive spin on the High Priesthood. How many times have you heard “The Romans killed Jesus, not the Jews.”

Well, I beg to differ.

 

[Allegra]

I’m tired of people trying to put a positive spin on the High Priesthood. How many times have you heard “The Romans killed Jesus, not the Jews.”

Well, I beg to differ.

I’ve heard people say things like that, but I don’t think its to let the priests off the hook. Alot of people have the idea that all Jewish people are evil and use this one event in history as evidence. I’ve heard people say things like this in order to combat this mindset. I don’t know of too many who have alot of love for the high priests that went to such an evil extent to have an innocent man murdered.

 

[Credo_in_Deum]

The crazy thing is Judas 30 pieces of silver were equal to 300 danarii which was the net worth of the perfume Mary poured on Christ’s feet.

 

[PeterGStanley]

Pilate, a roman,was the judge at the “trial”, was he not?
He made the decision that he had to be crucified. He was the one in power and could have found him “innocent” and not sentenced him to be crucified, could he not?

I’m not defending Pilates actions in anyway but he was under threat by the Jews of not following Roman Law if he did not execute Jesus.His plan was to let Jesus go as we can see in the Gospel his wife even told him who dreamed about it - he tried by offering Barabbas and Jesus and of course they chose Barabbas - he also had him flogged and and brought him out in a humiliating condition thinking that would appease them but of course it didn’t but being the coward he was he did what they asked in the end out of fear for himself.Of course all this had to happen because it was Gods will that it should - for our sake.

As for Judas betrayal is betrayal regardless of the reason.

 

[svid2]

Pilate, a roman,was the judge at the “trial”, was he not?
He made the decision that he had to be crucified. He was the one in power and could have found him “innocent” and not sentenced him to be crucified, could he not?

He did find our Lord innocent. And stated so three times. The Crucifixion happened only because Pilate wanted to keep the crowd from rioting and the priests happy. The priests had our Lord murdered.

 

[Jaypeeto4]

**As for Judas betrayal is betrayal regardless of the reason. **

Betrayal may be betrayal, but the REASON makes all the difference in the world
with regard to a person’s actual subjective guilt.

There are those who betray under severe mental and emotional duress, i.e., they are not acting the way that they, deep down, want to act. (Very few people can endure severe mental and emotional duress. Severe, not mild discomfort, here.)

In wartime or other circumstances, there are people who betray under terrible torture (not many people can endure that).

The theories put forth by the “deep down he wasn’t that bad” Judas Iscariot folks are that
he was a truly devoted religious Jew who knew Jesus was messiah and wrong-headedly wanted to “force Jesus’s hand” by having Jesus arrested so that, in front of the Sanhedrin and in front of the crowds, Jesus would be forced to declare himself and maybe even work miracles in front of EVERYONE AT ONCE to defend and prove his claim, which would then supposedly cause all the people to unite behind Jesus against Rome, even the priests and Sanhedrin. Thus, in THIS theory, Judas was really a good guy who (though wrongheaded in his approach) was really (in his mind) acting for JESUS’S and ISRAEL’s, greater good and benefit.
THIS is a common theory, put forward a LOT these days, and it is hogwash.

As for the first two circumstances (severe mental/emotional duress OR being tortured or threatened with violence against his person), Judas does not have these extenuating circumstances. He acted willfully and of his own volition. Heck, even the PRIESTS did not seek him out, HE SOUGHT OUT THEM !! He, under NO duress, under NO compulsion whatsoever, led a murderous mob armed with CLUBS AND SWORDS to the garden where Jesus and the mostly-unarmed (except for Peter and his two swords) were praying and resting. This was entirely willful and planned. EVEN HIS OWN GREED doesn’t excuse it, because the priests gave him the money BEFORE Holy Thursday!! He could have just taken the money and run with it, and never betrayed Jesus at all.
No, he carried out his “end of the bargain,” even having the gall to participate in the Last Supper and (with knowing malice) ask Jesus in feigned innocence, “SURELY you don’t mean ME, do you Lord??”

And the second theory, which is what I’m really addressing because so many nice, kind, well-meaning (I’m sure) people keep repeating it (in movies, sermons on tv, etc), is,
according to scripture, pure hogwash.
It’s hard to believe that a person can, with NO duress, deliberately and maliciously betray his friend, isn’t it?? I know it is, but remember, King David did it to Uriah, who was not only his General, but his TRUSTED friend. AND, to steal Uriah’s wife Bath-Sheba permanently, David (who had previously been a seriously GODLY guy), had his trusted friend Uriah killed. He, David, actually MADE SURE that Uriah would be killed, by telling his men to fall back during the battle and leave poor Uriah standing all alone under enemy fire, to make certain his trusted friend would die. So people DO do such things.
Judas betrayed HIS best, most trusted friend, JESUS. With a HUGE difference: Jesus was not only his trusted friend, but HIS LORD AND MASTER who had previously bestowed many supernatural powers on Judas and the other 11 (the ability to heal the sick, give eyesight to the blind, raise the dead, cure the crippled and the lame) and cast out all demons!! In addition to that, Judas had many times witnessed Jesus’s OWN miracles AND listened for YEARS to his beautiful and sublime teachings, for hours on end.
When the 5,000 and 4,000 were miraculously fed with 5 loaves and 2 measly fish, Judas personally witnessed that unbelievably powerful miracle too. And he daily received Jesus’s incredible kindnesses to himself. And STILL, for greed’s sake, betrayed Jesus out of spite when Jesus “called him out” on the night that Mary anointed Jesus’s head and feet with the expensive oil. There were no extenuating circumstances to this betrayal.

As for “the Jews” killing Jesus, many of them, even the ones who joined in the hollering in front of Pilate, fell into the “mob mentality,” which happens to a lot of otherwise nice folks. That mob mentality is very powerful. We’ve all seen and heard of it many times.
Not all of these people witnessed all the miracles and teachings of Jesus firsthand.
The priests in question, especially Caiaphas and Annas and several of the Pharisees who back them, HAD. These men did pressure Pilate to kill Jesus as a revolutionary against Roman control or else they would tell his superiors that he allowed rebels to get away scot free. Pilate, however, was not the wimp some people misinterpret the scriptures to make him out to be. He was ruthless and ferocious. He hated the Jews, too, very much. The only reason he gave in was the threat of the priests, and then the whipped-into-an-angry-frenzy-mob, to tell his Roman bosses that he himself was committing treason against Caesar, because an accusation like THAT could have cost him his head.
Often, according to historical sources, in other circumstances, he told the Jewish leaders to get lost AND ruled THEM with an iron fist like he ruled everyone else. It was the threat of being accused, by many people, of treason against Caesar, that led him to buckle and sentence Jesus to death.

Judas had no such circumstances, no threat of personal imminent danger, no nothing, to extenuate and reduce his subjective guilt in this matter. That’s what I’m pointing out. The “deep down really a misguided nice-guy” Judas theories are very, very wrong.

 

[Crumpy]

Yes, I have not had a single impression about Judas, in my life, but, a couple different impressions, from time to time. Judas is certainly the most unfortunate person to be implicated personally in the death of Jesus (and for good reason).

I haven’t read this part of the gospel recently, but didn’t Jesus sort of communicate with Judas, eye-to-eye and man-to-man at the “last supper?” didn’t Jesus say that someone there would betray him? didn’t Jesus tell Judas to be off and get about doing it?

What was that all about?

Jesus certainly knew what was happening. I’m not saying that Judas was righteous in any way. But, what about the fate of him and others like Pharoah in Egypt who heart was “hardened” by God? These people do not seem to be acting under free will, as we conceive of it.

There is a long history of trying to fill in the gaps in the Bible, to explain what seems to be puzzling. Given that all of Christ’s passion was ordained in advance, isn’t there the slimmest chance that Jesus conspired, in some way, with Judas, to set the wheels in motion for Jesus’ passion and death? Even the apostles warned Jesus about going to Jerusalem, didn’t they?

I will don my personal protective equipment while I await a response.

In the meantime, I’ll send this post and the next on the general subject of Jews.

 

[Crumpy]

from

THE JEWISH PEOPLE AND THEIR SACRED SCRIPTURES
IN THE CHRISTIAN BIBLE
Pontifical Biblical Commission

ewtn.com/library/CURIA/PBCJWSCR.HTM#B. Pastoral Orientations

**87. The partial reading of texts frequently gives rise to difficulties affecting relations with the Jews. The Old Testament, as we have seen, is not sparing in its reproaches against Israelites, or even in its condemnations. It is very demanding towards them. Rather than casting stones at the Jews, it is better to see them as illustrating the saying of the Lord Jesus: “To whom much is given, from him much is expected” (Lk 12:48), and this saying applies to us Christians as well. Certain biblical narratives present aspects of disloyalty or cruelty which today would be morally inadmissable, but they must be understood in their historical and literary contexts. The slow historical progress of revelation must be recognised: the divine pedagogy has taken a group of people where it found them and led them patiently in the direction of an ideal union with God and towards a moral integrity which our modern society is still far from attaining. This education must avoid two opposite dangers, on the one hand, of attributing to ancient prescriptions an ongoing validity for Christians (for example, refusing blood transfusions on biblical grounds) and, on the other hand, of rejecting the whole Bible on the pretext of its cruelties. As regards ritual precepts, such as the rules for pure and impure, one has to be conscious of their symbolic and anthropological import, and be aware of their sociological and religious functions.

In the New Testament, the reproaches addressed to Jews are not as frequent or as virulent as the accusations against Jews in the Law and the Prophets. Therefore, they no longer serve as a basis for anti-Jewish sentiment. To use them for this purpose is contrary to the whole tenor of the New Testament. Real anti-Jewish feeling, that is, an attitude of contempt, hostility and persecution of the Jews as Jews, is not found in any New Testament text and is incompatible with its teaching. What is found are reproaches addressed to certain categories of Jews for religious reasons, as well as polemical texts to defend the Christian apostolate against Jews who oppose it.

But it must be admitted that many of these passages are capable of providing a pretext for anti-Jewish sentiment and have in fact been used in this way. To avoid mistakes of this kind, it must be kept in mind that the New Testament polemical texts, even those expressed in general terms, have to do with concrete historical contexts and are never meant to be applied to Jews of all times and places merely because they are Jews. The tendency to speak in general terms, to accentuate the adversaries’ negative side, and to pass over the positive in silence, failure to consider their motivations and their ultimate good faith, these are characteristics of all polemical language throughout antiquity, and are no less evident in Judaism and primitive Christianity against all kinds of dissidents.

The fact that the New Testament is essentially a proclamation of the fulfilment of God’s plan in Jesus Christ, puts it in serious disagreement with the vast majority of the Jewish people who do not accept this fulfilment. The New Testament then expresses at one and the same time its attachment to Old Testament revelation and its disagreement with the Synagogue. This discord is not to be taken as “anti-Jewish sentiment”, for it is disagreement at the level of faith, the source of religious controversy between two human groups that take their point of departure from the same Old Testament faith basis, but are in disagreement on how to conceive the final development of that faith. Although profound, such disagreement in no way implies reciprocal hostility. The example of Paul in Rm 9-11 shows that, on the contrary, an attitude of respect, esteem and love for the Jewish people is the only truly Christian attitude in a situation which is mysteriously part of the beneficent and positive plan of God. Dialogue is possible, since Jews and Christians share a rich common patrimony that unites them. It is greatly to be desired that prejudice and misunderstanding be gradually eliminated on both sides, in favour of a better understanding of the patrimony they share and to strengthen the links that bind them.**

 

[chosen_people]

I’m tired of people trying to put a positive spin on the High Priesthood. How many times have you heard “The Romans killed Jesus, not the Jews.”

Well, I beg to differ.

The Roman Pagans who became the Roman Catholics found themselves in the unenviable position of having previously murdered their god as an anti-Roman zealot. Their solution was to place the blame for their actions on a collective entity called “The Jews”.

The Roman prefect Pilate is depicted in the Christian scriptures as arguing against a frenzied crowd of Jews to not execute Jesus, finally “washing his hands” of the matter. However, we know that Pilate was removed from office in 36 c.e. (some sources early 37 c.e) because of extreme and excessive cruelty to the local Jewish population. This extreme and excessive cruelty included his penchant for the summary execution without trial of thousands of Jews deemed to be anti-Roman zealots.

Jewish involvement according to the Christian scriptures is also found in a trial of Jesus by the Sanhedrin. According to the Christian scriptures ,the Sanhedrin convicts Jesus of blasphemy and sentences him to death. However, they are forced to hand him over for execution as they do not have the power to execute people. There are however a “few” problems with this story of the trial. To begin with, while the Jewish trial of Jesus appears in Mark and Matthew, according to John 18:13-14, there is no trial of Jesus before the Sanhedrin, only a hearing before the High Priest. The Gospel story of the trial is also interesting because of the absolute lack of knowledge by the writers of Jewish law. Every single procedural rule is wrong. Even more incredible, the Gospel authors have Jesus being convicted of the wrong crime, that of blasphemy. Finally, the claim that the Sanhedrin could not execute criminals is contradicted by the Christian scriptures themselves as well as Josephus.

The betrayal of a demigod was a common theme in the mystery-cult religions at the time of Jesus. However, though the Gospels can’t agree on the names of the disciples, the name of the “betrayer” is significant. Judas from Judea from Jew. “Judas the betrayer” (mentioned over 30 times in the Christian scriptures) to “Jews” the “god killers”. The newly discovered Gospel of Judas paints Judas as acting according to Jesus’ plan and as trusted and devoted ally of Jesus in direct contradiction of the canonized Gospels. The story of Judas in the Christian scriptures is rife with contradictions. These include whether there was the involvement of the Devil, the source suggesting the bribe, the naming of Judas as the betrayer at the last supper, the way Judas died, whether Judas was repentant for betraying Jesus, the place where Judas died, who bought “Blood Acre”, and the meaning of the name (not to mention the confusion in Matthew 27:7-10 in citing Jeremiah 32:6-9).

Now the Sadducees are the group of Jews who hold the High Priesthood at the time of Jesus and are the ones who are in tight with the Romans and are the ones who are sticklers to the text without deviation. So why do the Christian scriptures seemingly mix up Pharisees with Sadducees, placing the emphasis and the blame on the Pharisees? The problem was that by the time the Gospels were being written, the Sadducees were gone. To blame the Jews you had to blame the Pharisees.

In condemning “the Jews” for the death of Jesus, the Gospels create the concept of “the Jews” as a unified negative force. On the one hand, it is Jesus’ popularity among the Jews that leads to his death. On the other hand it is “the Jews” as an entity who supposedly seek and are responsible for his death.

The calumnies against the Jews in the Gospels include their declaring to have the blood of Jesus on their heads, they are referred to as snakes, as liars, as the spawn of the Devil.

The Jew is painted as the enemy of God, a person who has rejected God. The Christian scriptures teach “Take my enemies, who would not have me rule over them, bring them here, and kill them before me” (Luke 19:27). Some 1,250 years after God revealed Himself at Sinai before the entire Jewish nation and made an eternal covenant between God and the Jews, a group of Roman Pagans declared themselves the “new Jews” with a “new covenant” and declared that the Jews are a malignant and immoral force.

It is this accusation that the Jews are “Christ killers” that will lead a Catholic Saint to write some 1500 years before Mein Kampf that the Jews are sub human fit only for slaughter. It is this accusation that leads to the Catholic Church blood purity laws in post Inquisition Spain and in the Jesuit order. It is this accusation which will lead the Catholic Church to place the Jews in ghettos, to make them wear clothing marking them as Jews, to prevent them from having basic civil and legal rights. It is this accusation that will culminate in 2000 years of Christian anti-Semitism in the Shoah and the murder of one in every three Jews in the world.

Since the Shoah, especially since Vatican II, the Church has taken real steps to correct attitudes toward the Jewish people. Perhaps a time will come when the Gospels will be edited free of anti-Semitism, when Jews will no longer have to bear either the false accusations or the sins of others.

Now here’s a lesson that God and the Jews are still having trouble conveying:

Vayikra (Leviticus) 19:18

1. You shall neither take revenge from nor bear a grudge against the members of your people; you shall love your neighbor as yourself. I am the Lord. יח. לֹא תִקֹּם וְלֹא תִטֹּר אֶת בְּנֵי עַמֶּךָ וְאָהַבְתָּ לְרֵעֲךָ כָּמוֹךָ אֲנִי יְ־הֹוָ־ה:

 

[Kaninchen]

The real reason?

It’s the parallel to Joseph.

Then Judah said to his brothers, “What do we gain by killing our brother and covering up his blood? Come, let us sell him to the Ishmaelites, but let us not do away with him ourselves. After all, he is our brother, our own flesh.”

So, if it had been Reuben who had ‘said to his brothers’, there would have had to have been an apostle called Reuben and he’d have had to . . . .

 

[Jaypeeto4]

The New Testament is NOT WRONG in its depiction of the illegal trial of Jesus before the High Priest and Sanhedrin. There were priests present who loudly objected to the illegality and impropriety of the procedings. So these procedings were, indeed, illegal under Jewish law. So some of the Jews broke their own laws? So what?
The Old Testament, the Jewish Tanakh, IS CHOCK FULL of examples of them
doing that very thing: BREAKING THEIR OWN LAWS, in VARIOUS ways, resulting at one time, in God sending the Babylonians in to Jerusalem to destroy the city and take the people captive. No problem here. People break their own laws, even some Jews.

St. Paul, before his conversion, was not only a Jew but a Roman citizen.
The Sanhedrin members, who gave him letters of approval to kidnap Jews who had become Christians, were violating Roman law by doing so, and they knew it. SO DID PAUL. But out of zeal, he did it anyway, over and over, and had these people killed as “apostates” out of religious zeal, beginning with St. Stephen. In his mind, the End justified the Means: breaking Roman laws against kidnapping and murder, feloniously so, repeatedly.

The Sanhedrin and other priests who did such things knew that they were breaking their OWN laws with show-trials AND breaking Roman law by having or consenting to, people being put to death, as the Romans had forbidden them to carry out such sentences, which some of them acknowleged before Pilate when they told him at Jesus’s trial: WE have no authority under ((Roman)) law to put this man to death.

Jews do NOT always obey their own laws given by God himself.
Many today, for example, condone homosexual acts and even “ordain” practicing homosexuals as Rabbis, even though this is clearly a death-penalty offense under the Law of Moses (same-sex sexual activity). So please, don’t hand us this “the trial of Jesus couldn’t have happened as the gospels depict it cuz it was against Jewish law” stuff.
That’s pure nonsense. People, including Jewish people, often break their OWN laws.
Nothing at all unusual about that.

 

[septimine]

I’m tired of people trying to put a positive spin on the High Priesthood. How many times have you heard “The Romans killed Jesus, not the Jews.”

Well, I beg to differ.

Well, it’s kinda complicated. The Jews weren’t legally allowed to kill anyone without Rome’s OK, so they did have to go through PIlate (ps, my own personal pet peeve, in latin you say every letter, so it’s pronounced Pee-la-tay, not pilot) – so Rome did kill Jesus but the Jews mostly through the leadership of the Sanhedrin pretty much forced Rome’s hand.

So enough guilt all around, I suppose. Pilate is guilty of giving into a mob, thus a miscarriage of justice, and the Jews were guilty of threatening a riot. It was sort of a hurricane of evil – everything was feeding off everything else to create the perfect storm. Once it started, nothing was going to stop it.

 

[Arizona_Mike]

The real reason Judas betrayed Jesus was that he denied the teaching of the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist, as shown at the end of John 6.

 

[MTKM]

I read this thread and don’t understand the back and forth argument. Jesus knew he came to fulfill prophesy. It was His purpose from God. I have been a Catholic all my life and not once have I had a single feeling of blaming only Jewish people for His death. I have never sat around and thought…Why did the Jewish people have Him killed? I just don’t think the NT gospels make any Christian feel that Jewish people are bad people…The reason why I have never felt this is simply because one of His own betrayed him as Jesus knew Judas would and everyone present at that time, both the Romans and Jewish people, took part in putting Him to death…period. Even Peter denied Him at that crucial time. When I read the NT I feel human sin is what killed Jesus during that time and not a certain race of people are to blame. We are all to blame but again it was just prophesy being fulfilled and everytime we sin we put Him back on the cross again. Love thy neighbor, as thy self

 

[AmbroseSJ]

This thread is in danger of being derailed by the “Jews killed Jesus” line. Pope Benedict in his latest book Jesus of Nazareth does an excellent job of explaining that “the Jews” being referred to in the NT, were those Jerusalem Jews who were either jaded, corrupt or unfamiliar with Jesus, and may have been incensed by a Galilean making the preposterous claims they heard Jesus was. Meanwhile Jesus comes into Jerusalem surrounded by Jews from all of Judea, Galilee and the surrounding countryside, full of love and admiration of Jesus. These were the ones waving palms and throwing their cloaks on the ground where Jesus was to pass. These Jews had nothing to do with the plotting Jews of the Temple and Jerusalem partisans like the Pharisees and Herodians.

But getting back to Judas, there is a very fascinating picture of him drawn by the visionary Mother Mary Agreda in her book “The Mystical City of God”

She tells of a time when Jesus was drawing huge crowds, and the apostles were very remiss in taking up collections for expenses etc. Judas saw that there was a great deal of money to be made here, with crowds of this size.

Then Our Lord quietly suggests that someone might take such a job. Immediately Judas wants the job and begins by lobbying Peter James and John to talk to Jesus about him doing it. Unfortunately, for whatever reason, they never do put in the good word for Judas (perhaps knowing the danger.) Then Judas begins lobbying our Virgin Mother Mary, (who was always a chief intermediary for whenever the Apostles wanted to ask something indirectly of our Lord. She discourages Judas from seeking such a job, and begs him in the sweetest way possible to put it out of his mind. But this inflames his desire all the more for this job, and at the same time causes him to lose respect for the Virgin Mother of God. Finally he asks Jesus directly himself, and Jesus gives him his wish. The rest is easily seen in the Gospels.

It’s a plausible scenario, and certainly the book does a much better job of telling this story.

 

[steve53]

Yes, I have not had a single impression about Judas, in my life, but, a couple different impressions, from time to time. Judas is certainly the most unfortunate person to be implicated personally in the death of Jesus (and for good reason).

I haven’t read this part of the gospel recently, but didn’t Jesus sort of communicate with Judas, eye-to-eye and man-to-man at the “last supper?” didn’t Jesus say that someone there would betray him? didn’t Jesus tell Judas to be off and get about doing it?

What was that all about?

Jesus certainly knew what was happening. I’m not saying that Judas was righteous in any way. But, what about the fate of him and others like Pharoah in Egypt who heart was “hardened” by God? These people do not seem to be acting under free will, as we conceive of it.

There is a long history of trying to fill in the gaps in the Bible, to explain what seems to be puzzling. Given that all of Christ’s passion was ordained in advance, isn’t there the slimmest chance that Jesus conspired, in some way, with Judas, to set the wheels in motion for Jesus’ passion and death? Even the apostles warned Jesus about going to Jerusalem, didn’t they?

I will don my personal protective equipment while I await a response.

In the meantime, I’ll send this post and the next on the general subject of Jews.

This thread needs to be split.

Certainly the conspiracy theory has been made, Schonfeld (sp?) comes to mind. Many shadowy secret disciples exist in the book of John, like Nicodemus, Joseph of Arimathea, and others, and so the case is put forth.

Who was closer to Jesus that Judas? Planning Jesus’ arrest at just the right time, putting a drug in the solution that Jesus drank on the cross to simulate death, Nicodemus claiming the body quickly, the body disappearing from the tomb, and then the “resurrection”. In the last verse of John, some have speculated that it was Judas who was alongside Jesus on the shores of the Sea of Galilee.

An alternative scenario is that the plan backfired horribly, and so Judas committed suicide out of anguish over the death of his friend.

 

[steve53]

My post was intentionally provocative. Over the centuries, tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of Jews have been killed for being “Christ-Killers”. Their culture has been marginalized in most societies. It doesn’t help that the Jews are somewhat clannish, and many still believe, even if they don’t admit it, to being God’s “chosen” people.
So getting people to believe that the Romans killed Jesus is a practical way around this, and on a general level I have no problem with it, and I don’t see a lot of angst amongst Italians bearing this accusation.
But this shouldn’t play a role in serious researchers and Christian believers who want to know the real story.

The Roman Pagans who became the Roman Catholics found themselves in the unenviable position of having previously murdered their god as an anti-Roman zealot. Their solution was to place the blame for their actions on a collective entity called “The Jews”.

The Roman prefect Pilate is depicted in the Christian scriptures as arguing against a frenzied crowd of Jews to not execute Jesus, finally “washing his hands” of the matter. However, we know that Pilate was removed from office in 36 c.e. (some sources early 37 c.e) because of extreme and excessive cruelty to the local Jewish population. This extreme and excessive cruelty included his penchant for the summary execution without trial of thousands of Jews deemed to be anti-Roman zealots.

Jewish involvement according to the Christian scriptures is also found in a trial of Jesus by the Sanhedrin. According to the Christian scriptures ,the Sanhedrin convicts Jesus of blasphemy and sentences him to death. However, they are forced to hand him over for execution as they do not have the power to execute people. There are however a “few” problems with this story of the trial. To begin with, while the Jewish trial of Jesus appears in Mark and Matthew, according to John 18:13-14, there is no trial of Jesus before the Sanhedrin, only a hearing before the High Priest. The Gospel story of the trial is also interesting because of the absolute lack of knowledge by the writers of Jewish law. Every single procedural rule is wrong. Even more incredible, the Gospel authors have Jesus being convicted of the wrong crime, that of blasphemy. Finally, the claim that the Sanhedrin could not execute criminals is contradicted by the Christian scriptures themselves as well as Josephus.

Now the Sadducees are the group of Jews who hold the High Priesthood at the time of Jesus and are the ones who are in tight with the Romans and are the ones who are sticklers to the text without deviation. So why do the Christian scriptures seemingly mix up Pharisees with Sadducees, placing the emphasis and the blame on the Pharisees? The problem was that by the time the Gospels were being written, the Sadducees were gone. To blame the Jews you had to blame the Pharisees.

In condemning “the Jews” for the death of Jesus, the Gospels create the concept of “the Jews” as a unified negative force. On the one hand, it is Jesus’ popularity among the Jews that leads to his death. On the other hand it is “the Jews” as an entity who supposedly seek and are responsible for his death.

T:

Just a couple points:

The role of Pilate as the reluctant executioner has likely been embellished by the early Christians, but certainly Caiaphas and Ananus were the driving forces behind the execution of Jesus. Remember that Pilate even sent Jesus over to the Jewish King Herod Antipas, hoping that he would take Jesus off his hands. Antipas refused. Pilate had every right to execute anyone for crimes against Caesar, and the sort of “trial” the accused was allowed was totally at his discretion. Pilate was “the fist of Caesar” in Judea, and sat on the Judgment seat for capital pronouncements. The President of Syria, in this case Vitellius, did have the power of review, as did, of course, the emperor- in this case Tiberius. Pilate was relieved of his duties in A.D. 37 for his attack on a group of Samaritans, and he likely had a long backlog of questionable actions that Rome knew about, one of them being the crucifixion of Jesus.

Caiaphas initially tried to have Jesus stoned to death as ordered by the Sanhedrin, which it had the power to do, but the Sanhedrin, or council, would not buy it. So Caiaphas sent Jesus over to Pilate, changing the charge to crime against Caesar, and sending over a few Chief Priests to be witnesses against Jesus. What is curious is that Caiaphas was so confident that Pilate would carry out his wishes.

As far as Jewish Sanhedrin procedure goes, if it isn’t in Josephus, the ball is in your court to make the case for whatever you hypothesize.

Bottom line, people shouldn’t be cowed into not looking at the specifics of events of those times, thinking that there was Christian conspiracy against the Jews and so all the documents were biased. Josephus himself thought God had turned against the Jews. And looking at Josephus along with the NT, it is clear that the High Priesthood was unrelenting in their persecution of the Christians. The only thing that stopped them was when the High Priesthood was banned, and Jerusalem and the Second Temple destroyed in A.D. 70.

 

[John7]

In condemning “the Jews” for the death of Jesus, the Gospels create the concept of “the Jews” as a unified negative force. On the one hand, it is Jesus’ popularity among the Jews that leads to his death. On the other hand it is “the Jews” as an entity who supposedly seek and are responsible for his death.

The calumnies against the Jews in the Gospels include their declaring to have the blood of Jesus on their heads, they are referred to as snakes, as liars, as the spawn of the Devil.

The Jew is painted as the enemy of God, a person who has rejected God. The Christian scriptures teach “Take my enemies, who would not have me rule over them, bring them here, and kill them before me” (Luke 19:27). Some 1,250 years after God revealed Himself at Sinai before the entire Jewish nation and made an eternal covenant between God and the Jews, a group of Roman Pagans declared themselves the “new Jews” with a “new covenant” and declared that the Jews are a malignant and immoral force.

Saint Paul under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit:
14 the Jews 15 Who both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they please not God, and are contrary to all men: 16 Forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they might be saved, to fill up their sins alway: for the wrath is come upon them to the uttermost. (1Th 2:14-16 )

2000 years of Christian anti-Semitism in the Shoah and the murder of one in every three Jews in the world.

what a garbage antichristian statement.

Perhaps a time will come when the Gospels will be edited free of anti-Semitism, when Jews will no longer have to bear either the false accusations or the sins of others.

another garbage statement. The scriptures were written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit which you enjoy mocking. Isn’t there a animal you can sacrifice to get rid of your sin of ignorance תחטא בשגגה

וְאִם־נֶפֶשׁ אַחַת תֶּחֱטָא בִשְׁגָגָה
וְהִקְרִיבָה עֵז בַּת־שְׁנָתָהּ לְחַטָּֽאת׃
וְכִפֶּר הַכֹּהֵן עַל־הַנֶּפֶשׁ הַשֹּׁגֶגֶת
בְּחֶטְאָה בִשְׁגָגָה לִפְנֵי יְהוָה
לְכַפֵּר עָלָיו וְנִסְלַח לֹֽו׃
Num 15:27-28

 

[fred_conty]

Chosen People related the following:
QUOTE
In condemning “the Jews” for the death of Jesus, the Gospels create the concept of “the Jews” as a unified negative force. On the one hand, it is Jesus’ popularity among the Jews that leads to his death. On the other hand it is “the Jews” as an entity who supposedly seek and are responsible for his death.
UNQUOTE

In the New Testament Jesus had any number of “run ins” with what he termed the “Jews”. However it wasn’t with the Jewish popluace but only with the Jewish leadership. Often the Jewish crowds applauded him and in fact wanted to make him their king. So he was not unhappy with them, but with the religious heads. In reading the New Testament, this distinction between Jewish populace and Jewish leadership is quite obvious and in other places it is not easy to know which is intended.

Now in regard to the history of human developement, history shows that every nation or tribe at times do dispicable things. Those things also have been done by catholics and catholic countries from time to time. But they also have been done by others against catholics and catholic countries as well. It would be a mistake for me to condemn a country or people of a certain type for what their ancestors have done. Everyone has sckeletons in the closset. But what is to be judged is the tenents which they believe and not the deviations of those tenents by which some have lived. For if we don’t, then our hate will spawn murder. There is a potential for any religion to broadcast evil if misused. There is a potential for any religion to broadcast good if used properly. This determination is really up to us, as individuals in the current history in the making.

There are many good things that religious people of goodwill have demonstrated, even risking death for one another. I hope this is what we will teach our grandchildren in spite of some things happening to the contrary.

“Human trial brings out the best and worst in all men.” Just a thought.