Why did Judas betray Jesus?

[tonyrey]

I have pointed out that the agony of guilt, remorse and despair that made Judas kill himself is unimaginable. The words “I have betrayed innocent blood” explain why Jesus said "It would have been better for that man if he had not been born”. Unlike Herod and Caiaphas Judas repented and proved his repentance was sincere beyond all possible doubt. He gave way to temptation not only once but twice. He betrayed the Master he had followed faithfully for three years and then committed suicide. He committed two acts of folly which didn’t reflect his true character. He had witnessed how his Master was full of compassion for everyone except those who exploited the poor and regarded everyone else as sinners. He was dedicated to Jesus and must have been out of his mind to yield to temptation. Judas was literally one of the élite but the higher we climb the further we can fall. St Peter had been tempted and he warned us that “your enemy the devil prowls around like a roaring lion looking for someone to devour” Judas too was a victim of infernal malice because he was closer to the Son of God than anyone else except Mary, Joseph and the other apostles - and therefore a prime target for the Evil One…

His lack of hesitation in returning the money demonstrates how little importance he attached to it. I don’t believe even the most precious jewels in the world would have made the slightest difference. Jesus had had such a powerful effect on him throughout the three years they had been together he knew nothing in the world can replace our love for others or their love for us. It is impossible to exaggerate Our Lord’s charisma and influence on those who met Him, least of all one of His apostles… Judas must have been heart-broken and distraught when he realised the full significance of what he had done. He must have felt utterly lost, despised by everyone - particularly the other apostles - and doomed to go to hell. No wonder he hanged himself. For him life no longer had any value, purpose or meaning in stark contrast to the life he had led with his Master. He had gone from one extreme to the other, having lost everything he treasured most: friendship, companionship, loyality and a sense of mission in the face of hostility from the High Priests, Pharisees, Sadducees and scribes. Above all he had lived with the greatest man who has ever lived on this earth and even in his demented state of mind he knew he deserved to suffer, be punished and be put to death but he also knew no one would kill him. In a sense he was a martyr but for the wrong reason. However, God’s ways are not our ways. Perhaps God loves Judas more than those who have had an easy life and never had to endure temptation, far more than the self-righteous who cold-bloodedly exploit the poor and let them die of disease, malnutrition or starvation. In fact I feel sure God loves Judas and forgives him because he was so tortured by guilt and despair he must have paid for his folly and never be able to forget what he has done even in heaven… I’m not so sure about Herod and Caiaphas because in their case it was not folly but malice that motivated them. However no one except God knows for certain who is in hell and it is presumptuous to pass judgment on anyone, least of all a man who played a part in our redemption.

The words of Othello keep coming into my mind: “O Iago, the pity of it, Iago”!" with Iago representing the Evil One…

It has occurred to me that some one else could have betrayed Jesus but Judas was the one who was chosen - not by God but by Satan. Perhaps he could have resisted but with such a great prize at stake the Evil One must have thought of every possible trick to deceive him. He may even have persuaded Judas that his Master wanted to be betrayed to fulfil the prophecy. He could have said “Why do you think your Master handed you the piece of bread?” That diabolically clever question is very difficult to answer. What would we have replied? The more I think of it the more I’m convinced it is the most probable solution:

“Why do you think your Master handed you the piece of bread?”

 

[ericc]

It has occurred to me that some one else could have betrayed Jesus but Judas was the one who was chosen - not by God but by Satan. Perhaps he could have resisted but with such a great prize at stake the Evil One must have thought of every possible trick to deceive him. He may even have persuaded Judas that his Master wanted to be betrayed to fulfil the prophecy. He could have said “Why do you think your Master handed you the piece of bread?” That diabolically clever question is very difficult to answer. What would we have replied? The more I think of it the more I’m convinced it is the most probable solution:

“Why do you think your Master handed you the piece of bread?”

The puzzling bit is what kind of betrayal was that? Judas wasn’t one of the false witnesses. In Jewish law you need 2 male witnesses for capital punishment. As it panned out, there was a serious miscarriage of justice. The High Priest when not able to convict Jesus via Jewish law resorted to Roman law. Of which he didn’t violate either as Pilate declared. Jesus was indeed lynched using a “borrowed sword”. Merely leading temple authorities to locate Jesus as I said previously wasn’t a great deal as Jesus was already a public figure. There was nothing that Judas did that a determine tracker can not do. Just follow the crowd and one will find Jesus openly doing his thing.

So what did Judas actually do that he regretted so much that he ended his own life? 30 pieces of silver appear an excessive payment for the little he did. Coming to think of it, if Judas had appeared in court and declare that he has been paid by the High Priest for whatever he did, Jesus would have been off the hook and the High Priest could be charged for false accusation of which he might also suffer capital punishment. Judas would have redeemed himself. But he didn’t. There was no attempt to mitigate the damage he caused to his master by being a witness for his master. One can only wonder why didn’t he u-turn to do the right thing. And that is another negative for him.

 

[guanophore]

. Our conscience resists any thought of such a “cakewalk”. Surely, the conscience says, all harmful deeds must and will be punished, including eternal banishment for many deeds or omissions. So, the believer generally equates God with conscience, and perceives that God condemns them if they do wrong and condones them if they do right.

You seem to be quite confused, OS. First you say that our conscience should rightly tell us that the Christian life is not a cakewalk.

Then you say that our conscience tells ups that there are “punishments” for “many deeds”. Perhaps you don’t really believe there is such a thing as sins? Yes it is the purpose of the conscience to guide us in right and wrong.

I agree that many people mistakely equeat Gd with conscience. Our conscience is the God given faculty through which God communicates with us about right and wrong. A consciece can become very bent, so it is not a reliable instrument.

However, there is another spirituality, one that inspires us to use Love as the guide to behavior, rather than the operant conditioning of the conscience.

This is a good example of a false dichotomy. I have no idea what "the operant conditioning of the conscience " means. Perhaps this is another element of the Gospel of One Sheep?

The Catholic Church teaches that a well informed conscience is formed by receiving what God has revealed about HImself to mankind.

For the person who receives the message that God forgave only those present, or that such forgiveness and love demonstrated from the cross is not an “always”, these receivers will continue to love and forgive conditionally, which is exactly what our natural conscience dictates. This person will say, “truly God does not forgive me for that sin, so I must avoid the sin to stay in God’s graces.”

No, OS. Understanding that Jesus forgives unconditionally is exactly that informs and heals our conscience. We are not to remain in the 'natural state" , but to allow God to heal our conscience and bring it into line with His revelation.

Your last line is very misleading. Avoiding sin to stay in God’s grace is important spiritual practice. Being able to remain in a state of grace occurs BECAUSE God forgives our sins. Sin separates us from God.

Yes, the “be on our guard” approach would be one that reflects fear of God, which falls in line with one of the spiritualities I presented. It has to do with equating God and conscience, at least in terms of behavior.

This is the same false dichotomy. Fear (awe) of God occurs BECAUSE we have a well formed conscience. Being on guard against sin ,and the near occasions of sin is what helps our conscience to be continually formed in the will of God.

The other spirituality is one such that we look upon Lazarus and help him, not because of the conscience (even though it is ever-present) but because the heart is moved. The lines (conditions) that create indifference have disappeared.

The heart being moved is a function of conscience. It is not “either/or”. They function together.

I get the impression that Judas may have indeed had some contempt, at least when he turned Him over. Something blinded him, there was something about Jesus that he resented, and it could have been any number of things that Jesus preached. Judas sought to eliminate an evil, or punish. He did not know what he was doing.

Such an imaginitive construction is consistent with your assertion that no one willingly and knowingly rejects God.

 

[NM505StKate]

I’m reading a lot of good stuff here that, to me, is poking holes in the story. As was said Jesus was a very public figure in the Gospels so there is little to no reason to need someone to “rat him out” so to speak. Considering all Jesus was reported to do in the Gospels I find it hard to believe that anyone would want to betray someone who could raise people from the dead. The more one looks at the story the more questions it brings up as well as pondering the bizarre reasoning of the actions that took place. History has shown Pilate was a very cruel man and the idea he would let a known rabble rouser in Barabas free is a bit insane.

 

[tonyrey]

All you said is true or plausible. Nevertheless, what is not so clearly evidenced is that Judas seek forgiveness from Jesus and was indeed forgiven. Perhaps I have a hung up on this tiny bit. I wasn’t much of a people oriented Human Resource Dept kind of guy. More of a compliance type. We will know in the future how this pans out for Judas.

Judas may well have thought Jesus wanted him to fulfil the prophecy that the Messiah would be betrayed and that is why he was given the piece of bread. The Jews expected the Messiah to liberate their kingdom from the Romans, not be executed like a criminal. When he heard that his Master had been condemned to death he grasped the full significance of what he had done. It is very difficult, if not impossible, for us to imagine what a harrowing experience it must have been to realise for the first time that his Master was going to be mocked and scourged by the Roman soldiers, jeered at by the Jews as He carried His Cross, be nailed to the wood and be lifted above the crowd as a warning to future criminals. It was a frequent sight under the harsh Roman regime whose soldiers were constantly being attacked and killed by men like Barabbas.Their cruelty was notorious like that of their Emperor Tiberius. Judas had been brought up to hate and fear the Romans because even children were compelled to watch what would happen to them if they ever dared to disobey their rulers. In such a society suicide must have been a common occurrence but only if it was a lesser evil - as it would be at the siege of Masada when all the Jews killed themselves except two women and five small children when they knew they would be defeated, tortured, enslaved, raped and killed by the Roman legionaries.

Yet Judas was hardly in a fit state to consider whether he was justified in killing himself. He must have been distraught because he knew he had made a mistake
about Jesus wanting to be betrayed: he thought he was being tested and had failed to prove show how faithful he was and his sin was unforgivable. He couldn’t seek forgiveness from Jesus because Our Lord had been arrested, tried and condemned to death. The Chief Priests had shown their contempt for him and the other apostles would have shunned him. He was totally isolated and the one thought in his mind was to put an end to his unbearable agony of guilt in a desperate attempt to atone for his treachery. Now that he no longer believed Jesus wanted him to fulfil the prophecy what else could he do but die like his Master? It must have seemed the only possible way he could at least show everyone he was sorry for what he had done and so he hanged himself. Like so many other people even today he was convinced his crime was unforgivable but God is infinitely merciful and knows Judas suffered so much he couldn’t bear to go on living. His apostle was tortured by the knowledge of what His Master would have to endure and that was enough to drive him out his mind because his kiss at Gethemane had been a supreme act of betrayal after Jesus had washed his feet at the Last Supper. He had distorted the symbol of love into a symbol of treachery. How could he ever be forgiven for such a diabolical deed? That is why Jesus had said "It would have been better for that man if he had not been born” , not because he is damned but because he repented** when it was too late **to prevent an act of deicide with which he will be associated for all eternity even in heaven. Yet there is no evidence that Herod ever repented for the Massacre of the Innocents or that Caiaphas regretted his decision that “It’s better that one man should die for the people.”. Ironically he said the right thing for the wrong reason. At least Judas realised he was guilty whereas Caiaphas thought he was fully justified in having an innocent man executed as a threat to Rome…

 

[tonyrey]

I’m reading a lot of good stuff here that, to me, is poking holes in the story. As was said Jesus was a very public figure in the Gospels so there is little to no reason to need someone to “rat him out” so to speak. Considering all Jesus was reported to do in the Gospels I find it hard to believe that anyone would want to betray someone who could raise people from the dead. The more one looks at the story the more questions it brings up as well as pondering the bizarre reasoning of the actions that took place. History has shown Pilate was a very cruel man and the idea he would let a known rabble rouser in Barabas free is a bit insane.

Pilate was afraid he would be reported to Tiberius Caesar who was notorious for his suspicion of everyone. He revived the ancient accusation of maiestas (treason) and used it to sentence to death anyone he suspected. He certainly wouldn’t have tolerated a procurator allowing a Jew claiming to be a king go unpunished in Judaea which was a hive of sedition:

Caiaphas was a supreme political operator and one of the most influential men in Jerusalem. He’d already survived 18 years as High Priest of the Temple (most High Priests only lasted 4), and had built a strong alliance with the occupying Roman power.
Caiaphas knew everybody who mattered. He was the de-facto ruler of the worldwide Jewish community at that time, and he planned to keep it that way.
The case against Caiaphas is that he arrested Jesus, tried him in a kangaroo court and convicted him on a religious charge that carried the death penalty.
What were Caiaphas’ motives?

   Jesus threatened Caiaphas's authority. Caiaphas could not afford to  allow any upstart preacher to get away with challenging his authority;  especially not at Passover time. This was the biggest Jewish festival  and scholars estimate that around two and half million Jews would have  been in Jerusalem to take part. Caiaphas did not want to lose face.

Jesus threatened Caiaphas’ relationship with Rome

   Caiaphas' power base was the Sanhedrin, the supreme council of Jews  which controlled civil and religious law. It had 71 members, mostly  chief priests, and Caiaphas presided over its deliberations.

It was hard work but it had big rewards - modern archaeologists have discovered that Caiaphas and his associates lived lives of luxury with large and lavishly decorated houses.
But, of course, the Sanhedrin only ruled because the Romans allowed them to and the way to keep the Romans happy was to maintain order in society. Caiaphas himself was a Roman appointment, so he needed to keep cosy with the governor, Pilate, if he wanted to stay in power and preserve his luxurious way of life.
So if Jesus was making trouble, he was making trouble for both Caiaphas and Pilate - and trouble for Pilate was still trouble for Caiaphas.
Jesus was undoubtedly a threat; the public liked him, indeed they may have been paying more attention to Jesus than to the priests, and the public were listening to his condemnation of what he saw as wrong in the religious establishment.
Jesus threatened the Temple’s income

   Jesus was also threatening a useful source of income for the Temple priests.

The Temple apparatus brought in huge revenues for simple matters like purification and the forgiveness of sins. Archaeologists have discovered 150 mikvehs around the Temple. Mikvehs are ritual baths which Jews use in order to purify themselves before any act of worship.
Jewish people could only enter the Temple if they were ritually pure and almost everyone arriving in Jerusalem for Passover was deemed ritually unclean. They had to use a mikveh before they could fulfil their religious obligations. The priests controlled the mikvehs and charged people to use them.
There were so many regulations requiring ritual purification that control of the mikvehs was a way of making money.
Jesus thought the whole thing was rubbish. He taught that the elaborate purity rituals were unnecessary - the Kingdom of God was available to everyone and they didn’t have to go through these rituals or pay the money in order to get there.
Bad news for the Temple apparatchiks. A quick way to raise a revolt was to tell people that they were being ripped off. This could cause a riot in the Temple if it got out of hand.
But there was worse. Jesus stormed into the Temple and accused the moneychangers and sacrificial dove sellers of extortion and of turning the Temple into a den of thieves.
The ultimate challenge to any religious leaders: What you are doing is against God and God will destroy you and cleanse the whole religious apparatus. And God, as every Jew knew, had the power to do it - he’d demonstrated that many times before.
Jesus was doing this in the Temple, in front of the crowds and without any fear or respect for Caiaphas and his staff.
Caiaphas had to do something to show that he was still boss, and he had to do it quickly; Jesus was on a roll, and who knew what he was going to do next…

Pilate was recalled to Rome to be tried for his brutal treatment of Jews, but the Emperor Tiberius died, and Pilate was never brought to trial. He is thought to have committed suicide in 37 AD - not long after the crucifixion.

bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/christianity/history/whokilledjesus_1.shtml

 

[tonyrey]

The puzzling bit is what kind of betrayal was that? Judas wasn’t one of the false witnesses. In Jewish law you need 2 male witnesses for capital punishment. As it panned out, there was a serious miscarriage of justice. The High Priest when not able to convict Jesus via Jewish law resorted to Roman law. Of which he didn’t violate either as Pilate declared. Jesus was indeed lynched using a “borrowed sword”. Merely leading temple authorities to locate Jesus as I said previously wasn’t a great deal as Jesus was already a public figure. There was nothing that Judas did that a determine tracker can not do. Just follow the crowd and one will find Jesus openly doing his thing.

So what did Judas actually do that he regretted so much that he ended his own life? 30 pieces of silver appear an excessive payment for the little he did. Coming to think of it, if Judas had appeared in court and declare that he has been paid by the High Priest for whatever he did, Jesus would have been off the hook and the High Priest could be charged for false accusation of which he might also suffer capital punishment. Judas would have redeemed himself. But he didn’t. There was no attempt to mitigate the damage he caused to his master by being a witness for his master. One can only wonder why didn’t he u-turn to do the right thing. And that is another negative for him.

Caiaphas had so much power it is extremely unlikely anyone would have taken any notice of Judas, especially as he was a Galilean. Peter was probably not the only apostle who would have denied being a follower of Jesus. In fact the others fled when their Master was arrested whereas he waited to see what would happen. After being appointed by Jesus as their leader it was the least he could do yet he was too afraid to tell the truth:

Culturally Judeans despised their northern neighbors as country cousins, their lack of Jewish sophistication being compounded by their greater openness to Hellenistic influence. Linguistically Galileans spoke a distinctive form of Aramaic whose slovenly consonants (they dropped their aitches!) were the butt of Judean humor. Religiously the Judean opinion was that Galileans were lax in their observance of proper ritual, and the problem was exacerbated by the distance of Galilee from the temple and the theological leadership, which was focused in Jerusalem.

blogs.thegospelcoalition.org/justintaylor/2011/08/17/7-differences-between-galilee-and-judea-in-the-time-of-jesus/

So Judas was in an impossible position. If he had attempted to accuse Caiaphas of being a liar he would have been arrested on the spot, assuming he even obtained access to the High Priest. Such important persons must have had their bodyguards in a nation where there were so many rebels against the Gentile invaders and those who were considered to be in league with them. After all Caiaphas had been appointed by Rome!

 

[tonyrey]

Caiaphas had so much power it is extremely unlikely anyone would have taken any notice of Judas, especially as he was a Galilean. Peter was probably not the only apostle who would have denied being a follower of Jesus. In fact the others fled when their Master was arrested whereas he waited to see what would happen. After being appointed by Jesus as their leader it was the least he could do yet he was too afraid to tell the truth:blogs.thegospelcoalition.org/justintaylor/2011/08/17/7-differences-between-galilee-and-judea-in-the-time-of-jesus/

So Judas was in an impossible position. If he had attempted to accuse Caiaphas of being a liar he would have been arrested on the spot, assuming he even obtained access to the High Priest. Such important persons must have had their bodyguards in a nation where there were so many rebels against the Gentile invaders and those who were considered to be in league with them. After all Caiaphas had been appointed by Rome!

Judas was caught up in a power struggle between good and evil related to Jesus which had begun as soon as He was born with Herod’s Massacre of the Innocents and continued throughout His life. Herod, Pilate and Caiaphas were all involved in attempts to maintain their authority but ironically it was the Jewish crowd that sealed the fate of Jesus with their shouts of “Crucify him”. The civil and religious leaders all feared they would be reported to Caesar if there was a riot during the Passover with so many people flocking to Jerusalem. The words of Caiaphas were true but not in the sense that he intended: “It is better that one man should die for the people than for the whole nation to be destroyed.” John 11:50

That power struggle has continued thoughout history and in our time martyrs like Archbishop Romero and Father Jerzy Popiełuszko have been beatified for sacrificing their lives in the fight against the forces of evil.

 

[tonyrey]

Judas was caught up in a power struggle between good and evil related to Jesus which had begun as soon as He was born with Herod’s Massacre of the Innocents and continued throughout His life. Herod, Pilate and Caiaphas were all involved in attempts to maintain their authority but ironically it was the Jewish crowd that sealed the fate of Jesus with their shouts of “Crucify him”. The civil and religious leaders all feared they would be reported to Caesar if there was a riot during the Passover with so many people flocking to Jerusalem. The words of Caiaphas were true but not in the sense that he intended: “It is better that one man should die for the people than for the whole nation to be destroyed.” John 11:50

That power struggle has continued thoughout history and in our time martyrs like Archbishop Romero and Father Jerzy Popiełuszko have been beatified for sacrificing their lives in the fight against the forces of evil.

Caiaphas was right in the sense that the Romans would take away all aspects of self-government from the Jews if the immense numbers of people coming to Jerusalem for the Passover became uncontrollable. Subsequent events proved that although he was unscrupulous he was an astute statesman who kept the nation intact until he died.

 

[tonyrey]

Caiaphas was right in the sense that the Romans would take away all aspects of self-government from the Jews if the immense numbers of people coming to Jerusalem for the Passover became uncontrollable. Subsequent events proved that although he was unscrupulous he was an astute statesman who kept the nation intact until he died.

There is no doubt he believed Jesus was guilty of blasphemy and worked miracles by invoking Satan but perhaps he had second thoughts when he had to deal with the Christians. Although he probably persecuted them like Saul he must have been impressed by their faith and willingness to die like their Master. In fact Saul’s volte-face was so unexpected it is very unlikely Caiaphas didn’t start wondering if there was any truth in what Jesus had said. He had heard the words of Judas “I have betrayed innocent blood”…

 

[tonyrey]

I’m reading a lot of good stuff here that, to me, is poking holes in the story. As was said Jesus was a very public figure in the Gospels so there is little to no reason to need someone to “rat him out” so to speak. Considering all Jesus was reported to do in the Gospels I find it hard to believe that anyone would want to betray someone who could raise people from the dead. The more one looks at the story the more questions it brings up as well as pondering the bizarre reasoning of the actions that took place. History has shown Pilate was a very cruel man and the idea he would let a known rabble rouser in Barabas free is a bit insane.

The threat of being reported to Caesar was quite enough to make Pilate aware of the danger of releasing a man who claimed to be a king. He was in fact recalled to Rome several years later because of the problems in Judea under his watch and he eventually committed suicide…

 

[OneSheep]

You seem to be quite confused, OS. First you say that our conscience should rightly tell us that the Christian life is not a cakewalk.

Then you say that our conscience tells ups that there are “punishments” for “many deeds”. Perhaps you don’t really believe there is such a thing as sins? Yes it is the purpose of the conscience to guide us in right and wrong.

Hi Friend

In terms of “cakewalk” I was referring to Jesus’ forgiveness of the unrepentant. Like the older brother of the prodigal son, our natural conscience resists such forgiveness as “unfair”. I am talking about the default conscience, the conscience that Jesus refers to when He said “you have heard you are to love your friends and hate your enemies”. It is our innate, God-given conscience, one that is found in every culture and ethnicity.

I agree that many people mistakely equeat Gd with conscience. Our conscience is the God given faculty through which God communicates with us about right and wrong. A consciece can become very bent, so it is not a reliable instrument.

The Catholic Church teaches that a well informed conscience is formed by receiving what God has revealed about HImself to mankind.

Understanding that Jesus forgives unconditionally is exactly that informs and heals our conscience. We are not to remain in the 'natural state" , but to allow God to heal our conscience and bring it into line with His revelation.

Bingo! The conscience formed in following Christ is supernatural! We look at Jesus saying “love your enemies”, and our natural conscience, the default, resists saying “ridiculous”. Jesus calls us to a conscience formation that defies instinct. For example, much of our innate ideas of fairness I think stem from inherited genetically-influenced reactions to sibling rivalry. The conscience says “fairness is everything”. Jesus says “mercy/love/forgiveness is everything.”

This is a good example of a false dichotomy. I have no idea what "the operant conditioning of the conscience " means. Perhaps this is another element of the Gospel of One Sheep?

I can see how you can surmise that I was presenting a dichotomy. Operant conditioning of the conscience is the automatic functioning of the mind, when we do good things, our brain rewards us with “happy” neurotransmitters, and when we do bad, we are punished within with “guilt” neurotransmitters. It is a matter of physiology/neurological functioning of the mind. It works, beautifully. However, with Love as our guide, we can transcend and definitely surpass the reward/punishment functioning. As Pope John Paul said (paraphrasing) “yes, in the least, we should do no wrong”. But we are called to much more. You see, the conscience doesn’t give us as strong a shot for sins of omission, for example, and really, why should our good behavior, our mercy toward others, be so mechanical? And when it is mechanical, is it genuine?

Take, for example, D. Trump’s latest statements retracting his call for reintroduction of torture. He said something like “we do have to abide by international laws” or something like that. Good, he has a healthy conscience. On the other hand, Christ calls us to more than simply avoidance of breaking laws. Christ calls us to love those who we are compelled to torture. If we need information, it has to be achieved as mercifully as possible. Such love goes beyond the default condition of desire to punish.

Your last line is very misleading. Avoiding sin to stay in God’s grace is important spiritual practice. Being able to remain in a state of grace occurs BECAUSE God forgives our sins. Sin separates us from God.

No intent to mislead, bro. Nothing, absolutely nothing, separates us from the love of God, as Paul stated. There are two ways (at least) of looking at “separation”. One way is to look at the conscience speaking for God. In that scenario, when we feel guilty (for good, natural reason), God is separated from us, and when we feel righteous (for good, natural reason), God is with us. Another way of looking at it is that the alienation takes place between the Self (ego, “I”) and our own love of God. In that view, God’s forgiveness is always there, but a separation occurs between our self and our love. The latter reflects more of today’s gospel, the story of the prodigal son. It also is more in line with Pope Francis’ May 19 2015 tweet, that you have already seen many times.

This is the same false dichotomy. Fear (awe) of God occurs BECAUSE we have a well formed conscience. Being on guard against sin ,and the near occasions of sin is what helps our conscience to be continually formed in the will of God.

There is a line of the song “Amazing Grace” that I think says it best. “Twas Grace that taught my heart to fear, and Grace my fears relieved”. Yes, fear of God helps in the formation of conscience, including fear of God throwing us in hell! However, when we grow in love, we grow to know the Father as that of the prodigal son’s. Not only are we free from the fear-based behavior formation (operant conditioning), but we are free of fear of God. After all, do we want our children to fear us? Getting in touch with our true self means going deeper into love than the equating of God and conscience, which is the fear-based automatic functioning. Ultimately, is true love ever based in fear? Indeed when people serve because they fear God, this is coercion. There is a place for this coercion in our development, but we are called to transcend.

(continued)

 

[OneSheep]

guanophore:

The heart being moved is a function of conscience. It is not “either/or”. They function together.

Here what is begged is the definition of conscience. I agree that they function together, but the conscience I opine is more of a “mind thing”. The heart being moved is independent of the workings of the conscience. Like I said, though, it depends on where the individual draws the lines around the word “conscience”. We may both be seeing it the same way, but using the words differently.

Such an imaginitive construction is consistent with your assertion that no one willingly and knowingly rejects God.

Well, like I said, Jesus observed from the cross that those crucifying Him did not know what they were doing, and we take His word for it. However, upon investigation, the same can be found true for every case we investigate, including that of Judas. I think that tony is doing a good job of presenting this case, even though I may describe some of the finer points a little bit differently.

Blessings always,

OneSheep

 

[guanophore]

I can see how you can surmise that I was presenting a dichotomy. Operant conditioning of the conscience is the automatic functioning of the mind, when we do good things, our brain rewards us with “happy” neurotransmitters, and when we do bad, we are punished within with “guilt” neurotransmitters. It is a matter of physiology/neurological functioning of the mind. It works, beautifully.

I only wish it were true that it worked so beautifully, but that is not the case. Some people are trained to get good feelings from doing bad things. Some people can’t feel good about themselves no matter how much good they do. But, I do agree that God’s plan goes against what is natural for us.

Take, for example, D. Trump’s latest statements retracting his call for reintroduction of torture. He said something like “we do have to abide by international laws” or something like that. Good, he has a healthy conscience.

I don’t think we can conclude this at all. All we may be able to conclude with this is that he has effective handlers who pay attention to the polls.

No intent to mislead, bro. Nothing, absolutely nothing, separates us from the love of God, as Paul stated.

This, in itself is misleading, OS. It is a common “once saved always saved” mistake - to equate God’s love for us with salvation, or even being in a state of grace. Yes, God loves every soul He creates. He loved us enough to die for us while we were yet sinners. He loves us so much He allows us to choose. He will love us as we walk glibly through the gates of hell.

Sin does separate us from God. He still loves us, and is always ready to forgive us, but we can choose to remain separated from Him through sin.

  There are two ways (at least) of looking at "separation".   One way is to look at the conscience speaking for God.  In that scenario, when we feel guilty (for good, natural reason), God is separated from us, and when we feel righteous (for good, natural reason), God is with us.

Given the fallen state of our conscience, this is not the safest way to approach it. It is too subjective.

Another way of looking at it is that the alienation takes place between the Self (ego, "I") and our own love of God.  In that view, God's forgiveness is always there, but a separation occurs between our self and our love.

I suppose there are as many ways to look at it as there are belly buttons, but this does not seem consistent with the Teaching of the Church, who teaches that sin separates us from God, and if that separation remains, we face an eternal state of separation from Him.

There is a line of the song "Amazing Grace" that I think says it best.  "Twas Grace that taught my heart to fear, and Grace my fears relieved".  Yes, fear of God helps in the formation of conscience, including fear of God throwing us in hell!

I don’t think so. God does not “throw us into hell”. Hell is a state we choose ourselves. It is a state of being separated from Him through sin.

Here what is begged is the definition of conscience. I agree that they function together, but the conscience I opine is more of a "mind thing".  The heart being moved is independent of the workings of the conscience.  Like I said, though, it depends on where the individual draws the lines around the word "conscience".  We may both be seeing it the same way, but using the words differently.

No, OS, we are not. Jesus taught that the heart and mind need to function together. Separating them is contrary to His instruction on how the human person functions. You seem to be working very hard to establish some sort of framework where sin does not really separate us from God.

Well, like I said, Jesus observed from the cross that those crucifying Him did not know what they were doing, and we take His word for it. However, upon investigation, the same can be found true for every case we investigate, including that of Judas. I think that tony is doing a good job of presenting this case, even though I may describe some of the finer points a little bit differently.

Blessings always,

OneSheep

I accept that you have convinced yourself that there is no such thing as mortal sin- that people do not willingly and knowingly reject God, but this is not what Jesus, or the Church teaches. It may be a fine humanistic framework that works for you, and has enabled you to grow as a person, but it is not consistent with the Apostolic faith.

 

[tonyrey]

Here what is begged is the definition of conscience. I agree that they function together, but the conscience I opine is more of a “mind thing”. The heart being moved is independent of the workings of the conscience. Like I said, though, it depends on where the individual draws the lines around the word “conscience”. We may both be seeing it the same way, but using the words differently.

Well, like I said, Jesus observed from the cross that those crucifying Him did not know what they were doing, and we take His word for it. However, upon investigation, the same can be found true for every case we investigate, including that of Judas. I think that tony is doing a good job of presenting this case, even though I may describe some of the finer points a little bit differently.

Blessings always,

OneSheep

Thanks for your support, OS. All evil is ultimately due to ignorance. If we were omniscient like God we would realise lack of love for others does us more harm than good. Yet it is culpable when our conscience tells us that we are doing or not doing is wrong.

 

[tonyrey]

I only wish it were true that it worked so beautifully, but that is not the case. Some people are trained to get good feelings from doing bad things. Some people can’t feel good about themselves no matter how much good they do. But, I do agree that God’s plan goes against what is natural for us.

I don’t think we can conclude this at all. All we may be able to conclude with this is that he has effective handlers who pay attention to the polls.

This, in itself is misleading, OS. It is a common “once saved always saved” mistake - to equate God’s love for us with salvation, or even being in a state of grace. Yes, God loves every soul He creates. He loved us enough to die for us while we were yet sinners. He loves us so much He allows us to choose. He will love us as we walk glibly through the gates of hell.

Sin does separate us from God. He still loves us, and is always ready to forgive us, but we can choose to remain separated from Him through sin.

Given the fallen state of our conscience, this is not the safest way to approach it. It is too subjective.

I suppose there are as many ways to look at it as there are belly buttons, but this does not seem consistent with the Teaching of the Church, who teaches that sin separates us from God, and if that separation remains, we face an eternal state of separation from Him.

I don’t think so. God does not “throw us into hell”. Hell is a state we choose ourselves. It is a state of being separated from Him through sin.

Indisputable!

No, OS, we are not. Jesus taught that the heart and mind need to function together. Separating them is contrary to His instruction on how the human person functions. You seem to be working very hard to establish some sort of framework where sin does not really separate us from God.

I accept that you have convinced yourself that there is no such thing as mortal sin- that people do not willingly and knowingly reject God, but this is not what Jesus, or the Church teaches. It may be a fine humanistic framework that works for you, and has enabled you to grow as a person, but it is not consistent with the Apostolic faith.

People who do not believe in God do not willingly and knowingly reject Him but they usually know what they are doing or not doing is wrong.

 

[tonyrey]

The threat of being reported to Caesar was quite enough to make Pilate aware of the danger of releasing a man who claimed to be a king. He was in fact recalled to Rome several years later because of the problems in Judea under his watch and he eventually committed suicide…

To be precise, Pilate was recalled to Rome to be tried for his brutal treatment of Jews which was remarkable because Tiberius relied on Sejanus the head of the Praetorian guard who was notorious for his brutality to maintain order. However in 27 AD Tiberius retired to Capri and may not have been responsible for the recall of Pilate. He certainly ordered Sejanus to be executed knowing the latter was trying to seize power. It was rumoured that the death of Tiberius was hastened by his successor Caligula smothering him with a pillow.:

rlhymersjr.com/Online_Sermons/2007/041507PM_FirstChristianMartyrs.html

The death of Jesus was partly due to a power struggle in Rome but it was primarily due to the conflict between the power of love and hate, light and darkness, creation and destruction, God and Satan. Although they had free will Herod, Caiaphas, Judas, Pilate and Tiberius were pawns in the struggle between good and evil…

 

[guanophore]

Indisputable!

People who do not believe in God do not willingly and knowingly reject Him but they usually know what they are doing or not doing is wrong.

God has given sufficient grace to every human person to know Him. Yes, our concience testifies of Him from within us.

 

[OneSheep]

I only wish it were true that it worked so beautifully, but that is not the case. Some people are trained to get good feelings from doing bad things. Some people can’t feel good about themselves no matter how much good they do. But, I do agree that God’s plan goes against what is natural for us.

Good Morning!

Yes, it would definitely be more ideal if people’s consciences were all well-formed, but it is still beautiful to me, in a beauty-of-function way. Some people have had experiences that have misprogrammed the conscience. I would not say “God’s plan goes against what is natural for us.” I would say that God planned the natural, but calls us to the supernatural.

This, in itself is misleading, OS. It is a common “once saved always saved” mistake - to equate God’s love for us with salvation, or even being in a state of grace. Yes, God loves every soul He creates. He loved us enough to die for us while we were yet sinners. He loves us so much He allows us to choose. He will love us as we walk glibly through the gates of hell.

Sin does separate us from God. He still loves us, and is always ready to forgive us, but we can choose to remain separated from Him through sin.

Being in a “state of grace” involves participation of the individual, I agree. We are going to disagree where that separation occurs, perhaps. Loving us as we walk “glibly” to me is the image of a God more indifferent than I know. I know an in-your-face Father, remember? Salvation, remember, I think of as beginning here on Earth. When we are enslaved by our compulsions, we are far from living a life of freedom and joy.

Given the fallen state of our conscience, this is not the safest way to approach it. It is too subjective.

It is only subjective in the eyes of the observer. In the eyes of the individual, it is very objective.

I suppose there are as many ways to look at it as there are belly buttons, but this does not seem consistent with the Teaching of the Church, who teaches that sin separates us from God, and if that separation remains, we face an eternal state of separation from Him.

There are several uses of the words “eternal”, “salvation” “sin” and “separation” according to scripture scholars and theologians, in my reading. I think that we all agree that the individual can choose to separate himself in some way, and lead a life of slavery, a life far from the perfection that Jesus calls us to. It is my observation, as you know, that when the individual chooses such separation, he does so in ignorance and/or blindness.

I don’t think so. God does not “throw us into hell”. Hell is a state we choose ourselves. It is a state of being separated from Him through sin.

What I am saying, and it would be difficult to dispute this, that a person who turns from addiction, for example, because he fears being thrown in hell is taking a step in the right direction, even though he has a misconception. I think such an occurrence is rare, though, and I would not recommend depicting this image of God. However, it is very, very common to equate God with conscience, as I have been saying, and his conscience may be screaming at him, which is good.

No, OS, we are not. Jesus taught that the heart and mind need to function together. Separating them is contrary to His instruction on how the human person functions. You seem to be working very hard to establish some sort of framework where sin does not really separate us from God.

Yes, I agree that the heart and mind need to function together, but that might sometimes take discipline. Nothing separates us from the love of God, and God is within every human. The place of “separation”, to me, makes sense to occur between a person and his own love of God. God to man is an “always”. The other direction is on, fuzzy, and off. I am not saying that this is the only acceptable way of looking at “separation”.

I accept that you have convinced yourself that there is no such thing as mortal sin- that people do not willingly and knowingly reject God, but this is not what Jesus, or the Church teaches. It may be a fine humanistic framework that works for you, and has enabled you to grow as a person, but it is not consistent with the Apostolic faith.

I do not eliminate the possibility that a person can choose to go to hell screaming and kicking against God the whole way. I don’t see why a person would knowingly and willingly make such a choice, but it is theoretically possible. If you can think of how it could happen, please let me know! If you can thoroughly describe such a case, I promise to listen to your reasoning and carefully consider the evidence.

Thanks.

 

[OneSheep]

Thanks for your support, OS. All evil is ultimately due to ignorance. If we were omniscient like God we would realise lack of love for others does us more harm than good. Yet it is culpable when our conscience tells us that we are doing or not doing is wrong.

I would add that it is not only ignorance but blindness (which is always inadvertent) which also enables a person to do evil. For example, a person may know that embezzlement is wrong, but if he has a particularly nasty boss, and he is a desperate compulsive gambler, his want and his resentment will both create a blindness to the wrongness of the act. The person’s mind takes on a new position of “justice” i.e. “my boss deserves this” “I deserve better”. The word “deserve” represents a function of the conscience itself, and the resentment and want are causing a blindness. Deep down, the “true self” does not desire such enslavement (either to the want, the resentment, or the blindness).

Now, after embezzling, or after Judas turns in Jesus, the person may look back in horror and blame. Guilt may envelope him, as what happened to Judas. But the explanation (not an excuse) for the behavior is that blindness was triggered. Jesus likely said or did something that Judas found offensive or dangerous, and his conscience temporarily became a little warped. It is possible, too, that his want of the money also contributed to his blindness. Judas once knew Jesus as a person of great value and deserving of protection, but this was not his state of mind when he turned Him over to the authorities. There was likely some true ignorance involved too, but overall he appeared to not have a clue what he was doing.

This is my take on Judas; this is how I could have done what Judas did. Again, this is an explanation, not in itself intended to be an excuse relieving Judas from consequence. Indeed, the consequence happened, he was resentful that he was ever born. Blindness happens to all of us, and so it is good to keep each other “in check.”