T
tonyrey
Guest
I’ve dedicated far more time and energy to this thread than I had anticipated but I don’t regret it because it seems an ideal meditation for Lent. “There but for the grace of God…”
- Status
G
guanophore
Guest
22 Now the Festival of Unleavened Bread, called the Passover, was approaching, 2 and the chief priests and the teachers of the law were looking for some way to get rid of Jesus, for they were afraid of the people. 3 Then Satan entered Judas, called Iscariot, one of the Twelve. 4 And Judas went to the chief priests and the officers of the temple guard and discussed with them how he might betray Jesus. 5 They were delighted and agreed to give him money. 6** He consented, and watched for an opportunity to hand Jesus over to them **when no crowd was present. Luke 22
The Scripture says that Judas initiated this deal, that he discussed with them how he might betray Jesus. I fail to see how his intentions could be pure, even to him. If they were, he would not have felt the need to return the money. But I agree, he did not need to make excuses to himself. He convinced himself that what he was doing was right. He thought the end would justify the means, but when he saw that he would not get the “end” he wanted, and the means was much worse than he imagined, he regretted what he did.
If he had fear and resentment after all that spiritual formation, it was because he chose not to be healed of it. Perfect love casts out all fear, and Judas would not allow the perfect love of Christ into his heart, to heal it.
I agree, and we can only speculate about his motives, which we are doing. But you are wrong, we do not have to address all the possibilites to determine ignorance. Judas knew the 10 commandments. He knew it was wrong to steal, and wrong to betray his neighbor/brother. Full knowledge does not mean we need to know all the possibilities, which is humanly impossible, but that we are fully aware that the act itself is a grave matter, and we freely choose to engage in it.
Circumstances are irrelevant. There are eternal truths, such as we find in the 10 commandments, which we can be confident Judas knew about since his youth. There are none so blind as those who do not wish to see, and Judas chose not to see. Yes, he had a change of heart after his actions, which one could call a repentance of sorts, but he failed to place his faith in Jesus to redeem him. He was still counting on himself, and there was no way to redeem himself.
I understand and accept that you must interpret everything this way, to support your psychotheological premise.
Yes, everything has to fit with what has been revealed by God to the Church. Since God has revealed that there are mortal sins (those in which a person willingly and knowingly rejects God) then how we interpret behavior must “fit in this perspective”. You are exempt from this, since you are not bound by the Catholic faith.
I think that, if you are unwilling to accept the Scripture and the Catechism, there is nothing I can add that will be of any use.
No, OS, I did not say that. I said that it is a dangerous position because it leads people into error at the peril of their souls. People who are convinced there is no such thing as moral sin are not likely to take action to address it in their lives. I am not afraid of it, because I accept the Teaching, and the remedy provided by Christ. Judas refused the remedy of Christ.
G
guanophore
Guest
I wish it were just a matter of opinion, but it is not. The apostolic faith was whole and entire long before I was ever born, and will continue after I have passed through this life. It is not something one need “surmise” nor is it a matter of anyone’s personal opinion. It is objective Truth.
Perhaps you don’t get around here much on CAF, but there are plenty of professed Catholics who deny parts of the Catholic faith. It is not something I surmise, but something that becomes evident in their posts.
I don’t need to be infallible, since I can rely fully on the Church. The Church teaches that there are motal sins. It has nothing to do with my humility, or lack of it.
Just the mind that wants to cleave to what God has revealed in His Church.
I think he was emotionally driven, but that does not equate to “no reasoning”.
So you disagree that these were the same people that hailed him into town a couple days before? Or do you mean to say they were his enemies while they waved palm branches, but they were just faking it?
This is a fallacy, since none of us will ever get the “whole picture” during our earthly life, and may not even in the afterlife. Full knowlege does not mean we become omnicient, but that we are making choices within the knowledge that we have at the time. You seem to want to believe that Judas did not know right from wrong -that he was “blind” to the fact that stealing and betraying your friends is wrong.
Why did Jesus say "For the Son of man goes as it is written of him, but woe to that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! It would have been better for that man if he had not been born.” Mark 14:21
Wow.
I agree with you that there is knowing in relationship that does not come in just written words. The part where we disagree is that Judas had opportunity, but willingly and knowingly chose not to relate to Christ as Lord and Savior. Lack of relationship does not exempt us from culpability. God gave us the Law to be our custodian until the fullness of Truth came to us. One who violates one part of the Law violates all of it. Judas had as much access to the Truth of what God had revealed as every Jew that was raised in the faith.
“But O ungodliest of men, “thou seed of Chanaan and not of Juda,” and no longer “a vessel of election,” but “a son of perdition” and death, thou didst think the devil’s instigations would profit thee better, so that, inflamed with the torch of greed, thou wert ablaze to gain 30 pieces of silver and sawest not what riches thou wouldst lose. For even if thou didst not think the LORD’S promises were to be believed, what reason was there for preferring so small a sum of money to what thou hadst already received? Thou wast wont to command the evil spirits, to heal the sick, to receive honour with the rest of the apostles, and that thou mightest satisfy thy thirst for gain, it was open to thee to steal from the box that was in thy charge. But thy mind, which lusted after forbidden things, was more strongly stimulated by that which was less allowed: and the amount of the price pleased thee not so much as the enormity of the sin. Wherefore thy wicked bargain is not so detestable merely because thou countedst the LORD so cheap, but because thou didst sell Him Who was the Redeemer, yea, even thine, and hadst no pity on thyself. And justly was thy punishment put into thine own hands, because none could be found more cruelly bent on thy destruction than thyself.” Leo the Great, on The enormity of Judas’ crime is set forth Sermon 67.4
T
tonyrey
Guest
A man who “has no pity of himself and is bent on his own destruction” is clearly out of his mind! Pope Leo’s rhetoric is obviously flawed and contradicts the words of St John :“As soon as Judas took the bread, Satan entered into him.”
“Thou didst think the devil’s instigations would profit thee better, so that, inflamed with the torch of greed, thou wert ablaze to gain 30 pieces of silver and sawest not what riches thou wouldst lose.”
For such a paltry sum! Further evidence that Judas was blinded to the truth.
"What reason was there for preferring so small a sum of money to what thou hadst already received? "
None whatsoever! Judas was obviously insane or possessed. Either way he wasn’t responsible for what he did.
"The amount of the price pleased thee not so much as the enormity of the sin. "
If that were the case why did Judas say “I have betrayed innocent blood”?
His “pleasure in sin” is a fanciful notion which seems to have been very short-lived. Pope Leo keeps forgetting the words of St John that “Satan entered into him” which are incomparably more authoritative than the theory that Judas was relishing his treachery.
“Thou countedst the LORD so cheap…” There is no evidence that Judas evaluated the relative worth of Jesus and the thirty pieces of silver. It is a rhetorical device which is quite false. A man who was heart-broken and hanged himself when he heard his Master had been condemned would hardly have swung to the other extreme in such a short place of time. He would have been gloating over his bargain and highly satisfied with himself, dismissing the execution of Jesus as what is now called “collateral damage”, i.e. an unfortunate necessity. He certainly wouldn’t have hanged himself.
Leo’s sermon is clear evidence that papal infallibility doesn’t extend to everything that a Pope writes. If it did the Church would be riddled with inconsistency…
T
tonyrey
Guest
A man who is possessed doesn’t initiate anything nor does he need to convince himself or make excuses to himself or think whether the end would justify the means… In fact many people who sin don’t think like this at all because they are obsessed with their goal and nothing else comes into their mind. Moral considerations are a superstructure which are often absent in the hurly-burly of day to day life. The apostles were obviously ordinary men who were deeply influenced by Jesus but still subject to the same temptations as the rest of us. Habits of a lifetime die hard…
You haven’t specified “the end” which Judas had in mind, assuming that it was not just the thirty pieces of silver…
A
Aloysium
Guest
I can’t say anything about what Judas thought or felt.
I do know that there are very evil people in this world.
There have been very evil people in the church.
I can’t say how they settled their differences with God.
Judging the sin but not the sinner, Judas did what we all do when we commit a mortal sin and ultimately, in doing so we bring about our own death. That’s the message I get.
I do know that there are very evil people in this world.
There have been very evil people in the church.
I can’t say how they settled their differences with God.
Judging the sin but not the sinner, Judas did what we all do when we commit a mortal sin and ultimately, in doing so we bring about our own death. That’s the message I get.
T
tonyrey
Guest
I agree with you. There have been very evil people in the church and perhaps there still are if we are to go by the cases of child abuse…
O
OneSheep
Guest
Good Morning!
Fill in the blank: "I, Judas, refuse to allow the love of Christ into my heart because_____________. " You said that he may not have had any reason at all, that his choice may have been completely emotional. Are you saying, then, that his choice was irrational?
Which brings us back to the question you did not answer, brother. I will ask it again: What reasons did Judas have in his mind to not allow the love of Christ into his heart?
Fill in the blank: "I, Judas, refuse to allow the love of Christ into my heart because_____________. " You said that he may not have had any reason at all, that his choice may have been completely emotional. Are you saying, then, that his choice was irrational?
We cannot be aware that an act is a grave matter if when we see little or no value in the person being harmed. For example, did those who crucified Jesus know His infinite value?
Judas: “I chose not to see because_________________”
“I, Judas, refused the remedy of Christ because____________________.”
O
OneSheep
Guest
Yes, even blindness is “emotionally driven”. So, if he had reasons, just fill in the blank from my last post. He either had reasons, or he did not.
I don’t understand what you are getting at, guanophore. Yes, it is possible that some of the people waving palm branches became His enemies, calling for His crucifixion. Jesus saw that His enemies did not know what they were doing, and He forgave them.
I am not “wanting to believe” anything about Judas. I have evaluated all of the possibilities I can think of for Judas’ reasoning (or non-reasoning), and I agree with the same assessment that Jesus made of the crowd, that Judas did not know what he was doing. It is an observation. Give it a try, guanophore, fill in the blank.
The definition of mortal sin says “full knowledge” not “omniscience”. Answer the questions I highlighted in green below, and we can speculate as to the fullness of people’s knowledge. No, we cannot know people’s minds, but we can speculate.
Judas suffered greatly. I think he would agree that it would have been better if he had not been born.
“I, Judas, chose not to relate to Christ as Lord and Savior because _____________________.”
If you can fill in the blank, we can look for the possibility of whether or not Judas knowingly and willingly rejected God. Your assertions that he did knowingly and willingly reject God do not make it so.
Unless, of course, you have had a personal revelation from God saying that Judas knowingly and willingly rejected God. If you had such a revelation, perhaps you should bring it forth!
What did the rest of the Apostles know that Judas did not? Or, what did the rest of the apostles know that the crowd did not?
Please, instead of finding my views and observations “evidence of denial of parts of the Catholic faith”, simply continue the discussion. God has not assigned you the judge of my sincerity or my adherence to teachings. If you disagree with me, answer my questions and we can go from there, okay? This is what the CAF guidelines are asking us to do. Consider that a reminder.
My questions are there to give you an opportunity to support your assertions in the context of what people actually think and do. So, if you are confident in your assertions, it should not be a problem, right?
Please, Guanophore, try to answer the questions.
O
OneSheep
Guest
I just I realized that I failed to address something else very important and pertinent to understanding anyone, including Judas.
However, let’s put some light on this:
Why, guanophore, would a person take action to address his own behaviors that could be, according to this individual, mortal sins? And, why would he not?
This is a very understandable concern, and keep in mind that I never said there is no such thing as mortal sin.
However, let’s put some light on this:
Why, guanophore, would a person take action to address his own behaviors that could be, according to this individual, mortal sins? And, why would he not?
G
guanophore
Guest
I wish this were true, but it is not. There are many peole who have no pity of themselves and are bent on their own destruction who are still able to willingly and knowingly make choices. I talked to one such person today.
It is not a contradiction, as our choices against Life accumulate and give satan a foothold.
In some accounts, though, the pieces of silver did not come up until after the deal was made. Judas first sought to betray Jesus, then after that he accepted money.
I don’t think we know enough to say this. He took the initiative to approach the Jews and work a deal. Obviously he did not look out of his mind to them! Some believe that he had been in dialogue with them for quite some time. It is possible that he infiltrated the Apostolic college with a plan in mind.
Judas was looking beyond the act of betrayal for a greater prize. Whether it was to eliminate Jesus as a threat, or a bid to gain power for himself, he convinced himself hat the end justified the means. Yes, it was short lived. He did not get what he intended and despaired.
Actually the two compliment one another very well.
…14But each one is tempted when he is carried away and enticed by his own lust. 15Then when lust has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and when sin is accomplished, it brings forth death. James 1:15
Judas had a desire/passion. He entertained that passion and it gave birth to sin. This opened the door for satan to enter into him.
ON the contrary, people’s emotions can swing in a moment. He did not have a chance to gloat, because the betrayal did not result in his desired outcome. You are right, if he wanted Jesus executed, he would have been gloating over his success. This is the main reason I disagree with OneSheeps response. If Judas perceieve Jesus as a threat, and the threat was eliminated wtih his execution, he would not have had regrets.
who ever claimed that it did?Leo’s sermon is clear evidence that papal infallibility doesn’t extend to everything that a Pope writes. If it did the Church would be riddled with inconsistency…
G
guanophore
Guest
I agree, but we do not know if he was posessed, or oppressed. Plenty of people place themselves in a position to give power to the evil one, but have not lost total control. Clearly satan had a strong influence, because his goal is to murder the soul, and he drove Judas to suicide in his attempt to separate him from eternal life.
This is very well stated.
My speculations are further up the thread, and have already been deemed as baseless.
Here are some more speculations from the Fathers:
Matt. 26:14–16
- Then one of the twelve, called Judas Iscariot, went unto the Chief Priests,
- And said unto them, What will ye give me, and I will deliver him unto you? And they covenanted with him for thirty pieces of silver.
- And from that time he sought opportunity to betray him.
RABANUS. Went, he says, because he was neither compelled, nor invited, but of his own free will formed the wicked design.
CHRYSOSTOM. One of the twelve, as much as to say, of that first band who are elected for preeminent merit.
LEO. (Serm. 60.4.) He did not out of any fear forsake Christ, but through lust of money cast Him off; for in comparison of the love of money all our affections are feeble; the soul athirst for gain fears not to die for a very little; there is no trace of righteousness in that heart in which covetousness has once taken up its abode. The traitor Judas, intoxicated with this bane, in his thirst for lucre was so foolishly hardened, as to sell his Lord and Master.
JEROME. The wretched Judas would fain replace, by the sale of his Master, that loss which he supposed he had incurred by the ointment. And he does not demand any fixed sum, lest his treachery should see in a gainful thing, but as though delivering up a worthless slave, he left it to those who bought, to determine how much they would give.
ORIGEN. The same do all who take any material or worldly things to cast out of their thoughts the Saviour and the word of truth which was in them. And they covenanted with him for thirty pieces of silver, as many pieces as the Saviour had dwelt years in the world.
JEROME.Joseph was not sold as many, following the LXX (Gen. 37:28.), think for twenty pieces of gold, but as the Hebrew text has for twenty pieces of silver, for it could not be that the servant should be more valuable than his Master.
AUGUSTINE. (Quæst. Ev. i. 41) That the Lord was sold for thirty pieces of silver by Judas, denotes the unrighteous Jews, who pursuing things carnal and temporal, which belong to the five bodily senses, refuse to have Christ; and forasmuch as they did this in the sixth age of the world, their receiving five times six as the price of the Lord is thus signified; and because the Lord’s words are silver, but they understood even the Law carnally, they had, as it were, stamped on silver the image of that worldly dominion which they held to when they renounced the Lord.
ORIGEN. The opportunity which Judas sought is further explained by Luke, how he might betray him in the absence of the multitude; (Luke 22:6.) when the populace was not with Him, but He was withdrawn with His disciples. And this he did, delivering Him up after supper, when He was withdrawn to the garden of Gethsemane. And from that time forward, such has been the season sought for by those that would betray the word of God in time of persecution when the multitude of believers is not around the word of truth.
G
guanophore
Guest
I think you lost me here. Judas went on his own to meet with the Jews and devise a plan for what he was going to do. He did this before Satan entered into him. Jesus did not tell him to set up the betrayal this way.
Once that plan was in place, Jesus told him to do it quickly. So what speaks for itself?
I don’t see how this is evidence of repentance. He knew he was betraying innocent blood before he did it!
Yes, of course, but Peter felt the same way.
Speaking of no evidence…
True self sacrifice for Judas would have been to set aside his pride that he could atone for his own sins and throw himself upon the mercy of God.
He told them a lot of things, but they did not understand. The text is clear that the Apostles did not understand what was happening about Judas.
No, they did not. They did not “get it” until after the resurrection. AFterwards, they were able to put it together, but they would not have been cowering in the upper room if they understood.
This is my point about how Judas and Peter handled their betrayals quite differently. Peter humbled himself, and threw himself on the mercy of Christ. Judas realized he could not atone for his actions himself, and despaired.
Yes, but when one has been catechized that one is rejecting God in committing the sin, there is no excuse.
This is true, but he made the plan before “satan entered into him”.
Indeed. WE cannot presume that any soul is in hell.
Satan can only enter those who have rejected the Holy Spirit. Those who are in Christ are kept by His grace, and the evil one cannot snatch them out of His hand.
I don’t think he got the intended result. I think he believed Jesus would take control of the situation and prevent Himself from harm. This does not mean he lacks culpabiity, though.
The Last Supper
…20And He said to them, “It is one of the twelve, one who dips with Me in the bowl. 21"For the Son of Man is to go just as it is written of Him; but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been good for that man if he had not been born.” Mark 14:21
Why did Jesus say this?
I have never implied or stated that Jesus was “evil”. His regret over the outcome does not absolve him of guilt. Plenty of people regret the outcome of their actions, but not the actions. The prison is full of them!
I think you lost me here…
I have speculated about the thread topic. I think Judas betrayed Jesus because he wanted position and power in a temporal Kingdom in which Jesus would rule. He thought he could force Jesus into taking over the Kingship by manipulating the circumstances. When the opposite occurred, he regretted what he had done.
T
tonyrey
Guest
Judas fulfilled the prophecy in Psalm 40: “Even my close friend in whom I trusted, who ate my bread, has lifted up his heel against me.” Jesus knew the prophecy and knew Judas was a petty thief. He was well versed in the Old Testament and had deep insight into human nature.
Jesus also knew Judas would be possessed but He didn’t exorcise him. If He had He wouldn’t have fulfilled His mission. He knew how much He would suffer, how much His mother would suffer, how much the apostles would suffer and how much Judas would suffer. Yet the alternative was far worse. Our Lord wouldn’t have delivered us from evil. He told us sacrifice is necessary if we are to overcome temptation:
None of the victims of war need have died. They are the victims of those who ignore the example of Jesus and the martyrs. He has overcome evil but we can still betray Him when unlike Judas we know exactly what we are doing and allow others to suffer unnecessarily…
Matthew 20:17-19
Jesus also knew Judas would be possessed but He didn’t exorcise him. If He had He wouldn’t have fulfilled His mission. He knew how much He would suffer, how much His mother would suffer, how much the apostles would suffer and how much Judas would suffer. Yet the alternative was far worse. Our Lord wouldn’t have delivered us from evil. He told us sacrifice is necessary if we are to overcome temptation:
Wilfred Owen 1893-1918 (killed in WW1)
None of the victims of war need have died. They are the victims of those who ignore the example of Jesus and the martyrs. He has overcome evil but we can still betray Him when unlike Judas we know exactly what we are doing and allow others to suffer unnecessarily…
O
OneSheep
Guest
Good Morning, Guanophore!I wish this were true, but it is not. There are many peole who have no pity of themselves and are bent on their own destruction who are still able to willingly and knowingly make choices. I talked to one such person today.
.
In some accounts, though, the pieces of silver did not come up until after the deal was made. Judas first sought to betray Jesus, then after that he accepted money.
So, if you think it is possible that Judas knowingly and willingly made the choice to betray Jesus, then you can come up with a possible end of this sentence:
“I, Judas, sought to betray Jesus because______________________.”
If you cannot finish the sentence, then your assertion dies as inapplicable.
Let’s shine the light on this:
I, Judas, convinced myself that the ends (eliminate a threat, gain power) justify the means (betrayal) because___________________________.
Again, if it is possible that Judas K&W betrayed, then it must be possible to complete the sentence.
Yes, if Judas perceived Jesus as a threat, he must have changed his mind once the consequences became manifest.
If Judas had not perceived Jesus as a threat, but simply turned Jesus over to gain power, that is a very interesting scenario to investigate. Was Judas’ regret simply the regret that he was unsuccessful in his power gain?
Let’s put some light on this:
“I, Judas, because I am so sorry that I did not end up getting the power I wanted, am going to kill myself.”
Is that what you are thinking was going through Judas’ mind? If not, please suggest an alternative.
Thanks
N
NM505StKate
Guest
I can. The story is a telling of sacrifice. Judas is the scapegoat. The one “meant for the devil” so to speak. Acts makes it seem like Judas didn’t repent while Matthew seems like he did. How he died is of little consequence, though a contradiction, it makes it hard to grasp what the authors were trying to convey. I think one should look at who the audience was for each book. Luke and Acts were written for an established church which was against the Jewish people so the authors wouldn’t care who looked bad. Matthew is a Jewish slant that would more closely resemble tradition of the scapegoat.“I, Judas, because I am so sorry that I did not end up getting the power I wanted, am going to kill myself.”
Is that what you are thinking was going through Judas’ mind? If not, please suggest an alternative.
Thanks
G
guanophore
Guest
LOL.
I sure do find you entertaining, One Sheep.
Judas had motive to betray Jesus. I have already stated my thoughts on his motives, and you have already responded and disagreed with me, so what is the point of this fill in the blank exercise? My speculations about his motives change nothing with regard to his culpability. You can refuse to accept my point of view, or say “it dies as not applicable.” It is a way of discounting my point of view, I guess. Perhaps you are refusing to acknowlege my “infinite value” as a human being"?
I agree. I also know that anything inserted here will have to be rejected, because it will be analyzed from the point of view that no human willingly and knowingly rejects God. This is a form of confirmation bias.
Honestly, OneSheep, this does not even sound practical. He was with the man for three years! He was intimately acquainted with his teachings.
Surely you are not suggesting Judas did not know what happened to traitors/threats?!
The Gospels are full of statements asserting that the Jews were looking for an opportunity to trip Jesus, accuse him, and ultimately to kill him. What other consequence could he have wanted to put the threat in check? Jesus had already been confronted by the Chief priests and Pharisees and refused to relinquish his authority.
Then why, above, are you pretending you are still unaware of my scenario?
Of course I do not entertain this silly thought. My mind is informed by the Scriptures, which state clearly his regret was related to the fact that he betrayed innocent blood.Let’s put some light on this:Code:Was Judas' regret simply the regret that he was unsuccessful in his power gain?
“I, Judas, because I am so sorry that I did not end up getting the power I wanted, am going to kill myself.”
Is that what you are thinking was going through Judas’ mind? If not, please suggest an alternative.
Thanks
O
OneSheep
Guest
Hi Kate,
Yes, I have also heard that the whole Judas part of the passion narrative is symbolic of the Jews (Judah) rejecting Jesus, that perhaps the whole Judas part is manufactured. I am not saying that you are suggesting this, but there are many different theories.
What is happening on this thread is an attempt to explain why Judas betrayed Jesus. People put forth assertions about Judas’ “knowing and willing” desire to betray Jesus, which allows our minds to continue to blame him. However, when one shines the light on what actually could have been going on in Judas’ mind, the assertions fall apart. This becomes evident by people’s unwillingness to address what possible thoughts were going on in Judas’ mind.
The idea of Luke writing a Gospel against the Jewish people is interesting to me. I did a little googling, and I see that such is the case in Acts but I couldn’t find any reference to Luke. If you read my posts, I find one verse in Luke, specifically Luke 23:34 “Forgive them, for they know not what they do”, to be perhaps one of the most (if not the most) important things that Jesus said in the entire narrative. In fact, there is absolutely no scriptural basis for the condemnation of “the Jews” as “Jesus-killers” because it is our call to be Christ-like, and from the cross Jesus forgave all His enemies! Curiously enough, this verse is not found in the earliest manuscripts of Luke’s gospel, and one source I remember suggested that the verse was added by a scribe.
Could the scribe, seeing the anti-Jewish tone of Luke’s writing of Acts, have seen that such tone was contrary to Jesus’ unconditional love and added the verse to the Gospel counteract all the negative? This occurrence of the inspired scribe says so much about the work of the Holy Spirit in the history of Christianity. Yes, we are slow on the uptake, but all the important words and concepts are there. And the Spirit “adds them” when they are not evident…
G
guanophore
Guest
It seems that one of your “theories” is that Scripture is not really the inspired/inerrant Word of God, but has some human sentiments that are ungodly sprinkled in with the rest. Based on this perspective, you must reject everything in Scripture that you perceives as “condemning” because that is the opposite of compassion, and therefore not of God.
I think if you were to look over the thread, there are far more assertions that Judas did NOT knowingly and willingly betray Jesus. He was posessed, he was out of his mind, he didn’t mean to hurt Jesus, etc. etc.
I think you have made an erroneous conclusion in deciding that, if a person willingly and knowingly commits a sin, it is an excuse to “blame him”. Recognizing sin is necessary to live a holy life. It does not require one person to “blame” another.
I think not, OS. There have been many speculations here about what was going on in his mind. The bottom line is that we can only speculate. We cannot know all the thoughts of his mind. But, contrary to your psychotheological formulation, a person does not need to know all the possibilities. One can make choices about right and wrong sufficiently with the knowledge they have. God has given every soul sufficient grace to be saved.
Any assertions made that involve Judas’ culpability will ultimately have to be rejected by you, since you reject the Church Teaching that there is such a thing as mortal sin. He cannot be culpable because he is “ignorant and blind.”
This is certainly the case today, but Scripture lays responsibility for the crucifixion squarely at the feet of the Jews. I know you have rejected these parts of scripture as “human” because they have a “condemning tone” and they are not inspired and inerrant in your view.
Actually, if you cut out everything in scripture that seems to be “condemning” we would have a much smaller, more manageable book.
I fail to see how Luke’s writing is “anti-Jewish”. He faithfully recorded the events that took place. It is Peter and Stephen who are preaching, right?Could the scribe, seeing the anti-Jewish tone of Luke’s writing of Acts, have seen that such tone was contrary to Jesus’ unconditional love and added the verse to the Gospel counteract all the negative? This occurrence of the inspired scribe says so much about the work of the Holy Spirit in the history of Christianity. Yes, we are slow on the uptake, but all the important words and concepts are there. And the Spirit “adds them” when they are not evident…
So, lets see. We need to reject Luke’s writings as anticatholic, ,and Peter and Stephen were “condemnatory” so their witness is only “human” (uninspired).
A verse had to be added by a scribe after the fact, because the Biblical authors are too “slow on the updake”.
O
OneSheep
Guest
Good Morning, guanophore,
I’m glad I am entertaining you!
Yes, Judas had motive, and I did not disagree with the possible motives. The contention is that you are saying that Judas knowingly and willingly betrayed Jesus, and I am saying that I cannot find the possibility of such knowing and willingness. So, the point of filling in the blank is to shine the light of awareness on what could have possibly been going on in his mind such that he knowingly and willingly betrayed.I, Judas, betrayed Jesus because _________________________.
Again, if you cannot answer for what could have been possibly going through his mind, your assertion is not applicable. Are you hiding from the light? If not, simply fill in the blank.
“Confirmation bias” is what happens in the mind of the observer. So, yes, I could look at your evidence and debunk it in my own mind, and you could disagree. The problem is, guanophore, that you have yet to provide any evidence to consider, only assertions. If you finish the sentence, we can investigate, and you could provide your biases and I could apply mine.
So, try again, or continue to make excuses for not trying:
I, Judas, convinced myself that the ends (eliminate a threat, gain power) justify the means (betrayal) because___________________________.
As you have not contested, hearing is not knowing. In addition, we have examples every day of family members knowing each other for a lifetime and disowning each other over some issue. Yes, it is unfortunate, but very common.
Wait a minute. Are you saying this as part of a different scenario? If Judas wanted Him killed, how could he have possibly simultaneously wanted Jesus to be in power?
I am aware of your scenario, but your scenario has yet to describe a person knowingly and willingly rejecting Jesus as God. If he knew that Jesus was so valuable, and yet turned him to the authorities, then please describe his reasoning. So far, you have not.
Yes, he had a different mindset after he saw what they were doing to Jesus than he had before, when he turned Jesus over. What happened in the mean time? What did Judas learn that triggered his feelings of regret for what he had done?
Let’s shine the light on this guanophore. Please, do not run away from the questions, for then your assertion remains unsupported by what can actually happen. What did the apostles know that the crowd did not? What did the rest of the apostles know that Judas did not?
- Status