BK Religions

[wil]

Originally Posted by kiwimac

Interesting that Mark has little to say about Judas and Paul (whose writings are the earliest Christian ones) nothing at all.

Agreed.

My issues with Judas...

If we take Jesus as divine, G-d incarnate, and we believe Judas deceived the Apostles for three years...he couldn't have ever deceived Jesus, therefore Judas did exactly what G-d/Jesus wanted him to.

Now I'm still not understanding how he died, was it in the field with his guts spillin out or did he hang himself. I am aware that some say he hung himself, fell and spilled his guts out...seems a stretch, no pun intended.

I do believe Judas was an integral part in the whole, taught us many lessons, and will teach us many more. Interesting that it is so open about his life and death... I know the Judas papers upset many, but I think it is also interesting their were so many that thought along those lines before they were discovered. (granted most of them heretics by many standards)

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by wil

If we take Jesus as divine, G-d incarnate, and we believe Judas deceived the Apostles for three years...he couldn't have ever deceived Jesus, therefore Judas did exactly what G-d/Jesus wanted him to.

Are you suggesting that Judas had no free will in the matter?

[wil]

Originally Posted by seattlegal

Are you suggesting that Judas had no free will in the matter?

No not at all. But it is sort of like Timothy McViegh, you take a hot head, build a fire under him, put a couple of ideas in his head, give him the means, materials, access, a a plan and some encouragement, and you get two things, the end result you desire and a scapegoat.

As many have described Judas had known tendencies. I see him as being a changed man, following Jesus, handling the groups affairs. But that latent behaviour was just below the surface and if your mentor, your saviour says,
"What you are about to do, do quickly" You go on to your assigned duty, which of the other apostles would have been ready to take on that task?

Is this conjecture, sure, all sides of this discussion are. We are talking about three years of constant companionship and discussion that is boiled down to only a few pages of words that we have available on the subject.

If anyone of us were to have our words, discussions, recorded and transcribed for one day there would be more dialogue than the entire gospels.

[Prober]

Originally Posted by wil

Agreed.

My issues with Judas...

If we take Jesus as divine, G-d incarnate, and we believe Judas deceived the Apostles for three years...he couldn't have ever deceived Jesus, therefore Judas did exactly what G-d/Jesus wanted him to.

Don't we all carry out God's plan? "I have hardened Pharaoh's heart..." etc.

[Dor]

Wil How about the fact that Judas just did not have the faith, belief etc. Maybe he just did not believe everything and his own nature was there and did what he wanted to.

Jesus knew what was going to happen he did not have to push Judas cause he knew what was going to happen. Just like he did not push Peter to denouce him 3 times but he damn sure knew he was going to do it.

[Dor]

Originally Posted by Prober

Don't we all carry out God's plan? "I have hardened Pharaoh's heart..." etc.

In a way yes we do.
Romans 8:28 And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.

Now if you are insinuating the whole pre-destination no free will bit. Nope thats not true at all.

[Prober]

Originally Posted by Dor

Now if you are insinuating the whole pre-destination no free will bit. Nope thats not true at all.

Absolutely not. I believe God knows everything in advance AND we have free will.

"...before you call, I will answer..."

[wil]

Originally Posted by Dor

Wil How about the fact that Judas just did not have the faith, belief etc.

Namaste Dor, but Fact?, where do we find this Fact?[quote-Dor]Maybe he just did not believe everything and his own nature was there and did what he wanted to. [/quote] totally within the scope of possibility as I see it.

Originally Posted by Dor

Jesus knew what was going to happen he did not have to push Judas cause he knew what was going to happen. Just like he did not push Peter to denouce him 3 times but he damn sure knew he was going to do it.

Exactly, my quandry, if Jesus was G-d incarnate then he did know, and he used this knowledge and allowed all to fall into place, part of the big picture...Ok, I'll keep the cup, thy will be done. So why decry Judas? I mean I know there are lessons to be learned here, but in reality, other than Jesus, his was the largest role, without him Paul wouldn't get the credit he does...

And does anyone have any comments with all Paul wrote why Judas never came up at all, negative or positive?

[Dor]

Originally Posted by Prober

Absolutely not. I believe God knows everything in advance AND we have free will.

"...before you call, I will answer..."

Whew

[Dor]

Wil I am not a writer and I did not mean a literal fact. I meant it as a counter to your him being a changed man. I meant it as about the fact he could have just not had the faith? Sorry for the mistake I type like I talk.

[Dondi]

Originally Posted by wil

And does anyone have any comments with all Paul wrote why Judas never came up at all, negative or positive?

Actually, Paul did mentioned something about Judas:

"For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread:
And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.
After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, this cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come." - I Corinthians 11:23-26

Now I Corinthians was written around 57 AD, while Mark, the earliest Gospel, was probably written in the late 60s. So it shows that Paul had some idea of the events leading up to Christ's crucifixion prior to the Gospels, though he doesn't name the betrayer.

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by wil

No not at all. But it is sort of like Timothy McViegh, you take a hot head, build a fire under him, put a couple of ideas in his head, give him the means, materials, access, a a plan and some encouragement, and you get two things, the end result you desire and a scapegoat.

As many have described Judas had known tendencies. I see him as being a changed man, following Jesus, handling the groups affairs. But that latent behaviour was just below the surface and if your mentor, your saviour says,
"What you are about to do, do quickly" You go on to your assigned duty, which of the other apostles would have been ready to take on that task?

Is this conjecture, sure, all sides of this discussion are. We are talking about three years of constant companionship and discussion that is boiled down to only a few pages of words that we have available on the subject.

If anyone of us were to have our words, discussions, recorded and transcribed for one day there would be more dialogue than the entire gospels.

Hmm, it's interesting that you would mention Judas as a scapegoat. It's also interesting how you've mentioned that Satan entered him. {Now it's my turn for some conjecture, or at least some examination of this matter.} Judas is the only person that I can think of mentioned in the Bible as actually having Satan enter into him. {please correct me if I'm wrong here.}

Now if we examine Leviticus 16 we will see that the scapegoat is for "Azazel." {Whom some associate with the leader of the fallen angels, or Satan.} In the first verses of Leviticus 16, we see references to the "mercy seat," in connection to this ritual. I find it interesting how Jesus mentioned in Matthew 23 how the scribes and Pharasees were "sitting in the seat of Moses." {And then proceeded to rip the scribes and Pharasees a new oriface, so to speak.} Was this a reference to Leviticus 16, with Jesus being "the goat for YHWH," and Judas being "the goat for Azazel?" {After all, it was the Scribes and Pharasees who did the dirty dealing regarding both Jesus and Judas.} Was Leviticus 16 a prophetic prelude to what was coming down with Jesus and Judas?

This is all conjecture, of course, but it might be something to ponder. I'd like to hear feedback regarding this. {Please, tell me I'm wrong!}

note to moderators--please feel free to move this to a more applicable board, if necessary.

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, seattlegal!

note to moderators--please feel free to move this to a more applicable board, if necessary.

Near as I can tell, you're doing fine. The subject of scapegoating, (the "other" in psychology), is an interesting subject to me anyway. The subject might deserve its own thread, but looks to me like you are basing your argument from mutually acceptable sources. At least, I'm not aware of any complaints, and I have no complaint to offer.

I would love to comment actually, but I'm strapped for time at the moment. Please, carry on!

[wil]

Originally Posted by Dor

Wil I am not a writer and I did not mean a literal fact. I meant it as a counter to your him being a changed man. I meant it as about the fact he could have just not had the faith? Sorry for the mistake I type like I talk.

lol, namaste Dor, you know me, I take very little literally, accept it appears the comments of others! I really need to investigate that aspect...the metaphysical metaphor, the layers of understanding buried beneath our discussions, especially when a fact is not a fact, sorry for the tangent.

Dondi, yes that one note is almost an aside, a mention that it happened, and then goes on to tell about the breaking of bread and wine...anyone else have any comments about Judas getting the bread but not the wine...is that only significant to me?

Seattlegal, Yeah scapegoat, I said that, and during my writing completely forgot its origin, thanks for reminding me. And I'm wondering does it truly apply? I think in the instance, info you provided it may, but in reality if he was part of the plan, no, if he was simply a traitor, no... seems only if he was an innocent patsie (now do I have to look up that origin) who was conveniently derided for all these years....

Are we still within the scope of the op?

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by wil

Are we still within the scope of the op?

I'm not sure...maybe Juan or Q will decide to split this thread. But for now I'll add one thought to the Judas discussion going on.

For a long time I kind of opted out on the idea that evil is real. I have always associated evil with the actions of humans, and don't consider things like natural disasters evil because evil requires choice and intent. So, I always figured that the evil that we do is explained by our brokeness, mental and physical illnesses, experiences that warp us, etc. Further, I fell into the idea that evil is only the lack of good, or the the lack of love. Thus, I considered evil as passive, a hole waiting to be filled by positive/good responses. This is not wholly wrong, but it is also not wholly correct, either.

Some evil arises out of the misapplication of our self-centered survival/competetive instincts, those things that compel us to try to control, gain power, and establish our own security at the expense of other individuals or groups. There are somethings we views as threats without even realizing the basis for our fears, things like homosexuality and the possibility of non-patriarchal societies. We still have our evolutionarily embedded instincts but fail to realize that they no longer apply to our present situation. Spong (yes, Spong again) calls this our 'incompleteness.' We are still a work in progress and much of our evil, not excusably, arises because we don't realize this. Mob mentality that allows such things to happen as lynchings (in the name of righteousness!) and anti-social behaviors both rational (stealing because one is hungry) and nonsensical (kleptomania by the rich heiress) are all evils rooted in our radical self-centeredness.

Other evils are not easily explained by this, namely those evils that arise from inside us and cause self-destructive behaviors: addictions and their lesser cousins, temptations. There is a good reason, biblically speaking, to understand these kinds of evils as associated with demons (and no, I am not trying to make a case for demons as entities here--I'll leave that up to you how you think about these things!). These evils point not so much to incompletion as they do to brokenness, IMO. No amount of pouring of love into the pain caused by addiction can ever cure that addiction, although our love, support, and understanding (not enabling!) are the necessary responses to people possessed by, broken by, self-destrcutive behaviors.

The answer to both of these situations: filling/completeing and healing. I don't know what you call the manifestation of these salves, but I call it God.

No, just 'getting religion' will not wipe out the kinds of evil discussed above. It would be great if it were that easy. But I think the examples of Peter and Judas tell us something interesting and important about evil. No matter who we are, no matter how close to God we are, no matter even that we 'saved,' we all still have the seeds of evil within us. Sometimes it is the combination of evil with a kind of religious self-righteousness that can do the most harm (thinking again of those lynch mobs and the KKK, but also about myself when I ever get on some kind of holy high horse and my words end up hurting others). Evil must not just be driven out...it must be transformed. If the house is swept clean and left empty, there's room for seven more demons when they re-arrive.

There was very little difference between Peter and Judas. Both at some point in the Gospel thought they knew better and wanted to do things their way. They lacked trust in God, trust in Jesus. The difference in my view? Peter brought his seeds of evil into the presence of Jesus:

21From that time on Jesus began to explain to his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things at the hands of the elders, chief priests and teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and on the third day be raised to life.

22Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him. "Never, Lord!" he said. "This shall never happen to you!"

23Jesus turned and said to Peter, "Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men." (Matt 16, NIV)

Judas? He thought he knew better. Who knows how long he plotted to himself to expose, then betray Jesus? But unlike Peter, instead of bringing it out into the open, he kept the seeds of evil to himself, nurtured them, and they grew until they consumed him.

Jesus did not have to die on the cross, although He 'knew' that He would. At any time Judas could have 'confessed' to Jesus and things could have gone differently. But, as it is for us today, when we keep our evil intentions secret and secretly nurture them, we also tip toward the manifestation of evil. If we don't recognize the potential for evil in ourselves...at all times...we are more likely to fall prey to it.

There's a good reason the Catholic Church has taught confession for all of these centuries.