Are we talking about history, or about a fictionalized account of history?
If it's true that Jesus had to die to save Humanity from Sin, and God chose the method of sending Jesus to 1st century Judea to accomplish that goal, then doesn't that make Judas the most important non-divine character in the Gospels?
...
Now, I can understand why the Apostles would have been horrified and angry at what they saw as treachery from one of their own. At first. But once Jesus explained it, why the bitterness?
Tom
Even Calvinists, Stoics or others who believe in predeterminism dislike sin. In that sense there's nothing special about Judas' sin. Given an omniscient, omnipotent God, e.g. the Judeo-Christian God, the apparent incompatibility with morality judgements applies to all human behavior.
Moreover, the Gospels are not 100% true! It seems plausible to me that Jesus did not know he had been betrayed until soldiers appeared to arrest him. His premonition was then invented as a fiction to keep consistency with the omniscient, omnipotent God. I don't insist on this interpretation. But even if Jesus had the premonition and told his disciples of it, it's still asking much for the disciples not to resent Judas. Calvinists do not absolve sinners. Neither do Stoics.
So are we talking about the Eleven flesh-and-blood disciples? Or are we talking about a fictionalization of them?
It is unclear to me which of these TomC wants to discuss. He begins with "If it's true that Jesus had to die to save Humanity from Sin, and God chose the method of sending Jesus to 1st century Judea." This is an atheist board. NOBODY here would agree with the premise in this IF-clause.
I'm honestly not sure whether this is because the hypothesis was considered too preposterous to bother with, or simply that the Double-Spoiler protected it from view. Here is that hypothesis unSpoilered:
I think it most probable that all the Gospels mention Judas' betrayal because ... wait for it ... the historic Jesus of Nazareth was in fact betrayed by an historic Judas Iscariot.
Speaking for myself,
I didn't respond because the claim is so unremarkable. Aside from a few people who believe Historical Jesus never existed, everyone agrees that Historical Judas sold out Historical Jesus. To me, the interesting question is "Why?". Not "If".
All these centuries later, I don't really even care why. Something happened back in 1st century Judea. Nobody knows what, much less why. It's entertaining to speculate about, but it's not important.
Okay. We're in agreement. There's insufficient evidence to guess historic Judas' motive. If we even cared.
What's important is that modern christianism is based on several incoherent claims.
"Important"? I've been aware of such inconsistencies for 60 years. Yawn. When you're my age you'll be able to say the same.
The Judas thing is just one of the most obvious. There are morally worse ones, but that wasn't the point to the OP.
Tom
Okay. So the thread summary could be "Just another inconsistency in the Bible."
I misunderstood. I thought we were exploring the writer's motives for his fictional story.
Maybe I'm just coming from a very different direction than others. If I learned that one of my friends was a fundie, I would NOT want to present him with facts. (I'm even learning not to discuss politics -- a much more important topic -- with Americans.)
The Bible is full of interesting puzzles; some of these DO interest me. No, by "interesting puzzles" I do NOT mean objections to myths (Noah's ark wasn't big enough) or religious quandaries (How can there be sin if God is omnipotent). I mean episodes that are out-of-place or incomplete. Places where it looks like a story has been abbreviated to add secrecy or mystery. I've mentioned a few of these before:
* Why does Jesus curse the fig tree? (Yes, it's a metaphor. But Bishop Spong's comments are interesting.)
* Why does the Gospel of Mark mention Mother Mary only once, in the list of her sons (Jesus, James (the Less?), Joses, ...)? When Mark tells us that "There were also women looking on afar off: among whom was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the Less and of Joses and Salome" is he speaking of Mary the mother of Jesus? There's no other James/Joses brother pair mentioned anywhere. If so, why did the Gospel writer choose to obfuscate this Mary's identity?
* Does the "prophet without honour" anecdote have particular didactic value?
* Why is the death of James the Great dismissed so abruptly?
I'm afraid some responses here woud have the form: "It's all fiction anyway. So who cares?"
But this begs the question of this thread
"Why do we need or want to absolve Judas of his sin? I'm a sinner; am I absolved too?" Jesus himself allegedly said "One of you is a devil."