The Vilification of Judas Iscariot

[TomC]

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?

Perhaps rivaled in importance by Mother Mary? But still, if it hadn't been for Judas(or someone like him, Jesus picked him) Jesus wouldn't have died on the cross and we'd still be weltering in Sin.

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

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

This is an old issue. Judas was preordained to act this way.

Luke 22
21 But, behold, the hand of him that betrayeth me is with me on the table.
22 And truly the Son of man goeth, as it was determined: but woe unto that man by whom he is betrayed!

 

[James Brown]

Luke 22:3 tells us that "Satan entered him" meaning Judas before he met with the chief priests to betray Jesus.

So if we believe in that sort of thing, then Judas was not acting in his right mind but was a puppet of a demonic force. Besides being another strike against the claim that God holds the free will of humans as sacrosanct, it entirely absolves Judas of any wrong doing.

He literally could say, "The devil made me do it," and we have to accept that defense. Judas is no more guilty than Peter or John or any other disciple.

But yes, if Judas had been able to somehow resist temptation, then Jesus would not have been crucified. Where would Christianity be today if not for Judas?

 

[TomC]

But yes, if Judas had been able to somehow resist temptation, then Jesus would not have been crucified. Where would Christianity be today if not for Judas?

And according to the Legend,
Jesus had weeks afterwards to explain this. Explain why Judas' role in Salvation was absolutely critical. Why Jesus picked Judas, in particular, to fulfill that role.
Tom

 

[TomC]

Luke 22:3 tells us that "Satan entered him" meaning Judas before he met with the chief priests to betray Jesus.

Why might Satan try to prevent Jesus from delivering Salvation?
According to that story, Satan helped Jesus save us from Sin. Satan entered Judas and caused Judas to help Jesus provide Salvation!

Now Satan is also a Hero.
Tom

 

[steve_bank]

As fiction Judas is an antagonist who starts the the last part of the story.

No betrayal no crucifixion. Peter's denial is drama.

Look t the gospels as like what we today call a docudrama.

A movie loosey based on facts or alleged facts with fictional characters and dialogue. Composite fictional characters representative of the people of the time around the event or alleged evet.

Movies about Queen Elisabeth or Robin Hood.

Movies like that abound.

 

[ideologyhunter]

Good arguments, everyone. Has anyone told Mel Gibson? He'll have to make it a trilogy. Passion III: Judas Renewed Us.

 

[Tharmas]

That Judas was essential to Jesus’ mission as savior did not escape the notice of early Christians. There is even a Gnostic Gospel of Judas which makes that point. Judas is a faithful servant whom Jesus convinces to be the trigger man, as it were.

 

[steve_bank]

The more I think about it the more I think the gospels are an almost compete fiction, a fiction drama of the times.

Look at it like a stage play. A Shakespearean tragedy, a self destructive hero who dies in the end.

 

[bilby]

The more I think about it the more I think the gospels are an almost compete fiction

Gosh, surely not!



The only reason that this isn't an almost universal opinion is that humans are unbelievably stupid, and disinclined to think about, or question, anything that is told to them by an authority figure.

The gospels are not just obvious fiction, they're bad fiction, written by a committee (or rather, four committees), and then heavily edited by a variety of fan-fic authors who wanted the source material to better fit their new stuff.

If they ever contained a grain of "based on actual events", it's long since been buried under a mountain of fresh bullshit.

Even some of the settings are historically inaccurate and full of anachronisms.

 

[DBT]

Poor Judas;

"The LORD hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil.'' Proverbs 16:4

 

[Politesse]

That Judas was essential to Jesus’ mission as savior did not escape the notice of early Christians. There is even a Gnostic Gospel of Judas which makes that point. Judas is a faithful servant whom Jesus convinces to be the trigger man, as it were.

Ah, you read!

Though, that book also soundly rejects the whole concept of substitutionary atonement, so Tom's question would not make sense if we accept it as a source.

 

[Politesse]

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?

Perhaps rivaled in importance by Mother Mary? But still, if it hadn't been for Judas(or someone like him, Jesus picked him) Jesus wouldn't have died on the cross and we'd still be weltering in Sin.

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

"Important" is not necessarily the same thing as "good". Were my life the product of a violent act of nonconsensual sex, for instance, I might owe my life to my mother's rapist, but that doesn't mean I would feel morally obligated to describe him as a good man, or send him Father's Day cards.

 

[TomC]

"Important" is not necessarily the same thing as "good". Were my life the product of a violent act of nonconsensual sex, for instance, I might owe my life to my mother's rapist, but that doesn't mean I would feel morally obligated to describe him as a good man, or send him Father's Day cards.

I didn't use the word "good".
Nevertheless, suppose Bob were the product of a forcible rape then went on to develop a workable plan for world peace. One needn't condone forcible rape to argue that that particular rape was spectacularly good in the end.

Then there's the Divine aspects. Jesus picked Judas, according to one version of the story. Whether or not He did so, He had plenty of time to explain why Judas' behavior was crucial to Human Salvation to His followers.
Tom

 

[Politesse]

One needn't condone forcible rape to argue that that particular rape was spectacularly good in the end.

So you would argue, in that case, that the rapist and the crime that they committed are being unfairly "villified", as per your OP title?

 

[TomC]

One needn't condone forcible rape to argue that that particular rape was spectacularly good in the end.

So you would argue, in that case, that the rapist and the crime that they committed are being unfairly "villified", as per your OP title?

Um...
No.
You're making up stuff.

To make my hypothetical relevant to your nonsense, it would have to become obvious, within 40 days, that the behavior had resulted in world peace.
Tom

 

[Politesse]

One needn't condone forcible rape to argue that that particular rape was spectacularly good in the end.

So you would argue, in that case, that the rapist and the crime that they committed are being unfairly "villified", as per your OP title?

Um...
No.
You're making up stuff.

To make my hypothetical relevant to your nonsense, it would have to become obvious, within 40 days, that the behavior had resulted in world peace.
Tom

So you believe that is possible to unfairly "villify" a person who has committed a crime, but only if that crime results in acheiving world peace within forty days?

In that case, I do not see how this could apply to Judas Iscariot, as his actions did not result in world peace being achieved within 40 days.

 

[TomC]

So you believe that is possible to unfairly "villify" a person who has committed a crime, but only if that crime results in acheiving world peace within forty days?

In that case, I do not see how this could apply to Judas Iscariot, as his actions did not result in world peace being achieved within 40

You keep leaving out the most important part of the story.

Jesus was God. Came down from Heaven to die and resurrect for the Salvation of Humanity.

A bunch of mere mortals doing this I understand completely. That would make Christianity a pile of Greek style myth.

Which is what I believe to be the case. Partly due to incoherent claims like Judas was a bad person.
Tom

 

[Politesse]

So you believe that is possible to unfairly "villify" a person who has committed a crime, but only if that crime results in acheiving world peace within forty days?

In that case, I do not see how this could apply to Judas Iscariot, as his actions did not result in world peace being achieved within 40

You keep leaving out the most important part of the story.

Jesus was God. Came down from Heaven to die and resurrect for the Salvation of Humanity.

A bunch of mere mortals doing this I understand completely. That would make Christianity a pile of Greek style myth.

Which is what I believe to be the case. Partly due to incoherent claims like Judas was a bad person.
Tom

So the hypothetical moral rule you're positing is that it's wrong to villify a person who commits a crime if:

1. The victim was a god

and

2. World peace was achieved during the forty days following the crime.

?

 

[TomC]

So you believe that is possible to unfairly "villify" a person who has committed a crime, but only if that crime results in acheiving world peace within forty days?

In that case, I do not see how this could apply to Judas Iscariot, as his actions did not result in world peace being achieved within 40

You keep leaving out the most important part of the story.

Jesus was God. Came down from Heaven to die and resurrect for the Salvation of Humanity.

A bunch of mere mortals doing this I understand completely. That would make Christianity a pile of Greek style myth.

Which is what I believe to be the case. Partly due to incoherent claims like Judas was a bad person.
Tom

So the hypothetical moral rule you're positing is that it's wrong to villify a person who commits a crime if:

1. The victim was a god

and

2. World peace was achieved during the forty days following the crime.

?

Nope.
Not even close.

But I do understand your position well enough.

Tom