The Vilification of Judas Iscariot

[pood]

What's important is that modern christianism is based on several incoherent claims. 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

Well, I gave my take on why the Judas story is not necessarily incoherent for modern Christianity.

 

[Swammerdami]

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."

 

[DBT]

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

If this is true, who is to blame when evil, betrayal resulting in death, inevitably happens?

 

[Learner]

Aside… I am wondering why Jesus didn’t just turn himself in. Why did he think his story plot needed him to be betrayed in order to bring substitutional punishment that yields global forgiveness?

Turn himself in? He was waiting and expecting to be arrested. He gave himself up freely.

He was waiting to be betrayed, so he could be a victim of betrayal, and then get arrested. He could have turned himself in before needing Judas Iscariot to damn his own eternal soul.

Well that is the human perspective - understandably by this particular context of yours, this would be "what humans would do" and "what the divine would think and do also". Did you consider that Judas may have been some sort of a reprobate? A reprobate, who would be seen by an 'omniscient entity', that 'no matter' what path Judas walked on, he would still be that person who betrays a friend for money - which is being quite the opposite to John 15: 13 : Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.

there... you got it, highlighted in bold text. Sure, Judas gets the credit from his betrayal.

The whole point of this is that it is not CREDIT, it’s demerits. And Judas doesn’t deserve the demerits since he was made to do it, per the scripture.

I totally understand the thinking as to why this could be made to be, for this particular narrative idea - the impact being around Judas who was one of the disciples.

Why does that matter to the planned self-sacrifice? Remember, the god planned this from the moment of Jesus’ conception that this was going to happen. Why did they have to destroy Judas in carrying it out?

Judas didn't believe in Jesus, and as was saying in the above - I think he may have been a reprobate, (having said that, with a quick glance Judas may still be forgiven, Ill get to that sometime, must read scriptures regularly). Every possible outcome foreseen, regardless of the different roads he potentially could take, the character of Judas that's so "vilified" remains the same. e.g. in parallel worlds, each Judas stays the same in all of them.

Judas didn't cause the death of Jesus, he took part in it, many were involved.

And yet Judas Iscariot is vilified. The point of this thread.

Jesus was already condemned by the Sanhedrin who wanted to kill him and as you highlighted, he was being sought by the police and mob. There would be a number of people nearby who would have wanted to point out where Jesus was for '30 pieces of silver' given the opportunity. Jesus would be crucified regardless of whether or not Jesus was betrayed by Judas.

Why did anyone need to point him out? Did the police and the mob not know what he looked like?

All of this assumes that there needed to even BE police and a mob in order for this god-planned self-sacrifice and atonement to even happen or work.

Needed as in an orchestrated stage play? There were certainly reasons for actions, stemming from causes. The hating of Jesus and his teachings, which was considered to be blasphemy etc, which was enough for the Jews to sentenced Jesus to death... decided through, from quite a few 'free wills' and 'no script' so to speak.

God wanted to bifurcate and impregnante a woman with himself to sacrifice himself to himself so that he could appease himself by punishing himself to atone to himself. But no, he needed to have scapegoats for his plan - to make someone (Judas) feel like shit over it, enough to die by suicide and spend eternity in hell? WTF? The REAL sacrifice here was by Judas. He’s the only one still atoning for your god’s clever plan.

Yes well as fascinating as your biblical interpretation goes, I'll leave it at that (the previous answers above is enough).

Instead - the days and days of hair rending and teeth gnashing, the set-up of the patsy, the stage setting for the public flogging, the three hour drama. If he’s powerful enough to wake the zombies from the graves, why not just have a monumental public speech about the pain of all the sins of the world, some fine acting about how much it hurts and requires sacrifice, then explode in a blaze of green light and then appear reassembled in 20 minutes?

I dunno, to me Jesus accepting his traumatic ordeal and taking on the utmost of abuse and excruciating pain to the 'human form' has somewhat a rather different 'significance' than the one you're seeing maybe?

Jesus’ “traumatic ordeal“ was over in less than 3 days which Jesus knew it would be, before it even started. I get my teeth drilled without novocaine because I know it’ll be over in less than a minute. Judas Iscariot is still suffering, 1990 years later.

Jesus didn't avoid what's was inevitable. You know, He waited for it to happen?

Jesus’ “traumatic ordeal” was over in less time than John McCain waited to be fed the first time At the hands of his captors/torturers.

Jesus didn't avoid being captured. Did John McCain wait to be captured? Would he have got himself in that situation if he had known what would be in store for him?

The “utmost of abuse” ??? Can I introduce you to some abused children who suffer for far far longer than 3 days? Can I take you on a tour of a domestic violence shelter? Guantanamo bay? A neuropathy ward? Anyone who doesn’t know it’s going to be over in three days and who didn’t enter into it on purpose?

So far you have only introduced victims who never chose to suffer - who didn't see the atrocious trauma that was ahead, which they would gladly avoid!

I’m always appalled at the lack of empathy in Christians who proclaim that 3 days of beating before death is the “utmost abuse.” Yeah it’s bad. But three days is nothing compared to the suffering of the survivors of Hiroshima or the enslaved in America or any other number of people who suffered for years before their murder. Faugh. Pathetic.

You can suffer the utmost abuse in just a few hours, and you should still be quite empathic about it just as it would be for 3 days or more!

Again to your flawed comparisons...

... so far you have only introduced victims who never chose to suffer. If they had foreseen those atrocious trauma ahead of them, they would gladly absolutely avoid that situation.

I mean, the way he did it left the message pretty moribund for the next 300 years before catching on at all, and now after 2000 years less than 1/3 of the planet believes it at all? I feel like reassembling after a green laser blast would have been more effective and memorable. You know?

The message caught on from the beginning, as with people who opposed the spread of gospels also from the beginning.

The message FROM AN ALL POWERFUL GOD caught on with a handful of people, and it took a human emperor to force it on a larger population almost 300 years later just to get on the board.

If you can't beat them join them, and make you're own churches

Steve Jobs reached more people faster, and didn’t scapegoat anyone with suicidal guilt on the way.

The lamb is the scapegoat.

 

[DBT]

God needs a scapegoat in order to forgive?

 

[TomC]

Well that is the human perspective - understandably by this particular context of yours, this would be "what humans would do" and "what the divine would think and do also". Did you consider that Judas may have been some sort of a reprobate?

That's the point to this thread.
As a purely human drama it all makes good sense. Of course the people close to Jesus would be outraged at the betrayal, no matter the motivations.

It's when you add the divine parts that the problem comes in. Judas was a tool, caught between two deities, the Father and the Son. He played a crucial role in Salvation. And Jesus had over a month afterwards to explain that.
In fact, one might wonder why, if Jesus were rubbing shoulders with Judas for awhile, He didn't heal Judas of his micreancy. Oh well.

I once heard an interesting possibility. Suppose Judas really did believe in Jesus. Really believed that Jesus were The Anointed Messiah sent by God to rescue His Chosen People from pagan oppression. Judas didn't understand why Jesus didn't get on with it, thought Him a bit of a slacker. So he gave Jesus a push. Got Him in trouble with the Jewish authorities right before Jewish Independence Day(aka Passover). Didn't realize that the Jews would turn Him over to Pilate and Jesus would be dead by Passover. I dunno.
Tom

 

[Rhea]

Jesus didn't avoid being captured. Did John McCain wait to be captured? Would he have got himself in that situation if he had known what would be in store for him?

I think maybe you don’t know the story of John McCain?

• After nearly a year of imprisonment in Hanoi, McCain was offered release. But he refused to leave his fellow prisoners behind.
• McCain's subsequent torture and false confession, which provoked him to attempt suicide twice, earned him special respect in the eyes of many Americans.

 

[Rhea]

In my first post in this thread, I introduced an hypothesis which might explain why all the Gospels mention Judas' betrayal, despite that it forces us to review

Compatibilism. Whimsically I enclosed the hypothesis inside a double-Spoiler. There was no response to that hypothesis.

If by “no response,” you mean responded directly, while quoting and at length, then, yeah.

I responded, as did Tom. Your hypothesis was stupulated in the OP. So it added nothing to the discussion.
ASSUMING JUDAS DID THIS, why was he vilified, given the larger context, and Jesus’ opportunity to clear the air.


I feel so unseen. “No response.” Chopped liver over here!

 

[pood]

Aside… I am wondering why Jesus didn’t just turn himself in. Why did he think his story plot needed him to be betrayed in order to bring substitutional punishment that yields global forgiveness?

There is one possibility that hasn't been mentioned. I'm reluctant to show it -- I'm afraid it's so utterly far-fetched that it will be laughed at, but I feel it should be mentioned if only for completeness.

Hoping to minimize the scorn that will be heaped on me, I'll enclose this ridiculous scenario in Spoiler tags.

Spoiler

It is not inconceivable that the Gospels have the story of Judas Iscariot's betrayal because . . .

Spoiler

The historic Judas Iscariot did in fact betray the historic Jesus of Nazareth.

All true, but doesn’t answer why that betrayal is vilified if it was
1. Necessary
2. Pre-ordained
3. Coerced by the god pushing Judas to do it
4. The thing that made the whole sacrifice work

That’s the part of the OP that I think is a great question, and that some folks are discussing and some are not.

Jesus SAID he’d be betrayed, he SAID he was dying for them all and their eternal futures, and then when it HAPPENED, all the people villified the thing Jesus - who told them he was one and the same word as god, who they believed did every thing - did to achieve his prophesied outcome.

That, I think, is a very good question.

I mean, did they all suddenly doubt Jesus’ ability to prophesy correctly? Would they rather have had Jesus be shown fallable and bad at prophesy? Was THAT the desired outcome and why they vilified Judas for disrupting it?

1. The betrayal was not necessary, in the logical sense (could not have been otherwise). It was contingent (could have been otherwise).

2. If it was pre-ordained by God, then God is guilty, not Judas. But was it pre-ordained?

3. If God coerced the betrayal, rather than pre-ordained it, Judas is still without guilt. But did God coerce it?

4. It was not necessarily the thing that made the whole sacrifice work. Something else could have made it work.

If Jesus was God, as I ventured in a post upthread, then he would have infallibly known in advance that Judas would betray him. However, Judas still had a choice whether to betray Jesus. If he had not betrayed Jesus, then Jesus, if he was omniscient, would have known that fact about Judas instead. On this reading, Judas betrayed Jesus of his own free will.

If Judas betrayed Jesus of his own free will, he was morally responsible for committing a betrayal, notwithstanding that it supposedly had a desired result (crucifixion and resurrection). One can justifiably condemn a betrayal even if good results later flow from it.

 

[Sahansdal]

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.

Nope. The Gospel of Judas is a thinly veiled mastership succession narrative. Orthodox Gospel authors plagiarized it and inverted the successor, James, into traitor Judas to hide him. I wrote a book on it, Misreading Judas. NABE Pinnacle Book Achievement Award winner for non-fiction in 2018.

 

[Sahansdal]

Aside… I am wondering why Jesus didn’t just turn himself in. Why did he think his story plot needed him to be betrayed in order to bring substitutional punishment that yields global forgiveness?

There is one possibility that hasn't been mentioned. I'm reluctant to show it -- I'm afraid it's so utterly far-fetched that it will be laughed at, but I feel it should be mentioned if only for completeness.

Hoping to minimize the scorn that will be heaped on me, I'll enclose this ridiculous scenario in Spoiler tags.

Spoiler

It is not inconceivable that the Gospels have the story of Judas Iscariot's betrayal because . . .

Spoiler

The historic Judas Iscariot did in fact betray the historic Jesus of Nazareth.

All true, but doesn’t answer why that betrayal is vilified if it was
1. Necessary
2. Pre-ordained
3. Coerced by the god pushing Judas to do it
4. The thing that made the whole sacrifice work

That’s the part of the OP that I think is a great question, and that some folks are discussing and some are not.

Jesus SAID he’d be betrayed, he SAID he was dying for them all and their eternal futures, and then when it HAPPENED, all the people villified the thing Jesus - who told them he was one and the same word as god, who they believed did every thing - did to achieve his prophesied outcome.

That, I think, is a very good question.

I mean, did they all suddenly doubt Jesus’ ability to prophesy correctly? Would they rather have had Jesus be shown fallable and bad at prophesy? Was THAT the desired outcome and why they vilified Judas for disrupting it?

1. The betrayal was not necessary, in the logical sense (could not have been otherwise). It was contingent (could have been otherwise).

2. If it was pre-ordained by God, then God is guilty, not Judas. But was it pre-ordained?

3. If God coerced the betrayal, rather than pre-ordained it, Judas is still without guilt. But did God coerce it?

4. It was not necessarily the thing that made the whole sacrifice work. Something else could have made it work.

If Jesus was God, as I ventured in a post upthread, then he would have infallibly known in advance that Judas would betray him. However, Judas still had a choice whether to betray Jesus. If he had not betrayed Jesus, then Jesus, if he was omniscient, would have known that fact about Judas instead. On this reading, Judas betrayed Jesus of his own free will.

If Judas betrayed Jesus of his own free will, he was morally responsible for committing a betrayal, notwithstanding that it supposedly had a desired result (crucifixion and resurrection). One can justifiably condemn a betrayal even if good results later flow from it.

The New Testament Gospels story must be read for the disinformation that it is. It is a plagiarized inversion of a gnostic mastership succession installation narrative. Dr. Robert Eisenman started this revelation and I finished it. I know a couple of Masters. They come here all the time like Jesus basically said several times (what little remains) in John 9:4-5 and 6:40. "SEE the Son" means a living one. "When no one can work " included Jesus himself. Masters must be living in real time. Www.rssb.org.

 

[Sahansdal]

Ah, you read!

Thanks, but I must admit, it's been many years since I've cracked a Gnostic text, with the exception of The Gospel of Thomas. That one bears re-reading. I consider it barely Gnostic if at all. The other Gnostic texts I've read have sort of melded all together in my memory. As I said, it's been many years...

I would not consider Thomas to be a Gnostic work, no, though our only full copy comes from a Gnostic scriptorium as you probably know, so there are always those questions about how much they may have altered. The Gospel of Judas, on the other hand, is about as Gnostic as they come. If you want a primer on Gnostic thinking, it's a succinct presentation of the big ideas. It goes without saying that it is therefore a strange, often baffling and incomplete work. Fascinating artifact of early Christian intellectual diversity.

It's far more. It's a retort to an orthodox coverup of mastership succession. Judas is a cypher for Master James the Just. Judas is " the man who bears me." This one fact is the biggest untold story in all history. It exposes the New Testament lie of sole savior of humanity, Jesus. Saviors come all the time. There is always one here
This is what THEY say, including Jesus: John 9:4-5 in original Codex Sinaiticus version with "sent us" instead of corrupted "sent me." He said he could not 'work' once dead.asters must be living concurrently with the disciple. That's the rule!
Sorry. WWW.RSSB.ORG

 

[Sahansdal]

I think of the Judas story as part of the invented fiction that is found in so many places in the NT. It really doesn't make much sense. If ole JC was viewed as that much of a threat, then surely many of the Romans knew what he looked like. Judas would not have had to identify him. JC was not supposed to have been underground.

Yes. That's right! But inconvenient facts don't matter to believers. I used to be one.

 

[Jarhyn]

I will forever ship Jesus and Judas as secret lovers, seeing the kiss in the garden a tragic and arranged thing, a choice by Jesus to have Judas be the one to give Jesus to the authorities.

It's probably fiction either way, so I'mma have my tawdry tragic gay romance and nobody can tell me different.

 

[steve_bank]

Looking at the gospels as literature with a narrative Judas is the antagonist that starts the end of the story.

This is all mostly entertainment and passing the time for me.

I never watch videos people post on religion from either side. It is all opinionated comentary on a mythical 2000 year old dead Jew. Comentray that has been running continuously for 2000 years.

Steve baby, that isn't commentary it's Greenwich Village.

??? If you mean NYC I just called it 'the village'

Bill Graham's Fillmore East down on the Bowery for concerts, Sigh,... those were the days. Sex,drugs, and music.

Adding. Looking at the gospels as literature with a narrative Judas is the antagonist that starts the end of the story. The denouement of the story where all the plot lines come together.

The dramatic turning point where Jesus inevitably goes to his doom. He prays for deliverance then heroically goes on. Drama effect.

It is a tragedy, the hero or protagonist dies in the end.

I read that the gospels were written in the style of an action adventure of the day.

The story of a demigod son of a god and a human with some but not all the powers of the god dies heroically for the group. He goes to be with his god-father somewhere on high looking down on humans.

It seems obvious the gospels are very much in the form of Greek and Roman literature.

 

[lostone]

The Roman world wanted a human God. Consider the near deification of the legendary Hercules. The Jesus story fulfilled that need.

 

[Jarhyn]

The Roman world wanted a human God. Consider the near deification of the legendary Hercules. The Jesus story fulfilled that need.

Well, it did, and my own experiences make me want to wonder at this point. I can't say or speak as to whether it happened, but I can say for sure that I would want someone who loved me to turn me in, if I was to be executed for some act of table-flipping, and I would see them get paid for it well.

What happens to them after is their own business.

Then, in the story, this would make Judas especially tragic, in that he did not live to see the return of his love.

 

[Jarhyn]

Now I'm imagining some fucked up pseudochristian blasphemy that has Jesus coming back because after paying Judas, the Pharisees or whatever follow him back and assassinate him and then desecrate his corpse onna tree so Jesus can't resurrect then then goes bronze age Jesus-magic John Wick on the Pharisees, but that also would in todays culture carry a strong tone of offensiveness not just to Christians but also to Jews for the fact theu are cast as villains.

"He just came right back. This is the account of the missing three days."

*Maybe to make it extra special fucked up, have the Jews being secretly controlled by Muhammad and Saitan in cahoots or w/e. And even do the blasphemy challenge with Saitan telling Muhammad "no, you're supposed to call me Allah!" Complete with the thing about using water to wipe being a "loss leader". And the video depiction of that would make Muslims lose their shit too.

Whoever made that movie would for sure get murdered.

Spoilers: is this why I die? Better not make it until technology will let me pull off a "magic trick".

I wonder if I can do it with AI. Will AI draw the prophet Muhammad?