Judas Iscariot - Brings salvation to the world?

[awareness]

On the "Re: Christ or faith the Savior?" thread on LCD :

Originally Posted by Jo S

This is actually the premise the gnostic Gospel of Judas presents as well. It would be a good topic to discuss.

Prior to that I posted :

Originally Posted by awareness

If God's plan was for Jesus to die for the sins of the world, then turns out that Judas was the truest of the 12.

Jesus told him to go do it. They must have had a shared plan. And Judas did as he was told.

And he paid the highest price for it. While the other of the 12 ran off.

If the death of Christ was for the sins of the world, then we should all be thanking Judas.

Take a look over there, at that thread. Bro Ohio has some interesting things to say about Judas too. Maybe I should copy it over here.

Maybe we'll see . . .

So .... this is a thread about Judas.

Here's a link to the Gospel of Judas:
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/...l/judastxt.pdf

[Evangelical]

The view says that Judas was the best disciple and friend of Jesus of all, as he enabled Christ to do God's perfect will. I guess Peter would have been the worst friend, as he tried to prevent Christ from dying on a number of occasions.

Proponents of this view see Judas as an integral part of God's salvation plan, when that is not the case. Judas was certainly part of it but so were all the disciples.

Judas did not have to betray Christ for him to be arrested and go to the cross. Yes it fulfilled prophesy, but it was not necessary. If Judas did not betray Him, Christ still would have ended up on the cross. At that time, Judas could not have thought Christ would be killed. His remorse at betraying "innocent blood" shows this.
The Jews and the Gentiles were ultimately the ones who betrayed Christ by actually putting him on the cross, and the abandonment of Christ by all the disciples in his suffering was a form of betrayal or disloyalty as Awareness noted. Also, there is no indication that God would have judged Judas harshly or punished him for betraying Christ. It was Satan in Judas who betrayed Christ. Judas's death was not by God's hand but by his own hand by hanging. Many Christians see Judas as the devil incarnate rather than a true disciple of Christ who held an important position as one of the 12, who had a love of money, allowed Satan to enter him, betrayed Christ for silver, later had remorse when finding out Jesus would be killed, and then decided the best solution was to commit suicide. Related arguments about whether Judas was saved or not are unhelpful as none of the disciples were saved at that time (by being born again).

[Evangelical]

The key to understanding Judas and Christ is to understand the tribe of Dan and anti-Christ.

Christ chose each of his disciples, one from each tribe of Israel. Judas was chosen from the tribe of Dan which was an apostate tribe. Judas was a type of anti-Christ.

The abomination of desolation referred to in Revelation is related to Judges 18:30-31 where the Danites followed after the image of Satan.

It is an early Christian view that just as Jesus came from the tribe of Judah, the anti-Christ would come from the tribe of Dan.

Dan is described as:

Gen 49:17 Dan will be a snake by the roadside, a viper along the path, that bites the horse's heels so that its rider tumbles backward.

In Revelation 7:4-8 the tribe of Dan (represented by Judas) is omitted. Dan does not receive an inheritance.

By this we can infer that Judas was not saved even though his betrayal resulted in Christ going to the cross.

We can further infer from this that:

Dan was at one time a genuine tribe of Israel - Judas was at one time a genuine disciple of Christ
Dan became an anti-Christ by following after the image of Satan - Judas became an anti-Christ by following after mammon (material Satan)
Dan did not receive an inheritance - Judas was not saved

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The key to understanding Judas and Christ is to understand the tribe of Dan and anti-Christ.

Christ chose each of his disciples, one from each tribe of Israel. Judas was chosen from the tribe of Dan which was an apostate tribe. Judas was a type of anti-Christ.

The abomination of desolation referred to in Revelation is related to Judges 18:30-31 where the Danites followed after the image of Satan.

It is an early Christian view that just as Jesus came from the tribe of Judah, the anti-Christ would come from the tribe of Dan.

Dan is described as:

Gen 49:17 Dan will be a snake by the roadside, a viper along the path, that bites the horse's heels so that its rider tumbles backward.

In Revelation 7:4-8 the tribe of Dan (represented by Judas) is omitted. Dan does not receive an inheritance.

By this we can infer that Judas was not saved even though his betrayal resulted in Christ going to the cross.

We can further infer from this that:

Dan was at one time a genuine tribe of Israel - Judas was at one time a genuine disciple of Christ
Dan became an anti-Christ by following after the image of Satan - Judas became an anti-Christ by following after mammon (material Satan)
Dan did not receive an inheritance - Judas was not saved

So God used the Satan Dan to accomplish his plan of salvation. I was wrong. We shouldn't thank Judas, we should thank the Serpent Dan.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by awareness

So God used the Satan Dan to accomplish his plan of salvation. I was wrong. We shouldn't thank Judas, we should thank the Serpent Dan.

I disagree. Jesus could still have gone to the cross without Judas. All Judas did was make it easier for them to arrest him. Judas did not provide any testimony about Jesus's crimes for conviction, those crimes were already invented.

Perhaps the real reason Judas betrayed Christ is because God did not want the tribe of Dan to inherit the kingdom. That is, Judas was not necessary for God's plan of salvation, rather, the betrayal of Christ was used a reason to expel him from the 12 disciples and the kingdom. Think about why God excluded him just as He excluded the tribe of Dan. Why did Judas betray Christ and not Peter or another, and why did Peter get a second chance to repent but not Judas. I believe the answer lies in the tribe of Dan, how the tribe of Dan was disloyal to God.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I disagree. Jesus could still have gone to the cross without Judas. All Judas did was make it easier for them to arrest him. Judas did not provide any testimony about Jesus's crimes for conviction, those crimes were already invented.

And I agree with your disagreement? Why Judas? He clearly wasn't necessary to identify Jesus. If a crowd with swords and staves are out to get Jesus, surely they would recognize him without Judas. Why would the chief priests send a crowd who didn't know who they were looking for?

The Dan link is interesting. Thanks for that. But is not satisfying, as to the reason why Judas. Plus, Dan is just one of the tribes God "lost." Who would we assign the other 9 too?

The clear link is Judah. So down thru the ages Judas has been linked to the Jews ; those Jesus killers ; who again we should appreciate - they brought salvation to the world - but nonetheless.

Then, to add confusion around Judas, there seems to be some kind of funny-business going on with the inconsistent stories about him. There's no gospel harmony to be found there.

Did he do it for money > Matthew? Or did he do it because he was possessed > Luke/John?

Did he hang himself > Matthew? Or did he trip fall and his bowels burst out > Acts, according to Peter?

Did he give the 30 pieces back, and the priests bought the field of blood > Matthew? Or did he keep the money and buy the field himself > Acts, according to Peter again?

Of course all these accounts were written decades later, so it wouldn't be realistic to expect them to be the same.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by awareness

And I agree with your disagreement? Why Judas? He clearly wasn't necessary to identify Jesus. If a crowd with swords and staves are out to get Jesus, surely they would recognize him without Judas. Why would the chief priests send a crowd who didn't know who they were looking for?

The Dan link is interesting. Thanks for that. But is not satisfying, as to the reason why Judas. Plus, Dan is just one of the tribes God "lost." Who would we assign the other 9 too?

The clear link is Judah. So down thru the ages Judas has been linked to the Jews ; those Jesus killers ; who again we should appreciate - they brought salvation to the world - but nonetheless.

Then, to add confusion around Judas, there seems to be some kind of funny-business going on with the inconsistent stories about him. There's no gospel harmony to be found there.

Did he do it for money > Matthew? Or did he do it because he was possessed > Luke/John?

Did he hang himself > Matthew? Or did he trip fall and his bowels burst out > Acts, according to Peter?

Did he give the 30 pieces back, and the priests bought the field of blood > Matthew? Or did he keep the money and buy the field himself > Acts, according to Peter again?

Of course all these accounts were written decades later, so it wouldn't be realistic to expect them to be the same.

Maybe the best (secular) answer to all that is that Judas (Judah) was a literary creation representing 3 old testament stories of betrayal to put blame on the Jews for Jesus's death (Spong).

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Maybe the best (secular) answer to all that is that Judas (Judah) was a literary creation representing 3 old testament stories of betrayal to put blame on the Jews for Jesus's death (Spong).

That's at least an interesting possibility. The gospel accounts of Judas are varied , inconsistent and seem to be influenced by the narrative theologies of the writers. The earliest NT writer ,Paul, never mentions Judas. In John 13:18 Jesus says " I am not speaking to you all; I know whom I have chosen; it is that the scripture may be fulfilled, 'he who ate my bread has lifted his heel against me.' " This is a reference to Psalm 41:9 which says " Even my own familiar friend in whom I trusted who ate my bread has lifted up his heel against me." The Gospel of Mark, considered to be the earliest written Gospel by most scholars, doesn't mention Judas Iscariot by name. See Mark 14:17 -21. Even the origins of the name is Iscariot are in question. So the historicity of the story is uncertain.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

And I agree with your disagreement? Why Judas? He clearly wasn't necessary to identify Jesus. If a crowd with swords and staves are out to get Jesus, surely they would recognize Him without Judas. Why would the chief priests send a crowd who didn't know who they were looking for?

Really? And the Temple Guards all recognized Jesus because He rode in on a donkey and overturned tables in the Temple last weekend? And they could recognize Him at Gethsemane because the garden had street lights and Jesus had a halo around His head?

Since they used the cover of darkness to arrest and try Jesus, perhaps having a paid "undercover informant" (I'm not calling him a spy) would be extremely valuable for their Special Prosecutor's case.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Maybe the best (secular) answer to all that is that Judas (Judah) was a literary creation representing 3 old testament stories of betrayal to put blame on the Jews for Jesus's death (Spong).

Is Spong a secular bishop? But that IS what Judas was used for, by gentile Christians pushing out the Jewishness in Christianity. Paul didn't realize, or maybe he did, that he was replacing the Mosaic law.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Really? And the Temple Guards all recognized Jesus because He rode in on a donkey and overturned tables in the Temple last weekend? And they could recognize Him at Gethsemane because the garden had street lights and Jesus had a halo around His head?

Since they used the cover of darkness to arrest and try Jesus, perhaps having a paid "undercover informant" (I'm not calling him a spy) would be extremely valuable for their Special Prosecutor's case.

And Judas had night vision.

[awareness]

And by the way, bro Ohio, Judaism has a moon based calendar. Passover is on a full moon. Out here where there aren't any lights, it's amazing how light it is outside on a full moon night.

But really, bro Ohio, surely the high priests were smart enough to send out a crowd that knew Jesus.

Face it, there's no way to deny that, at least some of our scripture stories about Judas are legend ; like the story in Matthew is legend, of Zombies roaming around Jerusalem. (27:52-53).

Human meddling is found wherever humans are found ... even authors of our scripture ... who decades later were putting stories together from various sources, that humans also meddled with.

So in our canonical records -- human chosen -- we end up with conflicting stories about Judas.

Personally, I think, they got Judas totally wrong. That the stories about Judas should depict him as a co-conspirator with Jesus & God, to fulfill His plan of salvation -- as the Christian story of salvation tells it.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

And by the way, bro Ohio, Judaism has a moon based calendar. Passover is on a full moon. Out here where there aren't any lights, it's amazing how light it is outside on a full moon night.

But really, bro Ohio, surely the high priests were smart enough to send out a crowd that knew Jesus.

Face it, there's no way to deny that, at least some of our scripture stories about Judas are legend ; like the story in Matthew is legend, of Zombies roaming around Jerusalem. (27:52-53).

Human meddling is found wherever humans are found ... even authors of our scripture ... who decades later were putting stories together from various sources, that humans also meddled with.

So in our canonical records -- human chosen -- we end up with conflicting stories about Judas.

Personally, I think, they got Judas totally wrong. That the stories about Judas should depict him as a co-conspirator with Jesus & God, to fulfill His plan of salvation -- as the Christian story of salvation tells it.

How do you know it was a "crowd" since you are convinced that none of these Gospels is reliable?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

How do you know it was a "crowd" since you are convinced that none of these Gospels is reliable?

I know it was a crowd cuz it says it was a crowd; with swords and staves. How else am I to know?

So are you saying Judas was required because the crowd didn't know Jesus?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

I know it was a crowd cuz it says it was a crowd; with swords and staves. How else am I to know?

So are you saying Judas was required because the crowd didn't know Jesus?

Apparently the High Priest thought Judas was absolutely essential -- that is until Jesus was in his hands.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Apparently the High Priest thought Judas was absolutely essential -- that is until Jesus was in his hands.

Or Judas is a literary device to make a point ... prolly reflecting or deflecting onto the Jewish Jesus killers. Yet the Jesus killers were the Romans. Something that because they feared the Romans they had to point away from ... and since Judas was one of the 12, he was used to deflect away from the Romans. Basically saying, it was the Jew's to blame for killing Jesus.

Yet, according to the traditional Christian salvation story, and according to Paul, the death of Jesus was a good thing ... cuz it's God's way of delivering salvation to the whole world.

So thanks to the high priests, crowd with swords, Judas, the Romans, and whoever possessed Judas (if he was possessed, that is). God used 'em all. Amen.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by awareness

Is Spong a secular bishop? But that IS what Judas was used for, by gentile Christians pushing out the Jewishness in Christianity. Paul didn't realize, or maybe he did, that he was replacing the Mosaic law.

Yes he's a secular bishop.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Yes he's a secular bishop.

Only because he's retired. He is a liberal Christian. Is that what you mean?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by awareness

Only because he's retired. He is a liberal Christian. Is that what you mean?

The Bishop is secular because secular bishop is the proper term for someone retired. Also the viewpoint is secular, because it denies the literal existence of Judas. A religious viewpoint would be that Judas literally existed, because "the bible says so". If he said that Judas really existed because the bible says so then he would be a secular Bishop with a religious viewpoint.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The Bishop is secular because secular bishop is the proper term for someone retired. Also the viewpoint is secular, because it denies the literal existence of Judas. A religious viewpoint would be that Judas literally existed, because "the bible says so". If he said that Judas really existed because the bible says so then he would be a secular Bishop with a religious viewpoint.

You and I, and all the rest of us, are secular Christians.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by awareness

You and I, and all the rest of us, are secular Christians.

From a Catholic point of view.

[awareness]

From Dr. Bart Ehrman's blog :

QUESTION

You may have mentioned this (I cannot recall) but why did Judas go to the authorities in the first place?


RESPONSE

I wrestled with this question long and hard while writing my book The Lost Gospel of Judas Iscariot, which includes a section on what we can know about the historical Judas. In the book I argue that there are some things that we can know with relative certainty about Judas (he was one of the Twelve and was the one who actually betrayed Jesus); other things we can profitably surmise based on our evidence (e.g. what it is Judas betrayed to the authorities – not just Jesus’ whereabouts, I argue); and other things that are almost entirely in the realm of speculation.

Among the latter I would include the reasons Judas *wanted* to betray Jesus. Scholars have offered numerous suggestions over the years. You may have your own favored view. Here is what I say about the matter in my book.

************************************************** ****************************

The Gospels give various answers to this question. In the (newly discovered) Gospel of Judas, he betrays Jesus because that’s what Jesus wants him to do. In our earlier accounts there are a range of different reasons given: (a) John portrays Judas as inherently evil, “a devil,” and so naturally he does what he is inclined to do (John 6:71) ; (b) Luke suggests that “The Devil made him do it” (Luke 22:3-6); (c) Matthew indicates that he does it for the cash (Matt. 26:14-16).

But what was the real motivation behind Judas’s act? At the end of the day, I’m afraid we can’t know for certain. It might be that the scenario I’ve suggested above is the right one, that Judas simply wanted Jesus removed from public view until after the Festival had ended and they could return to Galilee to continue their public preaching.

But there’s another option that might be even more intriguing, possibly hinted at in Mark, our earliest surviving account. Throughout Mark’s account …

Throughout Mark’s account Jesus has been preaching about the coming Kingdom of God, speaking about the coming of the Son of Man in judgment, indicating to his disciples that it would happen soon. Then he comes to Judea from Galilee, cleanses the Temple, and is anointed by an unknown woman in the town of Bethany. Apocalyptic fervor among his disciples must have been at its peak. Jesus has just given his lengthiest apocalyptic discourse in Mark 13, describing what will happen soon, at the end of the age. When he is anointed in Bethany, what does it mean? The act, of course, could be interpreted in a number of ways. If Jesus is about to become king, could it not be a symbolic statement that he is about to assume the throne as the Lord’s “anointed”? Possibly that’s what the disciples think. But Jesus does not interpret it this way. Instead he indicates that this unnamed woman has anointed his body “for its burial” (Mark 14:8).

Every time Jesus speaks about his coming death in Mark, the disciples misunderstand him: isn’t he to be the future king who will rule, and aren’t we to rule with him? So too here. As soon as Jesus speaks of his impending death, Judas goes out to betray him.

Is it possible that we have a historical recollection of the real situation here? For Judas, Jesus’ interpretation of his anointing may have been the last straw.

Throughout Jesus’ ministry, the disciples, including Judas, were looking ahead to the time when they were to rule in the coming kingdom. This would happen soon. How soon? Certainly within their own generation. But sooner even then that. In one of those sayings preserved in Matthew, but which may go back to Jesus himself, Jesus sends his twelve disciples out to preach the imminent arrival of the Kingdom of God, telling them: “Truly I say to you, you will not have gone through all the towns of Israel before the Son of Man arrives” (Matt 10:23). In its own historical context, what could such a saying have meant? It can’t have meant that Jesus himself was going to follow each of the twelve to all the towns they visited. Is Jesus here referring apocalyptically not to himself, but to the cosmic judge of the earth, who will arrive not some time later in “this generation,” but imminently, before the mission of the twelve is even finished?

If that’s what he meant – or at least if that’s how he was understood – the disciples must have been bitterly disappointed when the end in fact did not come and things went on just as before. After a while, did all this talk about the coming Son of Man, the Kingdom of God, the ruling of the twelve tribes of Israel, the entire apocalyptic vision – did all of this begin to lose its plausibility? Jesus may well have come to suspect that he would run afoul of the authorities. His predecessor John the Baptist had done so. The prophets of sacred Scripture had done so. Other prophets of his own time had done so. There’s nothing implausible about Jesus himself beginning to think that he too would do so. That is, after all, the constant refrain of his preaching in the Gospels.

So, why did Judas betray Jesus? It is possible, as I suggested above, that he simply thought matters were getting out of hand and he wanted Jesus securely taken out of way before any violence broke out But maybe it was the delay of the end that finally frustrated Judas and made him rethink everything he had heard. He, along with the others, thought they were to be glorious kings. They had made a trip to Jerusalem, raising their hopes that this would be the time; but nothing was happening and nothing evidently was about to happen. Maybe Judas had a crisis of faith, triggered by Jesus’ enigmatic references to his own coming demise. And out of bitterness he turned on his master. Maybe his hopes were dashed. Maybe he rebelled. Maybe he turned on the one he had loved out of despair, or anger, or raw frustration.

All of this, as I indicated, must lie in the realm of speculation. As much as we would like to know, we simply will never have reliable information to indicate what it was that motivated Judas, one of Jesus’ closest followers, to betray his master. What is clear is that for one reason or another, Judas became a turncoat and handed Jesus over to his enemies – not simply telling them where to find him, but giving them the insider information they needed in order to have him brought up on charges before the Roman governor. Jesus had been calling himself the king.
https://ehrmanblog.org/why-did-judas...-betray-jesus/