NationStates Jolt Archive

The Case for Iscariot-A Religious Essay

Judas Iscariot. For two millennia, the name has become nearly synonymous with betrayal, assassination, and cowardice. Indeed, there may not be anyone more victimized than Judas. Dante places him in the deepest layer of Hell with Brutus and Satan. In Shakespeare’s Love’s Labor’s Lost, when the Nine Worthies play is staged, the mention of the name “Judas” (One of the characters plays Judas Maccabaeus, the great Jewish hero from the old testament.) sends the other characters into a temporary state of shock. “Iscariot?!” Exclaims Holofernes, a pedantic scholar. “No, no, Maccabaeus!” Is the response.

We all know the old story. Judas Iscariot, one of the disciples themselves, betrays Jesus Christ to the Romans for forty pieces of silver; he later hangs himself for his sins. Jesus rises from the grave three days later, perhaps his most amazing feat-one that proves that he is, indeed, the son of God. Many today see Judas as one of the bible’s largest villains, surpassable by perhaps only Satan himself.

But is this thought justified?

Think of this! The most well-known and important story in the bible is without a doubt the Resurrection. Jesus dies for our sins, and is reborn once again. But none of it-the salvation Jesus offers, the act of rising from the dead, even Christianity itself, depended on one man: Not Jesus, but Judas, whose actions propelled Christ’s death, which in turn set off the creation of a world religion. Iscariot is, to put it bluntly, a trigger-a spark that lights the giant flame of Christianity.

One of the very purposes of Jesus was to show his love by dying selflessly for humanity-which he apparently accomplished quite well. It makes sense that God put his son on earth for this reason-to open our eyes to Jesus and God. But then, doesn’t God himself have a need for a “Trigger,” something to kill his son to show Humanity his message? Perhaps, just maybe, could the Iscariot have been meant to betray Jesus from the start?

But wait, you say! Doesn’t free will play a part in this? Doesn't it make sense that the Iscariot might have fallen to the influince of Satan? Perhaps. But! Take into consideration that this is Jesus we're talking about here-the Son of God, not some tinpot prophet. Jesus Needed to die to get his message of love across the world, to start God's holy religion of Christianity; thus, Judas was a necessary part of God's "Plan" to share his love with Humanity.

Now, I'm not entirely defending Judas here. But if Judas was perhaps meant by God himslef to betray Jesus-effectively killing him-does that not mean that God has gone against one of his own commandments? Is is possible that Judas Iscariot was-and still is-being directly victimized by God to bring one of the great religions into existance?

Just something to thing about.

One of the very purposes of Jesus was to show his love by dying selflessly for humanity

Actually he told us to stop eating his animals, stop getting wasted by drinking wine, etc. The rest was added by the Romans way later.

isnt this akin to the "i was only following orders" defense?

Actually he told us to stop eating his animals, stop getting wasted by drinking wine, etc. The rest was added by the Romans way later.
when did he say these things?

when did he say these things?

When he was an Essene.

isnt this akin to the "i was only following orders" defense?

Not really, the whole notion that Judas actually betrayed Jesus is an idea which is not present in the Gospel sources - instead the verb meaning 'to hand over' appears where most translations now put 'to betray'. Think about it: Jesus had already ridden triumphantly into Jerusalem and appeared and acted in public spreading his words - why the need for someone to identify him to the Romans? ...unless that very act of identification was part of Jesus's plan to force the hand of the powers that be.

isnt this akin to the "i was only following orders" defense?

Yes and no, I suppose. As far as I know, Judas doesn't really serve any real purpose in the Bible except to betray Christ (Although I'm sure he does. But I don't exactly read the Bible very often.) It's always seemed to me that Judas was kind of the "Unlucky Apostle" who ended up killing Christ. I mean, he didn't have any motive unless he was under either divine or demonic intervention-I'm just suggesting that it might make sense to have been divine.

isnt this akin to the "i was only following orders" defense?

If you substitute following orders to being predestined to betray the son of god then I'd say yes.

If you substitute following orders to being predestined to betray the son of god then I'd say yes.

...and what if the orders came from Jesus himself?

...and what if the orders came from Jesus himself?

Hmm, you raise an interesting idea, BWO. I'm not entirely sure that any of the apostles would have directly disobeyed Jesus himself. It would actually make perfect sense for Jesus to order Judas to hand him over to the Romans, assuming that being caught was Jesus's intention.

Never thought of it that way.

im not big on predestination

are you all suggesting that judas had no free will? that he had no choice but to betray jesus? i think that the implication of the dialog of the last supper is that jesus and the rest of the apostles arent too keen on the notion of someone being the guy who turns jesus in. it seems to me to be put forth as a bad thing.

Yes, the story of Jesus needed a villian. In order for that to be as effective as possible, the villain needed to be someone that the listener/reader could identify with. If Satan was the reason that Jesus was dead, that would let everyone off the hook. None of US (the readers) could be that evil! But if the entity who put the plan into motion was HUMAN, well, how horrible, but in some way we could all possibly do the same some day, and thus we all need the release (or forgiveness) provided by the happy ending (in this case, ressurrection).

This proves that the folks who wrote the fairy tale in the first place understood how the dramatic elements of story telling worked. It is much the same as the "virgin birth" part of the story that lends its main character an automatically elevated existence, after all, the same trick had worked for Alexander the Great. And, dramatically speaking, three days of being dead is a very magical number, and then rising from the dead? Wow! Put THAT in the story and you can sell this guy to ANYONE!

So yes, if you read the story as literal, Judas did get a bum deal, being cast as the bad guy, but of course he was put there in the first place to play that role.

Hmm, you raise an interesting idea, BWO. I'm not entirely sure that any of the apostles would have directly disobeyed Jesus himself. It would actually make perfect sense for Jesus to order Judas to hand him over to the Romans, assuming that being caught was Jesus's intention.

Never thought of it that way.

The Romans already knew who he was: so why the need for Judas to identify him? It is not as if Judas went on to present testament against him.

This connected with the fact that the whole thirty pieces of silver and subsequent suicide malarky seem to be later additions to the Biblical palimpsest suggest strongly that Judas's role in history was redefined as it made the Gospel story more emotionally resonant, if less historically true.

When he was an Essene.
when was he an essene?

do you have some bilblical quotes to support your contention that he had any interest in vegetarianism and moderate drinking?

Hmm, you raise an interesting idea, BWO. I'm not entirely sure that any of the apostles would have directly disobeyed Jesus himself. It would actually make perfect sense for Jesus to order Judas to hand him over to the Romans, assuming that being caught was Jesus's intention.

Never thought of it that way.
That's the currently accepted theory among theologians. The pieces of silver was standard payment to those who handed over any criminal, regardless of if they did it with the permission of the person or not.

Actually he told us to stop eating his animals, stop getting wasted by drinking wine, etc. The rest was added by the Romans way later.

Well, if I come across an animal that belongs to Jesus - which bothers me as a concept because I thought he was against private property - I will refrain from eating it.

Didn't he lay on the booze at a wedding at some point?

The Romans already knew who he was: so why the need for Judas to identify him? It is not as if Judas went on to present testament against him.

This connected with the fact that the whole thirty pieces of silver and subsequent suicide malarky seem to be later additions to the Biblical palimpsest suggest strongly that Judas's role in history was redefined as it made the Gospel story more emotionally resonant, if less historically true.
god has no more NEED for judas to turn jesus in than he has a need for jesus himself. its just part of the story.

it seems to me that the story as laid out has judas betraying jesus of his own free will and for his own reasons. whether monetary or to keep the romans from overreacting.

god has no more NEED for judas to turn jesus in than he has a need for jesus himself. its just part of the story.

it seems to me that the story as laid out has judas betraying jesus of his own free will and for his own reasons. whether monetary or to keep the romans from overreacting.

But doesn't God have a need for Jesus? To spread his Gospel and create a religion based around him and all that Jazz? I mean, if he didn't have a need for a son on earth, wouldn't he have spoken to humanity directly?

Read "I, Lucifer". It's very thought provoking and well written. Might give you some insight to old Lucy.

But doesn't God have a need for Jesus? To spread his Gospel and create a religion based around him and all that Jazz? I mean, if he didn't have a need for a son on earth, wouldn't he have spoken to humanity directly?

Why would God NEED any of that in the first place?

Actually, the Bible says that a relatively short time before Judas left to go sell out Christ, Satan himself entered Judas (Luke 22:3) and then Judas went to the chief preists and the like to discuss how best to get Jesus handed over to the roman authorities and the Jewish preists and stuff, so technically, Judas wasn't the one who compleatly did the action, Satan was, of course, inside him for this. Of course, he could of just turned away from doing it earlier since Jesus came out and told Judas in Matthew 26:25 that Judas would be the one to betray him, (Chronogically before Satan entered Judas) but apparently, Judas wasn't interested in trying to get out of this because he apparently didn't say a word and didn't try to run away to avoid what he was going to do, so it certainly wasn't all Satan either. But the point is, it wasn't compleatly Judas doing it, though it seems like he had either resigned himself to doing this horrible thing or secretly wanted it, the Bible isn't 100 percent clear on his motivations for his actions.

Read "I, Lucifer". It's very thought provoking and well written. Might give you some insight to old Lucy.

Edit: Not just Lucifer but Judas and the whole crucifixion story. It actually makes you think about the intentions of the Almighty, although I warn you that it will offend Christians most likely.

Why would God NEED any of that in the first place?

God is too big for us to comprehend. Therefore he sent a part of himself in a form that we could grasp. Hypothetically, of course. And he doesn't Need to do anything. He wants. I suppose.. I don't claim to know.

Andrew Lloyd Webber's "Jesus Christ Superstar" gives an interesting perspective on the question of Judas. Toward the end he presents Judas rising to heaven (since Judas wasn't the author of his own actions), and has Judas criticizing Jesus both before and after his death. It's a decent musical with some solid music and I recommend it (rent it though... don't buy it) :)

Why would God NEED any of that in the first place?

Well what He wants isn't to make a cool religion to turn into a new world order, He wants everyone to believe in Him to gain everlasting life, there's 2 Peter 2:9 which can attest to that along with 2 Timothy 2:3-4, and I think some other verses which say that.

But doesn't God have a need for Jesus? To spread his Gospel and create a religion based around him and all that Jazz? I mean, if he didn't have a need for a son on earth, wouldn't he have spoken to humanity directly?
as an allpowerful being he can do anything any way he chooses.

so he chose the jesus route.

there were many many ways to get jesus delivered to the authorities. i dont see why judas had to lose his free will in order to get this job done

on the other hand. why HATE judas for it? he did move the whole plan along. his sin is his own business. without jesus being delivered, where is god's plan?

Actually, the Bible says that a relatively short time before Judas left to go sell out Christ, Satan himself entered Judas (Luke 22:3) and then Judas went to the chief preists and the like to discuss how best to get Jesus handed over to the roman authorities and the Jewish preists and stuff, so technically, Judas wasn't the one who compleatly did the action, Satan was, of course, inside him for this. Of course, he could of just turned away from doing it earlier since Jesus came out and told Judas in Matthew 26:25 that Judas would be the one to betray him, (Chronogically before Satan entered Judas) but apparently, Judas wasn't interested in trying to get out of this because he apparently didn't say a word and didn't try to run away to avoid what he was going to do, so it certainly wasn't all Satan either. But the point is, it wasn't compleatly Judas doing it, though it seems like he had either resigned himself to doing this horrible thing or secretly wanted it, the Bible isn't 100 percent clear on his motivations for his actions.

I just have to point out that 'satan' (whether Ha'Satan in Hebrew, or Satanos in Greek) can merely mean an adversarial spirit or whim.

Thus - 'Satan' entering into Judas is likely pure metaphor, as a means of describing Judas' 'adversarial' action.

When he was an Essene.
I dont know where your getting your information, but that is not true. Jesus was closest to the Pharisees than any other jewish group, the pharisees were the majority made of the regular jewish peasantry, and preached in an open public forum much the same way jesus did. Although the NT cites examples where Jesus disagreed and even denounced them, this was only because of their zeal in interpreting and moderating the Torah to daily issues, and that even implimented they were extremely rigid in maintaining these laws. I'am aware of some sources which state that jesus came across Essene communities during his wandering in the desert, and that he was influenced by them. And the essenes themselves claimed that Jesus himself was an essene, but they are all from very unreliable and at the type political bias sources. Remember that the essenes were opposed to all the Jewish groups at the time of Jesus, mostly the Sadducees for cooperating with the Romans and having a monopoly over the high priesthood. So it's only natural for the essenes to take credit for Jesus being one of them in the years after his crusifixion, especially when the Christians were becoming more popular.
Of course I'm just correcting.

The Case for Iscariot-A Religious Essay

Judas Iscariot. For two millennia, the name has become nearly synonymous with betrayal, assassination, and cowardice. Indeed, he may be the most victimized than Judas. Dante places him in the deepest layer of Hell with Brutus and Satan. In Shakespeare’s Love’s Labor’s Lost, when the Nine Worthies play is staged, the mention of the name “Judas” (One of the characters plays Judas Maccabaeus, the great Jewish hero from the old testament.) sends the other characters into a temporary state of shock. “Iscariot?!” Exclaims Holofernes, a pedantic scholar. “No, no, Maccabaeus!” Is the response.

We all know the old story. Judas Iscariot, one of the disciples themselves, betrays Jesus Christ to the Romans for forty pieces of silver; he later hangs himself for his sins. Jesus rises from the grave three days later, perhaps his most amazing feat-one that proves that he is, indeed, the son of God. Many today see Judas as one of the bible’s largest villains, surpassable by perhaps only Satan himself.

But is this thought justified?

Think of this! The most well-known and important story in the bible is without a doubt the Resurrection. Jesus dies for our sins, and is reborn once again. But none of it-the salvation Jesus offers, the act of rising from the dead, even Christianity itself, depended on one man: Not Jesus, but Judas, whose actions propelled Christ’s death, which in turn set off the creation of a world religion. Iscariot is, to put it bluntly, a trigger-a spark that lights the giant flame of Christianity.

One of the very purposes of Jesus was to show his love by dying selflessly for humanity-which he apparently accomplished quite well. It makes sense that God put his son on earth for this reason-to open our eyes to Jesus and God. But then, doesn’t God himself have a need for a “Trigger,” something to kill his son to show Humanity his message? Perhaps, just maybe, could the Iscariot have been meant to betray Jesus from the start?

But wait, you say! Doesn’t free will play a part in this? Doesn't it make sense that the Iscariot might have fallen to the influince of Satan? Perhaps. But! Take into consideration that this is Jesus we're talking about here-the Son of God, not some tinpot prophet. Jesus Needed to die to get his message of love across the world, to start God's holy religion of Christianity; thus, Judas was a necessary part of God's "Plan" to share his love with Humanity.

Now, I'm not entirely defending Judas here. But if Judas was perhaps meant by God himslef to betray Jesus-effectively killing him-does that not mean that God has gone against one of his own commandments? Is is possible that Judas Iscariot was-and still is-being directly victimized by God to bring one of the great religions into existance?

Just something to thing about.

I've made something like this argument, myself.

Judas loved Jesus. They were friends, and we KNOW that Judas was there during Jesus' ministry... so he KNEW that Jesus was the Christ.

And, still.. he turns him over to the Roman authorities...

And, still, he endures the constant prods and jibes at the hands of Jesus (John 6:64, 6:70, 13:10 and 13:26, for example...

As can be seen, Judas fulfills Jesus' prophecy of betrayal, even at Jesus' command... DESPITE his feelings for Jesus, and DESPITE knowing him to be the Christ.

So... is Judas the villain of the piece? Or one of the pawns? Indeed... is Judas not really a 'hero'... in that he sacrifices his best friend, and his own immortal soul, to ensure the greater good?


As has been pointed out elsewhere, Jesus made quite a spectacle of himself... he really need nobody to 'identify' him to Romans... so, Judas' actions must be symbolic. Judas did for the sake of the vicarious sacrifice story... and he was not given the same assurance that Jesus had, that he would soon be resurrected.

I dont know where your getting your information, but that is not true. Jesus was closest to the Pharisees than any other jewish group, the pharisees were the majority made of the regular jewish peasantry, and preached in an open public forum much the same way jesus did. Although the NT cites examples where Jesus disagreed and even denounced them, this was only because of their zeal in interpreting and moderating the Torah to daily issues, and that even implimented they were extremely rigid in maintaining these laws. I'am aware of some sources which state that jesus came across Essene communities during his wandering in the desert, and that he was influenced by them. And the essenes themselves claimed that Jesus himself was an essene, but they are all from very unreliable and at the type political bias sources. Remember that the essenes were opposed to all the Jewish groups at the time of Jesus, mostly the Sadducees for cooperating with the Romans and having a monopoly over the high priesthood. So it's only natural for the essenes to take credit for Jesus being one of them in the years after his crusifixion, especially when the Christians were becoming more popular.
Of course I'm just correcting.

It is actually not that unknown a concept. The similarities between the teachings of Jesus, and of the Essenes have long caused people to assume that Jesus was a member of that faction.

It is actually not that unknown a concept. The similarities between the teachings of Jesus, and of the Essenes have long caused people to assume that Jesus was a member of that faction.
Sure, but it's still just speculation.

Yes and no, I suppose. As far as I know, Judas doesn't really serve any real purpose in the Bible except to betray Christ (Although I'm sure he does. But I don't exactly read the Bible very often.) It's always seemed to me that Judas was kind of the "Unlucky Apostle" who ended up killing Christ. I mean, he didn't have any motive unless he was under either divine or demonic intervention-I'm just suggesting that it might make sense to have been divine.

Judas was the treasurer for the disciples.

(John 13:29 "For some of them thought, because Judas had the bag, that Jesus had said unto him, Buy those things that we have need of against the feast; or, that he should give something to the poor.")

Sure, but it's still just speculation.

Speculation about... a man for whom there is no independent, contemporary evidence?

The whole thing is speculation, my friend.

Speculation about... a man for whom there is no independent, contemporary evidence?

The whole thing is speculation, my friend.
But the moderate historical view is that Jesus was closest to the Pharisees.

But the moderate historical view is that Jesus was closest to the Pharisees.

I don't know... his teaching are very far from tradition Pharisee perspectives... teaching that a PERSONAL relationship with God was most important, or that our relationship with God should be about something more than sticking to the rules of a book.

Ironic, really... the way the modern Christian 'church' is so like the Pharisees... and so far away from the 'discerned' relationship that Jesus seemed to preach.

I think Judas has been much maligned.

Think about it, wouldn't it be the ultimate act of faith to hand your much-loved spiritual leader over to the Romans because you and he knew it had to be that way.

Sure, but it's still just speculation.
Most of Jesus' life is speculation. The Gospel version was just the most popular one and won out--it's not archaeologically accurate, after all. Nazareth didn't have a synagogue at the time Jesus supposedly read there, for instance.

I think Judas has been much maligned.

Think about it, wouldn't it be the ultimate act of faith to hand your much-loved spiritual leader over to the Romans because you and he knew it had to be that way.
what makes you think he knew it had to be that way? what evidence do you have for it?

Judas was the treasurer for the disciples.


As I always suspected. Early christians were no different from the modern day ones, despite claims to the contrary.

As I always suspected. Early christians were no different from the modern day ones, despite claims to the contrary.

I think some of them dressed differently... :)

Yes and no, I suppose. As far as I know, Judas doesn't really serve any real purpose in the Bible except to betray Christ (Although I'm sure he does. But I don't exactly read the Bible very often.) It's always seemed to me that Judas was kind of the "Unlucky Apostle" who ended up killing Christ. I mean, he didn't have any motive unless he was under either divine or demonic intervention-I'm just suggesting that it might make sense to have been divine.

Or it could have just been greed. Except God knew him to be greedy and used that to his own good. God hates all sin, of course. But that does not mean he cannot make something positive come out of it. After all, he's God.

Most of Jesus' life is speculation. The Gospel version was just the most popular one and won out--it's not archaeologically accurate, after all. Nazareth didn't have a synagogue at the time Jesus supposedly read there, for instance.

Where exactly are you refering to Jesus teaching at a synoguge in Nazareth? I can see the part in Luke, but that refers to Gallilie, which is rather a big place. It could just be refering to the nearest synoguge to Nazereth, somewhere in Gallilie

Well, if I come across an animal that belongs to Jesus - which bothers me as a concept because I thought he was against private property - I will refrain from eating it.

Didn't he lay on the booze at a wedding at some point?

Jesus was against private property? That's quite interesting, could you give some quotes to back that up?

Jesus was against private property? That's quite interesting, could you give some quotes to back that up?

I've heard a couple of times that Communism and the teachings of Jesus are closely related and intertwined, but I've never seen definete proof of this claim. That would make some interesting research.

TO THE INTERNET, BATMAN!

And, still.. he turns him over to the Roman authorities...
he really need nobody to 'identify' him to Romans...

The Romans couldn't have cared less about him. The Biblical account of the trial of Jesus by the Jews, then the cajoling of Pilate to do something about it is a likely historical scenario - they wouldn't have crucified Jesus for who he was or what he claimed to be, but to appease the Jewish authorities.

Actually he told us to stop eating his animals, stop getting wasted by drinking wine, etc. The rest was added by the Romans way later.

the gospels were written by people who were with Jesus during His ministry...

and i don't remember seeing a pro-veg stance on the part of the Lord.

the gospels were written by people who were with Jesus during His ministry...

and i don't remember seeing a pro-veg stance on the part of the Lord.
well no they werent but thats a different thread

i dont recall that jesus was a member of any group besides his own. i certainly dont recall either a discussion of the eating of meat or the wisdom of moderate drinking. he couldnt have been against drink in general or he wouldnt have provided wine for the wedding at cana.

The Case for Iscariot-A Religious Essay

Judas Iscariot. For two millennia, the name has become nearly synonymous with betrayal, assassination, and cowardice. Indeed, he may be the most victimized than Judas. Dante places him in the deepest layer of Hell with Brutus and Satan. In Shakespeare’s Love’s Labor’s Lost, when the Nine Worthies play is staged, the mention of the name “Judas” (One of the characters plays Judas Maccabaeus, the great Jewish hero from the old testament.) sends the other characters into a temporary state of shock. “Iscariot?!” Exclaims Holofernes, a pedantic scholar. “No, no, Maccabaeus!” Is the response.

We all know the old story. Judas Iscariot, one of the disciples themselves, betrays Jesus Christ to the Romans for forty pieces of silver; he later hangs himself for his sins. Jesus rises from the grave three days later, perhaps his most amazing feat-one that proves that he is, indeed, the son of God. Many today see Judas as one of the bible’s largest villains, surpassable by perhaps only Satan himself.

But is this thought justified?

Think of this! The most well-known and important story in the bible is without a doubt the Resurrection. Jesus dies for our sins, and is reborn once again. But none of it-the salvation Jesus offers, the act of rising from the dead, even Christianity itself, depended on one man: Not Jesus, but Judas, whose actions propelled Christ’s death, which in turn set off the creation of a world religion. Iscariot is, to put it bluntly, a trigger-a spark that lights the giant flame of Christianity.

One of the very purposes of Jesus was to show his love by dying selflessly for humanity-which he apparently accomplished quite well. It makes sense that God put his son on earth for this reason-to open our eyes to Jesus and God. But then, doesn’t God himself have a need for a “Trigger,” something to kill his son to show Humanity his message? Perhaps, just maybe, could the Iscariot have been meant to betray Jesus from the start?

But wait, you say! Doesn’t free will play a part in this? Doesn't it make sense that the Iscariot might have fallen to the influince of Satan? Perhaps. But! Take into consideration that this is Jesus we're talking about here-the Son of God, not some tinpot prophet. Jesus Needed to die to get his message of love across the world, to start God's holy religion of Christianity; thus, Judas was a necessary part of God's "Plan" to share his love with Humanity.

Now, I'm not entirely defending Judas here. But if Judas was perhaps meant by God himslef to betray Jesus-effectively killing him-does that not mean that God has gone against one of his own commandments? Is is possible that Judas Iscariot was-and still is-being directly victimized by God to bring one of the great religions into existance?

Just something to thing about.


I reply with an excerpt from a piece of prose i wrote many years back:-

Jesus died for somebodies sins, but not mine.....

Although i am an atheist, born and bred in non conformity, oozing contempt for religion, i have a little treasured vision that i half wish would come true. That is, when i die, oh so many years from now, i'll be standing at the front of a long queue of souls demanding admission to the heavenly gardens, and the judge of my life - lets say it's Jesus - will look up from this big ledger book and say
"Graigwen, Pen-Y.....So what did you do with the gift of life?"
"umm, i fucked up"
"You did?"
"Yeah, i did, i tried for success, i got so close on a few occasions, and i never retreated into bitterness about it, but in the end, we have to say, i fucked up. Want to make something of it?"
"Well, you know, you were given the gif"
"Hang on, just hang on a fucking second here. You sit there in judgement on me, mr oh so fucking perfect, and you tell me - when did you ever live MY life? That's ignoring the fact that you had fuck all to do with my 'gift of life', and it was all about Mr and Mrs Graigwen getting drunk and horny one night, answer the fucking question - when did you ever walk in MY shoes? When did you ever have MY life?"
"I came down amongst you and shared your pain"
"Fuck off"
"Excuse me my child?" says Jesus, stroking that STUPID fucking beard, slightly shocked.
"Don't call me your fucking child and don't pretend you don't know what i mean. Here's the deal kidda - You suffered doubt ONCE in your fucking life, right at the end, while you hung on the cross, and then daddy god showed how you were right to do what you did by sending you that sign - was it a thunderstorm? i can never remember. You swaggered through your life so cocksure that what you were doing was right, always, always so cocksure, and you try and tell me that you shared our pain? Fuck off"
"But"
"but me no buts, son of god. You weren't human, nothing in the story of your life marks you out as human, where's the nagging doubts eh? Where's the fuck ups? Did you ever raise someone from the dead and think 'hang on, maybe i shouldn't have done that'? Did you ever betray yourself? Did you ever betray your friends? Oh, you were betrayed once and we ALL have to feel sorry for you, but for fucksake you weren't even human, it's easy enough to betray something like you, a fucking concept, and not even a particularly GOOD concept at that. Did you ever succumb to weakness, doubt, insecurity, hate, fear? Did you lose hope? Did you see your dreams destroyed? Did you COPE? Have you ever worked in a dead end job, with a twatty boss and nothing but dull blank vegetating in front of a TV screen to look forward to before you finally succumb to excrutiatingly painful bowel cancer at the age of 56? Did you ever get high and happy? Did you ever get laid? Did you ever get petty or vindictive, or joyous and loving - i mean one on one loving, not the bullshit "love for all humanity" thing you had going? Did any of them - your posse - ever really matter to you in any way that wasn't conceptual? Did you ever care? No, don't interrupt, i know you 'cared for us all' - i want to know whether you cared for ONE person, not 'us all' - Mary Magdalene, did she make you constantly warm and smiling and happy that you knew her, or did you fit her into this blanket bullshit 'i am here for you all' spiel? Did you live a life that in ANY way resembles anybody elses? No you fucking didn't. You know nothing of joy, nothing of pain, nothing of anything, you were just a fucking cypher, a message sent down here to order us around for your miserable old swine of a father who decided 'hey, lets not be the vengeful god anymore, let's be mr nice guy, mmmm, Luuuuuurve!' Human? My arse."
"Well"
"No well, don't give me the meek and mild lamb of god act, you ****. What about poor fucking Judas eh? The Lee Harvey Oswald figure? Mandelson to your Blair"
"Excuse me?"
"Heh, it's like a cracked fucking record here. Judas was the patsy, don't you see? Everyone wanted you dead - the Romans, the Pharisees, most of the fucking jews, your DAD and yourself"
"I don't see how you can say that"
"I just did. Here's how. You came down to save us all through dying and being reborn, washing us clean of our sins - 'sins' by the way that wouldn't have existed without your judgemental bastard of a father - with your blood, yes?"
"Well, yes. So?"
"So you had to die. Dramatic fucking necessity. If you didn't die, we wouldn't be 'redeemed', whatever the fuck that is"
"OK, with you"
"So Judas HAD to betray you. Had to, otherwise mankind wouldn't have been 'saved'. And for this, the poor **** is - according to Dante, who i trust a little more than you anyway - in the bottom most circle - or 'bolgia' as i believe the Italians call it - of hell, encased in ice, forever alive and freezing, suffering unknown and timeless agonies"
"Well, yes, he betrayed the son of god"
"HAD to betray the son of god. You fucking sadistic bastard. HE saved us, not you. He put you on the cross and saved us with your blood, not you. You were just the sacrificial fucking goat, he was the one who had to wield the knife, he was the one who got fucked for it. Bring me Judas here to judge me and i might listen to him, he's recognisably human. You? Nothing but a fucking cuntwit meme. Fuck off, and take your grumpy sadistic bastard dad with you, ok?"
Jesus stares at me for a few seconds. Has anyone ever been this lippy with him?
"I don't believe in you anyway, why am i having this conversation?"
A wrathful Jesus, like when the **** went all anti-globalisation in the temple (and you know he only did THAT for the Blairite focus groups, you just know - "oh yeah Big J, pitch for the righteous rage market, it's big this year"), waves his fingers and a hole appears in the floor where i stand and i plummet downwards through utter night, and i can see beneath me, growing larger and larger in my vision, the belching smoke filled vistas of hell.
An eternity in the pitch awaits.

I reply with an excerpt from a piece of prose i wrote many years back:-


im glad you kept it, i enjoyed it very much. thanks for posting it.

im glad you kept it, i enjoyed it very much. thanks for posting it.

Glad you did..was a little sweary, but hey...got the point across ;)

Wow.

That prose, while vengeful, really did not do much for your argument in my opinion except to provide us insight as to your distinct distaste for Christianity in general. I feel your prose is not as purposeful as you wish it to be; rather it shows you would prefer to rant at something rather than attempt to understand it, an, in my opinion, immature way of approaching philosophy, theology, and life.

Back to the question of Judas, it seems that Judas was forced to kill Jesus. The line itself during the Last Supper scene is, "And Satan entered Judas," suggesting that Judas, regardless of his own will, was forced by Satan to go to the temple leaders and betray Jesus. It would make sense that once this partial possesion was complete Judas would be utterly destroyed for killing his former teacher and master. So was Judas truly evil? No. However, his name is the embodiment of an idea, the idea of betrayal. This is akin to Hitler automatically being the embodiment of evil, though Hitler was not completely evil, his name arouses an idea of evil.

So in short, was Judas evil? No. Is his name associated with betrayal? Yes.

- Veritas

Wow.

That prose, while vengeful, really did not do much for your argument in my opinion except to provide us insight as to your distinct distaste for Christianity in general.

Back to the question of Judas, it seems that Judas was forced to kill Jesus. The line itself during the Last Supper scene is, "And Satan entered Judas," suggesting that Judas, regardless of his own will, was forced by Satan to go to the temple leaders and betray Jesus. It would make sense that once this partial possesion was complete Judas would be utterly destroyed for killing his former teacher and master. So was Judas truly evil? No. However, his name is the embodiment of an idea, the idea of betrayal. This is akin to Hitler automatically being the embodiment of evil, though Hitler was not completely evil, his name arouses an idea of evil.

So in short, was Judas evil? No. Is his name associated with betrayal? Yes.

- Veritas


To be honest, it's a distinct distaste about the way the whole thing was edited together and poor Judas was the patsy. The primary point can't be ignored...without Judas, no betrayal...without the betrayal, no redemption. Without the redemption, Christs mission on earth does not succeed.

So, Satan? Remember, Satan can't do anything that is contrary to God's ineffable plan...no one, in effect, can. What does that say?

You have a god that set his own son up as a sacrificial lamb (just like he asked - was it Moses? Abraham? one of the two...Abraham...to sacrifice his child)...and you have someone else as the instrument of God's will...and that someone else suffers for it.

This is the standard interpretation...Christs blood washes us clean, right?

So tell me, by that interpretation...where would Christians be today if Judas hadn't "been entered by Satan"? In a state of "grace"...or unredeemed?

The Romans couldn't have cared less about him. The Biblical account of the trial of Jesus by the Jews, then the cajoling of Pilate to do something about it is a likely historical scenario - they wouldn't have crucified Jesus for who he was or what he claimed to be, but to appease the Jewish authorities.

All of which, I'm afraid, is irrelevent to the point I was making.... the Jews may have wanted Jesus dealt with... but the Romans were the instrument of that 'justice'. It is likely that Roman authority would have kept a close eye on EVERY Messianic claimant, and they would almost certainly have recognised the one that taught obedience to Caesar.

Thus - the whole idea of Judas 'selling Jesus out' seems a little nonsensical.

In response.

The idea of a divine fate would indeed destroy the moral implications of Judas betraying Jesus, unquestionably. Fate in general is the mortal enemy of morality, they cannot coexist. That stated, we have an issue of basic facts, I would say that there is no divine fate, that the God figure can know the future while not actively directing it. If you disagree with this statement, then there can be no further discussion here, for we have hit a baseline difference as I like to call it. Sorry.

- Veritas

Wow.

That prose, while vengeful, really did not do much for your argument in my opinion except to provide us insight as to your distinct distaste for Christianity in general. I feel your prose is not as purposeful as you wish it to be; rather it shows you would prefer to rant at something rather than attempt to understand it, an, in my opinion, immature way of approaching philosophy, theology, and life.

Back to the question of Judas, it seems that Judas was forced to kill Jesus. The line itself during the Last Supper scene is, "And Satan entered Judas," suggesting that Judas, regardless of his own will, was forced by Satan to go to the temple leaders and betray Jesus. It would make sense that once this partial possesion was complete Judas would be utterly destroyed for killing his former teacher and master. So was Judas truly evil? No. However, his name is the embodiment of an idea, the idea of betrayal. This is akin to Hitler automatically being the embodiment of evil, though Hitler was not completely evil, his name arouses an idea of evil.

So in short, was Judas evil? No. Is his name associated with betrayal? Yes.

- Veritas

As I've already pointed out once in this thread... 'satan' in scripture very rarely means an entity CALLED Satan. Usually, it means an adversarial entity, spirit or mood.... as is likely in the case of Judas, after Jesus sends him off to do his 'chore'.

Where do you get this 'utterly destroyed' motif from? From what I recall... does the scripture not quibble about the death of Judas... with one source implying suicide, and the other implying a vengeful murder?

Another thought occurs: even though he handed Jesus over to the Romans/Jews... since Judas appears to have truly 'believed' (well, he'd have to... he witnessed the ministry)... would he not be 'saved', anyway?

In response.

The idea of a divine fate would indeed destroy the moral implications of Judas betraying Jesus, unquestionably. Fate in general is the mortal enemy of morality, they cannot coexist. That stated, we have an issue of basic facts, I would say that there is no divine fate, that the God figure can know the future while not actively directing it. If you disagree with this statement, then there can be no further discussion here, for we have hit a baseline difference as I like to call it. Sorry.

- Veritas

Oh, i'm not disagreeing with you, i don't believe in a god figure, or indeed divine fate. I'm just paraphrasing the religious beliefs that we live under. Now, you could go further, i suppose, and if you were a calvinist who believed in pre-destination, turn round and say that Judas may have been an instrument of the god-figure, but he was destined to be that way because he was born inherently evil.

Y'see my point? I'm not going to argue with you about your beliefs pro or against various philosophical aspects of the ole god-head figure. I'm actually far more chilled than that (rather old) piece of prose let's on. But the point of discussion was Judas' culpability and evil...and we have to address the issue of how he has been portrayed, his place in the story, etc etc.

Fair enough though, rational disagreement and moving on. Be well.

As I've already pointed out once in this thread... 'satan' in scripture very rarely means an entity CALLED Satan. Usually, it means an adversarial entity, spirit or mood.... as is likely in the case of Judas, after Jesus sends him off to do his 'chore'.

Where do you get this 'utterly destroyed' motif from? From what I recall... does the scripture not quibble about the death of Judas... with one source implying suicide, and the other implying a vengeful murder?

Another thought occurs: even though he handed Jesus over to the Romans/Jews... since Judas appears to have truly 'believed' (well, he'd have to... he witnessed the ministry)... would he not be 'saved', anyway?

Well, he did commit the mortal sin of suicide...

but then, is suicide now a mortal sin, but wasn't then?

And the whole "truly believed" thing is a offshoot of Augustine and "The City of God", right? Thats where Luther got his "Justification by Faith Alone" stance, to respond to the Thomist (after Thomas of Aquinas) beliefs of the Catholic Church, which were all "good deeds, charideeee" (I'm paraphrasing and talking in the vernacular here, excuse me). I suppose the quote in the Bible, which as i recall goes something like "he who believes in me is saved" backs up the Augistinian/Luther/Faith alone stance...

But then, the message is contradicted so many times...Jesus said his only message was "love one another" (quite a nice line, that)...what if you love one another but don't believe in he? The Catholics (well, Dante) had a way round it with the circle of "virtous pagans" in Hell...but a district of Hell that was so nice they never realised they were in Hell...i'd be interested how modern theology see's the state of redemption for someone like, say, Socrates....

Thanks for the recognition. I would agree with your disagreements under the assumptions you have made. I simply do not make the assumptions.

In response, the utterly destroyed motif was emotionally speaking, thus leading to his death by his hand. Also, his two mentioned methods of death are hanging himself and falling to the ground of his newly aquired field and his head bursting open. Yes, the adversarial Satan figure existed, but that idea was distinctly more prevalent in the Old Testament rather than the new, using completely different words. Perhaps he would have been 'saved', though his self killing probably prevented that one.

- Veritas

I am Judas. That's the main point of the character. Judas is the representation of humanity, playing Jesus into the hands of the corrupt authorities for petty earthly reward. Thus, I believe it makes sense for Judas's genuine remorse to pay off, if you happen to believe in the afterlife.

Another way of looking at it is to say that we all do evil for the sake of what we think is right, and the innocent suffer as a result. Judas was driven by what he thought was God's temple, and the result of this lack of better judgement was the death of his friend. I like this one, personally. No matter what you think the origin of it is, always question that which is revealed to you.

I am Judas. That's the main point of the character. Judas is the representation of humanity, playing Jesus into the hands of the corrupt authorities for petty earthly reward. Thus, I believe it makes sense for Judas's genuine remorse to pay off, if you happen to believe in the afterlife.

Another way of looking at it is to say that we all do evil for the sake of what we think is right, and the innocent suffer as a result. Judas was driven by what he thought was God's temple, and the result of this lack of better judgement was the death of his friend. I like this one, personally. No matter what you think the origin of it is, always question that which is revealed to you.

That is a good one, but it doesn't answer the essential question i've been banging on about...no Judas, no blood sacrifice, no redemption...where would Christians be without Judas?

In pre-Christ religions, Judas would(could) be seen as the priest who kills the god-king, so that the land, the people, can be reborn spiritually anew...but it's only in post-Christ religions that said priest is seen as bad for doing so...rather than "that's his job, that's his point". Dig?

Personally I think Judas was added to the story to fuel anti-Jewish feeling and to support the claim that the Jews were responsible for murdering the Messiah:

1.) In every Christian depiction of him up until the end of the Medieval era he is always portrayed as the stereotypical jew, with a long, hooked nose.
2.) Even his name is implicating the Jews in Christ's execution: Judas=Judah?
3.) What drives him to betray Jesus? Avarice. That stereotypical fault of the Jews.

All in all, the Gospel writers just needed somebody to implicate the Jews in the execution of Jesus and so they introduced Judas although he was only really used to fuel anti-semetism by the Church during the middle ages.

Personally I think Judas was added to the story to fuel anti-Jewish feeling and to support the claim that the Jews were responsible for murdering the Messiah:

1.) In every Christian depiction of him up until the end of the Medieval era he is always portrayed as the stereotypical jew, with a long, hooked nose.
2.) Even his name is implicating the Jews in Christ's execution: Judas=Judah?
3.) What drives him to betray Jesus? Avarice. That stereotypical fault of the Jews.

All in all, the Gospel writers just needed somebody to implicate the Jews in the execution of Jesus and so they introduced Judas although he was only really used to fuel anti-semetism by the Church during the middle ages.

Now, we hit a vital bastard of a point...yes! And, of course, who were the writers of the Gospels selling the Christ story to? The Gentiles...inhabitants of the Roman Empire...hence the rather curious behaviour of Pilate-there was no such "pardon a criminal" style tradition, and all historical records of Pilate show him to be a typically ruthless and venal Roman ruler..so why the big hoo-hah with Pilate trying to save Jesus from the vindictive Jews? Unless of course you are selling your god to the very people whose rulers killed him. A bit of fast footwork and someone who was essentially a jewish rabbi becomes un-jewish and killed by jews and the Gentiles don't have to worry about any stupid concepts such as blood guilt.

Thanks for the recognition. I would agree with your disagreements under the assumptions you have made. I simply do not make the assumptions.

In response, the utterly destroyed motif was emotionally speaking, thus leading to his death by his hand. Also, his two mentioned methods of death are hanging himself and falling to the ground of his newly aquired field and his head bursting open. Yes, the adversarial Satan figure existed, but that idea was distinctly more prevalent in the Old Testament rather than the new, using completely different words. Perhaps he would have been 'saved', though his self killing probably prevented that one.

- Veritas

I'd have to argue with certain elements here....

First... although Judas 'fell headlong'... it was his stomach that burst open.

Second... there are two entirely different scriptural accounts of Judas demise in the scripture (and at least one other 'non-canonical' account, also).

In Matthew, Judas gives the money back to the Priests (which the priests use to buy the Potters Field... which then takes the name "The Field of Blood", because it was purchased with 'Blood Money'). In this version of the story, Judas hangs himself.

In Acts, Judas himself buys the field, and falls 'headlong', and his insides burst out. (This seems to relate to the practise of inverted hanging and disembowlment... in which the criminal is hanged by their ankle(s) and gutted). In this version of the story, the field takes the name "The Field of Blood" because Judas' blood is spilled there.

(The two main non-canonical sources (both Papias documents, I believe) both suggest that Judas swelled to obscene size, and then either died of his 'insides leaking out'... or of being run over by a wagon, and then his 'insides leaking out'.)


Regarding the use of 'satan'... Jesus actually uses the term 'satan' (well, satanos) himself, to describe Peter, for his perceived 'adversarial' attitude of being tempted by 'mundane' things.

I'd have to argue with certain elements here....

First... although Judas 'fell headlong'... it was his stomach that burst open.

Second... there are two entirely different scriptural accounts of Judas demise in the scripture (and at least one other 'non-canonical' account, also).

In Matthew, Judas gives the money back to the Priests (which the priests use to buy the Potters Field... which then takes the name "The Field of Blood", because it was purchased with 'Blood Money'). In this version of the story, Judas hangs himself.

In Acts, Judas himself buys the field, and falls 'headlong', and his insides burst out. (This seems to relate to the practise of inverted hanging and disembowlment... in which the criminal is hanged by their ankle(s) and gutted). In this version of the story, the field takes the name "The Field of Blood" because Judas' blood is spilled there.

(The two main non-canonical sources (both Papias documents, I believe) both suggest that Judas swelled to obscene size, and then either died of his 'insides leaking out'... or of being run over by a wagon, and then his 'insides leaking out'.)


Regarding the use of 'satan'... Jesus actually uses the term 'satan' (well, satanos) himself, to describe Peter, for his perceived 'adversarial' attitude of being tempted by 'mundane' things.


Anyway, never mind Judas...what about the poor bloody wandering Jew? Surely we've all been part of a group where we acted against our best nature...and for that, condemned to walk the earth until Christ comes again?

(mind you, as punishments go, i'd vastly prefer it to Judas')

Now, we hit a vital bastard of a point...yes! And, of course, who were the writers of the Gospels selling the Christ story to? The Gentiles...inhabitants of the Roman Empire...hence the rather curious behaviour of Pilate-there was no such "pardon a criminal" style tradition, and all historical records of Pilate show him to be a typically ruthless and venal Roman ruler..so why the big hoo-hah with Pilate trying to save Jesus from the vindictive Jews? Unless of course you are selling your god to the very people whose rulers killed him. A bit of fast footwork and someone who was essentially a jewish rabbi becomes un-jewish and killed by jews and the Gentiles don't have to worry about any stupid concepts such as blood guilt.

You summarised the motives of the writers far better than I did, thank you.

You summarised the motives of the writers far better than I did, thank you.

<beams> but you raised the point allowing me such verbal flourish, so thank you :)

(welcome to the mutual ego-massage club)

Anyway, never mind Judas...what about the poor bloody wandering Jew? Surely we've all been part of a group where we acted against our best nature...and for that, condemned to walk the earth until Christ comes again?

(mind you, as punishments go, i'd vastly prefer it to Judas')

The Wandering Jew is a much more enigmatic character, though... those that research the subject often find that it is unclear just which Jew it is, that is supposed to be wandering.... sometimes, it is John, sometimes a man in the crowd during the crucifixion walk, sometimes it is the ear-abused attendant in the Garden of Gethsemene.

Indeed, apart from the assumption that it is (cryptically) based on Matthew 16:28, there is no scriptural support for the idea of a Wandering Jew.... and, no 'traditions' have (yet) been found, that make the story more than about 400 years old.


From my personal viewpoint... I think it likely that the 'Wandering Jew' is actually a reference to Cain...

The Wandering Jew is a much more enigmatic character, though... those that research the subject often find that it is unclear just which Jew it is, that is supposed to be wandering.... sometimes, it is John, sometimes a man in the crowd during the crucifixion walk, sometimes it is the ear-abused attendant in the Garden of Gethsemene.

Indeed, apart from the assumption that it is (cryptically) based on Matthew 16:28, there is no scriptural support for the idea of a Wandering Jew.... and, no 'traditions' have (yet) been found, that make the story more than about 400 years old.


From my personal viewpoint... I think it likely that the 'Wandering Jew' is actually a reference to Cain...

I'm gonna write a novel about the sucker, it's currently in gestation in my head. Expect it seventy years from now.

I'm gonna write a novel about the sucker, it's currently in gestation in my head. Expect it seventy years from now.

Welll... now THAT's not going to help, is it.... unless you can somehow guarantee that I will still be 'wandering' until your text arrives... :-)

Welll... now THAT's not going to help, is it.... unless you can somehow guarantee that I will still be 'wandering' until your text arrives... :-)

Well, i've often secretly believed i'm Christ come again... ;)

(which is a bit paradoxical for an atheist, i know)