“It is one of the twelve, one who is dipping bread into the dish with me. 21 For the Son of Man goes as it is written of him, but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been better for that man if he had not been born.”
If Christians think, that he supposed to die on a cross to save the world from sins, or something like that, why then he is portrayed as the villain of the story? If he didn’t do it, then Jesus wouldn’t be sacrificed, and salvation wouldn’t happe, right?
I agree with the premise and have often applied it to the vilification of the Jews for their role in Jesus death. Setting aside the fact that it was the Romans, not the Jews who had Jesus cricified, they were just doing their part in the divine plan. You could say God was relying on Judas to do his job as well. Shouldn’t he be thanked?
If there is such a thing as God’s will, under most traditional theological descriptions since Augustine, I suppose it is always done in every case. That presumably doesn’t decide the moral specifics of a situation. If somehow God’s plan is eventually fulfilled in raising up and bringing down a destructive earthly tyrant, does that justify all the tyrant’s acts? In order to morally adjudicate Judas’ betrayal of Jesus, it would seem necessary to assess Judas’ motives, and what outcome he intended, or actually did, bring about. On the face of it, unless Jesus had been intending some kind of horrific injustice to the general public, than Judas betraying him and having him turned over to the authorities in circumstances in which Jesus would almost certainly be executed, than Judas’ betrayal seems pretty morally reprehensible. If Judas just turned Jesus over because he was frustrated with him or disappointed in him or was trying to force his hand to bring about the apocalypse, those all seem like pretty morally unsatisfactory motives.
Victorsalazar said
In my Jew education. The gospels are full of absurd moments. The narrative of Jesus, if he was to suffer from our sins (The important goal) He could just in the last supper , tell that he was to deliver himself to the Pharisees. No traitor needed.
Well, there was a prophecy that he was going to be betrayed. Can’t go against prophecy.
Kakuzato said
“It is one of the twelve, one who is dipping bread into the dish with me. 21 For the Son of Man goes as it is written of him, but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been better for that man if he had not been born.”
If Christians think, that he supposed to die on a cross to save the world from sins, or something like that, why then he is portrayed as the villain of the story? If he didn’t do it, then Jesus wouldn’t be sacrificed, and salvation wouldn’t happe, right?
At the time of the writing of the gospels, Christians were still struggling finding the meaning behind the execution, whilst at the same time despising Judas I. Hence they make Jesus know about the treason beforehand as well as prophesying the execution and suffering, and not opposing the arrest. Nevertheless they give Judas a nasty death. This contradiction is normally taken as a strong indication of the historicity of Judas and his act of betrayal.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)