I've been thinking about Judas and Christ lately. You know who I'm talking about, Judas Iscariot, the guy who was supposedly responsible for betraying Christ to the Roman crucifiers. All of a sudden, we find out that Christ was betrayed by a character that was never even developed. Who was this guy? Aside from that horrendous last name that conjures up all kinds of worm like pictures, we have no idea about what he was like at all.
You'd think that Christ might have at least given us a clue as to what this scumbag was about before we got to the punchline, wouldn't you? Were there any indications that he was not to be trusted? Come on, tell us what we should be looking for.
Sometimes the Bible can be so cryptic. You have to figure these things out on your own through an inductive reasoning process. Personally, I see the New Testament as a guide to make you think about things through a Christian perspective.
This is from that horrible source, Wikipedia, but it suits my purposes for now, so I'll defer. "If Jesus foresees Judas' betrayal, then it may be argued that Judas has no free will and cannot avoid betraying Jesus. If Judas cannot control his betrayal of Jesus, then he is not morally responsible for his actions." I'm not very big on this theory as far as the reasoning, BUT...it does allow me to formulate my own theory according to it.
It may just be that there really is no such thing as betrayal, although it's used as a way to describe when someone that you've trusted shows some kind of disloyalty, and it's a form of deception. If someone that you've trusted enough to call a friend or lover would betray you, then that person was not worthy of your trust to begin with. If you had really known them, you would have realized that they were not someone to befriend in the first place. It was really only a wrong perception on your part of what you THOUGHT they were. It is not what they really are. The person that you thought they were doesn't even exist. . . You've really only deceived yourself. You can't be betrayed by someone who doesn't exist.
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 30
I also quite agree...the Wikipedia "synopsis" is quite absurd, and naive.
I enjoyed Your conclusion...but believe that we can't possibly predict the specific influences that Evil may have, and, therefore, the influence it may exert, subjectively...some choose to resist it...others do not...
Wikipedia should be banned. It's got so many erroneous facts too. I had made a comment on an article about a book I had read several years ago, and when I looked up something about it on Wikipedia, I realized that some information about the author, who was a reporter, and a real character in this non-fictional book, was incorrect. At first, I hesitated to make that comment, since, well...you know... who would I be to question the great Wiki? Of course, bold and brazen me did it anyway. One of the other commentators, who actually had met the author knew I was correct, and corroborated my statement. I wouldn't have expected that from him. Life has so many surprises.
As an example, consider this. Your best friend trusts you completely and confides in you that he/she has murdered someone. Your dilemma is now one of a violation of that trust by reporting a murder and the identity of the murderer or honoring the trust of confidence and allowing the evil deed to go unreported and the murderer to possibly go unpunished.
My point is that some violations of trust can be a better policy than maintaining your loyalty. You may have been worthy of another persons trust and still betray that person....depending upon the circumstances.
This statement may not be completely true..."If someone that you've trusted enough to call a friend or lover would betray you, then that person was not worthy of your trust to begin with."
Betrayal is a complex subject since it is almost always about perception. Often, people perceive one person's loyalty to principles as a betrayal of another individual. I think it is important to always place principles above personalities.
Now, if my best friend murdered someone and it was a case of self defense, and he/she confided in me, and I still reported it, then we'd be back to my original statement that the murderer had chosen me as someone he/she could trust with such a confidence without the perception of me as being a person that couldn't keep such a confidence. I am not the person that he thought I was at all. I'm someone entirely different, so although his gig is up, it was really his own self-deception in choosing the wrong friend rather than a betrayal.
Of course, looking at it the way I've presented it in the article is really just a way of processing the hurt of a betrayal, and moving forward. I don't think it's harmful to look at it that way in order to give it some perspective and proceed. Do you?
According to new info, Judas didn't betray Jesus (in the sense that we understand betrayal) Jesus actually asked Judas to "betray" him, and being loyal, it grieved Judas to do so, so much so, that he ended up killing himself.
I get very mixed emotions about loyalty to friends, especially on the internet. How I react to it, depends on the person wanting my loyalty. If being loyal means I can't oppose something they do or say, then I chose not to have that type as a friend.
I definitely agree, Sandy. I also think that different people have different ideas of what principles are. To me, principles are not talking about someone when they're not there to defend themselves.
Let's take a 'hypothetical' example: A group of people in a chat room are busily cackling about one person's faults while they know very well that person is not around. Let's say there's a save feature of the chat. The person comes back to find a full page of slander, some of which is written by a person that individual trusted. The victim is shocked and amazed....at first. She gathers her thoughts, now with no other chatters there, and tries to address some of the issues, but it's much too difficult to get around all of the points, since there are so many that were bandied about by the perfect and faultless. She never finishes and leaves in disgust.
What do you think about the principles of the people that left dozens of scathing and some very untruthful communications behind? What do you think about the principles of someone who was supposed to have been a friend of this person's who never approached her privately with her complaints?
I know what I I think of such principles.
You see, Debra, you are aware that you might be off the beaten path. If nothing else, it lets me know you're at least conscious. If I want to talk to the dead, I'll go to a cemetery, and that would be a huge communication improvement, in some cases.
That's a new bent on Judas. Interesting! I never knew he killed himself.
Loyalty has absolutely nothing to do with agreement. If someone even thinks it does, they have no chance of a friendship with me because they have no idea what I'm about. The problem is that some people take offense when you disagree. I hate yes people. If I likedyes people, I'd be all over the articles of the people like the list you left of that commentator that clogs up your feed with all of her yes kind of comments.
I'm the baiter, remember?
I was tempted to bring up what Debra has tossed into this conversation...about Judas and his "reluctant" betrayal....but I know so little about the Bible that I chose to side step the topic and save my ignorance about this for another time. But now...now that the subject has been brought up....didn't Jesus HAVE to die? Wasn't this a more or less done deal? Didn't he KNOW what was about to happen (and wasn't really all that excited about the prospect as I recall)?
So, in reality...Judas' actions were simply part of the unfolding of the inevitable. In fact...if this is true...Judas may have been the best friend Jesus had. Is this a plausible conjecture? Did Judas actually serve God's purpose?
By the way, I don't think any of us can accurately predict what the possibilities are with regards to what a friend will or won't do...what a person is or is not capable of. Also, in this hypothetical case ..."if my best friend murdered someone and it was a case of self defense," you would not be reporting a murder...self defense is not "murder". AND your friend, whose values you have evaluated to be worthy of your trust and friendship, should report the self defense herself/himself, but if that does not happen...I believe you are duty bound, as a citizen, to report the case of self defense.
"So, in reality...Judas' actions were simply part of the unfolding of the inevitable."
Yes again. I suppose that's from where the Wikipedia theory in my article hails, and what you say is a corollary to that kind of theorizing.
I don't give the whole thing much credence. We really don't know what actually took place. The New Testament to me, as I said, is a guide for life more than an abolute and factual account. The Old Testament is too, but the New Testament is the way of life. The Old Testament was the way of life before Christ's death that gave us salvation from the old laws as well as giving us everlasting life.
I would not report the case of self defense. I will have to say that I would also, in friendship, never put a friend in such a position to have to make that decision. If I murdered someone in self defense, i hope I would never be so selfish as to burden someone with such a secret.
didn't Jesus HAVE to die? Wasn't this a more or less done deal? Didn't he KNOW what was about to happen (and wasn't really all that excited about the prospect as I recall)?
Yes to all the questions, Michael. Jesus knew he was deliberately offending the jewish scribes, and he knew the penalty for it.
Yes, Sue. You ARE the baiter.. LOL. You get me every time!
National Geographic
An international team of scientists and scholars worked for years to authenticate, conserve, and translate the codex. Read more about who they are, review our frequently asked questions, and find out how and why National Geographic became involved in this important project.
TIME LINE & MAP
During the first centuries A.D. Christianity grew from humble origins to become the official religion of the Roman Empire. Through time lines, maps, and photos explore the world of early Christianity. And learn where the Gospel of Judas fit into the divergent philosophies within the new religion.
CONSERVATION
When the chief translator Rodolphe Kasser first saw the codex containing the Gospel of Judas, he said he had never seen a manuscript in worse shape. But years of restoration and conservation have stabilized the fragile documents.
AUTHENTICATION
Some of the world's experts in authenticating ancient documents were enlisted to verify the age and composition of the codex. Learn what they found out.
I'll toot your horn for you, Sandy.
Yes, Lionel, this article was just an addition to my morning exercise routine to help maintain my sanity among the swine. You're right, there's absolutely no reason for there to be any more info. I think you're relatively new here, so I'll give you some help because I like you. You have to understand that if you read my posts and take them at face value, you're going to go away broke every time. There are many older members who still don't know this, and that's what keeps them reading, so don't tell, OK?
like this to make them wonder if there might be a connection to reality.
like this to make them wonder if there might be a connection to reality.
The link doesn't work. What happened to the article?
here's the link again