Was Judas Really That Bad?

[Purple Knight]

Question for debate: Was Judas Iscariot really that bad?

I don't hate Judas. Nothing about his (admittedly not fleshed-out) character bothers me. I could have been his friend even after the betrayal. That doesn't mean I agree with anyone betraying anyone, and perhaps this is me being messed-up, but nothing Judas did really bothers me to the point I'd cut ties if I knew him.

First I ask myself why he was stealing from Jesus's group. There are basically two unforgivably horrible things you can do in that time where you'd need large sums of money: Drinking, and gambling. I don't think Judas probably did either. Signs point to him being a bit of a fatty so maybe he overindulged in food, but coming from my perspective (I see welfare recipients whip out an EBT card for grocery carts full of what I consider indulgences like $10 tiny little bottles of pomegranate juice and snobby cheeses) that's not really that bad. Reverse two thousand years and maybe the guy just wanted to have meat every day. Maybe the disciples ate mostly grass or often went hungry. Morally right? No. Understandable? To me, definitely. I can't condemn someone for stealing if it's for food.

And what did he do with the blood money he got? He bought a field. He didn't drink or gamble away that money (those would be dealbreakers for me). He bought something that he could invest in that would be useful later. Add some seeds and a couple servants or slaves to a field and you've got a farm. A farm is not a bad thing to want. That's the kind of greed I don't have a problem with. Yes, it was paid for by a life, but lives were routinely bought and sold in those times to pay for whatever you wanted; there was legalised slavery.

No matter how I look at this, I can't really get my mind round to a perspective that paints Judas as a terrible person. And not that this excuses it, but let's be honest, if Jesus was really a wanted man but went about to populated areas to teach, he was going to be caught eventually anyway. From the perspective of Judas, he's probably thinking, it'll happen sooner or later so I might as well have the silver. He might have even been uncomfortable with being a disciple at that point, and wanting it to be over. Or he might have been legitimately scared to be following around a wanted criminal all day, and acting primarily from that. Perhaps he was unsure. If we're unsure, we do tend to default to the law.

[brunumb]

It appears to me that there is mistranslation in some versions.

When the word doesn't say what you want it to say, it's a mistranslation.
When the passage doesn't mean what you want it to mean, it's a misinterpretation.
So much for just reading what is there. It appears that everyone really just 'writes' their own Bible based on their prior inculcated beliefs.

[Miles]

And you're some kind of expert on the Bible and the scholarship behind it? I think not...

So, does the meanings of the words change, if I have scholarship? I think not… …which is why it is totally irrelevant to mislead the debate to personal matters.

The point here is that you're trying to convince me X is true because you "think" X is true, AND assert Y "is" true but without evidence, AND claim Z "should be" without reason.

"I think the old Greek version is more accurate than any modern version. And in this case World English Bible is more loyal to the older version. And I think that should not matter in this case, because this should be matter of how well those translations are made, and what is said in the original (or most original version)."

And believe me, what you think here, or assert is or should be without evidence or reason means bupkis.

Next time I suggest you present evidence and reasons for your Xs, Ys, and Zs.



.

[Purple Knight]

My point is about legalities, I am entirely uninterested in your moral assessment of his or anyone's actions.

Upon further consideration I don't think the legality of Jesus's actions is very relevant.

JW thinks Jesus broke no law. I can't imagine a country where taking liberties with other peoples' stuff is allowed, so I think Jesus probably did break a law.

It's not relevant what I think or what JW thinks because it's not for either of us to decide whether Jesus broke a law. It's for the Romans to decide. And they did decide. Without injecting morality into the discussion it's not possible to say their decision was in error (which it was; it very much was in error and I don't think that's in dispute).

The Romans had every legal right to arrest Jesus in order to properly determine if Jesus had committed a crime. They had no moral right to do so, but how is everyday, law-abiding Joe supposed to assess that? The moneychangers and the temple masters say the moneychangers have every right to be where they are. Jesus says they don't. It's obvious to me that this is a case of 20-20 hindsight. In the moment, without knowledge, not a one of you would take the word of a fanatic with a whip over the legitimate religious leadership and the legitimate legal leadership. Not a one.

Blowing up Planned Parenthood is in exactly the same moral boat in that if the fanatics are actually correct that abortion is murder, they do have the moral right to defend those lives with violence. If it's really murder, they're right and the law is wrong. But I don't see religious people praising bomb nuts. I see religious people taking the side of the legitimate legal system and denouncing the bomb nuts.

[JehovahsWitness]

The Romans had every legal right to arrest Jesus in order to properly determine if Jesus had committed a crime.

Yes they had the right to do so. But I am confident you know that there is no record of them ever doing so. It seems reasonable to assume this is because the Roman authorities did not suspect Jesus of committing a crime.

... it's not for either of us to decide whether Jesus broke a law. It's for the Romans to decide.

Yes, I agree. And what pray tell was the decision?

LUKE 23:4 - NIV

Then Pilate announced to the chief priests and the crowd, "I find no basis for a charge against this man."

Jesus broke a law

No he did not ( see above)

Upon further consideration I don't think the legality of Jesus's actions is very relevant.

Well then my work here is done.

I'm not here go debate vague feelings that a "liberty" might possibly have occurred with somebody's furniture, nonsense about how Jesus could have toppled someones sandwhich or your assessment of religious values and choices.


Respect,

JW

[Difflugia]

Yes they had the right to do so. But I am confident you know that there is no record of them ever doing so. It seems reasonable to assume this is because the Roman authorities did not suspect Jesus of committing a crime.

In the absence of any other evidence, that might be a reasonable assumption. I don't know. It doesn't matter. The story, however, defines actions of Jesus that were against Roman law.

LUKE 23:4 - NIV

Then Pilate announced to the chief priests and the crowd, "I find no basis for a charge against this man."

As provincial prefect, Pilate had Roman authority to deal with noncitizens in nearly any way he saw fit. Pilate may just have meant that dealing with Jesus wasn't worth the time out of his day. Who knows what he was thinking? Fortunately for us, it doesn't matter. The story lists the actions of Jesus and we know what Roman laws those actions broke.

Jesus broke a law

No he did not ( see above)

Yes he did (see everywhere else)

Well then my work here is done.

I'm not here go debate vague feelings that a "liberty" might possibly have occurred with somebody's furniture, nonsense about how Jesus could have toppled someones sandwhich or your assessment of religious values and choices.

"...pound the table..."

[1213]

When the word doesn't say what you want it to say, it's a mistranslation.
...

No, there is mistranslation, when there is wrong meaning given to the word.

[brunumb]

The Romans had every legal right to arrest Jesus in order to properly determine if Jesus had committed a crime.

Yes they had the right to do so. But I am confident you know that there is no record of them ever doing so. It seems reasonable to assume this is because the Roman authorities did not suspect Jesus of committing a crime.

It is also reasonable to assume that the entire event is pure fiction, hence no record.

[Purple Knight]

Yes they had the right to do so. But I am confident you know that there is no record of them ever doing so. It seems reasonable to assume this is because the Roman authorities did not suspect Jesus of committing a crime.

It was theirs to handle. They handled it. They were the legitimate legal authority. You have no leg to stand on here if you're going to argue pure legality. No one disputes that they were morally wrong, and no one except you cares whether they had a fair trial, a kangaroo trial, or no trial at all.

Yes, I agree. And what pray tell was the decision?

LUKE 23:4 - NIV

Then Pilate announced to the chief priests and the crowd, "I find no basis for a charge against this man."

As I recall, the priests weren't happy with that, they offered their testimony, and the Romans acceded. If the Romans hadn't been being at least somewhat fair they would have just done whatever they wanted and disregarded what anyone said, but they didn't. But that's neither here nor there. A fair trial can convict an innocent man if enough people lie. And legally, purely legally, a fair trial is the best anyone can possibly ask for. No one disputes that the Romans did wrong but it seems they were not only within their law at all times, but fairer than they had to be.

I am not saying this made the Romans correct to kill a man for overturning tables.

All I'm trying to say is that this puts law-abiding people in a horrible position when morally correct revolutionaries arrive. Most people, without special knowledge that Jesus was a morally correct revolutionary (as no one doubts he was if he existed as the Bible describes him) and not some crazed fanatic, would, quite rationally, assess that not turning Jesus in was tantamount to aiding a fugitive.

I care about this because I care about not making Judas's mistake. It's easy to assess that he made a mistake in hindsight, but in the moment, I care how I'm supposed to know a morally correct revolutionary from your average bomb-toting nutcase.

I'm not here go debate vague feelings that a "liberty" might possibly have occurred with somebody's furniture, nonsense about how Jesus could have toppled someones sandwhich or your assessment of religious values and choices.

Note that I don't care when my threads go off-topic. I don't care at all. This is the normal course of development of a conversation about almost any issue. I don't ever call hijacking. Ever.

But you are literally in a thread about how morally wrong something was, declaring moral wrong irrelevant and declaring only legality relevant. And it's not just my assessment of morality you reject (as if I even have one; I've only been speculating and I've made that clear); you've been completely rejecting any discussion of the morality of these issues in favour of legality.

Dear motherloving worm biscuits, man, you can't go in a thread that is about morality and declare morality irrelevant. That's not hijacking, but... there's no word for what that is. Someone needs to invent a new word for what that is.

Any thread I make is for anyone to discuss anything. That obviously includes the original topic.

[JehovahsWitness]

Yes they had the right to do so. But I am confident you know that there is no record of them ever doing so. It seems reasonable to assume this is because the Roman authorities did not suspect Jesus of committing a crime.

It was theirs to handle. They handled it. They were the legitimate legal authority. You have no leg to stand on here if you're going to argue pure legality.

Are you suggesting that I have said otherwise? If not, what is your point? We both agree the Romans legally had the authority to arrest Jesus. I'm sure you also agree that there is no record of them ever doing so.

The only record we have regarding guilt is the Roman autorities announcing there was no basis for prosecution.

Which of the two of us are questioning Roman legalities ? Me, pointing out the Romans never arrested Jesus and prononce him innocent of any crime when charges where made or YOU who (although you have not managed to stipulate which law was broken) and despite the record of the Roman verdict, insist that a crime had been commited ?





JW

[JehovahsWitness]

Dear motherloving worm biscuits, man, you can't go in a thread that is about morality and declare morality irrelevant.

I didn't say "morality [is] irrelevant" I said I don't care about your assessment/speculations of Jesus (or Judas') morality. Note the following ...

My point is about legalities, I am entirely uninterested in your moral assessment of his or anyones actions

Fair enough. ....

I admit I don't have a moral compass. ....

You will note my contribution ...

Whether the [Judas actions] seems acceptable says more about one's own moral compass (or lack thereof) than anything else.

I dont pretend to know what Judas believed or what motivated him to do as he did ....

If you wish to explore how one should act when faced with injust laws be my guest; but you'll have to be it with someone else.








JW