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.

[Difflugia]

Stopping someone from conducting illegal business is not a crime. Trade in the temple was illegal under Jewish law, so any loss suffered on the part of the traders represented unlawful gains no more protected by law than someone being stopped from selling stolen goods.

That's an interesting claim that you haven't supported. There's no indication that it was the Sabbath, so work in general wasn't prohibited. The Temple didn't exist during the time that the stories in the Pentateuch take place, so none of those laws prohibit anything in the Temple. There's no prohibition of buying or selling around the Tabernacle that could be extrapolated as applying to the Temple. I don't recall the stories of Solomon building the first Temple including anything about commerce being illegal in the vicinity of the Temple. Neither Ezra nor Nehemiah declared it illegal to buy or sell near the second Temple. What "Jewish law" is behind your claim and where might one find it?

Even if there were such a "Jewish law," the Roman observation of local legal custom wasn't about some theoretical, ancestral code, but local law as decreed and enforced by the local, provincial government. In this case, that would be Herod and the Sanhedrin. If commerce was taking place on the Temple grounds with their blessing, then it's hard to see how violently disrupting it wouldn't contravene Roman law.

No Roman law was was broken in the course of Jesus actions as reported in the narrative.

So you keep saying, incorrectly and without support.

The delict of INIURIA ("outrage", "contumely") refered to a wrongful conduct caused by contumelious (insolently abusive and humiliating) action taken against another person.

"Injuria is when a person, either intentionally or by negligence, violates any right that a free man has in respect of his own person" (Introduction to Roman Law, Hunter, p. 136).

There is no records of Jesus abusing or humiliating anyone,

"He would not allow anyone to carry a container through the temple" (Mark 11:16). "He found in the temple those who sold oxen, sheep, and doves, and the changers of money sitting. He made a whip of cords and drove all out of the temple, both the sheep and the oxen; and he poured out the changers’ money and overthrew their tables." (John 2:14-15)

he did not insult the traders he quoted Jewish scripture, something any Israelite male or female had every right to do.

That's a non sequitur. Quoting scripture and being insulting are not mutually exclusive, as any reader of Proverbs can attest.

[JehovahsWitness]

"Injuria is when a person, either intentionally or by negligence, violates any right that a free man has in respect of his own person" (Introduction to Roman Law, Hunter, p. 136).

There are no records of Jesus impeding on anyone's legitimate rights. There is no record of any issue of right to trade on temple grounds by either Herod, the local Roman authority and certainly not by the Senhedren. That Jesus had a whip is no more evidence he caused criminal damage with it, than a man with a knife is proof he murdered someone; supposition does not a victim make.




JW



Did Jesus violate Roman law?
viewtopic.php?p=1033256#p1033256

[Difflugia]

There are no records of Jesus impeding on anyone's legitimate rights. There is no record of any issue of right to trade on temple grounds by either Herod, the local Roman authority and certainly not by the Senhedren."

Is that the hill you're going to stand on, then? The sellers on Temple grounds might not have been explicitly allowed there?

You haven't actually supported the assertion that their presence was illegal. Jesus drove the sellers out by violence and your only defense of that is that the sellers were breaking Jewish law. What Jewish law were they breaking? "That is what the word illegal means (Not to be confused wifh upsetting)." If they weren't breaking the law, your attempted defense fails.

That Jesus had a whip is no more evidence he caused criminal damage with it, than a man with a knife is proof he murdered someone; supposition does not a victim make.

Jesus merely "had a whip?" The statement that tells us of the whip also tells us of his criminal damage: "He made a whip of cords and drove all out of the temple." The equivalent statement in your poor analogy would be that "he had a knife and murdered someone." It doesn't matter if it might technically be a non sequitur and he was just holding the knife while committing the murder in some other fashion. Even if the murderer didn't actually use the knife to commit the murder and merely "had" it or, by analogy, that Jesus merely "had" the whip and didn't use it when he "drove all out of the temple," what difference would you have us believe that makes?

[JehovahsWitness]

That Jesus had a whip is no more evidence he caused criminal damage with it, than a man with a knife is proof he murdered someone; supposition does not a victim make.

... that Jesus merely "had" the whip and didn't use it when he "drove all out of the temple," what difference would you have us believe that makes?

Non sequitur: Using a whip does not impose causing damaged with said whip. A whip can be cracked on or near an animal's hide to get it moving without hurting much less damaging it. There is no evidence (that is not nonsequential) that any damages were caused to man or beast.

In the absence of a victim "Injuria" cannot be established.

[Difflugia]

There is no evidence (that is not nonsequential) that any damages were caused to man or beast.

In the absence of a victim "Injuria" cannot be established.

"He would not allow anyone to carry a container through the temple." (Mark 11:16)

"He ... drove all out of the temple." (John 2:15)

"Injuria is when a person, either intentionally or by negligence, violates any right that a free man has in respect of his own person" (Introduction to Roman Law, Hunter, p. 136).

[JehovahsWitness]

There is no evidence (that is not nonsequential) that any damages were caused to man or beast.

In the absence of a victim "Injuria" cannot be established.

"He would not allow anyone to carry a container through the temple." (Mark 11:16)

"He ... drove all out of the temple." (John 2:15)

"Injuria is when a person, either intentionally or by negligence, violates any right that a free man has in respect of his own person" (Introduction to Roman Law, Hunter, p. 136).

I am well aware of the above, what is your point? ( Complete sentences would be appreciated).




JW

[Difflugia]

I am well aware of the above, what is your point? ( Complete sentences would be appreciated).

Oh, my. Were those sentences not complete?

If you are well aware of the above, why do you persist in making unsupported claims suggesting that you aren't? Just so we're clear on what you are actually claiming, here are the attempted defenses you've recently made without presenting any sort of justification:

• Broadly stated many times, Jesus broke no law at all.
• Jesus was illegally arrested.
• Overturning the tables of the money changers was not a crime.
• Theft is narrowly defined in Roman law in some way that excludes Jesus' behavior.
• The commerce near the Temple that Jesus halted was against Jewish law and so Jesus' conduct was legal (that's two separate claims, by the way; merely demonstrating the first doesn't demonstrate the second).
• Insulting someone through creative quoting of Jewish scripture is a legally-protected Jewish right.
• Jesus was merely holding a whip, rather than committing violence with it and committing violence while brandishing (but not using) a whip isn't criminal (again, that's two separate claims).
• There is a level of violence that can be committed with a whip that is nonetheless still legal.
• None of Jesus' recorded conduct would be considered injuria under Roman law.

You have supported none of these assertions. You have insisted that your debate opponents provide evidence for their positions and they have done so using multiple sources. You, however, have provided no evidence to either support any of your claims or rebut those of your opponents. The only evidence you have provided of anything is that the Romans allowed local governments some measure of autonomy in their legal affairs, but as that was never in dispute, it's hard to see which claim, either yours or your opponents', you meant to address.

Everyone else has done their homework and indeed much of yours. I made a point, in fact, of finding sources that were freely available to ensure that you have access to them. If the rest of us charitably allow that even one of your claims has merit and there is evidence somewhere out there to support it, it's now up to you to find and present it.

It's your turn.

[JehovahsWitness]

There is no evidence (that is not nonsequential) that any damages were caused to man or beast.

In the absence of a victim "Injuria" cannot be established.

"He would not allow anyone to carry a container through the temple." (Mark 11:16)

"He ... drove all out of the temple." (John 2:15)

"Injuria is when a person, either intentionally or by negligence, violates any right that a free man has in respect of his own person" (Introduction to Roman Law, Hunter, p. 136).

I am well aware of the above, what is your point?

Just so we're clear ... {snip: evasion}

Are you inclined to answer my question?



JW

[Difflugia]

Are you inclined to answer my question?

I'm pretty sure the quotes I supplied were sufficient and, since you bolded the relevant part yourself, I'm baffled that you don't. The point is that preventing someone from carrying a container through the Temple and driving someone out of the Temple would be considered a violation of a free man's personal rights.

Do you have evidence that some part of that is invalid?

{snip: evasion}

I find it quite candid (though certainly out of character) that you would publicly characterize your unsupported assertions as evasion. I'm inclined to agree.

Have you found evidence to support any of those assertions? It's your turn. Remember?

[Clownboat]

"Injuria is when a person, either intentionally or by negligence, violates any right that a free man has in respect of his own person" (Introduction to Roman Law, Hunter, p. 136).

There are no records of Jesus impeding on anyone's legitimate rights. There is no record of any issue of right to trade on temple grounds by either Herod, the local Roman authority and certainly not by the Senhedren. That Jesus had a whip is no more evidence he caused criminal damage with it, than a man with a knife is proof he murdered someone; supposition does not a victim make.




JW



Did Jesus violate Roman law?
viewtopic.php?p=1033256#p1033256

Why would there be records of Jesus doing such a thing?

He cannot be shown to be a real person if we are being honest. I would expect something that would prove his existence if the stories about him are true as told and not written as religious promotional material. Yet here you are, asking for records to show that he impeded on someones rights. The ask seems nonsensical to me personally when we don't have good records of Jesus being a real person in the first place. That would be the place to start IMO.

(I do believe the stories were penned based off of a real person myself, but also acknowledget that I cannot show that I speak the truth about him existing). I also cannot produce a speeding ticket for the man that likely existed.

What believers seem incapable of doing, is to put themselves in the shoes of the victims. Imagine, not Jesus, but Craig walking into the temple and causing such a disruption. Any moral person should know that Craig was wrong to do unto others what he would not like done to him. It is wrong to defend Craig's actions IMO, same goes for the story about Christ.