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.

[Purple Knight]

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.

I'm not sure how they had him if they never arrested him. If they had him in custody, they must have, at some point, taken him into custody. What difference does it make whether there is a record of it or not? There probably was such a record and over 2000 years, it got lost.

My only point, as it has always been, is that it is difficult (if not impossible) for a law-abiding citizen to properly assess when to side with the law and when the law is wrong. It requires cognitive dissonance because we all have our pet issues where we think the law is wrong but we know that society can't function if everybody breaks the laws they disagree with, so we say, well, I disagree with this, but the law knows best. Now a real, morally correct revolutionary comes along and we're supposed to assess the opposite. The law doesn't know best; that guy does.

I think (but I could be wrong) that there are morally correct revolutionaries among us today. BLM comes to mind. Note that this is not my moral assessment because I do not have one, but a conclusion I have come to by listening to and observing others. And BLM protests do sometimes get violent. But that, apparently (I have no knowledge here; I'm just making an educated guess based on the moral assessment of others) is justified, so I... shouldn't turn one in to the cops (who, along with society, are biased against them and society might not give a fair trial)... if I see him commit a crime...?

I am asking you this because I'm interested in your moral assessment specifically because you have no problem assessing that Judas was horrible. I don't ask you things because I'm trying to catch you in a contradiction. I ask you things because you know more about morality than I do.

I'm terrified that I see a crime, report a crime, and the next thing I know, it's 2000 years later and I'm the next Judas, and JW4040 is telling everyone on Debating BLM (which is now a religion) how I had every opportunity to assess correctly and do otherwise. We have all the pieces. The Jews (Blacks) are oppressed by by the Romans (America) and revolutionaries are appearing to combat that. I care about doing what is right despite not having a conscience of my own.

When should I side with a revolutionary and against the law, and why?

[JehovahsWitness]

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.

I'm not sure how they had him if they never arrested him.

I am confident you have actually read the narrative you are debating: According to the biblical record Jesus was arrested by the Jewish authorities, charged under religious law and tried in a Jewish court. He was subsequently handed over to the Romans for interrogation on charges of sedition and encourageing tax evation. He was pronounced innocent. At no time, according to available records, did the Romans issue or carry out an arrest of Jesus of Nazareth.

I'm terrified that I see a crime, report a crime, and the next thing I know, it's 2000 years later and I'm the next Judas ...

Why "the next Judas"? Are you suggesting the Judas of the bible witnessed a crime? If so, what crime would that be and what evidence (that wasn't "lost") can you point to that Judas Iscariot saw one?



JW

When should I side with a revolutionary and against the law, and why?

Excellent question. I should think that on a planet with 7.5 billion people there might possibly be one person that is interested in answering it. Hopefully for you that person is on this forum and will respond.

[Purple Knight]

I am confident you have actually read the narrative you are debating: According to the biblical record Jesus was arrested by the Jewish authorities, charged under religious law and tried in a Jewish court. He was subsequently handed over to the Romans for interrogation on charges of sedition and encouraging tax evasion. He was pronounced innocent. At no time, according to available records, did the Romans issue or carry out an arrest of Jesus of Nazareth.

So when the Jews gave him to the Romans, did the Romans hold him or let him go? And why does it matter? You're the one who brought up arrest. Are you going to suggest that because the Romans had the right to arrest him, the Jews didn't? If they didn't, all it would mean is that when they brought Jesus to the Romans, and the Romans took him into custody, the technicality of the arrest occurred then.

And am I misremembering that the Romans didn't really care one way or another but that the Jews insisted and the Romans acceded? I'll happily read the account again.

Why "the next Judas"? Are you suggesting the Judas of the bible witnessed a crime? If so, what crime would that be and what evidence (that wasn't "lost") can you point to that Judas Iscariot saw one?

I'm sure Judas knew that Jesus turned over the moneychangers' tables and was a fugitive for it, and I'm suggesting that without special knowledge that the law and the people enforcing it were morally wrong, I'd have done the same thing, though armed with this story and the knowledge that Judas was wrong, I might just never turn in any fugitive because it could easily turn out that the fugitive was a morally correct revolutionary and I would have become the next Judas for it. Now perhaps Judas had that very special knowledge and ignored it (he was a Disciple after all, so that's perfectly reasonable) but the result is the same as simply not having the special knowledge, now isn't it?

When should I side with a revolutionary and against the law, and why?

Excellent question. I should think that on a planet with 7.5 billion people there might possibly be one person that is interested in answering it. Hopefully for you that person is on this forum and will respond.

If you don't know the answer that makes you no worse than I, because I don't know the answer. But it doesn't make you any better, either.

[JehovahsWitness]

I am confident you have actually read the narrative you are debating: According to the biblical record Jesus was arrested by the Jewish authorities, charged under religious law and tried in a Jewish court. He was subsequently handed over to the Romans for interrogation on charges of sedition and encouraging tax evasion. He was pronounced innocent. At no time, according to available records, did the Romans issue or carry out an arrest of Jesus of Nazareth.

So when the Jews gave him to the Romans, did the Romans hold him or let him go?

They they held him.

...You're the one who brought up arrest.

No I did not. If you look back over our exchange you will see that that it was you not I that thought up that point .

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

...Are you going to suggest that because the Romans had the right to arrest him, the Jews didn't?

Both authorities had the legal right to arrest Jesus. Neither had the right to illegally arrest Jesus without charges; which is was evidently happened.

If they didn't, all it would mean is that when they brought Jesus to the Romans, and the Romans took him into custody, the technicality of the arrest occurred then.

I don't know what you meant by the "technicality of the arrest" if you mean the case proceeded as if a legal arrest had occurred then yes. Pilate no doubt expected the Jews had respected their own law and that if Jesus was bought before him, the arrest and been legal and proceeded from there.

As it turned out that was not the case.



JW

[JehovahsWitness]

Why "the next Judas"? Are you suggesting the Judas of the bible witnessed a crime? If so, what crime would that be and what evidence (that wasn't "lost") can you point to that Judas Iscariot saw one?

I'm sure Judas knew that Jesus turned over the moneychangers' tables ...

Are you suggesting overturning a table was a crime? If so say I refer you to our earlier exchange on this point

LINK
viewtopic.php?p=1033329#p1033329

JW

[Purple Knight]

Are you suggesting overturning a table was a crime? If so say I refer you to our earlier exchange on this point

As do I. Whether or not it was a crime doesn't hinge on your or my use of the dictionary. It was up to the Romans to decide that. You say Jesus was pronounced innocent, but what you cite was a Roman who couldn't find a basis for the charge. Then, afterward (again, am I misremembering?), the Jews had their say, and the Roman acceded when presented with that testimony. As far as I can see, this is the basis of what we would call a fair trial. Indeed the person in charge changed his mind, indicating he didn't have his final ruling in his head at the start, which is all you can ask for, unless you're asking for him to blindly favour your side.

I still say it was theft, because when you hold something and control its momentum, you are in possession of it, you have taken possession of it, but it doesn't matter what I say because I am not the law in 30AD Jerusalem. I have no legal authority to decide whether it's theft or not and neither do you. I have no legal authority to decide who is guilty of what in that setting and neither do you.

[JehovahsWitness]

Are you suggesting overturning a table was a crime? If so say I refer you to our earlier exchange on this point

As do I. Whether or not it was a crime doesn't hinge on your or my use of the dictionary. It was up to the Romans to decide that.

Are you suggesting I am questioning the Romans final decision? If so may I refer you back to our earlier exchange on this point.

LINK HERE
viewtopic.php?p=1033469#p1033469

You say Jesus was pronounced innocent, but what you cite was a Roman who couldn't find a basis for the charge.

Is your point here that the Roman final decision was in error of Roman law?

Then, afterward (again, am I misremembering?), the Jews had their say, and the Roman acceded when presented with that testimony.

You are misremembering. The final decision after all testimony had been heard that there was no fault found in the eyes of Rome in the case of Jesus of Nazareth.





JW

[JehovahsWitness]

I still say it was theft, because when you hold something and control its momentum, you are in possession of it, you have taken possession of it...

There is no record of Jesus holding anything except his own whip. If "controlling the momentum" of something is theft, what is catching a woman before she that trips on the sidewalk or helping her up if she has already fallen? Kidnapping?

Over turning tables (or someone's lunch) is not theft. Theft is when you take possession of something that is not legally yours. Possession is the state of owning, or controlling something. Jesus scattering animals he did not seek to control the animals, if anything they were liberated from constaints or control and left to their own volition. There is no record of him herding, holding them or seeking to guide them from the premises. The animals were in an "enclosed" area and would have been easy enough to recuperated by their owners, so Jesus did not "deprive people of their property" nor did he seek to use, take or eat any of them. There is no report he injured anyone, nor that he caused damage to anything or anyone nor any accusation that he intended to.

Jesus stopped business in one part of the temple courtyard (which was not a public thoroughfare) he didn't take possession of anything so he could not justifiably be accused of theft.




RELATED POSTS

Was Jesus guilty of theft when he overturned the tables and scattered the animals in the temple?
viewtopic.php?p=1033553#p1033553

Who had juresdiction over the temple in Jesus day?
viewtopic.php?p=1033249#p1033249

Did Jesus sin when he threw the money-changers out of the temple?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 99#p976999

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

Who arrested Jesus prior to his execution?
viewtopic.php?p=1033498#p1033498

[Difflugia]

Jesus scattering animals he did not seek to control the animals, if anything they were liberated from constaints or control and left to their own volition.

If Jesus "liberated" the animals "from constraints," then it was most definitely theft in the eyes of Roman law, regardless of what happened later.

Jesus stopped business in one part of the temple courtyard (which was not a public thoroughfare) he didn't take possession of anything so he could not justifiably be accused of theft.

Stopping someone else from conducting business was injuria.

If you're going to conduct the debate by acting as Jesus' lawyer, it would probably help if you read a little more about Roman law. You've hit that point of debate where you're just repeating things that are wrong without supporting them, as though simply wearing out your debate opponent and having the last word makes your statements either correct or justified.

[JehovahsWitness]

Stopping someone else from conducting business was injuria.

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.

No Roman law was was broken in the course of Jesus actions as reported in the narrative. The delict of INIURIA ("outrage", "contumely") refered to a wrongful conduct caused by contumelious (insolently abusive and humiliating) action taken against another person. There is no records of Jesus abusing or humiliating anyone, he did not insult the traders he quoted Jewish scripture, something any Israelite male or female had every right to do.




JW

Sources :
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iniuria
http://thelatinlibrary.com/law/12tables.html



RELATED POSTS

Did Jesus steal, injure or damage anyone when he over turned the tables of the money-changers?
viewtopic.php?p=1033553#p1033553