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.

[1213]

Does your atheism collapse, if you can’t find mistake in the Bible?

As has been pointed out before, atheists are not the only ones who recognize errors in the Bible. Some theists do as well. People recognize these errors not because they are theists or atheists, but because there are errors in the Bible.

It seems to me that theists accept the claim, if they are too gullible and easily believe atheistic claims, without really thinking and examining the matter properly.

Till this day I have not seen actual contradictory in the Bible, all that people have managed to show is misunderstandings or misinterpretations.

[1213]

Why? Why is the World English Bible, and the other two Bibles, more accurate than the other 58? Because the World English Bible is the Bible many Catholics use in its Catholic edition, and you happen to be Catholic? And just how did you determine that it's "the most original version"? It wasn't published until 1901. Plus the vast majority of scholars and translators, those who put 95% of the other Bibles together, believe "obtain" is the wrong translation.

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 am not Catholic. 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).

Does your Christianity collapse, if you can’t resolve this huge contradiction? One in which the vast majority of Bibles say you're backing the wrong horse?

For me this is about what is truth. I don’t like when people claim something is false or wrong, without solid proof for it. If Bible is book with errors, it should be obvious, without making silly word plays.

However, Bible itself tells humans have written and collected the information in it. That is why I wouldn’t think it is a problem, if there are some errors. Actually, because of it is man-made, it should have many errors, as everything else humans do has. But, I don’t accept claims of errors, if they are based on suitable interpretations, cherry-picking and twisting the truth.

[Purple Knight]

No, the notion of "disturbing the peace" was foreign to traditional Hebrew law save that of prohibition of apostacy (teachings). There were laws against theft or criminal damage but the bible doesn't say Jesus broke the tables only that he overturned them.

Didn't he also scatter the animals?

Look, I think the honest answer here is that Jesus did break a law and that you can't really be a revolutionary if you don't. But that puts law-abiding people in a horrible position and I think that needs to be understood.

When a revolutionary is morally correct, that takes law-abiding people out of their comfort zones. Each of these people must believe in the validity of the social contract: He will take whatever legal means he is given within the law to change the law if he finds it objectionable, but in exchange he will submit to the validity of the final result even if he disagrees with it. People must do this last bit to live in a functional society. Everyone has things they would like to turn tables over for, but they don't (I know I would, and I don't) because me < law, even if I disagree.

I also don't deny that Jesus was special. He doesn't need to be divine for that, though. He simply needs to be morally correct about the issue of contention. The trouble is, how does a law-abiding person assess that? Their whole existence is built on the idea that the religious leaders know more than they do about morality. I understand how that is (perhaps I'm the only one here who does) because my whole existence is built on the idea that others know more about morality than I do.

Everyone else genuinely believes that they know best. To me that makes them hypocrites because if they really are that certain, they ought to be turning over tables.

For me this is about what is truth. I don’t like when people claim something is false or wrong, without solid proof for it. If Bible is book with errors, it should be obvious, without making silly word plays.

Obviously almost any contradiction can be reconciled if you try. (Seriously, I will reconcile any contradiction nitpickers think is in Star Trek. Try me. I'll do it. Click here for free ammunition.) It boils down to a value-judgment as to whether the reconciliation is believable enough and no one should fault you for making the value-judgment that it is.

[Miles]

No law against disturbing the peace, or abusing personal property?

No, the notion of "disturbing the peace" was foreign to traditional Hebrew law save that of prohibition of apostacy (teachings).

That, I'd have to see in writing.

There were laws against theft or criminal damage but the bible doesn't say Jesus broke the tables only that he overturned them.

And I didn't say "broke," but "abusing."


.

[JehovahsWitness]

Didn't he also scatter the animals?

Look, I think the honest answer here is that Jesus did break a law ...

It would be if it were possible to produce the law that it is claimed he broke and demonstrate from scripture how it was broken. For example a law that says "Thou shalt not scatter animals", "It is hereby illegal to overturn a table"


Over to you,



JW

[JehovahsWitness]

Where did I claim that {quote} " the Roman legal system had no "jurisdiction" within the Temple grounds "?

You said:

But I know that the temple of Jesus day was under Jewish jurisdiction and he broke no Jewish law by evicting the traders.

If you didn't intend that to be exclusively Jewish jurisdiction, then you didn't actually address the point I made. ...

I usually say what I mean, if I had meant exclusively I probably would have used the word ... exclusively. I take no ownership of faulty assumptions.

... short of inciting a riot the Romans would have left temple oversite to the Jewish authorities

JW

[Difflugia]

I usually say what I mean

If you have a claim to make, please make it.

[Tcg]

Does your atheism collapse, if you can’t find mistake in the Bible?

As has been pointed out before, atheists are not the only ones who recognize errors in the Bible. Some theists do as well. People recognize these errors not because they are theists or atheists, but because there are errors in the Bible.

It seems to me that theists accept the claim, if they are too gullible and easily believe atheistic claims, without really thinking and examining the matter properly.

It is not a uniquely atheistic claim given that some theists make it too. Additionally, an ad hominem addressed against fellow theists isn't evidence your claim is valid.

Till this day I have not seen actual contradictory in the Bible, all that people have managed to show is misunderstandings or misinterpretations.

This is nothing more than a statement about what you are unwilling to accept. It is not a conclusion all theists share nor is it evidence your opinion is accurate.


Tcg

[Miles]

Why? Why is the World English Bible, and the other two Bibles, more accurate than the other 58? Because the World English Bible is the Bible many Catholics use in its Catholic edition, and you happen to be Catholic? And just how did you determine that it's "the most original version"? It wasn't published until 1901. Plus the vast majority of scholars and translators, those who put 95% of the other Bibles together, believe "obtain" is the wrong translation.

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

Does your Christianity collapse, if you can’t resolve this huge contradiction? One in which the vast majority of Bibles say you're backing the wrong horse?

For me this is about what is truth. I don’t like when people claim something is false or wrong, without solid proof for it. If Bible is book with errors, it should be obvious, without making silly word plays.

Fine. So which of the following is true:

Has anyone ever seen god?

NO
No one has ever seen God (1 John 4:12).
No man has seen or can see [God] (1 Timothy 6:16).

OR

YES
The Lord appeared to Abraham near the great trees of Mamre while he was sitting at the entrance to his tent in the heat of the day (Genesis 18:1).
The Lord would speak to Moses face to face, as one speaks to a friend (Exodus 33:11).

And who bought the field after Jesus's betrayal, the priests or Judas?

THE PRIESTS
5 So Judas threw the money into the Temple. Then he went off and hanged himself. 6 The leading priests picked up the silver coins in the Temple. They said, “Our law does not allow us to keep this money with the Temple money. This money has paid for a man’s death.” 7 So they decided to use the coins to buy a field called Potter’s Field. This field would be a place to bury strangers who died while visiting Jerusalem. ( Matthew 27:5-7)

OR

JUDAS
Judas bought a field with the money he got for his evil act. But Judas fell to his death, his body burst open, and all his intestines poured out. (Acts 1:18)

THEN WE HAVE:

1SA 17:50 David killed Goliath with a slingshot.
1SA 17:51 David killed Goliath with a sword.

2SA 6:23 Michal was childless.
2SA 21:8 She had five sons.

2KI 8:25-26 Ahaziah was 22 years old when he began his reign.
2CH 22:2 He was 42 when he began his reign.

Gen 2:17 Adam died the day he ate the apple.
Gen 5:5 He died 930 years later.

However, Bible itself tells humans have written and collected the information in it. That is why I wouldn’t think it is a problem, if there are some errors. Actually, because of it is man-made, it should have many errors, as everything else humans do has. But, I don’t accept claims of errors, if they are based on suitable interpretations, cherry-picking and twisting the truth.

So, in light of the contradictions presented above, how can one of them not be in error? Can 2 + 2 equal both 4 and 5? Has no one ever seen God yet Moses did just that? Was Michal childless yet bore five sons? Was Ahaziah really both 22 AND 42 when he began his reign? Did Adam die on the day he ate the apple and 930 years later?

And all of this in light of the "fact" that

"All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness," (2 Timothy 3:16)

Proverbs 30:5
Every word of God proves true; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him."

So what gives?


.

[brunumb]

Till this day I have not seen actual contradictory in the Bible, all that people have managed to show is misunderstandings or misinterpretations.

What you really mean is that people have shown understanding and interpretation different from yours. The gross assumption here is that yours are the correct ones.