Was Judas part of God's plan?

[marco]

In one theological line Christ was sent by God to die for the sins of mankind. Bizarre though this is, let us accept that God's plan was for Jesus to die and then rise again. Had everyone accepted Jesus, they would have thwarted God's plan. Instead of curing a blind man or casting out devils or producing wine, had Christ channelled his miraculous energies into something so spectacular and beyond discussion and argument that Rome would have heard and bowed, then God's plan would have been ruined. Part of the divine plan seems to have been doubt and ambiguity.


But what part did Judas play? He was used as an instrument of betrayal; was it beyond Christ to prevent the suicide of Judas, if he had been so close to the man? We must then accept that Jesus is largely responsible for the preventable death of his friend.

Does the role of Judas cast doubt on the whole theology of Christ as redeemer and saviour?

[tam]

Peace to you,

In one theological line Christ was sent by God to die for the sins of mankind. Bizarre though this is, let us accept that God's plan was for Jesus to die and then rise again. Had everyone accepted Jesus, they would have thwarted God's plan. Instead of curing a blind man or casting out devils or producing wine, had Christ channelled his miraculous energies into something so spectacular and beyond discussion and argument that Rome would have heard and bowed, then God's plan would have been ruined. Part of the divine plan seems to have been doubt and ambiguity.


But what part did Judas play? He was used as an instrument of betrayal; was it beyond Christ to prevent the suicide of Judas, if he had been so close to the man? We must then accept that Jesus is largely responsible for the preventable death of his friend.

Does the role of Judas cast doubt on the whole theology of Christ as redeemer and saviour?

I don't see how (and who do you think would be the savior and redeemer of even Judas?) Judas was free to choose what he would do, as are we all. Christ also did warn him how he would feel, how it would be for the one who betrayed the son of man.


I think some might mistake God knowing what Judas would do and, therefore, planning accordingly... with God forcing Judas to do it. There is a difference.


(As a side point to the idea that Christ should have done something different and "Rome" would have bowed: I think that some forget that there are actual enemies of Christ and of those who belong to Him - enemies in the spiritual realm and on earth. It would not have mattered to them how "big and shiny" a miracle Christ performed.)


Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[SallyF]

Judas may have had god-given free will, but exercising such free-will would mess with the Plan.

But …

The Trinity Committee of Jehovah, Jesus and the Holy Ghost know all things in advance …

So …

They would have KNOWN Judas would betray Jesus.

Bit of a dilemma here …?

DID Judas exercise free will …

Or was he controlled in some mysterious way that takes the focus and blame off the Trinity Committee …?

I know …!!!

The Devil made him do it …!!!

1The Festival of Unleavened Bread, which is also called Passover, was approaching. 2The leading priests and teachers of religious law were plotting how to kill Jesus, but they were afraid of the people’s reaction.

3Then Satan entered into Judas Iscariot, who was one of the twelve disciples, 4and he went to the leading priests and captains of the Temple guard to discuss the best way to betray Jesus to them. 5They were delighted, and they promised to give him money. 6So he agreed and began looking for an opportunity to betray Jesus so they could arrest him when the crowds weren’t around.

When one is making believe with make-believe, one can imagine all manner fantastical solutions to all manner of difficult questions.

And if it STILL looks like make-believe, one can duck beneath a smokescreen of philosophy and metaphor.

Unfortunately, there are those Christians throughout history who have clearly demonstrated and depicted that they believed they were dealing with very literal reality …

[marco]

Judas was free to choose what he would do, as are we all. Christ also did warn him how he would feel, how it would be for the one who betrayed the son of man.

Christ didn't warn him - he predicted what was designed to happen. To warn someone of impennding danger is NOT the same as giving an account of what has been planned, and letting the victim go on with it.

(As a side point to the idea that Christ should have done something different and "Rome" would have bowed: I think that some forget that there are actual enemies of Christ and of those who belong to Him - enemies in the spiritual realm and on earth. It would not have mattered to them how "big and shiny" a miracle Christ performed.)

People weren't enemies of Yahweh but of someone they saw as an imposter. It was surely the duty of this person to show he was no imposter, but you will recall that on doing something surprising Jesus said: "Tell no one." He did not go out of his way to make himself obvious. His Resurrection is shrouded in doubt: an empty tomb and some young man sitting in it - what does that show? Miracle to those that believe and deceit to those who do not. No, a colossal miracle that would still be apparent in 2019 AD would suffice, except for Satan. But then we would have: God sent his only begotten son to die but unfortunately he was universally popular, recognised as divine, and honoured. Too bad he identified himself too much.

You are arguing that part of God's plan was hatred, which had to be kept alive; people had to be provoked to shout for his death. As for Judas being able to choose, are we to suppose that God left his arrangements up to chance? He so loved the world that he sent his son, and let randomness take over?

Is it any wonder people then and now ask for proper identification? The question Christ asked: "Who am I?" is still unanswered. A majority of Christians think he is God. What chance did poor Judas have?

[tam]

Peace to you,

Judas was free to choose what he would do, as are we all. Christ also did warn him how he would feel, how it would be for the one who betrayed the son of man.

Christ didn't warn him - he predicted what was designed to happen.

Woe to the man who betrays the Son of Man. It would be better for him if he had not been born.


That was for Judas.

To warn someone of impennding danger is NOT the same as giving an account of what has been planned, and letting the victim go on with it.

It amazes me sometimes how quick people can be to call the perpetrators, the victims. Like in Sodom and Gomorrah - some are quick to defend Sodom and Gomorrah as long as it means they can rail against God. But never mind the reason God acted against Sodom and Gomorrah: the outcry from their victims which was so great that He had to act.


I'm not saying do not have compassion for Judas. Just the fact that Christ loved (loves) him is enough reason to have compassion on him; and his remorse for his wrongdoing was great enough that he took his own life. But we can have compassion on someone without pretending that they are the victim who did no wrong; all the while dismissing (or casting blame upon) the actual person/people they have wronged.

(As a side point to the idea that Christ should have done something different and "Rome" would have bowed: I think that some forget that there are actual enemies of Christ and of those who belong to Him - enemies in the spiritual realm and on earth. It would not have mattered to them how "big and shiny" a miracle Christ performed.)

People weren't enemies of Yahweh but of someone they saw as an imposter.

I think you are changing the story.


And even if some saw him as an imposter; that does not change the fact of the actual enemies (in the spiritual realm and on the earth).

It was surely the duty of this person to show he was no imposter, but you will recall that on doing something surprising Jesus said: "Tell no one." He did not go out of his way to make himself obvious. His Resurrection is shrouded in doubt: an empty tomb and some young man sitting in it - what does that show? Miracle to those that believe and deceit to those who do not. No, a colossal miracle that would still be apparent in 2019 AD would suffice, except for Satan.

Now what evidence do you have to prove your statement that a colossal miracle would suffice? Because there were plenty of people who saw and knew about the miracles He performed and who still rejected Him.

And there are people on this very forum who have said they would not believe, even if He returned with armies of angels. They would consider it to be a hologram or an alien invasion. (I don't know if they will be able to think this on that day, but that is what they say.)

You are arguing that part of God's plan was hatred, which had to be kept alive; people had to be provoked to shout for his death. As for Judas being able to choose, are we to suppose that God left his arrangements up to chance? He so loved the world that he sent his son, and let randomness take over?

I am not arguing that part of God's plan was hatred. I am arguing that God KNEW there would BE hatred, and designed His plan accordingly. I said that in my previous post, but perhaps you (and Sally) did not understand?

Is it any wonder people then and now ask for proper identification? The question Christ asked: "Who am I?" is still unanswered. A majority of Christians think he is God. What chance did poor Judas have?

What chance did poor Judas have of what? Of believing that his friend was the Christ? Of choosing to not betray someone who loved him; someone who called him brother? Both? Judas had the same chance as eleven other apostles.




Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[marco]

Woe to the man who betrays the Son of Man. It would be better for him if he had not been born.


That was for Judas.

Yes, it is a prediction of what is to be, just like the prediction about the cock crowing for Peter. I agree they are dramatic statements. Are we to suppose that had Judas not been born, Jesus would not have been able to atone for man's sins? It seems Judas was already written into future history, as was the cock crowing.

I'm not saying do not have compassion for Judas. Just the fact that Christ loved (loves) him is enough reason to have compassion on him; and his remorse for his wrongdoing was great enough that he took his own life. But we can have compassion on someone without pretending that they are the victim who did no wrong; all the while dismissing (or casting blame upon) the actual person/people they have wronged.

I believe Jesus loved someone else. Had he been interested in saving Judas, he had the power. It would seem that Judas acted in the belief that the authorities were right and Jesus was wrong. Christ could have been more convincing, perhaps.

And even if some saw him as an imposter; that does not change the fact of the actual enemies (in the spiritual realm and on the earth).

If they were devout people, devoted to Yahweh, then Christ would have come across as a blasphemer which, in those days, was a punishable offence. The burden was on Christ to show them he was not a blasphemer, but he declined to do this. If Judas sided with them it is understandable.

Now what evidence do you have to prove your statement that a colossal miracle would suffice? Because there were plenty of people who saw and knew about the miracles He performed and who still rejected Him.

You are assuming they believed a miracle took place but still rejected him. That would be very unusual. They probably believed no miracle took place and Christ was an imposter. I think it requires little imagination to suggest possible "colossal miracles" sufficient to persuade everyone.

And there are people on this very forum who have said they would not believe, even if He returned with armies of angels. They would consider it to be a hologram or an alien invasion. (I don't know if they will be able to think this on that day, but that is what they say.)

Well if the starting premise is Jesus was self-deceived or fraudulent, then one would not expect him to arrive with choirs of angels.

I am not arguing that part of God's plan was hatred. I am arguing that God KNEW there would BE hatred, and designed His plan accordingly. I said that in my previous post, but perhaps you (and Sally) did not understand?

The hatred was deliberately roused by Christ's provocative remarks. If he was following a plan, then hatred was an integral part. If everyone loved him, he would not have died for sins.

If someone goes into an Islamic country today and decalres they are bigger than Muhamamd, they will encounter the same hostility. They won't be crucified, but possibly stoned to death. Christ deliberately brought about his own end, for whatever reason. He used Judas to do this and Judas, in anguish, committed suicide. It is hard to read love here.

[JehovahsWitness]

It would seem that Judas acted in the belief that the authorities were right and Jesus was wrong. Christ could have been more convincing, perhaps.

So Judas betrays a friend. Hands an innocent man (he was pronounced innocent at least three times in the highest court of the land) who had only been seen to do good for others over to his sworn enemies, takes dirty money for the deed .... and you still manage to imply its Jesus fault?




JW




RELATED POSTS

Is God to blame for evil because he didn't make good appealing enough?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 683#939683

Why do anti-religionists blame Jesus of "baby crimes"?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 517#980517

[tam]

Peace to you,

Woe to the man who betrays the Son of Man. It would be better for him if he had not been born.


That was for Judas.

Yes, it is a prediction of what is to be, just like the prediction about the cock crowing for Peter. I agree they are dramatic statements. Are we to suppose that had Judas not been born, Jesus would not have been able to atone for man's sins? It seems Judas was already written into future history, as was the cock crowing.

Still the point goes ignored or not understood.

If you know what is going to happen (based on what people are going to choose) you can plan around that -aka- plan accordingly. That does not mean that you made one person betray another person. You knew that they would do so and your plan took that into consideration.

I'm not saying do not have compassion for Judas. Just the fact that Christ loved (loves) him is enough reason to have compassion on him; and his remorse for his wrongdoing was great enough that he took his own life. But we can have compassion on someone without pretending that they are the victim who did no wrong; all the while dismissing (or casting blame upon) the actual person/people they have wronged.

I believe Jesus loved someone else.

What is that supposed to mean, Marco? Did He only love one person?

Had he been interested in saving Judas, he had the power. It would seem that Judas acted in the belief that the authorities were right and Jesus was wrong.

It would seem?

How is that an argument? Where is your evidence for this?

And even if some saw him as an imposter; that does not change the fact of the actual enemies (in the spiritual realm and on the earth).

If they were devout people, devoted to Yahweh, then Christ would have come across as a blasphemer which, in those days, was a punishable offence.

How does this address the point I made?

The burden was on Christ to show them he was not a blasphemer, but he declined to do this.

He DID show them; He showed them from their own scriptures; and they tried to kill Him for it.

Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are “gods�’? 35 If he called them ‘gods,’ to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be set aside— what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’?



That being said... and even though He disproved their charge of 'blasphemy' with this argument... it is not on Him to prove to them that He was not a blasphemer; it is on the accuser to prove their accusations true.

If Judas sided with them it is understandable.

If Judas sided with them, he would not have later said that he had betrayed innocent blood.

Now what evidence do you have to prove your statement that a colossal miracle would suffice? Because there were plenty of people who saw and knew about the miracles He performed and who still rejected Him.

You are assuming they believed a miracle took place but still rejected him. That would be very unusual. They probably believed no miracle took place and Christ was an imposter. I think it requires little imagination to suggest possible "colossal miracles" sufficient to persuade everyone.

You have not provided evidence for your statement. I provided evidence AGAINST your statement, from the personal testimony of the people on this forum who say they would not believe even with a miracle.

The evidence we have from the story itself disputes your claim as well.


There are people refuse to see what they do not want to see. There are people who believe what they want to be true (even against evidence) and there are people who refuse to believe what they do not want to be true (even against evidence).


Your statement goes against all of the evidence and examples that we have, Marco.

And there are people on this very forum who have said they would not believe, even if He returned with armies of angels. They would consider it to be a hologram or an alien invasion. (I don't know if they will be able to think this on that day, but that is what they say.)

Well if the starting premise is Jesus was self-deceived or fraudulent, then one would not expect him to arrive with choirs of angels.

How does this address the point?

I am not arguing that part of God's plan was hatred. I am arguing that God KNEW there would BE hatred, and designed His plan accordingly. I said that in my previous post, but perhaps you (and Sally) did not understand?

The hatred was deliberately roused by Christ's provocative remarks.

Those provocative remarks were simply the truth.

If he was following a plan, then hatred was an integral part. If everyone loved him, he would not have died for sins.

You're suggesting that He deliberately forced people to hate Him in order to make the plan happen... since when has force ever been required to make people hate and do harm?


And His own words dispute your claim: A) He WEPT over Jerusalem for their rejection of Him; and B) He did not WANT to die or go through all that pain and suffering. He asked His Father - if it were possible - to take the cup from Him.

He spoke truth to the people out of love (for His Father and for His people), despite knowing that many of His own would hate Him for it, persecute, falsely accuse, beat and even kill Him for it.

If someone goes into an Islamic country today and decalres they are bigger than Muhamamd, they will encounter the same hostility. They won't be crucified, but possibly stoned to death.

Except that the Jews knew (or should have known) to expect the Messiah. Even the Samaritan woman knew (she was Israel as well, just not Jewish; John 4:25).


Regardless, you seem to be suggesting that the Messiah should have kept silent instead of speaking the truth; that He should have lied or compromised the truth so that people would love and accept Him - except then they would be accepting and loving a lie, instead of the truth, and what good is that? We have religion for that; Christ is the Truth.




Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[JehovahsWitness]

If they were devout people, devoted to Yahweh, then Christ would have come across as a blasphemer which, in those days, was a punishable offence.

You are wrong.

Firstly, being devout doesn't make one right. And anyone that was truly devoted to God would be prepared to be guided by sacred scripture and godly principles. Since Jesus did nothing, absolutely nothing at all (and please make my day and challenge me in this) that even came close to being blasphemous, he gave no reason for anyone to see him as a blasphemer.


JW

[marco]

So Judas betrays a friend. Hands an innocent man (he was pronounced innocent at least three times in the highest court of the land) who had only been seen to do good for others over to his sworn enemies, takes dirty money for the deed .... and you still manage to imply its Jesus fault?

Pilate's view reflected Rome's - they had no concern about blasphemy against Yahweh. We cannot assume that those who objected to the language used by Jesus were wicked men. Jesus was unfortunately a guilty man, unwilling to defend himself. Judas was brought into the affair because he knew Jesus, and if someone who went around with Jesus regularly considered him guilty, then that is worth considering. We must remember we get the story entirely from people who worshipped Christ so we must try hard to peep behind the scenes. We cannot disregard the view of his own family, that he was maybe insane. He certainly acted that way. It is odd we reject the view of his closest kin, but accept the view of anonymous writers.

The guilty party in all this is Jesus, for letting Judas commit suicide, for leading his followers to their death and for mutely going to a crucifixion just to prove he was a deity. It didn't quite work, but rumour helped him achieve some fame. Tacitus would call it notoriety and Tacitus wasn't a wicked man.

[SallyF]

Part of the divine plan seems to have been doubt and ambiguity.

Does the role of Judas cast doubt on the whole theology of Christ as redeemer and saviour?

The "Divine Plan" is very dubious.

No one knows WHAT "Divine Plan" the propagandists were trying to sell with their "Gospels" …

And their imaginary "God" doesn't step in to help …

So believers quibble and squabble over the imagined "Divine Plan".

The role of Judas in the magic-filled propaganda makes not a scrap of difference to the mythology of the possibly fictional Jesus character as "Redeemer and Saviour" …

The "Redeemer and Saviour" business looks VERY much an invention of the nasty little Minister for Propaganda, Saul/Paul, as an excuse for the failure of the possibly fictional Jesus to achieve anything remotely messianic for his own people in his own time.

The parading Jesus was not innocent.

His parade to Herod the Great's temple was an attempt at a political coup ...

With the assistance of the legions of angels that are going to burst through the clouds NEXT time.

But billions of credulous souls have been brainwashed by the Minister for Propaganda's tall tales.