why did the Pharesses need JUDAS?

[Cogitoergosum]

Multiple places in the NT it was stated that the people recognised jesus without being introduced to him, as soon as they saw him. Multiple times jesus was questionned by the pharesses in an attempt to trick him.
So y did the pharessees need JUDAS to deliver JESUS? they knew who jesus was. so what is the role of judas?

[TRANSPONDER]

The chief priests and elders of the people are the sanhedrin. However you could make a case that they did not go in person but sent their toughs, some of whom may have seen Jesus, but Judas was handy to be able to get up close at night and dinger the guy they wanted.

I can make a case myself. I won't even dwell on the flummery of the Gospels trying to argue motivation. Just a bribe would seem to do as well as just making Judas out to be a bad lot. It is a rabbit hole, or rather a swirl down a plug hole or worse. It is not a 'Biggie' and I have far bigger Xichths to fry, boil and batter.

[Mae von H]

I'm not sure ether why anyone would need Judas as an inside man, seeing as Jesus was something of a local celebrity, but it sure adds to the drama. The Gospel of Judas seems to shed some light on the whole story from Judas' slant on the whole story.

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/lostg ... fJudas.pdf

Since they went for him at night, it was most likely that they wanted to know where he would be the moment they decided to go and get him. And in the dark, Judas would accurately identify the right man. Was likely convenient.

[TRANSPONDER]

I'm not sure ether why anyone would need Judas as an inside man, seeing as Jesus was something of a local celebrity, but it sure adds to the drama. The Gospel of Judas seems to shed some light on the whole story from Judas' slant on the whole story.

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/lostg ... fJudas.pdf

Since they went for him at night, it was most likely that they wanted to know where he would be the moment they decided to go and get him. And in the dark, Judas would accurately identify the right man. Was likely convenient.

Yes. Like i say, that makes a case. Even though the Sadducees (High priests) knew him, not all their guards did...let me check... Matthew - an armed gang from the Chief priests and 'elders'. Mark adds 'scribes', so we are looking at teachers of the Law or Rabbis (Pharisees) here. Luke has Jesus address the Chief priests, captains of the Temple and elders, and clarifies that they were all present when Jesus was teaching in the Temple (or so Luke says). John says men and officers from the Chief priests and Pharisees - which is to say a mob sent by the Sadducees and Pharisees of the Sanhedrin. It would make sense that they would need an insider to ID Jesus. And the minor discrepancies can be waved away. I use bigger contradictions

[Mae von H]

I'm not sure ether why anyone would need Judas as an inside man, seeing as Jesus was something of a local celebrity, but it sure adds to the drama. The Gospel of Judas seems to shed some light on the whole story from Judas' slant on the whole story.

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/lostg ... fJudas.pdf

Since they went for him at night, it was most likely that they wanted to know where he would be the moment they decided to go and get him. And in the dark, Judas would accurately identify the right man. Was likely convenient.

Yes. Like i say, that makes a case. Even though the Sadducees (High priests) knew him, not all their guards did...let me check... Matthew - an armed gang from the Chief priests and 'elders'. Mark adds 'scribes', so we are looking at teachers of the Law or Rabbis (Pharisees) here. Luke has Jesus address the Chief priests, captains of the Temple and elders, and clarifies that they were all present when Jesus was teaching in the Temple (or so Luke says). John says men and officers from the Chief priests and Pharisees - which is to say a mob sent by the Sadducees and Pharisees of the Sanhedrin. It would make sense that they would need an insider to ID Jesus. And the minor discrepancies can be waved away. I use bigger contradictions

The most obvious answers are the best. Occam's razor.

[The Nice Centurion]

[Replying to Mae von H in post #74]
The most obvious answer I cooked up so far:

Not so much for idetifying for arrest, but to play key witness at the trial Judas could have been the planned final nail for Jesus Coffin, er Cross.

Real useful for the Evil Sanhedrin; An ex apostle and close comfort to Jesus, stepping forward in court:

" Yes, this the man I once called Rabbi. I listened day and night to his traitorous speeches. I first hand saw his devilish acts. He called himself King of the Jews and named Emperor Tiberius a silly Daffodil. Me, a honest holy apostle could no longer bear to pe part of this betrayal to our good evil King Herod. Because no one ever shall be able to call Judas Iscariot a traitor! No, Sir!"

Still even the evil Sanhedrin didnt risk to officially pay a witness for breaking a certain commandment and do false witnessing.
So Kaiphas come up with the idea to officially give him the money for leading the arresting soldiers to Christ.

Though Judas afterwards regretted (this things happen) and had to give back the the money.

Without Judas further help all trials Sanhedrin/Herod/Pilate nearly ended in disaster for the Evil Sanhedrin.

The Key witness was amiss, but the Evil Sanhedrin saved face when Pilate buyed into the corruption.

Nikodemus, Ashaver and Joe Arimathea also played parts in Jesus further story that were helped by the fact that thanks to Judas going backwards nothing went as planned.

[TRANSPONDER]

I'm not sure ether why anyone would need Judas as an inside man, seeing as Jesus was something of a local celebrity, but it sure adds to the drama. The Gospel of Judas seems to shed some light on the whole story from Judas' slant on the whole story.

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/lostg ... fJudas.pdf

Since they went for him at night, it was most likely that they wanted to know where he would be the moment they decided to go and get him. And in the dark, Judas would accurately identify the right man. Was likely convenient.

Yes. Like i say, that makes a case. Even though the Sadducees (High priests) knew him, not all their guards did...let me check... Matthew - an armed gang from the Chief priests and 'elders'. Mark adds 'scribes', so we are looking at teachers of the Law or Rabbis (Pharisees) here. Luke has Jesus address the Chief priests, captains of the Temple and elders, and clarifies that they were all present when Jesus was teaching in the Temple (or so Luke says). John says men and officers from the Chief priests and Pharisees - which is to say a mob sent by the Sadducees and Pharisees of the Sanhedrin. It would make sense that they would need an insider to ID Jesus. And the minor discrepancies can be waved away. I use bigger contradictions

The most obvious answers are the best. Occam's razor.

Yes. But don't misuse it. It is not a logical tool to discover fact but a logical guardrail against unnecessary multiplication of logical entities (which is the logical wording not 'most obvious'). It was observed long ago that the simplest answer to whether the earth is round or flat is 'all the evidence is fake'. That may be simpler but is not the best. There, logical entities are multiplied for good reason - the evidence is not to be dismissed.

So the scenario in the gospels is clear, taking the Best View (I think is a legal term - we used it in constructing cases when I was working) It is not Rome but the Sanhedrin (Sadducees and Pharisees alike) sending their guards to pick Jesus up and a guide serves a purpose.

There could be all manner of discussion about Judas' motivation, or how many Pharisees (apart from Arimathea) were supporters of Jesus. I questioned the whole thing from the start. And the arrest sequence gives no basis for conclusions for or against whether it is true.

Whether Judas had a 'devil' in him from the start (John) or whether it entered him just before the Last supper (Luke) or whether it got into him at the anointing at Bethany might be more intriguing, as it does imply contradiction/guesswork by the writers. But even that isn't really a 'Biggie'.

[1213]

...
So y did the pharessees need JUDAS to deliver JESUS? they knew who Jesus was. so what is the role of Judas?

To tell where Jesus is.

But, they didn't ask it from Judas. Judas decided to go to the high priest and asked: "What will you give to me, and I will deliver Him up to you?" Matt. 26:15.

[TRANSPONDER]

...
So y did the pharessees need JUDAS to deliver JESUS? they knew who Jesus was. so what is the role of Judas?

To tell where Jesus is.

But, they didn't ask it from Judas. Judas decided to go to the high priest and asked: "What will you give to me, and I will deliver Him up to you?" Matt. 26:15.

Yes. Sure. The plot line is that the Sadducees were looking to take down Jesus because he was undermining their authority. But they were 'afraid of the people'. They didn't dare arrest him during the day because of popular support for him. There are already daft remarks about this like John has the guards sent to arrest him (never mind the crowds, whom Jesus is damming and blasting as having the Devil for a father) but come back saying 'No -one ever spoke like this man'. To which the Priests sneer 'Are you going to become his disciples, too?' This is the contradiction that happens when writers make the story up independently.

So anyway, the Chief priests want to arrest Jesus quietly, like they couldn't find out where he stays at might and raid the place? None of it makes sense. Judas (or so I theorise) is the focus of the 'betrayal' that Paul speaks of, which I think is God handing Jesus over to the dark powers to be a sacrifice for sin. But the Christians take it literally (as they do the resurrection) and pin the blame on one of his followers and the more 'Jewish' sounding one, the better, too, and not overlooking that he is Judas the son of the zealot while there is a Judas (not Iscariot - John) that is the son of Simon not the zealot so far as I can make out - all part of splitting the Jewish zealot Jesus and his followers off from Christian Jesus and the gentile - type Christians the apostles were supposed to become.

But anyway, this pinning the 'Betrayal' in Judas means that a motive is needed. Money is the first thing that occurs to them but they don't get their story straight (1) Was Judas corrupt from the start as John says? Or did Satan enter him just before the last supper as Luke says? Which is odd as Judas sold Jesus out just after smarting because Jesus allowed oil to be poured over his head (or feet, whichever one likes (2) and it could have been sold and money given 'to the poor'. Originally the disciples say this but it is changed...let me check... 'some with him' (Mark and Matthew) and who but the disciples? and it is John who says it was just Judas son of Simon who said this, and not out of concern for the poor but because he held the purse and dipped into it (like Jesus didn't know?) and we can put this down to John's creative bias.

So the reason for the betrayal is various and hardly convincing and is just what we get when the writers try to invent a story plot with mechanics and motivations - it is contradictory and structurally poor.

You will say 'just my opinion'. Sure. I know, but it is a point, right? It is based on what the Bible says, right there, in print and is something the Experts and Authorities seem to totally miss or ignore.

(1) or they could IF God had designated Judas as the instrument of His Plan and (arguably) even knowingly the instrument. What a saint, to go down in history as the Axiomatic bad guy when he was the only one knowingly working with Jesus to save humanity from sin.

(2) Head of course as why would pouring oil over the feet be altered to the head? I think it was more the ceremonial head altered to the repentant feet. Note that Luke even removed the act to an unnamed repentant woman in Galilee.

[1213]

Yes. Sure. The plot line is that the Sadducees were looking to take down Jesus because he was undermining their authority. But they were 'afraid of the people'. They didn't dare arrest him during the day because of popular support for him. There are already daft remarks about this like John has the guards sent to arrest him (never mind the crowds, whom Jesus is damming and blasting as having the Devil for a father) but come back saying 'No -one ever spoke like this man'. To which the Priests sneer 'Are you going to become his disciples, too?' This is the contradiction that happens when writers make the story up independently.

I think that is a contradiction that comes when person remembers, or connects scriptures wrongly.

So anyway, the Chief priests want to arrest Jesus quietly, like they couldn't find out where he stays at might and raid the place?

I don't see any reason why they could not have found him in some other way also. But, in this case for some reason Judas decided to go and tell the location.

... Was Judas corrupt from the start as John says? Or did Satan enter him just before the last supper as Luke says?...

Those can be both true at the same time.

(1) or they could IF God had designated Judas as the instrument of His Plan and (arguably) even knowingly the instrument. What a saint, to go down in history as the Axiomatic bad guy when he was the only one knowingly working with Jesus to save humanity from sin.

Jesus forgave sins before his death, and gave also the right to forgive also for his disciples. So, his death was not required to save people from sin.

[TRANSPONDER]

Yes. Sure. The plot line is that the Sadducees were looking to take down Jesus because he was undermining their authority. But they were 'afraid of the people'. They didn't dare arrest him during the day because of popular support for him. There are already daft remarks about this like John has the guards sent to arrest him (never mind the crowds, whom Jesus is damming and blasting as having the Devil for a father) but come back saying 'No -one ever spoke like this man'. To which the Priests sneer 'Are you going to become his disciples, too?' This is the contradiction that happens when writers make the story up independently.

I think that is a contradiction that comes when person remembers, or connects scriptures wrongly.

So anyway, the Chief priests want to arrest Jesus quietly, like they couldn't find out where he stays at might and raid the place?

I don't see any reason why they could not have found him in some other way also. But, in this case for some reason Judas decided to go and tell the location.

... Was Judas corrupt from the start as John says? Or did Satan enter him just before the last supper as Luke says?...

Those can be both true at the same time.

(1) or they could IF God had designated Judas as the instrument of His Plan and (arguably) even knowingly the instrument. What a saint, to go down in history as the Axiomatic bad guy when he was the only one knowingly working with Jesus to save humanity from sin.

Jesus forgave sins before his death, and gave also the right to forgive also for his disciples. So, his death was not required to save people from sin.

Not good enough. Ok you explain how the scriptures connect or read rightly, without rewriting what it says, If you don't mind. I see you have in mind that Judas had a devil to start but it came and went like moving in just before the last supper. But it was surely there when he sounded off in John about wasting money and then going to Priests to sell Jesus out. The gospels seem to say that Judas had a Devil from the start and filched from the common purse, and Jesus still 'Chose him'. Your excuses don't even begin to address the issue, let alone explain it.

That last is a good one, but don't you say yourself that people can't follow Jesus when he's dead, so the death was necerssary to provide the accessible forgiveness for sins that his sacrifice provided. Apart from Paul (I'm sure) implying that, isn't the Holy Spirit breath/pentecost thing not given until after the resurrection? Jesus had to die to make that possible, and the only thing that distinguishes Jesus' death from any other is the act of sacrifice. And Faith in that (as it was in the ...whatever...of Jesus (1) was what enables miracles to be done, just as the disciples could do after the resurrection.remember, they couldn't do it before because they hadn't enough Faith. Even though Mark says that wasn't the problem, Prayer and fasting is needed. And Luke says even a tiny amount of faith is enough and whoever said any of it had to make sense?

(1) the gospels don't seem clear about what these Gentiles believed but I reckon it was more of the same thing - the Gospel writers were thinking like Christians before Christianity had even been invented. You will of course deny it, but again, surely you see why there is a stack of reasons to think the Gospels are a contradictory mess.