|
Post by Ponderosa on Aug 20, 2008 11:11:11 GMT -5
Do you think that Jesus knew all along that Judas was the one who would betray him?
Or was it just at the end that he understood this?
|
|
theophilia
New Member
God loved me enough to meet me where I was, but too much to leave me there
Posts: 43
|
Post by theophilia on Aug 25, 2008 11:49:39 GMT -5
Dear Ponderosa,
The Bible teaches Jesus knew from early on in His ministry:
"But there are some of you who do not believe." (For Jesus knew from the beginning who those were who did not believe, and who it was who would betray him.)" -- John 6:64
This is liked to the teaching that Jesus is God (Rom. 9:5).
In Christ,
Theophilia
|
|
|
Post by melissa on Sept 5, 2008 12:52:28 GMT -5
So why do you think Jesus did not prevent Judas from committing the sin of betrayal?
|
|
theophilia
New Member
God loved me enough to meet me where I was, but too much to leave me there
Posts: 43
|
Post by theophilia on Sept 14, 2008 18:50:47 GMT -5
Dear Melissa, I personally believe the Bible teaches that a) Judas was destined to do as he did, because it was integral to the completion of Christ's work of atonement, and the fulfillment of specific OT prophecy regarding the betrayal of the Messiah, and b) because Judas was not elect of God for eternal salvation. I understand that the answer I've given opens up a whole can of worms about election, and so on, so may I first direct you here for a presentation of my view on the topic: www.professing.proboards16.com/index.cgi?board=members&action=display&thread=9668&page=1If you've any further questions, I'm glad to field them In the Master's Service, Theo
|
|
|
Post by september on Sept 15, 2008 17:04:21 GMT -5
I've often wondered which disciple was referred to in one of the Gospels (not got my Bible to hand) as the disciple whom Jesus loved. It is not clear from the other Gospels and I can't find anything that satisfactorily answers my question. Can anyone help?
|
|
theophilia
New Member
God loved me enough to meet me where I was, but too much to leave me there
Posts: 43
|
Post by theophilia on Sept 18, 2008 15:30:37 GMT -5
Dear September,
I concurr with Nathan -- it is characteristic of each of the authors of the Gospels to not draw attention to themselves and remain unnamed, even if they appear therein. John is commonly understood to be the beloved disciple.
In Christ,
Theo
|
|
|
Post by september on Sept 18, 2008 17:37:03 GMT -5
Thank you Nathan and Theophilia.
Your explanation makes sense, Theophilia.
S
|
|
|
Post by toffeecrumble on Oct 3, 2008 8:29:06 GMT -5
Judas was predistined to betray Jesus, wasn't he? Someone had to do it, didn't they? After all it was foretold. Jesus said so, and He also said "Woe unto him by whom I am betrayed!" didn't He?
Where does this leave Judas as regards his sin and his predestiantion?
|
|
theophilia
New Member
God loved me enough to meet me where I was, but too much to leave me there
Posts: 43
|
Post by theophilia on Oct 6, 2008 14:50:21 GMT -5
Dear Toffeecrumble,
Predestination does not negate responsibility. God has predestined every single nail that ever sunk into a 2'' by 4''. Does that negate the effectiveness and responsibility of the hammer and the person wielding it?
Predestination is largely a mystery, but because the Bible speaks to clearly of its existence and glory, I am compelled not to deny it.
God ordained that Judas would betray to fulfill His purposes.
Judas still sold Jesus for thirty pieces of silver out of the evil of his heart.
Can I explain it? No.
Does the Bible teach it?
Yes.
The Bible has plenty of tension between predestination and responsibility. We as Christians must accept it and swallow it whole because both are clearly taught, rather than trying to fathom something that has not been revealed to us with constant questioning.
Sorry; I really can't go any further. His ways are simply higher than mine.
In the Lord,
Theo
|
|
otto2
Junior Member
Posts: 59
|
Post by otto2 on Oct 7, 2008 2:34:51 GMT -5
Dear Theo,
You sound more spiritual; and less theological every time I read you. Good man! ;D Spirophilia??
|
|
theophilia
New Member
God loved me enough to meet me where I was, but too much to leave me there
Posts: 43
|
Post by theophilia on Oct 7, 2008 6:05:21 GMT -5
Dear Otto, You clearly don't understand that theology means 'studying god' == what could be more spiritual? I don't think the two should be juxtaopposed. In the Master's Service, Theo
|
|
otto2
Junior Member
Posts: 59
|
Post by otto2 on Oct 7, 2008 13:00:40 GMT -5
Why thank you Theo, I feel duly chastised.
|
|
theophilia
New Member
God loved me enough to meet me where I was, but too much to leave me there
Posts: 43
|
Post by theophilia on Oct 22, 2008 13:01:19 GMT -5
Dear Nathan9,
May I ask how you qould account for this text, from an early point of Jesus' ministry,
"But there are some of you who do not believe." (For Jesus knew from the beginning who those were who did not believe, and who it was who would betray him.)" -- John 6:64
Also, regarding God not choosing who will be saved, and who will be damned;
"What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory— even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?" -- Romans 9:22-24
Looking forward to hearing from you.
Love in Christ,
Theo
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2008 9:18:54 GMT -5
Jesus "chose" the 12 Apostles, which included Judas Iscariot. It is likely part of Judas's role was to betray Jesus at the end of his ministry. One of the special reasons for the choosing of the 12 Apostles was that they would sit on the twelve thrones in Heaven judging the 12 tribes of Israel. When Jesus told these disciples this he included Judas in that number.
Although there are inferences that Judas lost his salvation, the foregoing raises for consideration the possibility that he did not.
Jesus explicitly told the 12 disciples they would ALL sit on these thrones. He said this at a time when he knew that Judas Iscariot would later betray him. Jesus never overturned Judas's position on that throne. He did not say that one of the 12 would forfeit their place judging the 12 tribes. Jesus would not have misled Judas into believing what he would be doing in eternity, only to pull the seat from under him at a later date and without telling him.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 26, 2008 4:46:35 GMT -5
Nathan, I wouldn't be surprised about Matthias either. My point really is that if Judas is saved then I would expect to see the words of Jesus fulfilled, for Judas was told along with the others that he would be sitting on one of the 12 thrones.
If Judas is not saved then I would expect Matthias to take his place on that throne.
The Biblical statements referring to Matthias may only relate to a "temporal" replacement. After all Judas was no longer there.
Intersting that from the passage you quote (Acts 1:15-20 / Psalms) it is obvious that Judas had a HOME !
There's a lesson for us. If he had sold all, he would have received his thirty pieces of silver by honest means !
|
|
|
Post by ghost on Oct 26, 2008 4:49:42 GMT -5
Personally, I believe that Jesus, accoding to what is writen, did not handle the case of Judas correctly. In fact this case is fully contradictory and clearly proves that the whole story about Jesus is probably a myth.
Mathew 18:15 Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. 16 But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. 17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican. 18 Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. 19 Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven. 20 For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.
Well in my opinion, Jesus preached this passage but did not practice it vis-à-vis Judas. Instead we are told that he acted exactly the way most religious groups (including the 2x2s) act, and he left Judas uncontrolled. He never had a direct honest talk with him. He never spoke to him in the presence of two witnesses. He never mentioned this to the church. Compare this with his attitude towards Peter (Math 16:23 But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men. - if this is not discrimination then what is). More so that because of Judas' stealing it was not only Jesus that suffered but the rest of the disciples also.
Of course you may reply that this was prescribed from the beginning (question 1 - and the free will? question 2 - how this links with the assertion that Jesus came to save EVERY human?) it was God's plan (question 3 - so God has already decided everything?) and other such silly arguments.
The fact is that the «corporate culture» of the Church wanted a traitor to blame. And they constructed the myth of the Good Jesus and the Bad Judas. In fact, in my opinion, it is the Church that is evil, with its practices of concealment and mind control. And, yes, it was this way even in the Bible.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 26, 2008 5:05:17 GMT -5
Ghost, the fact you are in the spiritual realm you will be better informed than I. There are a number of things about the story of Judas that I find inconsistent also.
At the Last Supper, Jesus actually "encouraged" Judas to go and betray him. He told him that he must do it and to do it quickly. It's as though he was hoping Judas wasn't having second thoughts ?
Also Judas's home was to become desolate ? Are we to take from this that "homes" are a no, no, for church gatherings and that what we read in Acts and elsewhere is a violation of OT scripture ?
ps I'm hoping there's something in the above for Bert. Thinking lists and all that)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 27, 2008 4:50:36 GMT -5
Nathan, We can see that Judas had a home from the portion you quoted from Acts which is quoting OT Psalms prophecy.
Acts 1-15/Psalms - " Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein, and his bishopric let another take !"
Not only did Judas have a home, he was considered to be a "bishop !" What does the Bible say about bishops ?
The OT foretold that Judas would have a home although that was not the point of the prophecy, nor an issue. It is only an issue within Irvinism.
My remarks about the 30 pieces of silver were a bit tongue in cheek !
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 27, 2008 13:09:07 GMT -5
Exactly Nathan. It wasn't the habitation/place that was wrong, it was the fact that he had bought it with blood money. "Let no man dwell therein" indicates what the land or place was for, i.e. a dwelling ! Judas clearly was going up market in the dwelling stakes.
Whilst I agree the reference to bishopric is about his ministerial position, I would argue that this would carry the accompanying criteria for a bishop.
There is clear inference that the Apostles were not as itinerant as some would have us believe.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 27, 2008 15:34:21 GMT -5
Nathan, where did the Apostles stay between the time Christ left the Earth (c.AD33) and AD70 (c.37 years)?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 27, 2008 16:43:21 GMT -5
Nathan, according to this, in an area smaller than mosts "fields of labour" nowadays covered by one pair of workers, we had back then for thirty or so years, 12 Apostles and possibly 70/72 other labourers.
Also these people had homes. I have no problem accepting they went about the towns and villages, but "itinerant" in the sense we understand in a F&W context I don't think so.
How can you "stay" in an area as an itinerant preacher for 30 years. I suspect Their preachings and teachings were peripatetic in nature, but nothing like Paul etc and their domestic life was fairly normal and centred on their homes.
They were to become "fishers of men" not vagrants.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 28, 2008 4:24:04 GMT -5
I'm sure by now you realise the labourers that were thrust into the harvest field, was the church as a whole, not just the itinerant preachers as Jesus explained by way of parables.
The fact remains that for more than 30 years after the death of Christ, the Apostles and the 70 or so laboured over a fairly short area. I have no argument about their business being peripatetic, but there would have been no reason for them to dispose of their homes. On the contrary, there was every reason to retain them. Are there any scriptural passages which show they sold their homes ?
I appreciate they scattered about the time of the destruction of the temple AD70, which was to flee persecution.
Yes, Paul was fairly itinerant, as were a number of others. I'm not sure we read of them ever selling their homes though. Perhaps some did, others didn't have homes and some kept them. We read of Barnabas selling a portion of land, but that is all. If it is important enough for this to be mentioned in the Bible, why not the selling of homes ? Rather than using this as an indicator the homes were sold, it in fact carries implication they were retained ?
|
|