|
Post by sharonw on Jul 25, 2012 16:22:39 GMT -5
I don't think that is really possible due to the fact that Judas tried to undo what he'd done when he learned that Jesus was to be crucified.....an innocent man was going to His death and Judas knew that he had helped that to be possible....thus JI went out and took his own life..... Jesus as the Son of God had to have known all the time what His life would be like on earth....He had to have known that none of the scriptures in his regard would come to pass if there had not been certain people in a certain condition at the right time and place to bring that about....otherwords, perhaps the Father in heaven was moving people about like a giant chess piece? I've wondered. So, that takes to the age old philosophical question. Does man really have free will? or is God playing chess? Also, maybe Judas really loved Jesus and did what he wanted and then was overcome with grief and weakened and tried to save him. When he couldn't, he killed himself. Fact is, we really don't know for sure what happened. Mat 27:3 ¶ Then Judas, which had betrayed him, when he saw that he was condemned, repented himself, and brought again the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders, Mat 27:4 Saying, I have sinned in that I have betrayed the innocent blood. And they said, What [is that] to us? see thou [to that]. Mat 27:5 And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself. This is the scripture that JI fulfilled...as I mentioned someone had to be in the right time, right spirit, etc to bring about the foretelling of the Son of God's sacrifice for all of mankind....the problem comes from the Jews who believed that the Messiah would come and retrieve them out of captivity and restore the Israel that their antecedents knew. Mat 27:9 Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying, And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him that was valued, whom they of the children of Israel did value;
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Jul 25, 2012 16:27:22 GMT -5
Didn't the "undo" part come after the crucifixion? No, after Judas saw that they were condemning Jesus to die....Judas was not of the impression when he made his deal with the chief priests.....it's quoted in another of my posts on this thread. It's been said by many that if Judas had repented before Jesus that likely he could have been forgiven and comforted.
|
|
|
Post by ts on Jul 25, 2012 16:30:23 GMT -5
But you don't even believe any of this happened. I am looking at the logic of the story unsullied by the distortion of religious beliefs. This is not the first time and probably not the last time something like this has happened. It is, as you said, a story. I am sure there are bits and pieces of truth woven in with the rest. It is not a bad story and has served billions well. Is this your claim? I am sure if there were people they had feelings. A soul and spirit have yet to be proved. OK. If you say so. This is not supported in the bible. It was for all mankind, not a single individual. No one knows what the results might have been. Again, I don't think this is supported by the bible either. He killed himself. Do you know why? Sure, he hanged himself because he felt like it and had enough rope to do it. No one forced him to do it. We may not suggest his state of mind at the time as we were not there and do not even know if the writer were there at the time or even if Judas were a real person. But if one is to speculate and assume that Judas were a real person and that he did, in fact, hang himself, the reasons may have been completely unrelated to his job with Jesus. He might have simply been having marital troubles or financial worries or just experimenting with ropes and gravity. Could have been pure curiosity that killed the cat. Take any situation past or present and take the factor of spirit and soul and salvation with it and it will sound pretty much like the above. That is why the workers and you are in such agreement.
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Jul 25, 2012 16:39:39 GMT -5
Maybe, maybe not. Guess we'll never know. However, I still believe we wouldn't have Christianity it Judas hadn't got Jesus crucified. After all, that is the basis of every Christians' salvation is it not. Jesus dying for all your sins so you can all go to heaven? So Judas did everyone a favor in that case. As a non Christian, I don't think any of this happened the way it's said, just to make it clear. I am not partial to any one story iow. I don't think Judas' betrayal was necessary for Christ being crucified. In the gospels, Judas did this and Christ knew. However, Jerusalem was a hotbed of contention. The Jews were upset with the Pharisees for ruling over them. The Pharisees were upset with the Romans for dominating them. Most of the middle class and the poor was supporting Christ because He gave them healing, comfort, and freedom from fear. All of these elements would cause someone to want to crucify Christ because He threatened the social control of the masses. Judas was just the lucky devil. If not him, it would've been someone else. It appears that Judas had the job of identifying Jesus, which he might have been in a larger group then he was and I think this again points out to the fact that Jesus looked much like any other man his age, etc. There was no golden halo over his head at that time, the scriptures declare that his visage was marred....which I'm not certain what that means other the he was nothing so great and handsome to look at...but likely many of the men at his age would have some kind of look to them because of their hard life, having to walk everywhere and often not having enough food and not emenities in every place they stopped.....though the people supposedly were hospitable..... The scriptures tell of Jesus being solded for 30 piecces of silver in the OT...there are many more scriptures that Jesus bvrought out tro the two men that he walked with after his resurrection....it says that he started with beginning of the OT and went through all of those prophecies in regards to him and what was to come. Luk 24:27 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Jul 25, 2012 16:49:37 GMT -5
Judas did not have an "agreement" with Jesus to betray him. Yet Jesus was aware of it and encouraged him to move forward with it. Sounds like they were in agreement to me, But in this case it was Jesus who was telling Judas to move forward. Tough to say Judas was following Satan when he was doing what Jesus told him to do. I have the in\mpression from the scripture that Jesus was "releasing" Judas and as it says the other apostles thought that since Judas had the purse that Jesus was letting him go purchase what would be needed for the Passover feast. As Judas had left BEFORE Jesus instituted the emblems I think this is "telling" isn't it? It is the emblems that show us who believes on Jesus to the point of obtaining eternal life...thus someone who has already planned with others to betray Jesus into the hands of His enemies that Jesus would not have wanted Judas there to partake of those emblems, thus signifying that judas would not be there to do so....simply a release in order that the scriptures would be fulfilled. Someone talked about the significance that Judas probably felt that it was ideal to give Jesus into the hands of the chief priests etc....Judas was wanting a step up into the hierarchy of the captive Jews...being in a position to be made ruler or assistant ruler to thost who had them in captivity.
|
|
|
Post by ts on Jul 25, 2012 16:53:57 GMT -5
I don't think Judas' betrayal was necessary for Christ being crucified. In the gospels, Judas did this and Christ knew. However, Jerusalem was a hotbed of contention. The Jews were upset with the Pharisees for ruling over them. The Pharisees were upset with the Romans for dominating them. Most of the middle class and the poor was supporting Christ because He gave them healing, comfort, and freedom from fear. All of these elements would cause someone to want to crucify Christ because He threatened the social control of the masses. Judas was just the lucky devil. If not him, it would've been someone else. It appears that Judas had the job of identifying Jesus, which he might have been in a larger group then he was and I think this again points out to the fact that Jesus looked much like any other man his age, etc. There was no golden halo over his head at that time, the scriptures declare that his visage was marred....which I'm not certain what that means other the he was nothing so great and handsome to look at...but likely many of the men at his age would have some kind of look to them because of their hard life, having to walk everywhere and often not having enough food and not emenities in every place they stopped.....though the people supposedly were hospitable..... The scriptures tell of Jesus being solded for 30 piecces of silver in the OT...there are many more scriptures that Jesus bvrought out tro the two men that he walked with after his resurrection....it says that he started with beginning of the OT and went through all of those prophecies in regards to him and what was to come. Luk 24:27 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself. Satan's nature is very predictable when one understands God's nature. Yes there were prophecies about Judas. We have the same opportunities to prophesy even as the prophets did. Perhaps even more so. In meeting they think of prophesying as being the same as giving your testimony in meeting. While that might well be, prophesying is much more specific. God gives people messages to one person specifically for another person.
|
|
|
Post by quizzer on Jul 25, 2012 17:45:47 GMT -5
I don't think Judas' betrayal was necessary for Christ being crucified. In the gospels, Judas did this and Christ knew. However, Jerusalem was a hotbed of contention. The Jews were upset with the Pharisees for ruling over them. The Pharisees were upset with the Romans for dominating them. Most of the middle class and the poor was supporting Christ because He gave them healing, comfort, and freedom from fear. All of these elements would cause someone to want to crucify Christ because He threatened the social control of the masses. Judas was just the lucky devil. If not him, it would've been someone else. It appears that Judas had the job of identifying Jesus, which he might have been in a larger group then he was and I think this again points out to the fact that Jesus looked much like any other man his age, etc. There was no golden halo over his head at that time, the scriptures declare that his visage was marred....which I'm not certain what that means other the he was nothing so great and handsome to look at...but likely many of the men at his age would have some kind of look to them because of their hard life, having to walk everywhere and often not having enough food and not emenities in every place they stopped.....though the people supposedly were hospitable..... The scriptures tell of Jesus being solded for 30 piecces of silver in the OT...there are many more scriptures that Jesus bvrought out tro the two men that he walked with after his resurrection....it says that he started with beginning of the OT and went through all of those prophecies in regards to him and what was to come. Luk 24:27 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself. I can see this. For Jesus to have been arrested, the accuser would have to know what Jesus looked like. He was surrounded by people on a regular basis, so it would have been difficult to locate him. It also makes me wonder how different in appearance Jews were to Romans. It's easy for someone to pick out an individual from their own culture/ethnicity, not so easy from another culture/ethnicity.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jul 25, 2012 20:12:56 GMT -5
It appears that Judas had the job of identifying Jesus, which he might have been in a larger group then he was and I think this again points out to the fact that Jesus looked much like any other man his age, etc. There was no golden halo over his head at that time, the scriptures declare that his visage was marred....which I'm not certain what that means other the he was nothing so great and handsome to look at...but likely many of the men at his age would have some kind of look to them because of their hard life, having to walk everywhere and often not having enough food and not emenities in every place they stopped.....though the people supposedly were hospitable..... The scriptures tell of Jesus being solded for 30 piecces of silver in the OT...there are many more scriptures that Jesus bvrought out tro the two men that he walked with after his resurrection....it says that he started with beginning of the OT and went through all of those prophecies in regards to him and what was to come. Luk 24:27 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself. I can see this. For Jesus to have been arrested, the accuser would have to know what Jesus looked like. He was surrounded by people on a regular basis, so it would have been difficult to locate him. It also makes me wonder how different in appearance Jews were to Romans. It's easy for someone to pick out an individual from their own culture/ethnicity, not so easy from another culture/ethnicity. It was the Sanhedrin that arrested Jesus and then turned him over to the Romans. They should have been able to pick out their own. Obviously there wasn't much difference between him and anyone else if he needed pointing out. Here is what wikepedia says en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanhedrin
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Jul 25, 2012 21:48:45 GMT -5
It appears that Judas had the job of identifying Jesus, which he might have been in a larger group then he was and I think this again points out to the fact that Jesus looked much like any other man his age, etc. There was no golden halo over his head at that time, the scriptures declare that his visage was marred....which I'm not certain what that means other the he was nothing so great and handsome to look at...but likely many of the men at his age would have some kind of look to them because of their hard life, having to walk everywhere and often not having enough food and not emenities in every place they stopped.....though the people supposedly were hospitable..... The scriptures tell of Jesus being solded for 30 piecces of silver in the OT...there are many more scriptures that Jesus bvrought out tro the two men that he walked with after his resurrection....it says that he started with beginning of the OT and went through all of those prophecies in regards to him and what was to come. Luk 24:27 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself. I can see this. For Jesus to have been arrested, the accuser would have to know what Jesus looked like. He was surrounded by people on a regular basis, so it would have been difficult to locate him. It also makes me wonder how different in appearance Jews were to Romans. It's easy for someone to pick out an individual from their own culture/ethnicity, not so easy from another culture/ethnicity. I think their clothing was quite a bit different...the Jews still wore full robes and cloaks that were all one piece...whereas the Romans worker a robe like sacque that they belted down on their waste and I think I remember they wore some kind of pants or pantiloon.....also the haircut was different.
|
|
|
Post by Greg on Jul 25, 2012 21:52:46 GMT -5
I can see this. For Jesus to have been arrested, the accuser would have to know what Jesus looked like. He was surrounded by people on a regular basis, so it would have been difficult to locate him. It also makes me wonder how different in appearance Jews were to Romans. It's easy for someone to pick out an individual from their own culture/ethnicity, not so easy from another culture/ethnicity. I think their clothing was quite a bit different...the Jews still wore full robes and cloaks that were all one piece...whereas the Romans worker a robe like sacque that they belted down on their waste and I think I remember they wore some kind of pants or pantiloon.....also the haircut was different. Just how old are you, Sharon?!
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Jul 25, 2012 21:55:01 GMT -5
I can see this. For Jesus to have been arrested, the accuser would have to know what Jesus looked like. He was surrounded by people on a regular basis, so it would have been difficult to locate him. It also makes me wonder how different in appearance Jews were to Romans. It's easy for someone to pick out an individual from their own culture/ethnicity, not so easy from another culture/ethnicity. It was the Sanhedrin that arrested Jesus and then turned him over to the Romans. They should have been able to pick out their own. Obviously there wasn't much difference between him and anyone else if he needed pointing out. Here is what wikepedia says en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SanhedrinDid you miss this...the NT speaks of the chief priest in several different times in speaking about Jesus arrest etc. The chief priest WAS the chief judge or leader of the people who were gathered to condemn Jesus' They delivered him to Pilate and would not have it any other way but to crucify him....he was NOT that known by the priests who were on this court.....I remember someone speaking about this court of judges and that they were usually formed because the rulers from the captivities told them to judge their own people, that is if they wanted to keep in good standing....which thats what ws happening even with Judeas I. I think he thought he might get elevated to a top position because he knew those chief priests that were the top of this court....here's where it says that the chief priest was often chosen. Nasi (at some times this position may have been held by the Kohen Gadol or the High Priest),
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Jul 25, 2012 21:56:17 GMT -5
I think their clothing was quite a bit different...the Jews still wore full robes and cloaks that were all one piece...whereas the Romans worker a robe like sacque that they belted down on their waste and I think I remember they wore some kind of pants or pantiloon.....also the haircut was different. Just how old are you, Sharon?! Greg. I really am a very old soul and sorry I won't reveal my age....no one believes me any how!
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jul 25, 2012 22:21:52 GMT -5
Just how old are you, Sharon?! Greg. I really am a very old soul and sorry I won't reveal my age....no one believes me any how! 'betcha you aren't as old as me!
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jul 25, 2012 23:25:35 GMT -5
This is the scripture that JI fulfilled...as I mentioned someone had to be in the right time, right spirit, etc to bring about the foretelling of the Son of God's sacrifice for all of mankind....the problem comes from the Jews who believed that the Messiah would come and retrieve them out of captivity and restore the Israel that their antecedents knew. Really? Matthew was known to twist facts to make as many things look like prophecy as possible. He even sent the family of Jesus to Egypt in contradiction with Luke the other gospels. But perhaps this is a belief you hold. Can you find the quote in Jeremiah to back this up? ( edit - error correction)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 26, 2012 7:43:21 GMT -5
Where does it state in the other gospels that the family did not travel to Egypt? It doesn't of course.
It is a false statement to say that the gospels contradicted one another on the Egypt travels. It is equally possible that the other gospels saw no reason to mention it or simply didn't know about it. They are stories told from different people who had different levels of knowledge of the story.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jul 26, 2012 11:39:14 GMT -5
Where does it state in the other gospels that the family did not travel to Egypt? It doesn't of course. Of course not. If I ask you what you did yesterday I would not expect a long list of things that you didn't do. However Luke does state that the family went to Jerusalem 40 days after the birth and when they were finished there they journeyed home to their own town of Nazareth. Does that agree or contradict the story in Matthew of the family going to Egypt directly from Bethlehem? Are they in agreement regarding where the family went? But they mentioned where they did go. And the places are different. They are stories.
|
|
|
Post by quizzer on Jul 26, 2012 12:52:26 GMT -5
I can see this. For Jesus to have been arrested, the accuser would have to know what Jesus looked like. He was surrounded by people on a regular basis, so it would have been difficult to locate him. It also makes me wonder how different in appearance Jews were to Romans. It's easy for someone to pick out an individual from their own culture/ethnicity, not so easy from another culture/ethnicity. It was the Sanhedrin that arrested Jesus and then turned him over to the Romans. They should have been able to pick out their own. Obviously there wasn't much difference between him and anyone else if he needed pointing out. Here is what wikepedia says en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SanhedrinIt's also possible that the members of the Sanhedrin knew of Christ, but couldn't identify Him from the rest of his followers. Not a case of cultural/ethnical blindness, but simply they didn't know what Christ looked like.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 26, 2012 14:39:55 GMT -5
Where does it state in the other gospels that the family did not travel to Egypt? It doesn't of course. Of course not. If I ask you what you did yesterday I would not expect a long list of things that you didn't do. However Luke does state that the family went to Jerusalem 40 days after the birth and when they were finished there they journeyed home to their own town of Nazareth. Does that agree or contradict the story in Matthew of the family going to Egypt directly from Bethlehem? Are they in agreement regarding where the family went? But they mentioned where they did go. And the places are different. They are stories. A contradiction is where there are two inherently contrary statements of fact. That does not occur here. Just because one story is more exhaustive than another, does not mean they are in contraction. The Luke story did not include the sojourn to Egypt, the Matthew story did. There would be a contraction if Luke said that they did not go to Egypt but he does not say that. He doesn't say where they were for that period of time. Getting back to your example, if someone told you I went to WalMart and City Hall yesterday, while someone else told you I went to the swimming pool and Starbucks yesterday, according to you, that would be a contradiction. Far from it, not even close as long as all four destinations were the truth. Hope that helps. You can avoid making false claims in cases like this by indicating that stories like these are not exhaustive. That is a fair criticism of the bible. In this case, contradiction is a false claim.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jul 26, 2012 15:53:03 GMT -5
It was the Sanhedrin that arrested Jesus and then turned him over to the Romans. They should have been able to pick out their own. Obviously there wasn't much difference between him and anyone else if he needed pointing out. Here is what wikepedia says en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SanhedrinDid you miss this...the NT speaks of the chief priest in several different times in speaking about Jesus arrest etc. The chief priest WAS the chief judge or leader of the people who were gathered to condemn Jesus' They delivered him to Pilate and would not have it any other way but to crucify him....he was NOT that known by the priests who were on this court.....I remember someone speaking about this court of judges and that they were usually formed because the rulers from the captivities told them to judge their own people, that is if they wanted to keep in good standing....which thats what ws happening even with Judeas I. I think he thought he might get elevated to a top position because he knew those chief priests that were the top of this court....here's where it says that the chief priest was often chosen. Nasi (at some times this position may have been held by the Kohen Gadol or the High Priest), The Sanhedrin were the high priests and they were Jewish. They were allowed to take care of troubles within their own people. However, they didn't want to be the ones that got blamed by the people for the crucificion of Jesus so that's why they handed him over to the Romans (Pilot). So not sure what I am supposed to have missed?
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jul 26, 2012 15:54:43 GMT -5
It was the Sanhedrin that arrested Jesus and then turned him over to the Romans. They should have been able to pick out their own. Obviously there wasn't much difference between him and anyone else if he needed pointing out. Here is what wikepedia says en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SanhedrinIt's also possible that the members of the Sanhedrin knew of Christ, but couldn't identify Him from the rest of his followers. Not a case of cultural/ethnical blindness, but simply they didn't know what Christ looked like. I would say that's probably what it was. It couldn't have been ethnic because the Sanhedrin were Jews like Jesus.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 26, 2012 16:52:00 GMT -5
... so that's why they handed him over to the Romans (Pilot). So not sure what I am supposed to have missed? the only you missed is that as Pilate didn't yet have his pilot's license, he hadn't yet changed the spelling of his name. (Just teasing you ;D)
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jul 26, 2012 17:07:28 GMT -5
... so that's why they handed him over to the Romans (Pilot). So not sure what I am supposed to have missed? the only you missed is that as Pilate didn't yet have his pilot's license, he hadn't yet changed the spelling of his name. (Just teasing you ;D) haha, thanks for the correction. Of course!
|
|
|
Post by Linford Bledsoe on Jul 26, 2012 17:41:56 GMT -5
... so that's why they handed him over to the Romans (Pilot). So not sure what I am supposed to have missed? the only you missed is that as Pilate didn't yet have his pilot's license, he hadn't yet changed the spelling of his name. (Just teasing you ;D) That was because he was a pontius pilot and you don't have to have a license to fly a pontius.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jul 26, 2012 19:00:52 GMT -5
A contradiction is where there are two inherently contrary statements of fact. That does not occur here. I believe it does. The Luke story said they went to Jerusalem 40 days following the birth and then went home. The Matthew story says they were off to Egypt in the middle of the night. There is a difference in that there is a single starting point. One story says the family left, went to Jerusalem, and then returned to their home. The other story says they left in the middle of the night and went to Egypt. I see. So do you not accept the definition that a contradiction may also be a discrepancy or an inconsistency? A story that contains contradictory elements, like they left and went to Jerusalem or they left went to Egypt? Of course you can come up with an explanation simply by adding to the existing story. Maybe Luke didn't mention that the family went to Jerusalem because he didn't want people to know how foolish it would be to go to the city where the king was and then back to Bethlehem only to speed away in the Middle of the night to escape that very king.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jul 26, 2012 19:03:42 GMT -5
It's also possible that the members of the Sanhedrin knew of Christ, but couldn't identify Him from the rest of his followers. Not a case of cultural/ethnical blindness, but simply they didn't know what Christ looked like. He probably looked like every other caucasian in the area.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 26, 2012 19:20:49 GMT -5
the only you missed is that as Pilate didn't yet have his pilot's license, he hadn't yet changed the spelling of his name. (Just teasing you ;D) That was because he was a pontius pilot and you don't have to have a license to fly a pontius. One of those little known loopholes in ancient law!
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jul 26, 2012 19:22:50 GMT -5
That was because he was a pontius pilot and you don't have to have a license to fly a pontius. One of those little known loopholes in ancient law! LOL I'm going to have to misspell things more often!! Thanks for the chuckle Lin and Hberry
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 26, 2012 20:07:55 GMT -5
A contradiction is where there are two inherently contrary statements of fact. That does not occur here. I believe it does. Your beliefs are one thing. Facts are another. So what's the problem? Again, you are reading in facts which aren't there. If one account said they went ONLY to Jerusalem, then you have something. You can speculate a contradiction if you like, but we are examining the facts here. What you believe is that they couldn't have done both. Possible but not proven. I am just examining both stories to see if it is possible that they could both be true. Sure, that's a fair speculation too. In fact, your suggestion of a contradiction is also a very good speculation, but that still doesn't make it fact. Another way out of this for you is to say "it is my opinion that this is a contradiction". That's a good opinion and a fair one.
|
|