Judas Iscariot, the betrayer of Jesus, ranks as the most hated and despised character in the Bible with the possible exception of Satan. Is such intense loathing justified, or is Judas the victim of biased reporting? Interestingly enough the sole source of information on Judas is the New Testament gospels and the Book of Acts all of which were written long after the events allegedly took place. He receives not a single mention in the writings of Paul, the Gospel of Thomas, or the reconstructed document, Quelle (Q). Also, any mention of Judas is conspicuously absent from the writings of such important first century Jewish historians as Philo Judaeus and Flavious Josephus.

Judas first appears in the nineteenth verse of the third chapter of the Gospel of Mark, the oldest of the canonical gospels, where he is appointed by Jesus as one of his twelve disciples. In this passage we are tipped off in advance of Judas’ treachery. The authors of Matthew and Luke, recognizing a good thing, repeat Mark’s version almost verbatim. The author of John does likewise but embellishes the story. In John 6:70-71 Jesus announces that one of the twelve, Judas, is a devil. In John 12:4-6 we learn Judas was also a thief. At John 13:18 Jesus says, obviously in reference to Judas, that he made his choices “so that scripture might be fulfilled.” He then quotes Psalm 41:9 “He that eateth my bread lifted up his heel against me.” This, in all probability, provided the inspiration for the betrayal story.
As was predicted, Judas went to the chief priests and offered to identify Jesus. They accepted his offer and agreed to pay him thirty pieces of silver which brings up another perplexing question. Why would the authorities pay to have someone pointed out to them whom they already knew? In Matthew 26:55 Jesus says to those who came to arrest him, "I sat daily with you teaching in the temple, yet ye laid no hold on me."

Judas proceeds to identify Jesus by way of that treacherous kiss, and that’s the last we hear of him in the gospels of Mark, Luke and John. However, the author of Matthew doesn’t let it drop there. Apparently Judas’ conscience got the better of him because according to Matthew 27:3-5 he made a sincere attempt to repent but was denied forgiveness. In a gesture of frustration he flung the money on the temple floor and went and hanged himself. Matthew goes on to say that the chief priests and the elders used the money to buy a piece of land. Because it was bought with blood money, the land became known as "The Field of Blood."

In Matthew 18:21-22 when Peter came to him, and asked, “Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? Till seven times?” Jesus replied, "I say not unto thee, until seven times: but, until seventy times seven." Therefore, wasn’t Jesus obligated by his own words to forgive Judas? But instead of forgiving him, Jesus openly cursed Judas when during Passover Seder (Matthew 26:24; Mark 14:21) he said, "But woe to that one by whom the Son of Man is betrayed for it would have been better for him had he never been born". Contrary to Peter, Judas never denied Jesus. While his action may not have been all together ethical, Judas, unlike Peter, committed neither apostasy nor blasphemy, the two unforgivable sins.

Had the Judas story ended with the betrayal followed by the suicide everything might have been hunky-dory, but the writer of Acts couldn't leave well enough alone. In 1:15-19 he tells us that Judas didn't give the money back; he invested it in real estate. We also learn that Judas didn’t commit suicide; his death was accidental. Because of the messiness of this accident, the property became known as (you guessed it) "The Field of Blood." So, did Judas commit suicide as the writer of Matthew claims or was his death an accident as we are told in Acts? Also, was this the same land that the priests bought, or were there two fields of blood? But, it gets worse.

Mark 16:14 and Luke 24:33 state that following his resurrection Jesus appeared to "the eleven." Who was missing? After all that had transpired one would just naturally think it was Judas. Apparently not, because in John 20:24 we learn that the one missing was Thomas. Therefore the eleven had to include Judas. To further confuse things, Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15:5 that following his resurrection Jesus was seen by “the twelve.” This had to include Judas because it wasn't until after the ascension, some forty days after the resurrection (Acts 1:3), that another person, Matthias, was voted in to replace Judas (Acts 1:26). So, apparently Judas neither committed suicide nor died by accident. In Acts 1:25 we are told that Judas "turned aside to go to his own place."

Another clue confirming the absence of the Judas story in the earliest Christian documents occurs in Matthew 19:28 and Luke 22:28-30. Here Jesus tells his disciples that they will “sit on the twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.” No exception is made for Judas even though Jesus was aware of his impending act of betrayal. The answer may lie in the fact that the source of these verses is Q (QS 62). Q predates the gospels and is considered to be one of the earliest Christian documents. It was obviously written before Judas and the betrayal story were invented by the writer of Mark.

For centuries Judas Iscariot has been held up as the archetypical traitor, the exemplar of treachery, the quintessential turncoat. This is strange indeed when one considers Acts 1:16. Here Peter tells us, "This scripture (Psalm 69:25) must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake before concerning Judas, which was guide to them that took Jesus." So according to Peter, Judas' betrayal was a part of God's grand plan all along. Not only did Judas serve as a vehicle through which key Old Testament prophecy might be fulfilled, it was by way of his betrayal that Jesus was able to complete his earthly mission. One might say that it was a dirty job, but somebody had to do it. Judas was in reality an enabler. Instead of hating and reviling him, Christians should appreciate Judas’ contribution.

Source: http://www.inu.net/skeptic/judas.htm

[Last paragraph of that article not included for obvious reasons.]

P. S. Please, please, and please, this is not about me, and it is not my article, and as such, nobody should direct any inflammatory comments at me. I created this topic so that core issues on this subject may be compromised, and misconceptions totally cleared. Please deal with the issue at hand, and stick to it. That's going to be really appreciated by me and those willing to learn. Thanks for your anticipated co-operation.

Regards.

Hmn. . .Interesting. . .I dey come.

How can we then determine which portion of the scripture was invented to suit a particular purpose.

Personally, I tend to place the words of christ in the highest level of truth. If we decide to apply that principle in the exposition written above, we could say this;

Words of Christ:
John 6:70-71 70 Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil?

Matthew 26:24; Mark 14:21) he said, "But woe to that one by whom the Son of Man is betrayed for it would have been better for him had he never been born.

I believe that the above 2 passages have clearly shown the destiny of Judas. All the other (seeming) contradictions were not Christs direct words, and thus should not be used as a yardstick to determine the destiny of Judas.

@Goodguy

I would have done a great deal of response but I am sorry I will wait for Great analist to do you the honor before I come in because this topic is very deep and touches the very heart of the NATURE of the Almighty.

In the Deep Dark sayings of the Almighty you have to understand things by prayer and Supplication.

It is however painful when you supply a direct response from your years of worship and it is Subjected to mere Academic analyzes and you are called a Heretic.

Shalom Shalom

Enabler.
Without him and what he did,there would be no christianity today.
If he had refused to betray Jesus,then he would have betrayed Jesus,pure and simple.
Judas is christianity's greatest hero,or maybe i should say,"Antihero".He sacrificed himself so that y'all can have a christ.In other words,he is THE ENABLER.
Y'all take it or leave it.

@Goodguy

Now Let us Understand The Rudimentary of God .

1) He is Holy 1billion percent

2)He lives in eternity

3)He came to Time Zone

4)He went back to Eternity

5)He carried life called the Everlasting


#1

means he is pure he hates sin and anything hates anything that causes sin and carries sin (I really dont know how to explain this Literally).
Examples SATAN SINNED AGAINST HIM. THEY ARE AT WAR.

BUT BECAUSE THE WILL OF SATAN IS ONE i.e NOBODY TEMPTED SATAN NO BODY CAN SAVE SATAN

MORESO SATAN CANNOT REPENT BECAUSE HE DWELLS IN ETERNITY AND THINGS KEEP REOCURRING(THE WORM DIED NOT) THE FACT IS THAT SATAN WILL BE TORMENTED BY THE THOUGHT THAT HE WANTED TO OVERTHROW GOD AND RULE GOD THAT WAS HIS SIN HIS SIN. GOD CANNOT FORGIVE SATAN. SATAN STILL HABOURS THE FACT HE WANTS TO OVER RULE GOD. (EVIDENCE? SATAN TEMPTING JESUS)

#2
GOD LIVE IN ENTERNITY HE IS ETERNAL AND CAN SEE MANS HEART AND THE EVIL THOUGHTS BUT DOES NOT PARTAKE IN THE DECISION OF MAN.

#3 HE CAME TO EARTH WHERE WE HAVE DAY AND NIGHT i.e The earth has an end. IT EVEN SAYS IT WILL BE DESTROYED BY FIRE.

#4 WHAT THIS MEANS THAT JESUS OR THE WORD EXPERIENCE LIVES FOR EVER AND EVER BECAUSE THOUGH HE EXPERIENCED IN EARTH. SO THE EVENT OF CALVARY CONTINUES TO REOCCUR.

#5

THE LIFE THAT JESUS CARRIED IS EVERLASTING (ZOE) AND ANY ONE THAT DOES NOT ACCEPT THIS LIFE IS DOOMED IN ETERNITY.


IF YOU UNDERSTAND THIS THEN YOU WILL KNOW THAT JUDAS HAD THE CHANCE TO REFUSE THIS AND GO INTO ETERNITY WITH GOD BECAUSE HIS DESIRE FOR MATERIAL THINGS HE WAS LOST.

THERE ARE PEOPLE JESUS SEEMED "CRUEL" TO BUT HE WAS DEALING WITH THEM ACCORDING TO THEIR HEART. LIKE THE WOMAN THAT CAME TO JESUS FOR MIRACLE AND JESUS USED THE DOG AND THE WOMANS RESPONSE WAS A HUMBLE ONE THE CRUMBS FROM THE TABLE THE DOGS WILL EAT.

WHEN GOD PUT HIS VEST OF WAR DONT GET IN HIS WAY. IN THAT VEST IS HIS LOVE ALSO AND BOTH YOU CANT TAKE ONE AND LEAVE THE OTHER. I WILL PREACH THIS ANY WHERE I GO.

JUDAS HAD ALL THE LOVE OF GOD DIRECTED AT HIM BUT HE REFUSED AND LOVED MONEY THAN HIM

THERE MANY PASTORS THAT ARE JUDAS GOD USES THEM THOUGH BUT THEY ARE SINNERS AND LOST THE GRACE OF GOD.

SELAH

Backslider, did you bother to read through that article at all, or you just saw the title of the thread and decided to post? Thanks for your input anyway.

BTW, why are there very few responses on this thread?

Why are there few responses on this thread?
Cos its not some kinda easy mathematics question that u check the back of the text book & see the answers.
So if u don't any more responses,my guy, gba kámú

I thought we have "Holy Spirit filled members" on this forum that know it all (J/K )

Okay, seriously, I'm not trying to mock anyone here.  But I believe there are folks with extensive indepths concerning the scriptures that should be able to explain this to us.

shahan, TayoD, TV01, m4malik, syrup, and the rest, where art thou?

@goodguy,

I hear my name mentioned here, so I branch to share a few lines.  

I thought we have "Holy Spirit filled members" on this forum that know it all  

Seen that article before; and anyone reading it carefully would observe that the writer is presenting nothing new that the likes of Dan Brown and the Jesus Seminar group have not already attempted.

However, one would have hoped YOU had something to say about it - are you not a Christian and filled with the Spirit as you queried others?

Now, I don't waste my time engaging in picaresque intellectual wranglings of this sort: that's why you don't find me in endless debates where the whole exercise was configured to discredit Scripture in logomachist pretences. Perhaps, I should oblige you for the present, and hope that YOU also would make inputs on the article itself. _{Sorry for my big-big grammar - na my lawyer sis dey rub off on me!}

Judas Iscariot, the betrayer of Jesus, ranks as the most hated and despised character in the Bible with the possible exception of Satan. Is such intense loathing justified, or is Judas the victim of biased reporting? Interestingly enough the sole source of information on Judas is the New Testament gospels and the Book of Acts all of which were written long after the events allegedly took place. He receives not a single mention in the writings of Paul, the Gospel of Thomas, or the reconstructed document, Quelle (Q). Also, any mention of Judas is conspicuously absent from the writings of such important first century Jewish historians as Philo Judaeus and Flavious Josephus.

My question is: should the reports of the Evangelists be discredited on the premise that Judas receives not a single mention in the writings of Paul? How would Paul's mention of Judas impact the report in the Gospels? Let's apply the same rule to other names and subjects not mentioned in Paul's writings:

                  - Joseph the husband of Mary

                  - Zachariah the father of John the Baptist

                  - Joseph of Arimathea, the honourable councillor who buried Jesus

                  - some of the apostles, such as Matthew, Andrew, or Phillip

                  - Mary Magdalene

Should we then infer that just because Paul did not mention any of the above, any reader should discredit them as reported in the Gospels? Such an argument in Judas' case is roguish.

As was predicted, Judas went to the chief priests and offered to identify Jesus. They accepted his offer and agreed to pay him thirty pieces of silver which brings up another perplexing question. Why would the authorities pay to have someone pointed out to them whom they already knew? In Matthew 26:55 Jesus says to those who came to arrest him, "I sat daily with you teaching in the temple, yet ye laid no hold on me."

The mechanical device introduced here should not escape our notice. We should seriously question the author's inference: Did the authorities pay Judas to "point out" Jesus? On the contrary, this is what the text say:

Matt. 26:14-15 ~~ "Then one of the twelve, called Judas Iscariot, went unto the chief priests, And said unto them, What will ye give me, and I will deliver him unto you? And they covenanted with him for thirty pieces of silver."

There's a world of difference between "pointing out" and "delivering" (or, 'handing over') someone. If anyone cares for the Greek word used there for 'deliver', it is paradidōmi [παραδίδωμι], which includes the meaning of 'to surrender/yield up'.

The chief priests were not contracting with Judas or anyone for that matter to "point out" Jesus to them; because they knew Him all along, as the Lord Jesus  affirms in Matt. 26:55 as referenced by the author of the article.

In Matthew 18:21-22 when Peter came to him, and asked, “Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? Till seven times?” Jesus replied, "I say not unto thee, until seven times: but, until seventy times seven." Therefore, wasn’t Jesus obligated by his own words to forgive Judas? But instead of forgiving him, Jesus openly cursed Judas when during Passover Seder (Matthew 26:24; Mark 14:21) he said, "But woe to that one by whom the Son of Man is betrayed for it would have been better for him had he never been born". Contrary to Peter, Judas never denied Jesus. While his action may not have been all together ethical, Judas, unlike Peter, committed neither apostasy nor blasphemy, the two unforgivable sins.

The text quoted does not support the inference that Jesus "openly cursed" Judas - that was just another mechanical device by the author. The Lord rather pronounced a forewarning of judgement that was quite a familiar expression to Biblical cultures of the day. The idea that someone "openly cursed" another is radically different from a pronouncement of divine judgement, as in the example of Rev. 12:12. We certainly would not suppose that the apostle Paul cursed himself in I Cor. 9:16 when he said: ". . .yea, woe is unto me, if I preach not the gospel!"

It is also interesting that the author blackguardly strains at this point by failing to consider the premise for forgiveness in the other Gospels and limits his query to Matthew 18:21-22. Earlier in verse 15, the Lord specifically lays down a condition for receiving forgiveness: "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." What is meant by the clause 'if he shall hear thee'?

Compare this with Luke 17:3 - "Take heed to yourselves: If thy brother trespass against thee, rebuke him; and if he repent, forgive him." Did the author give a moment's consideration to repentance as a condition for receiving forgiveness?

We should understand that the argument is not a theological or intellectual one. Rather, it is eristic and ambidextrous (i.e., deliberate deceptiveness especially by pretending one set of feelings and acting under the influence of another). If it were a theological argument, then he wouldn't have missed the condition (repentance) for receiving forgiveness.

However, if it was an intellectual one, he would have been generous enough to note that the Bible also deals with the case of obstinacy unto hardness of heart that finds no repentance, even if the sin was neither apostacy nor blasphemy (see Heb. 12:17). This was precisely the case of Judas, for he repented only "when he saw that he was condemned" (Matt. 27:3).

The Bible never supposes that repentance succeeds or comes after condemnation; rather, it is through conviction that a person finds true repentance.

Had the Judas story ended with the betrayal followed by the suicide everything might have been hunky-dory, but the writer of Acts couldn't leave well enough alone.

So, what then is the gist of the argument? Is it that everything didn't go hunky-dory/okay simply because the story didn't end with the betrayal? Or, that the suicide was the icing that would have made a good 'story' in the eyes of the author of this article?

In 1:15-19 he tells us that Judas didn't give the money back; he invested it in real estate. We also learn that Judas didn’t commit suicide; his death was accidental. Because of the messiness of this accident, the property became known as (you guessed it) "The Field of Blood." So, did Judas commit suicide as the writer of Matthew claims or was his death an accident as we are told in Acts? Also, was this the same land that the priests bought, or were there two fields of blood? But, it gets worse.

I've offered a coherent discourse on this issue in another thread: Was Jesus Crucified? (post #83) and same thread, (post #94).

Mark 16:14 and Luke 24:33 state that following his resurrection Jesus appeared to "the eleven." Who was missing? After all that had transpired one would just naturally think it was Judas. Apparently not, because in John 20:24 we learn that the one missing was Thomas. Therefore the eleven had to include Judas. To further confuse things, Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15:5 that following his resurrection Jesus was seen by “the twelve.” This had to include Judas because it wasn't until after the ascension, some forty days after the resurrection (Acts 1:3), that another person, Matthias, was voted in to replace Judas (Acts 1:26). So, apparently Judas neither committed suicide nor died by accident. In Acts 1:25 we are told that Judas "turned aside to go to his own place."

Indeed, Judas did not die "by accident" - for he committed suicide.

This is actually what Acts 1:25 says: "That he may take part of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place" (KJ) or, "which Judas turned aside to go to his own place" (NET). Either way it is rendered, both imply that Judas "fell"/"turned aside" by transgression - in the same sense as in Psa. 125:5 ~ "As for such as turn aside unto their crooked ways, the LORD shall lead them forth with the workers of iniquity: but peace shall be upon Israel."

# What does the Bible mean by "turned aside to go to his own place" in reference to Judas?

Read Acts 1:20 - "For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take." This is language expressive of desolation and death. We find the very same idea in Job 3:11-14 ~~ "Why died I not from the womb? why did I not give up the ghost when I came out of the belly? Why did the knees prevent me? or why the breasts that I should suck? For now should I have lain still and been quiet, I should have slept: then had I been at rest, With kings and counsellors of the earth, which built desolate places for themselves."

In particular, when you compare the language of the Psalmist in Psalm 69:25  (which Peter referred to in Acts 1:20) to Job 18:5-21, you find typically the same idea expressed of death and desolation - pointing to the very fact that, not only did Judas commit suicide, but also that he indeed died a horrible death!

Psalm 69:25 - "Let their habitation be desolate; and let none dwell in their tents"

Job 18: 5, 11, 17-19 & 21 - "Yea, the light of the wicked shall be put out, and the spark of his fire shall not shine . . Terrors shall make him afraid on every side, and shall drive him to his feet. . His remembrance shall perish from the earth, and he shall have no name in the street, he shall be driven from light into darkness, and chased out of the world. . .He shall neither have son nor nephew among his people, nor any remaining in his dwellings. . .Surely such are the dwellings of the wicked, and this is the place of him that knoweth not God" (see also Psa. 109:4-13).

# What about the seeming insinuation from the "eleven" and the "twelve" that Judas did not die?

The apostles were often called "The Twelve" - whether they were together in one place or not. That Mark 16:14 and Luke 24:33 called them "the Eleven" does not suggest at all that Judas was present in place of Thomas. On the contrary, it suggest that there were 'eleven' apostles yet alive when Jesus rose from the dead.

It is interesting to note that Paul wrote I Corinthians well after the ascension of Jesus. When he mentioned "the Twelve" (vs. 5), who was he referring to in connection with the eleven apostles - Judas or Matthias? Notice that Paul was speaking of those who saw the risen Jesus.

The answer lies in the fact that Matthias was one of those who saw the risen Jesus, as affirmed in the qualification Peter gave out in Acts 1:21-22 ~ "Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection."

Question: would Matthias have been chosen a witness of Jesus' resurrection if he had not seen the risen Lord? Absolutely not!

It is obvious that when Paul wrote of "the Twelve" who saw the risen Jesus, he no doubt meant the eleven apostles and Matthias as the twelfth; for the same Paul would definitely have been aware of Judas fall by transgression.

In the opening paragraph, the author believes that Judas did NOT receive "a single mention in the writings of Paul". So, how then does he now turn round 180^o to suggest that Paul's reference to the Twelve in I Cor. 15:5 "had to include Judas"??

Another clue confirming the absence of the Judas story in the earliest Christian documents occurs in Matthew 19:28 and Luke 22:28-30. Here Jesus tells his disciples that they will “sit on the twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.” No exception is made for Judas even though Jesus was aware of his impending act of betrayal. The answer may lie in the fact that the source of these verses is Q (QS 62). Q predates the gospels and is considered to be one of the earliest Christian documents. It was obviously written before Judas and the betrayal story were invented by the writer of Mark.

If the author believes that any one of the Gospels in the NT we "invented", then his whole exercise falls flat on its face. On the one hand, he argues against Judas having betrayed Jesus; and yet on the other hand urges that Christians 'appreciate Judas for his "dirty job!" One cannot honestly maintain both positions unless he intends to be intellectually dishonest.

For centuries Judas Iscariot has been held up as the archetypical traitor, the exemplar of treachery, the quintessential turncoat. This is strange indeed when one considers Acts 1:16. Here Peter tells us, "This scripture (Psalm 69:25) must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake before concerning Judas, which was guide to them that took Jesus." So according to Peter, Judas' betrayal was a part of God's grand plan all along. Not only did Judas serve as a vehicle through which key Old Testament prophecy might be fulfilled, it was by way of his betrayal that Jesus was able to complete his earthly mission. One might say that it was a dirty job, but somebody had to do it. Judas was in reality an enabler. Instead of hating and reviling him, Christians should appreciate Judas’ contribution.

The first question I would like to ask is this: does the author of this article actually appreciate Judas "contribution" as he urges upon others? If he did, such appreciation no doubt would be evident in his walk as a Christian as well - but is that the case? Obviously not!

The Bible states that Satan entered into Judas (John 13:27), for he had often rejected the conviction tugging at his own heart (John 6:70). What then is one to appreciate in a devil-possessed man? Would the author himself tell us what he 'appreciates' in the same Judas who was a thief?

This is the reason why I earlier stated that the whole exercise is eristic and ambidextrous.

Nonetheless, one who knows the Word should never suppose that God predestined any soul for damnation. Some men will outrightly reject God's offer of grace no matter how imploring is the offer. Such men in their wickedness would have condemned Jesus Christ to death - and here is the crux of the issue:

If Judas never had betrayed Jesus, would the Crucifixion never have happened?

Men make so much of Judas today in an effort to glorify him; and yet fail to see that -

     * it was not Judas who arrested and tried Jesus (Matt. 26:57 & Mark 15:16)

     * it was not Judas who condemned Jesus to death (Mark 10:33 & 14:64)

     * it was not Judas who stood accused of the murder (Acts 2:23)

     * it was not Judas who brought salvation to men (II Tim. 1:10).

My faith rests in the simple statements made about Judas in Scripture - he betrayed Jesus. Q.E.D.

@GoodGuy

One great Preacher once said. That if our wisdom is to KNOW and has no SPIRITUAL INFLUENCE ON OUR LIFE THEN IT IS ALL DUNG.

I HAVE LEARNT THAT IF IT IS KNOWLEDGE OF GOD SATAN HAS IT PLENTY LOOK FROM ETERNITY TO ETERNITY HE HAS BEEN WITH GOD HE WAS CAST DOWN TO TIME.

KNOWLEDGE CANNOT SAVE SATAN NOR HIS SERVANT FROM THE COMING WRATH OF GOD.

NOW I HAVE EXPLAINED THE CHOICES THAT WERE GIVEN TO JUDAS, HE CHOOSE DEATH.

YOU WILL SEE THAT JUDAS WAS REMORSE AND KILLED HIMSELF BECAUSE HE CHOOSE THIS.

PETER BETRAYED JESUS HE DID NOT KILL HIMSELF.


I REPEAT AGAIN IF ALL THIS EXERCISES IS ALL ABOUT OUR BIBLE KNOWLEDGE THEN WE HAVE WASTED TIME.

SELAH

Why would the authorities pay to have someone pointed out to them whom they already knew?


very simple in those days we did not have Photo pictures for positive Identification. JUDAS HAD TO HELP. They had to be sure they have the Right person. HIS PAY FOR THAT JOB IS 30 PIECES OF SILVER.

REMEMBER JESUS WAS A NAZERENE

Wow! How interesting.
@goodguy, has ur question been answered now?

@shahan,

Very interesting rejoinder. I'm quite amazed, and your diction is inspiring.

@syrup,

syrup:

Very interesting rejoinder. I'm quite amazed, and your diction is inspiring.

Phew! How did I miss you online earlier? Please come back and make us smile with some of yours - I've been really challenged as well.

@syrup,

I have to report shahan to you. From the Gospel of babyosis, I learnt that she went to tie something something with someone someone but did not inform us, her friends on nairaland. I have been thinking that I would declare surplus on that day but unfortunately ,

Syrup and Shahan, it seems both of you went to the same school. You construct sentences in the same way and blow big big grammar in the same way too.


@Shahan

See Shahan, you should sofly softly de blow grammar here because this is not an institution and you shouldnt expect us to be looking for dico up and down when we are not in English Language classroom. .

I think I have to enrol for adult education but my fear is that they will want to start from alphabets and numerals and that will be waste of time.

Take care till I hear from you and probably we meet in other threads.

I love you all

Note: Hope I have not said too much by saying that I love you all. Hope there wont be trouble from , (you know now).

Take care, regards to all my christian friends including the fumbling gbade.x. I know that he is just fumbling, we are friends and we will always be.

May God be with you all and your household.

@shahan,


That does not mean that I wholeheartedly agree to your explanation above. You explained the issue based on your own understanding and interpretation. All the same, thumbs up for the lenghty post.

Cheers.

@ BlabberWorth a.k.a blabs787:

tsk tsk tsk, seems your regular dosage of anti-depressant pills have worn off. Better hurry to the nearest drugstore for a re-fill. . .

wow! shahan insightful rejoinder, left lil for d rest of us 2 say, well done

goodguy, dere r no kno-it-alls, only people dat av taken d pain to study to shew demselves approved, wit a lil effort u can be one of dem!

anywayz, my views:
think d author of d article is a confusionist who also cant make up his mind wat he wants 2 believe cos in one breathe he talks bout judas not havin existed and in d next he wants 'd unexisting' to be celebrated for bringin d purpose of d existing to pass!

on d whether dere were two fields, in both instances recorded, two salient things stand out: d name of d field(s) n its connection 2 judas in dat it was purchased wit "blood money" signifying d betrayal, 4 clarity purposes, one thing is sure, twas on record dat d field was judas' property whether he bought it himself or it was bought on his behalf by d pharisees since dey clearly didnt want d money back!

dis brings me to d issue of dem havin Jesus pointed out, i think d pharisees were afraid of Jesus and his power and so dey tried all within deir power 2 distance demselves from the death of Jesus even though dey were sunk neck-deep in. cos if u recall, wen dey took Jesus b4 pilate, he wondered why dey brought Jesus to him and had not killed him themselves, this makes us kno it was something permissible, dey could in their own right av killed Jesus for what dey termed to be his crime. but dey resisted and lied dat tho he had blasphemed God which requires that he must b put 2 death, deir law also did not permit dem to kill anyone!, dis comin 4rm a bunch of people dat had wanted 2 stone a woman 2 death 4 adultery is certainly rich!   so methinks, deir paying judas 2 point out Jesus was also part of d great, if stupid, cover-up on deir part, dat "really, it were'nt us, d people asked 4 it and even one of his own deliverd him up 2 us!" guess, its d adamic nature of shifting blame nd shirkin responsibility in dem.

on whether judas committed suicide or not, i dont think d account of him fallin headlong implies dat he didnt commit suicide, cos it just talks bout him falling, how or wen, (cos it possibly mite av been wen dey d rope holding him up 2 d tree was cut!) neither was d word accident ever used. d fact remains tho dat his ending was inglorious.

dere certainly aint nothin 2 applaud or emulate dere, certainly a BETRAYER and not an enabler.

lastly, let's remember d admonition of peter in 2 Peter 1:15-16

Moreover I will endeavour that ye may be able after my decease to have these things always in remembrance.
For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.


be careful wat u believe.

@goodguy
Happy now,mate?

@ Alfa goodguy,
Never knew you had come here to postulate another of your unfounded theories again. It is basically the language of the heretics that you speak here. Maybe you need the likes of blaba 787 to help you out further.

Funny enough I just got out from a ban in another thread! Will be back to shed some lil understanding that I have to your heresy.

@gbade.x

Have you seen dr. Barikade? You need to see him for some drugs huh

@all

Now lets face the issue. If Jesus had been called to come and die, then Judas shouldnt have been named the betrayer because he sped up what he came to do.

Also since he came to die, then it must have been decreed that Judas would cause his death. You dont have to hold anybody responsible for what jesus willingly came to do.

@gbade.x

Have you seen dr. Barikade? You need to see him for some drugs huh

@all

Now lets face the issue. If Jesus had been called to come and die, then Judas shouldnt have been named the betrayer because he sped up what he came to do.

Also since he came to die, then it must have been decreed that Judas would cause his death. You dont have to hold anybody responsible for what jesus willingly came to do.

@babs787,

Egbon mi, ba wo??  

babs787:

@syrup,

I have to report shahan to you. From the Gospel of babyosis, I learnt that she went to tie something something with someone someone but did not inform us, her friends on nairaland. I have been thinking that I would declare surplus on that day but unfortunately ,

Why you dey give out invitation card before before party we arrange the exact date? O jibi-jibi-jibi. . . you misread babyosisi's gospel - cahpter, verse and book!! This is the "new international translation" of what she was saying:

verse 1. One oyibo man (called 'aussie') follow shahan come naija.

verse 2. E don go back to Aus.

verse 3. Story end.

Further exposition? Follow this thread.

babs787:

Syrup and Shahan, it seems both of you went to the same school. You construct sentences in the same way and blow big big grammar in the same way too.

Thank God for that - at least it proves I and babyosisi are not the only ladies who went to school. Heard syrup's visiting naija. . .I wish we had the fortune to have met face to face, though.

babs787:

See Shahan, you should sofly softly de blow grammar here because this is not an institution and you shouldnt expect us to be looking for dico up and down when we are not in English Language classroom. .

Okay, I take correction. No mind me o jare - na my lawyer-sis dey rub off on me.

babs787:

I think I have to enrol for adult education but my fear is that they will want to start from alphabets and numerals and that will be waste of time.

. . . not to even mention the high fees they charge nowadays - otherwise, me and you for jam and embrace for the same classroom!  

babs787:

Take care till I hear from you and probably we meet in other threads.

Yes O! You too take care . . and visit that link to warm the house!

babs787:

I love you all

Note: Hope I have not said too much by saying that I love you all. Hope there wont be trouble from , (you know now).

Right. . . na me go first report you to the Sharia council!
Lol. . . enjoy!



Addendum:

babs787:

@shahan,


That does not mean that I wholeheartedly agree to your explanation above. You explained the issue based on your own understanding and interpretation. All the same, thumbs up for the lenghty post.

Cheers.

I know - in just the same way that you offer interpretations from your own understanding. Blessings.

@pataki

If you dont mind your post, you will also be banned here.

Yeye Organogram man

Am even beginning to loose great interest nowadays. But that does not mean I will not stop to harangue you blaba if you mess it up with me again!

Posted by: mrpataki
Insert Quote
Am even beginning to loose great interest nowadays. But that does not mean I will not stop to harangue you blaba if you mess it up with me again!


You dont need to lose interest. We have fought, cursed, disagreed and it seems we are now reaching consensus so you dont need to fade out.

We muslims and Christians share some things in common and I think we should try and look into those areas using the two books to buttress our points rather than arguing stemoplumo, tentoglucose, hydrapumylic merricorously (sorry for my big big grammar, I have decided to be blowing grammar like Shahan so that she will know that I can also blow grammar too. In a nutshell, the meaning of those grammar is back and forth.)

If you continue haranguing me, I will not hesitate to spank you.


@goodguy,

I am accepting Judas Iscariot as an Betrayer and not a Enabler based on my view of the whole incident.

Case closed.

@shahan,

Even though I knew you would do justice to this topic, I am still very much flabbergasted and overwhelmed at your level of insightfulness on the subject matter.  May God continue to increase your Wisdom, Knowledge and Understanding in Jesus' name.

However, one area still bothers me, which I shall be addressing below.

The mechanical device introduced here should not escape our notice. We should seriously question the author's inference: Did the authorities pay Judas to "point out" Jesus? On the contrary, this is what the text say:

Matt. 26:14-15 ~~ "Then one of the twelve, called Judas Iscariot, went unto the chief priests, And said unto them, What will ye give me, and I will deliver him unto you? And they covenanted with him for thirty pieces of silver."

There's a world of difference between "pointing out" and "delivering" (or, 'handing over') someone. If anyone cares for the Greek word used there for 'deliver', it is paradidōmi [παραδίδωμι], which includes the meaning of 'to surrender/yield up'.

The chief priests were not contracting with Judas or anyone for that matter to "point out" Jesus to them; because they knew Him all along, as the Lord Jesus  affirms in Matt. 26:55 as referenced by the author of the article.

Thanks for your clarification on the actual act of Judas -- that is, he didn't "point out" but simply "delivered". 

But on a second thought, the method Judas employed there (kissing) doesn't really seem like he was "delivering" ( or, 'handing over') Jesus.

Matthew 26:48 - Now he that betrayed him gave them a sign, saying, Whomsoever I shall kiss, that same is he: hold him fast.

A careful look at that verse reveals that he was actually telling them, "Since you do not know him, I will simply go up there, and whomsoever I kiss is the person you're looking for.  Arrest Him."

Unless maybe, I do not really understand your usage of "deliver" there.  (My understanding of your explanation there is that Judas took Jesus and gave Him to them, but my own inquiry is based on the fact that, Judas pointed Him out with a sign, that automatically led to Jesus' delivery to the mob, which still makes the writer right by saying Judas pointed Jesus out.  Get my drift?).

In any case, the question still remains - Why did they have to pay someone to deliver/point out Jesus?  They knew Him very well quite alright, and Jesus even affirmed that in Matt. 26:55.  So why didn't they just go straight up to Him, and seize Him by themselves?  Why did they need to involve Judas?  (. . . that scriptures may be fulfilled? )

Backslider and yhurmie have both given very reasonable, though differing explanations for that, and I find them very worthwhile.  Nonetheless, I will still like to know your take on that.

Once again, thanks for your inspiring write-up.

God bless.


P. S.  My earlier reference to "Holy Spirit Filled members" was just to incite someone to offer a credible refutation to the article of that writer, and I'm glad it worked out perfectly .  Actually, I knew something was wrong with the writer's analysis of the scripture which I just couldn't figure out (the emboldened parts are my major areas of concern actually), and anyone reading it with an academic mind would see clearly the supposed contradictions allegedly found in the Bible.  That was why I decided to post it here so that someone with more insight would explain and clear the misconceptions, which you, shahan, have done excellently well in your meritorious rejoinder.

Regards.

_{rolls eyes}
you people should really ease up on the syrup shahan worship. it's not healthy. enough back patting and awestruck responses here to make her a goddess. next thing I'll be seeing a thread on someone suggesting giving her a tenth of their income every month. 

here's an idea for you  syrup shahan devotees.  study the Word for yourselves instead of taking every long drawn out post shahan syrup submits as gospel (so to speak) 

trini_girl:

_{rolls eyes}
you people should really ease up on the syrup shahan worship. it's not healthy. enough back patting and awestruck responses here to make her a goddess. next thing I'll be seeing a thread on someone suggesting giving her a tenth of their income every month.

here's an idea for you syrup shahan devotees. study the Word for yourselves instead of taking every long drawn out post shahan syrup submits as gospel (so to speak)

Take style talk true: small jealousy dey inside that post!
Me sef, I jealous small. But I can excuse myself for having been away for a looong while - on 'special assignment.' All the same, well done shahan!

4get_me:

Take style talk true: small jealousy dey inside that post!
Me sef, I jealous small. But I can excuse myself for having been away for a looong while - on 'special assignment.' All the same, well done shahan!

well, i expected such a reponse.  let me just say that jealousy is an instinct to protect what is yours so im not jealous. just making an observation after reading many threads here over a long period of time.

trini_girl:

well, i expected such a reponse. let me just say that jealousy is an instinct to protect what is yours so im not jealous. just making an observation after reading many threads here over a long period of time.

I know - and my observations, too. Regards.