considering the source of understanding and wisdom from above is the key
for what was Jesus the Christ to do but to end the transgression
and how was this accomlished
Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy
On the surface, it's easy to see how many today may be offended by the notion of the hopeless, "unrighteous" figures of the Old Testament becoming the subjects of salvation (and veneration).
Did these gnostic movements go to the extreme in this regard?
Well, considering that the Pauline material is attributed to one depicted as a former persecutor and murderer, one indeed has to wonder.
A former murderer being the author of letters which form a considerable body of our Christian canon? - how crazy and weird is that?
:blink:
It is perhaps along these lines - of unrighteous figures becoming the recipients of God's grace and salvation - of figures without hope and without God in the world -that might enable us to understand the gnostics better.
As Jesus Himself had stated: "The healthy have no need of a physician".
Which might suffice even without the attached "interpretation" tossed in for good measure,
though it appears undoubtably correct.
A savior who came into the world not to "save" the "righteous" -but "sinners".
Like others, I am somewhat puzzled that if Judas merely carried out Jesus order to betray him, why did he feel so guilty as to go and kill himself ??!!
Like others, I am somewhat puzzled that if Judas merely carried out Jesus order to betray him, why did he feel so guilty as to go and kill himself ??!!
For the same reason that a soldier who has been in combat, who by following his superiors lawful orders caused much death and destruction, may commit suicide after returning stateside after pondering what he saw and did.
It happens with Police, all too often, where what they have seen and done causes them to end it.
Intellectual understanding of the necessity of a thing does not equal emotional acceptance of a thing, hence the confusion and pain of the psyche. Often that pain becomes so overwhelming that the only release from the pain in the perception of the person is death
On the surface, it's easy to see how many today may be offended by the notion of the hopeless, "unrighteous" figures of the Old Testament becoming the subjects of salvation (and veneration).
Personally, I see a number of examples of "unrighteous" figures in the OT becoming the objects of salvation. And this is quite consistent. God's mercy works that way...those who deserve righteousness are not typically receptive to mercy.
Did these gnostic movements go to the extreme in this regard?
That's not quite the selection of words I'd use: "gnostic movements going to the extreme" -- although I don't claim to be an expert...from what I've read of them, they appear to set up a counterfeit that distinctly resembles orthodox Christianity.
Well, considering that the Pauline material is attributed to one depicted as a former persecutor and murderer, one indeed has to wonder.
A former murderer being the author of letters which form a considerable body of our Christian canon? - how crazy and weird is that?
I don't consider it strange in any way that a former member of the Sanhedren was the object of God's mercy and was specifically called to the task. He received God's mercy with meekness in his heart, as evidenced by his writings. The same energy and zeal that he mistakenly applied to persecuting Christians was then applied to spreading the Good News.
I consider it no less strange that Jesus would appoint a fisherman as the first Pope, despite his innate moral weakness. The same man who denied Jesus at the time of the passion, loudly and boldly proclaimed Him at the time of Pentacost and then, when faced with execution, stated that he was unworthy to be put to death in the same exact way as the Christ he preached...so they crucified him upside down.
The apostles are all that way if one actually examines the records throughout time. It's arguably correct that even Judas, had he been receptive to receiving the God's mercy and forgiveness, could have also been widely reputed.
That is the primary thing that separated Judas from the other apostles: they received God's mercy with meekness and thanksgiving. Judas didn't.
:blink:
It is perhaps along these lines - of unrighteous figures becoming the recipients of God's grace and salvation - of figures without hope and without God in the world -that might enable us to understand the gnostics better.
As Jesus Himself had stated: "The healthy have no need of a physician".
Which might suffice even without the attached "interpretation" tossed in for good measure,
though it appears undoubtably correct.
A savior who came into the world not to "save" the "righteous" -but "sinners".
How weird is that?
Danny
Again, I personally see nothing "weird" about it. After all, "My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness." (2 Cr 12:9)
I also have no doubt that Jesus knew in advance that Judas would be the one to betray him. And, rather than stopping him, Jesus told him, "What you are going to do, do quickly." But there is a serious contradiction between any gnostic account of Jesus telling Judas to betray him and the accounts in the NT Canon. (Mt 26:21ff, Mk 14:18ff, Lk 22:3ff, Jn 13:21ff). In fact, both Luke's account and John's account explicitly state that "Satan entered" Judas. The gnostic account, as reported in USA Today, closely resembles actual scripture, but is divergent in a fine amount of detail...just enough detail to make it false.
That's the problem with any heresy that develops any kind of following: it's close...
I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the same night when he was betrayed took bread."
- Corinthians 11:23
"That is all the Christian Church had in writing about the betrayal until the seventh decade."
- John Shelby Spong, Liberating the Gospels, p. 260
And farther on
According to Luke, Jesus later spoke the following words at the Last Supper, presumably with Judas still present:
"
You are those who have stood by me in my trials. And I confer on you a kingdom, just as my Father conferred one on me, so that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom and sit on thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel."
"
- Luke 22:28-30 (Matthew 19:28)
"In this saying the author appears to reflect a tradition that knew no definition and no act of treachery. That is, this text reflects a time before the Judas legend arose. The story told in the Book of Acts (1:15-16) of one being chosen to take the place of Judas was a much later tradition, not written until the last years of the ninth decade at the earliest and probably as late as the tenth decade, as was clearly designed to address this apparent weakness."
- John Shelby Spong, Liberating the Gospels, p. 275 Paul also appears to have no knowledge of the Judas tradition. Referring to the disciples who later witnessed the resurrected Jesus, Paul calls them the "Twelve" (1 Corinthians 15:6
I personally have always had several questions
Why didn't Christ just turn himself in?
Why would the Pharisees and Sanhedrin need someone to point Jesus out to them?It's not like they didn't know who he was, surely they could have found one or two men to go with that arresting party who knew him.
Why would the Apostles have allowed Judas back in the Group? Clearly they did, and just as clearly they knew it was Judas who did the betraying since Judas arrived at Gethsemane with the arresting party!
My conclusion, by no means unchangeable and NOT LDS theology, since I am still working through this whole concept---
Is that Jesus, who went to Gethsemane where he took the sins of the world on him at that time and so great was his anguish from this that he sweat blood (LDS theology) needed to have his arrest come at the precise time that he took on those sins, the anguish and pain being so intense that it was a physical necessity that he be arrested, judged and crucified with in a very short space of time thereafter.
Because of this, It was necessary that someone make sure that the time line was implemented at a precise point in time, This would required another party to Act since Christ was otherwise occupied.
The story of the "betrayal" has always confused me- because there is too much contradiction regarding the actions of the other apostles toward Judas
technically it does not say Judas commited suicide
this is held as a common belief but is it really that?
Mat 27:3 When Judas, his betrayer, saw that he was condemned, he repented and brought back the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and the elders,
Mat 27:4 saying, "I have sinned in betraying innocent blood." They said, "What is that to us? See to it yourself."
Mat 27:5 And throwing down the pieces of silver in the temple, he departed; and he went and hanged himself.
I would think that "hanged oneself" is equivalent to committing suicide. If I'm mistaken, so be it.
A couple of Old Testament verses to consider in your pondering:
Ps 108:6a "That thy beloved may be delivered"
Zec 11:1 Open your doors, O Lebanon, that the fire may devour your cedars!
Zec 11:2 Wail, O cypress, for the cedar has fallen, for the glorious trees are ruined! Wail, oaks of Bashan, for the thick forest has been felled!
Zec 11:3 Hark, the wail of the shepherds, for their glory is despoiled! Hark, the roar of the lions, for the jungle of the Jordan is laid waste!
Zec 11:4 Thus said the LORD my God: "Become shepherd of the flock doomed to slaughter.
Zec 11:5 Those who buy them slay them and go unpunished; and those who sell them say, 'Blessed be the LORD, I have become rich'; and their own shepherds have no pity on them.
Zec 11:6 For I will no longer have pity on the inhabitants of this land, says the LORD. Lo, I will cause men to fall each into the hand of his shepherd, and each into the hand of his king; and they shall crush the earth, and I will deliver none from their hand."
Zec 11:7 So I became the shepherd of the flock doomed to be slain for those who trafficked in the sheep. And I took two staffs; one I named Grace, the other I named Union. And I tended the sheep.
Zec 11:8 In one month I destroyed the three shepherds. But I became impatient with them, and they also detested me.
Zec 11:9 So I said, "I will not be your shepherd. What is to die, let it die; what is to be destroyed, let it be destroyed; and let those that are left devour the flesh of one another."
Zec 11:10 And I took my staff Grace, and I broke it, annulling the covenant which I had made with all the peoples.
Zec 11:11 So it was annulled on that day, and the traffickers in the sheep, who were watching me, knew that it was the word of the LORD.
Zec 11:12 Then I said to them, "If it seems right to you, give me my wages; but if not, keep them." And they weighed out as my wages thirty shekels of silver.
Zec 11:13 Then the LORD said to me, "Cast it into the treasury"--the lordly price at which I was paid off by them. So I took the thirty shekels of silver and cast them into the treasury in the house of the LORD.
Zec 11:14 Then I broke my second staff Union, annulling the brotherhood between Judah and Israel.
Zec 11:15 Then the LORD said to me, "Take once more the implements of a worthless shepherd.
Zec 11:16 For lo, I am raising up in the land a shepherd who does not care for the perishing, or seek the wandering, or heal the maimed, or nourish the sound, but devours the flesh of the fat ones, tearing off even their hoofs.
Zec 11:17 Woe to my worthless shepherd, who deserts the flock! May the sword smite his arm and his right eye! Let his arm be wholly withered, his right eye utterly blinded!"
Judas Iscariot was a Judean. If you will recall, the house of Judah was considered the one that was the more faithful of the lot. Note Zech 11:11 "So it was annulled on that day"
Judah betraying the Messiah was necessary to annul the covenant. Does that mean it was planned? or that it was prophesied and would happen regardless...?
I consider it no less strange that Jesus would appoint a fisherman as the first Pope, ...
In that light then, I don't find it particularly strange that a ship-owner/sea captain (Marcion) compiled and circulated the earliest known New Testament canon.
I do find find the "mariner" motifs in the Catholic tradition quite interesting on that account, the symbolism
with the earliest crosses being represented by anchors, the Church, a ship, and of course the well-known fish symbol.
I've always felt that the success behind the spread of Christianity was that it enjoyed popularity amongst the occupations of sea merchants (in much the same way Mithraism moved among those in the Roman military).
The apostles are all that way if one actually examines the records throughout time. It's arguably correct that even Judas, had he been receptive to receiving the God's mercy and forgiveness, could have also been widely reputed.
That is the primary thing that separated Judas from the other apostles: they received God's mercy with meekness and thanksgiving. Judas didn't.
Yet there existed other Christian traditions that inform us otherwise.
That's the problem with any heresy that develops any kind of following: it's close...
While on the topic concerning the death of Judas, about 3 years ago I worked on editing a thesis for a gentleman in Canada (still unpublished), in which he cited what he viewed as problems with the canonical account, in the process, citing other versions of how Judas died.
I quote only a couple snippets here from his interesting work:
"How did Judas really die? It is only one tradition out of four canonical gospels that claims that he was hanged ... Indeed the so-called heretics...had gospel traditions where not only was Judas “saved” but his repentance was the paradigm for how each of us “received life.” The Church Fathers report a contradictory position with regards to how Judas supposedly met his fate. Papias says that Judas walked the earth getting fatter and fatter until he “blew up.” Clearly this contradiction to the account of Matthew was “cleared away” by the later efforts of the author of the "Acts of the Apostles" who states that Judas “purchased a field” and fell headlong into it and once again “burst asunder” as he fell. Note the author is discounting existing accounts of previous generations. I take it as a given that Papias’ “friendly” testimony was problematic because it made clear that Judas lived long after the crucifixion when his “guts finally burst open.” Indeed the popular early Christian source claimed that he knew that Judas even attended a discussion of what would happen in "the age to come" between the apostles and the risen Jesus.
Yet if we look closer we can see that there is another dimension to the “correction” of existing stories about Judas which were circulating before the second century composition of the "Acts of the Apostles". It says that “it was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem” - not that Judas had his bowels burst open - but that “he purchased a field," supposedly with the “reward of iniquity,” i.e., his payment by the Jews. But the story in "Acts" makes it impossible that Judas could have died just as Jesus was being crucified. He had to purchase the field and it would have been impossible to transact business on the eve of the Sabbath. The act of “buying the field” is implicitly linked to the guilt that could only have occurred after he knew that Jesus was going to be executed. Indeed I argue throughout this thesis that the whole idea of Judas needing to be “bribed” to provide information is explicitly contradicted again by the account of John – which must be seen to be closer to the heretical account – where Jesus essentially acknowledges and even encourages Judas’ action."
I find the Gospel of Judas facinating, especially from a historical context. Same with other similar gnostic writings.
It was writings like these, along with those of Marcion and his canon that led (drove?) the orthodox church to begin establishing it's own canon. It is helpful in understanding where where the traditional canons came from and what motivated their formation. I ask the questions, was a canon even necessary, and were the largely accepted canons we now have truly inpsired by God, or by the fear of "heresy" or the perceived need to control and establish doctrine and dogma?
I have said this many times here. When people accept the "bible" as the infalible word of God... they are also accepting that the men that decided what went in and what didn't - made a perfect and infalible decision. Yet many of those that acccept the bible as the word of God, have no clue how or why the canons were formed.
Marcion's canon is interesting. Seems he tooked the books he liked, and deleted or edited the verses within them he didn't like (basically anything OT related) and added his Antethesis. This would naturally appeal to the then emerging gnostics. So then emerged a form of gnosticism with elements of Christianity to it. Or maybe Chiristianity with heavy doses of gnosticism?
Danny, are you suggeting that becasue Marcions's was the first canon that it possibly has more authority than others? Or are you simply trying to get the history straight on that - maybe giving Marcion a kudo for doing it first?
I have only been studying these "heretical" writings and those of the "church fathers" off and on for several years now , but it seems to me that the orthodox church spent too much time trying to put down these "heresies" and would have been better served attending to other things. But then again, if 3rd century orthodoxy was the real deal ....who knows. Actually, I suspect that Paul would have had just a big of a problem with 3rd century orthodoxy as he would have with the Cainites or the Marcionites.
Maybe it's all heresy - eh ? (Of course except what I believe) ...
I'm glad you're also enjoying the Gospel of Judas. It really is extremely fascinating.
It was writings like these, along with those of Marcion and his canon that led (drove?) the orthodox church to begin establishing it's own canon. It is helpful in understanding where where the traditional canons came from and what motivated their formation. I ask the questions, was a canon even necessary, and were the largely accepted canons we now have truly inpsired by God, or by the fear of "heresy" or the perceived need to control and establish doctrine and dogma?
Marcion was my introduction to the subject of the formation of the New Testament canon. I agree with Adolf von Harnack - there is perhaps "no better introduction".
If the latter possibility be considered - that orthodoxy settled their canon for "fear of heresies..." and/or "the perceived need to control and establish doctrine", how much ought we take for granted their verdict against Marcion, as one who deleted and cut out material from his version of the NT? Or to apply Mark's statement here: "Consider the source". Information we derive on Marcion that comes from his opponents, whose efforts were to depict their rival in the worst possible way.
If we assume Marcion applied his editorial hand to the NT material - and I think he most certainly did in some way- can we safely assume any less with the "orthodox" side?
I certainly cannot speak for everyone on the question of "authority" when it comes to which "canon" one would choose - but I do find Marcion's canon quite interesting, if only for the possibility that it may well indeed preserve an earlier form of the Pauline epistles (with or w/o Marcionite "embellishments"). I would think every serious Christian and scholar would take interest in this sort of thing, but then again, not everyone takes an interest in the "Theremin" either (lol).
Goey, if the opportunity presented itself, -would you look at an earlier form -or version - of texts attributed to the apostle Paul? I bet wild horses wouldn't be able hold you back!
I think with Marcion's canon, we are presented this very possibility and opportunity.
For that reason I think Marcion's Bible is well worth examining.
Maybe it's all heresy - eh ? (Of course except what I believe) ...
Mat 27:5 And throwing down the pieces of silver in the temple, he departed;...
Not Possible
either he gave the silver back in which case he could not have bought a field with it
Or he bought a field with it in which case he couldn't give it back
Mat 27:5...and he went and hanged himself.
When it says hanged himself does it mean Hanging by the neck or did he crucify himself???
(this is strictly MO pondering aloud here)
Did he chain or tie himself to a makeshift cross so he could die the death he felt he had sentanced Jesus to??
Was the field remote enough from human habitation or covered in trees or rock formations so that no one noticed his body there until it began to rot and the resulting distension of the abdomen from the gases of decay caused the gut to exploded when his body fell from his makeshift cross or when someone tried to remove it??
Just for curiosities sake I typed in "Judas crucified" on Google and discovered the Islamic Quran teaches that Judas Iscariot was crucified in the place of Jesus so that when Jesus reappeared, his followers could claim he had "risen.
I fully realize that this teaching of the Quran is to counteract the belief that Jesus was who Christians believe he was --but there is a thread here
Faint, sometimes vanishing, sometimes obscured, but a definite thread
What about the verses, that said Judas was a thief, yet held the *money-bag*??
Is it inconceivable, that he took money ahead of time, and bought the field??
I don't think so. :)
Mat 27:3 When Judas, his betrayer, saw that he was condemned, he repented and brought back the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and the elders,
Mat 27:4 saying, "I have sinned in betraying innocent blood." They said, "What is that to us? See to it yourself."
Mat 27:5 And throwing down the pieces of silver in the temple, he departed; and he went and hanged himself.
Mat 27:6 But the chief priests, taking the pieces of silver, said, "It is not lawful to put them into the treasury, since they are blood money."
Mat 27:7 So they took counsel, and bought with them the potter's field, to bury strangers in.
Mat 27:8 Therefore that field has been called the Field of Blood to this day.
Mat 27:9 Then was fulfilled what had been spoken by the prophet Jeremiah, saying, "And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him on whom a price had been set by some of the sons of Israel,
Mat 27:10 and they gave them for the potter's field, as the Lord directed me."
Yes -- perhaps a thread -- but you have lost me already
Judas died for the sins of mankind??.
NO NO
Of course Jesus was crucified
The thread I am speaking about is the thread that suggests that Judas may have also been crucified-whether at his own direction or at the hands of others. Hanging as we think of hanging just wasn't that popular a way to die in those days, slitting your wrists in a tub of hot water, poison, were both common and readily available. Hanging IMO only makes sense if it is hanging as in crucified.
And If that is right it brings up a whole new set of possibilities because crucifying yourself just isn't that easy, not totally impossible but not easy.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
12
10
18
10
Popular Days
Apr 11
18
Apr 12
18
Apr 10
17
Apr 16
9
Top Posters In This Topic
Goey 12 posts
TheInvisibleDan 10 posts
templelady 18 posts
dmiller 10 posts
Popular Days
Apr 11 2006
18 posts
Apr 12 2006
18 posts
Apr 10 2006
17 posts
Apr 16 2006
9 posts
CM
considering the source of understanding and wisdom from above is the key
for what was Jesus the Christ to do but to end the transgression
and how was this accomlished
Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
On the surface, it's easy to see how many today may be offended by the notion of the hopeless, "unrighteous" figures of the Old Testament becoming the subjects of salvation (and veneration).
Did these gnostic movements go to the extreme in this regard?
Well, considering that the Pauline material is attributed to one depicted as a former persecutor and murderer, one indeed has to wonder.
A former murderer being the author of letters which form a considerable body of our Christian canon? - how crazy and weird is that?
:blink:
It is perhaps along these lines - of unrighteous figures becoming the recipients of God's grace and salvation - of figures without hope and without God in the world -that might enable us to understand the gnostics better.
As Jesus Himself had stated: "The healthy have no need of a physician".
Which might suffice even without the attached "interpretation" tossed in for good measure,
though it appears undoubtably correct.
A savior who came into the world not to "save" the "righteous" -but "sinners".
How weird is that?
Danny
Edited by TheInvisibleDanLink to comment
Share on other sites
CM
and how is so many made "righteous'
to speak the words of the unseen god
and how is it that satan the serpent has been killed
by the life and DEATH of Jesus
is it not his life that was sacrificed for us?
who's life got the problem rolling in the first place
in the sweat of thy face it says
to till the garden
rooting out the thorns and thistles
finding the way of the tree of life
that has always been within
never leaving or forsaking us
and when Jesus died what died with him?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
allan w.
Like others, I am somewhat puzzled that if Judas merely carried out Jesus order to betray him, why did he feel so guilty as to go and kill himself ??!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
templelady
For the same reason that a soldier who has been in combat, who by following his superiors lawful orders caused much death and destruction, may commit suicide after returning stateside after pondering what he saw and did.
It happens with Police, all too often, where what they have seen and done causes them to end it.
Intellectual understanding of the necessity of a thing does not equal emotional acceptance of a thing, hence the confusion and pain of the psyche. Often that pain becomes so overwhelming that the only release from the pain in the perception of the person is death
Edited by templeladyLink to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Personally, I see a number of examples of "unrighteous" figures in the OT becoming the objects of salvation. And this is quite consistent. God's mercy works that way...those who deserve righteousness are not typically receptive to mercy.
That's not quite the selection of words I'd use: "gnostic movements going to the extreme" -- although I don't claim to be an expert...from what I've read of them, they appear to set up a counterfeit that distinctly resembles orthodox Christianity.I don't consider it strange in any way that a former member of the Sanhedren was the object of God's mercy and was specifically called to the task. He received God's mercy with meekness in his heart, as evidenced by his writings. The same energy and zeal that he mistakenly applied to persecuting Christians was then applied to spreading the Good News.
I consider it no less strange that Jesus would appoint a fisherman as the first Pope, despite his innate moral weakness. The same man who denied Jesus at the time of the passion, loudly and boldly proclaimed Him at the time of Pentacost and then, when faced with execution, stated that he was unworthy to be put to death in the same exact way as the Christ he preached...so they crucified him upside down.
The apostles are all that way if one actually examines the records throughout time. It's arguably correct that even Judas, had he been receptive to receiving the God's mercy and forgiveness, could have also been widely reputed.
That is the primary thing that separated Judas from the other apostles: they received God's mercy with meekness and thanksgiving. Judas didn't.
Again, I personally see nothing "weird" about it. After all, "My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness." (2 Cr 12:9)
I also have no doubt that Jesus knew in advance that Judas would be the one to betray him. And, rather than stopping him, Jesus told him, "What you are going to do, do quickly." But there is a serious contradiction between any gnostic account of Jesus telling Judas to betray him and the accounts in the NT Canon. (Mt 26:21ff, Mk 14:18ff, Lk 22:3ff, Jn 13:21ff). In fact, both Luke's account and John's account explicitly state that "Satan entered" Judas. The gnostic account, as reported in USA Today, closely resembles actual scripture, but is divergent in a fine amount of detail...just enough detail to make it false.
That's the problem with any heresy that develops any kind of following: it's close...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CM
technically it does not say Judas commited suicide
this is held as a common belief but is it really that?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
templelady
"That is all the Christian Church had in writing about the betrayal until the seventh decade."
- John Shelby Spong, Liberating the Gospels, p. 260
And farther on
According to Luke, Jesus later spoke the following words at the Last Supper, presumably with Judas still present:
"In this saying the author appears to reflect a tradition that knew no definition and no act of treachery. That is, this text reflects a time before the Judas legend arose. The story told in the Book of Acts (1:15-16) of one being chosen to take the place of Judas was a much later tradition, not written until the last years of the ninth decade at the earliest and probably as late as the tenth decade, as was clearly designed to address this apparent weakness."
- John Shelby Spong, Liberating the Gospels, p. 275 Paul also appears to have no knowledge of the Judas tradition. Referring to the disciples who later witnessed the resurrected Jesus, Paul calls them the "Twelve" (1 Corinthians 15:6
I personally have always had several questions
Why didn't Christ just turn himself in?
Why would the Pharisees and Sanhedrin need someone to point Jesus out to them?It's not like they didn't know who he was, surely they could have found one or two men to go with that arresting party who knew him.
Why would the Apostles have allowed Judas back in the Group? Clearly they did, and just as clearly they knew it was Judas who did the betraying since Judas arrived at Gethsemane with the arresting party!
My conclusion, by no means unchangeable and NOT LDS theology, since I am still working through this whole concept---
Is that Jesus, who went to Gethsemane where he took the sins of the world on him at that time and so great was his anguish from this that he sweat blood (LDS theology) needed to have his arrest come at the precise time that he took on those sins, the anguish and pain being so intense that it was a physical necessity that he be arrested, judged and crucified with in a very short space of time thereafter.
Because of this, It was necessary that someone make sure that the time line was implemented at a precise point in time, This would required another party to Act since Christ was otherwise occupied.
The story of the "betrayal" has always confused me- because there is too much contradiction regarding the actions of the other apostles toward Judas
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Mat 27:3 When Judas, his betrayer, saw that he was condemned, he repented and brought back the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and the elders,
Mat 27:4 saying, "I have sinned in betraying innocent blood." They said, "What is that to us? See to it yourself."
Mat 27:5 And throwing down the pieces of silver in the temple, he departed; and he went and hanged himself.
I would think that "hanged oneself" is equivalent to committing suicide. If I'm mistaken, so be it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CM
Jesus had to die
he became sin
he did sin
his flesh body and spirit had to die
death is transformation
into another comforter
Danny does this help with the difference between the
God of the old testament and the God of the new?
Jesus completed the transformation of death to life for all
the serpent was the source of death
Jesus ended this by what he did
the serpent was an angel of God
Now who is Jesus? the Day Star-the Angel of light
good post templelady
Hi Mark,
it will take more then my input to put this all together
and probably some time
and some different thinking
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Clay,
A couple of Old Testament verses to consider in your pondering:
Judas Iscariot was a Judean. If you will recall, the house of Judah was considered the one that was the more faithful of the lot. Note Zech 11:11 "So it was annulled on that day"
Judah betraying the Messiah was necessary to annul the covenant. Does that mean it was planned? or that it was prophesied and would happen regardless...?
Something to consider.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
In that light then, I don't find it particularly strange that a ship-owner/sea captain (Marcion) compiled and circulated the earliest known New Testament canon.
I do find find the "mariner" motifs in the Catholic tradition quite interesting on that account, the symbolism
with the earliest crosses being represented by anchors, the Church, a ship, and of course the well-known fish symbol.
I've always felt that the success behind the spread of Christianity was that it enjoyed popularity amongst the occupations of sea merchants (in much the same way Mithraism moved among those in the Roman military).
Yet there existed other Christian traditions that inform us otherwise.Yes, Roman Catholicism is quite close.
Danny
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Very predictable answer...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sirguessalot
seems to me, that heresy is rooted in choosing
and that old habit of actually preferring doctrinal exclusivity
indoctrinating exclusivity IS heresy, imo
and to exclude exclusivity is to reject heresy
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
While on the topic concerning the death of Judas, about 3 years ago I worked on editing a thesis for a gentleman in Canada (still unpublished), in which he cited what he viewed as problems with the canonical account, in the process, citing other versions of how Judas died.
I quote only a couple snippets here from his interesting work:
Danny
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
I find the Gospel of Judas facinating, especially from a historical context. Same with other similar gnostic writings.
It was writings like these, along with those of Marcion and his canon that led (drove?) the orthodox church to begin establishing it's own canon. It is helpful in understanding where where the traditional canons came from and what motivated their formation. I ask the questions, was a canon even necessary, and were the largely accepted canons we now have truly inpsired by God, or by the fear of "heresy" or the perceived need to control and establish doctrine and dogma?
I have said this many times here. When people accept the "bible" as the infalible word of God... they are also accepting that the men that decided what went in and what didn't - made a perfect and infalible decision. Yet many of those that acccept the bible as the word of God, have no clue how or why the canons were formed.
Marcion's canon is interesting. Seems he tooked the books he liked, and deleted or edited the verses within them he didn't like (basically anything OT related) and added his Antethesis. This would naturally appeal to the then emerging gnostics. So then emerged a form of gnosticism with elements of Christianity to it. Or maybe Chiristianity with heavy doses of gnosticism?
Danny, are you suggeting that becasue Marcions's was the first canon that it possibly has more authority than others? Or are you simply trying to get the history straight on that - maybe giving Marcion a kudo for doing it first?
I have only been studying these "heretical" writings and those of the "church fathers" off and on for several years now , but it seems to me that the orthodox church spent too much time trying to put down these "heresies" and would have been better served attending to other things. But then again, if 3rd century orthodoxy was the real deal ....who knows. Actually, I suspect that Paul would have had just a big of a problem with 3rd century orthodoxy as he would have with the Cainites or the Marcionites.
Maybe it's all heresy - eh ? (Of course except what I believe) ...
Edited by GoeyLink to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
*Pope* is a word I do not find in Scripture ---
Kinda like *trinity*.
When I was a Catholic, I saw them both -- but only through doctrinal teaching,
and no scripture to back it up.
RCC is no better than twi -- (just my IMO).
Buncha smoke -- lots of *doctrine*, and some (not a lot) of substance to either.
Edited by dmillerLink to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
Goey,
I'm glad you're also enjoying the Gospel of Judas. It really is extremely fascinating.
Marcion was my introduction to the subject of the formation of the New Testament canon. I agree with Adolf von Harnack - there is perhaps "no better introduction".
If the latter possibility be considered - that orthodoxy settled their canon for "fear of heresies..." and/or "the perceived need to control and establish doctrine", how much ought we take for granted their verdict against Marcion, as one who deleted and cut out material from his version of the NT? Or to apply Mark's statement here: "Consider the source". Information we derive on Marcion that comes from his opponents, whose efforts were to depict their rival in the worst possible way.
If we assume Marcion applied his editorial hand to the NT material - and I think he most certainly did in some way- can we safely assume any less with the "orthodox" side?
I certainly cannot speak for everyone on the question of "authority" when it comes to which "canon" one would choose - but I do find Marcion's canon quite interesting, if only for the possibility that it may well indeed preserve an earlier form of the Pauline epistles (with or w/o Marcionite "embellishments"). I would think every serious Christian and scholar would take interest in this sort of thing, but then again, not everyone takes an interest in the "Theremin" either (lol).
Goey, if the opportunity presented itself, -would you look at an earlier form -or version - of texts attributed to the apostle Paul? I bet wild horses wouldn't be able hold you back!
I think with Marcion's canon, we are presented this very possibility and opportunity.
For that reason I think Marcion's Bible is well worth examining.
Yep (lol).
Danny
Link to comment
Share on other sites
templelady
either he gave the silver back in which case he could not have bought a field with it
Or he bought a field with it in which case he couldn't give it back
When it says hanged himself does it mean Hanging by the neck or did he crucify himself???
(this is strictly MO pondering aloud here)
Did he chain or tie himself to a makeshift cross so he could die the death he felt he had sentanced Jesus to??
Was the field remote enough from human habitation or covered in trees or rock formations so that no one noticed his body there until it began to rot and the resulting distension of the abdomen from the gases of decay caused the gut to exploded when his body fell from his makeshift cross or when someone tried to remove it??
Edited by templeladyLink to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
What about the verses, that said Judas was a thief, yet held the *money-bag*??
Is it inconceivable, that he took money ahead of time, and bought the field??
I don't think so. :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
templelady
11:17 pm
Just for curiosities sake I typed in "Judas crucified" on Google and discovered the Islamic Quran teaches that Judas Iscariot was crucified in the place of Jesus so that when Jesus reappeared, his followers could claim he had "risen.
I fully realize that this teaching of the Quran is to counteract the belief that Jesus was who Christians believe he was --but there is a thread here
Faint, sometimes vanishing, sometimes obscured, but a definite thread
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Yes -- perhaps a thread -- but you have lost me already.
Judas died for the sins of mankind??
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Mat 27:3 When Judas, his betrayer, saw that he was condemned, he repented and brought back the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and the elders,
Mat 27:4 saying, "I have sinned in betraying innocent blood." They said, "What is that to us? See to it yourself."
Mat 27:5 And throwing down the pieces of silver in the temple, he departed; and he went and hanged himself.
Mat 27:6 But the chief priests, taking the pieces of silver, said, "It is not lawful to put them into the treasury, since they are blood money."
Mat 27:7 So they took counsel, and bought with them the potter's field, to bury strangers in.
Mat 27:8 Therefore that field has been called the Field of Blood to this day.
Mat 27:9 Then was fulfilled what had been spoken by the prophet Jeremiah, saying, "And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him on whom a price had been set by some of the sons of Israel,
Mat 27:10 and they gave them for the potter's field, as the Lord directed me."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
templelady
NO NO
Of course Jesus was crucified
The thread I am speaking about is the thread that suggests that Judas may have also been crucified-whether at his own direction or at the hands of others. Hanging as we think of hanging just wasn't that popular a way to die in those days, slitting your wrists in a tub of hot water, poison, were both common and readily available. Hanging IMO only makes sense if it is hanging as in crucified.
And If that is right it brings up a whole new set of possibilities because crucifying yourself just isn't that easy, not totally impossible but not easy.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.