Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit!
You're currently viewing Catholic CyberForum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our online cyberparish, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.
Join our community!
Messages posted to this board must be polite and free of abuse, personal attacks, blasphemy, racism, threats, harrassment, and crude or sexually-explicit language.
If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Betrayal; Judas Iscariot
Topic Started: Monday, 2. April 2012, 02:37 (277 Views)
James
James
"Betrayal" is an intricate chapter of the passion.
Without it , it is highly probable the Jewish authorities would not have acted in such haste.
Therefore no sequence of events.

If sacrifice depends upon the action of betrayal by a third party, then why is the historic Judas seen as he is.?
Is he merely a pawn in God's plan for salvation or have we got him wrong ?
In other words, should self sacrifice depend on the actions of a third party.?

You could say that the Roman authorities also acted as a "third party", but that is in execution and not instigation

I wrestle with this every passion week, of late,

James
Edited by James, Monday, 2. April 2012, 02:42.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
garfield

Our priest made a point at a Lent talk on Mark's Gospel that I had not considered before, it involves the idea of the total and complete abandonment of Jesus to his death, he is rejected and condemned by his own people, his friends not only all run away but one of them betrays him in the most personal way with a kiss after sharing a meal with him, he is then mocked and crucified by the Romans and also taunted by the robbers he is crucified alongside and finally dies with the words 'My God My God Why have you forsaken me!'
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mairtin
Member Avatar

I was thinking about this a lot at the weekend when I was preparing to narrate the Passion.

It seems to me that the biggest lesson in it all is the reminder that the Apostles, despite being handpicked by Christ, were human just like the rest of us. They were incapable of grasping much of what Jesus was telling them; Judas at best was a man who judged things totally wrongly and at worst was an absolute traitor; Peter and the rest of them became total cowards when put to the test (although they were to redeem themselves later on).

There should be nothing surprising about this, on this earth we are always going to be weak human beings who can get things wrong, lose our nerve or fall to temptation. It makes me think that our notions of papal infallibility and the inability of the magisterium to get things wrong may perhaps be the greatest human foolishness of all.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rose of York
Member Avatar
Administrator
James
Monday, 2. April 2012, 02:37
If sacrifice depends upon the action of betrayal by a third party, then why is the historic Judas seen as he is.?
Is he merely a pawn in God's plan for salvation or have we got him wrong ?
In other words, should self sacrifice depend on the actions of a third party.?
Surely, as God is not trapped in time he knew in advance what every one of us would do during our lives. Speaking through prophet he told the Jews how the Messiah would be born, and die. The propher used the word 'will' not 'may'.

Judas had free will. God knew how Judas would use it.
Keep the Faith!

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
OsullivanB

What did the betrayal consist of? It wasn't that he identified Jesus. Jesus was plainly well-known and readily identifiable. There is no record of Judas giving evidence against Jesus. What exactly do forumites think Judas did wrong?
"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance - that principle is contempt prior to investigation." Herbert Spencer
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Anne-Marie

OsullivanB
Monday, 2. April 2012, 13:02
What did the betrayal consist of? It wasn't that he identified Jesus. Jesus was plainly well-known and readily identifiable. There is no record of Judas giving evidence against Jesus. What exactly do forumites think Judas did wrong?
I wasn't there, I didn't know Judas, and anyway, I wasn't in his head to know his thoughts and motives.

That said, I have long wondered whether Judas' motives might have been to 'force' Jesus' hand in disclosing and proving His provenance.

As such, Judas could have had the very best of motives, being the one showing the world who Jesus really is. Didn't work, of course, but it may well have been his motive, and would certainly fit with what we DO know from subsequent events....

And from those best of motives, the hatred of others for Jesus' disruptive effect was enabled to do what they wanted and so fulfil prophesy.

Just a theory, though entirely plausible.
Anne-Marie
FIAT VOLUNTAS DEI
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rose of York
Member Avatar
Administrator
OsullivanB
Monday, 2. April 2012, 13:02
What did the betrayal consist of? It wasn't that he identified Jesus. Jesus was plainly well-known and readily identifiable. There is no record of Judas giving evidence against Jesus. What exactly do forumites think Judas did wrong?
The betrayal consisted of handing Jesus over, whilst at the same time pretending to be his friend.

It is obvious the betrayal was premeditated.
Quote:
 
10*Then Judas Iscariot, who was one of the twelve, went to the chief priests in order to betray him to them. 11 And when they heard it they were glad, and promised to give him money. And he sought an opportunity to betray him.


Why woud it have been better for Judas if he had not been born? I take it to mean that he would go to Hell, that means he was acting with full knowledge and understanding of what he proposed to do, and did it with free will, not under threat to himself.

Quote:
 
19 They began to be sorrowful, and to say to him one after another, "Is it I?" 20 He said to them, "It is one of the twelve, one who is dipping bread into the dish with me. 21 For the Son of man goes as it is written of him, but woe to that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! It would have been better for that man if he had not been born."


What did Judas do wrong? He was deceitful.

Quote:
 
41 And he came the third time, and said to them, "Are you still sleeping and taking your rest? It is enough; the hour has come; the Son of man is betrayed into the hands of sinners. 42 Rise, let us be going; see, my betrayer is at hand." 43* And immediately, while he was still speaking, Judas came, one of the twelve, and with him a crowd with swords and clubs, from the chief priests and the scribes and the elders. 44 Now the betrayer had given them a sign, saying, "The one I shall kiss is the man; seize him and lead him away under guard." 45 And when he came, he went up to him at once, and said, "Master!" * And he kissed him. 46 And they laid hands on him and seized him.
Keep the Faith!

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
OsullivanB

But His identity was no secret. Every one knew who He was. So what was the betrayal?

Anne-Marie, I'm not asking for an account of his motive, just the overt act. He had no power to "hand Jesus over". The power was with those who seized Him. It's a genuine question about something which has puzzled me for some time.
"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance - that principle is contempt prior to investigation." Herbert Spencer
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rose of York
Member Avatar
Administrator
OsullivanB
Monday, 2. April 2012, 15:23
But His identity was no secret. Every one knew who He was. So what was the betrayal?
Could it have anything with total pitch darkness? Every one knew what Jesus looked like. Would the soldiers have ever dared join in the multitudes who heard his voice? Judas arrived while Jesus was still speaking, he would have been able to zero in on the familar voice.

41 And he came the third time, and said to them, "Are you still sleeping and taking your rest? It is enough; the hour has come; the Son of man is betrayed into the hands of sinners. 42 Rise, let us be going; see, my betrayer is at hand." 43* And immediately, while he was still speaking, Judas came, one of the twelve, and with him a crowd with swords and clubs, from the chief priests and the scribes and the elders.
Keep the Faith!

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
OsullivanB

Maybe, but they didn't need an expensive betrayal by Judas to i/d Him and "a crowd with swords and clubs, from the chief priests and the scribes and the elders" weren't soldiers, but seems more likely to have been composed of people who could have listened to and identified Jesus's voice without coming to any harm. Maybe there's something in the non-canonical gospels that deals with this, but i/d of a famous person still seems to me to fall far short of betrayal. It's not of huge importance. I just feel that there must have been more to it than is meeting my eye.
"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance - that principle is contempt prior to investigation." Herbert Spencer
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deacon Robert
Member Avatar

Jesus was a Gallilian, he preached throughout the area of his birth. Outside of this area he had some who belived in him, those who welcomed him into Jerusalem. Jerulsalem is in Judea. Even though the chief Priests of the temple may have heard of him,, they did not know what he looked like. I live in a town of 100,000 people. I know the names of many. I know those who are politically active. I also could not pick them out of a group of people. Jerusalem at 33 AD had between 500,00 and possibly 1,000,000 people during Passover. Scripture tells us that a sign was to be given to identify Jesus. This indicates to me that those in power knew of him did not know what he looked like. Those faithful to him would not Turn him over to the authorities, it took a betrayer.


Quick edit: Scipture only speaks of two visits to Jerusalem, during his minstry only one, although he may have been there many times.
Edited by Deacon Robert, Monday, 2. April 2012, 21:53.
The burden of life is from ourselves, its lightness from the grace of Christ and the love of God. - William Bernard Ullanthorne

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
James
James
My thoughts ran along other lines .
A lot of money passed hands and I think more was expected from Judas than waht he actually did.
Hence the confusion regarding a charge against Jesus afterwards.

I don't know the law relating to the time, but am speculating that a charge being made by a person against another ( albeit a "set up ) would involve a process of (a) formally identifying the person and then(b) proceed to give his evidence against him after arrest.
Well as we all know, that didn't happen because things went very seriously awry during the initial formal identification leaving Judas in mortal fear of his life . No doubt Peter, a big man, went for him . For some reason , and I can only assume fear, Judas returned the money and left the Jewish authorities in a position where they could not proceed without Judas.

Although, they did manage it in the end, and , finally, used the crowd deal with the romans .

Even then, as Bernard points out, it was not a complete act act of betrayal and maybe as Ann- Marie mentioned , Judas may have been forcing an issue.

He still remains a major figure . in retrospect.
At a crucial point in history.

Would they have arrested Jesus without Judas - but it happened ,despite Judas not proceeding further, and the rest is history.

I like Rose's point that God is aware of all and aware that through Judas this would start a chain of events.
However Christ did say " Father forgive them for they know not what they do"
I find the man an enigma and maybe suicide was his ultimtate act of sorrow.

My thought entirely , I must add.
Edited by James, Monday, 2. April 2012, 22:18.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
OsullivanB

Thank you both, and all who responded, for those thoughts. They are very helpful.
"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance - that principle is contempt prior to investigation." Herbert Spencer
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
OsullivanB

Deacon, your approach is, I think, at least consistent with and in my viuew supported by John 7:10, which I had not given much thought to before:
Quote:
 
[Jesus] went up [to Jerusalem]...not publicly but secretly.
"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance - that principle is contempt prior to investigation." Herbert Spencer
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Clare
Member Avatar
Putting the "Fun Dame" into Fundamentalist
OsullivanB
Monday, 2. April 2012, 13:02
What did the betrayal consist of? It wasn't that he identified Jesus. Jesus was plainly well-known and readily identifiable.
I've been reading Archbishop Sheen's Life of Christ, and a chapter I read this morning is relevant here. Basically, it was night time, ergo dark.

Edit: Sorry, posted before reading other replies!
Edited by Clare, Tuesday, 3. April 2012, 15:53.
S.A.G.

Motes 'n' Beams blog

Join in the Fun Trivia Quiz!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · General Catholic Discussion · Next Topic »
Add Reply