Do you think Christianity would exist today without Judas being a part of it?

Remove all ads!

Judas, there wasn't really "hanging", gallows-style, in Biblical times. When the Bible talks about "hanging" it refers to either getting stuck on a cross (Roman crucifixion) or impaling on a pole (the Persian preference). Check out Esther, where the hanging really refers to hanging them on a pole. So Matthew 27:5 and Acts 1:18 refer to the same death.

Per leaders vs. the people - verses like Luke 22:6 reinforce the idea that the leaders were the driving force behind Jesus' execution. Yes, the people swung behind the leaders in the end, but that was part of the priests' plan. The religious leaders claimed they had no right to execute anyone (John 18:31), which was only partly true, in light of their later execution of Stephen in Acts 7. What the religious leaders wanted was some political justification to publicly have Christ killed so that they could formally crush His movement. Jesus could've been quietly murdered at any time, but the leaders wanted Him publically and legally executed precisely to STOP speculation about whether or not He was alive or dead.

Judas (the Biblical one, not the SP one) was the perfect element for that because, as a member of His inner circle, he was in a great position to publicly revoke his approval for Christ. That seems to have been the reason behind his kiss as a symbol to the guards - he could've just pointed out the target, or given a physical description, or whatever. Trouble is, after the arrest, Judas had second thoughts. That's why the priests refused to take back Judas' money - they needed him as a public witness, not a public apologist. It wasn't too late to make amends (Peter had second, third, and fourth thoughts), but suicide kinda squelched that possibility.

Or maybe I'm thinking too much like a political scientist...

Kiranos, mankind loves martyrs but rarely sets up ideologies or religions around them. The reason that authorities move to crush dissent is because crushing dissent WORKS. The places where Christianity has had the worst success have been the spots of the most severe martyrdoms. France was once half Protestant, but today less than two percent - why? Because the state killed 'em all! (OK, only 100,000, but that was enough.) Japan was once infected with Christians, but a little murderous chemotherapy stripped the land clean. And look at other great religions, like Islam - part of the reason Islam endures is because Mohammed endured. There are exceptions, but in general - as stated in Acts 5:33-39 - the best way to kill a movement is to kill its main mover.

The spark for Christianity is that Jesus is the victorious martyr - the one who died, but didn't stay dead. It doesn't celebrate victimhood - it celebrates victory.

As for free will - maybe, Judas, you could be a bit more precise about how you define freedom. Are you free from your genes? Free from your gender? Free from your health or wealth or education or fill-in-the-blank? All these things narrow our choices and desires considerably and, I would daresay, conclusively. I suspect that it'd be more appropriate to say that freedom is the ability to act according to your identity and purpose, and that we are more "unfree" when we are pulled away from acting in line with ourselves by what-have-you (muggers, advertisers, draft boards, etc.). But I guess we're free to define freedom however we want, no?

 

@Grey Magistrate
Err... I didn't suggest hanging involved gallows and whatnot, did I? If Judas was going to hang himself I should hardly think he'd bother to build gallows. It doesn't surprise me to learn that being hanged could have meant any number of ways of actually dying. As I understand it, they all involved suffocating. I'd be very surprised, however, if throwing yourself from a cliff and dying from the resulting impact could be classified as hanging yourself, as you suggest. I think it's a bit of a stretch to say that Acts and Matthew agree on how Judas died.

Again - how it all goes depends on which book you read, and whether you take it alone or in conjunction with the other books. As I said, I concede that some versions (and now, perhaps, the collective version) have the authorities as the driving force. I'll repeat that it doesn't change my point greatly: Jesus was not condemned to death by Judas... it was a mob of other people (WHOEVER they were).

@Mathetais
The point at which your argument unravels, in my eyes, is the definition of "force". People think that to force someone to do something you have to order, push, command, or threaten them into doing it. This is not the case. You can force someone to do something simply by putting them in an environment in which the outcome is completely predictable. This includes genes, environment, interaction with others... the works. If Yahweh can be sure someone will do something, he has indeed "forced" them to do it.

Which brings me back to Grey Magistrate's question, which is a good one. We should probably take this to another thread, but I'll post it here for now. You're right. Everything - genes, education, etc... they all determine our choices. I think freedom is an illusion. If I know the state and mechanics of every cell in your body, and can factor in every external influence... I can predict just what you'll do. And there's nothing you can do about it. No tricks, no changing your mind to fool me... none of it will work. Some people place the soul or something in at this point; I'll leave that one for another thread.

I don't like arguing about the definition of words. Words are used to communicate ideas. Their dictionary definitions must be relied upon in order to communicate effectively. Loosening or changing the definition of freedom does not help. Evidently, the definition of freedom depends on context, as no one is completely free (the laws of physics always apply). Are we unrestrained when we make decisions? Of course not. Are we free? No.

 

Judas is practically irrelevant in Christianity. I am a Christian, so this is going to sound like a flame but it's just my opinion. All religions, Christianity included, are a means of mass crowd control. It's there so the people in power get masses of people to act a certain way. Why do you think there are so many references to sheep in the bible? They herd us like animals and hope none of us question why.

Judas is not central to Christianity because it's a matter of faith. It's bull though to suggest that God directs us in very specific ways. There wouldn't have been another Judas if he didn't do it. Puh-lease. I have major reservations about the mere existance of God, much less any type of afterlife, but if such a God is up there somewhere, he isn't a pupper master pulling all our strings. He's more of an architect who has set it all in motion and just observing. Yes, I know it's called deism.

Religion is a means of explaining what cannot be explained. In another few thousand years we will have more answers, and eventually all of the answers, and religion will seem like a silly foray for no reason that all of humankind undertook for silly reasons.

I have no basic problem with religion, only that those in power use religion as an excuse of brainwashing and control over those who lack the education and open-mindedness to question something for which no proof exists. The world would be better off if Christ never existed at all, making the question of Judas in all of this, rather moot.

 

Hate to be blunt but the following statements don't really go together ...

and

Christianity is more than a heritage or the way you were raised, it is a personal relationship with Jesus Christ.

I don't mean to call you out, but you seem to be using your status as a Christian to lend weight to the argument that all religion is simply crowd control. That's a very Marxist "religion is the opiate of the people" point of view.

Jesus did not die on a cross to facilitate crowd control. The Law (Old Testament) was crowd control, Christianity and the new covenant is freedom.

It says in Galatians 3:23-26 "Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed. So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith."
Of course you also state that

Just so you know, Christian is greek for "Little Christ". People are called that because they follow Jesus so closely that they can be called "little Christs" (the same way folks called the pre-rape Kobe Bryant a "little Jordan"). Given your attitude, you might want to pick a different name for yourself ... unless of course you think that the world would be better off if you and never existed at all in which case "christian" might fit you ... based purely on your definitions.

 

@Mathetais

Allow me to retort.

I should have elaborated more when I called myself a "Christian". I was born a Christian (Catholic specifically) and raised that way. Verily, I was nearly fully indoctrinated, as I was a altar boy for 10 full years until I reached the age of 17 because our parish was so small there weren't enough volunteers to be altar boys. I suggest you do not "call me out" on this one, because I certainly have clearly stated that I have no problem with anyone who has a strong faith in religion or with religion in general for that matter. I have a problem with people who follow blindly as I think most people do. They say the words in church without thinking of their meaning. They speak because they have always done so. They're prayers are hollow.

As I said, I was an altar boy. I went to Parochial School, and even graduated from a Jesuit University. I'm not some crackpot talking out of his ass here. I'd say that while you are more versed in Christianity than me, I am far better versed in Catholicism than the typical Catholic, and therefore I feel I am making a very well-informed decision.

I was further not suggesting in any way that Jesus died on a cross to promote crowd control. However, as the following of Christianity increased, people with power - not just the pope, but rulers all over Europe in general - used religion as a crutch to control the masses. The pope is infallible. The king ruled by "divine right" meaning his decisions could not be questioned because it was tantamount to questioning God's judgement.

I don't know. I myself have never been convinced fully of the existance of God, and I have major reservations about following any religion. I do not feel that God is as all-loving and otherwise perfect as many make him out to be. I do not believe Jesus to be the best of men. I do not think religion is an acceptable means of dealing with that which currently is (and may forever remain) unknowable. Still, it seems like every Bible-thumper I've ever met uses creation as an arguement to the existance of God. Yes, evolution and the Big Bang are not perfect theories, and certainly don't answer nearly everything we'd like to know. However, I don't think anyone can answer what God did before he created the universe either.

What I do know is that while religion, and specifically Christianity has done many good things in the world, it has also done some horrible and unconscionable acts as well. I'm not fully convinced if the good outweighs the bad, but I am strongly leaning towards that it does not.

You have it easy - you already believe. I do not. I'm just not sure if that makes you the lucky one or not.

 

Aldeth and Mathetais, methinks you're both right. It's possible to be "Christian" in a political or social sense without being "a" Christian in a religious sense. And although the religious aspect of Christianity is lousy for crowd control, the political and social aspects have been historically effective for organizing the masses. Trouble is, centuries of nominalism mixed with modernist philosophy and capitalism have pret' well gutted "areligious" (neither religious nor irreligious) Christianity of its social control. Just look at Islam or Hinduism, which enforce social and legal codes without necessarily maintaining widespread zeal. Ironically, those areas where areligious Christianity is having the most impact is in loosening social controls - for example, Episcopalians that have sacrificed Biblical authority to whatever freedom-du-jour is on the menu. That kind of liberal liberation doesn't depend upon a Judas or even a Christ.

I'm a religious Christian through and through. Frankly, given how crippled the hollow Christian social identity has become, it's a wonder anyone still bothers with it. But you're right, Aldeth - historically, the political identity did have a significant effect, and it may yet again.

 

*shrug*

Whatever, just trying to help Aldeth out a bit. There is no point in holding onto the title "Christian" while looking down (despising even?) the religion. It would be like me saying, "I'm a houseplant! Of course I don't have leaves nor do I derive my food from photosynthesis ... but I'm a houseplant." *shrug* Whatever makes him happy.

 

Judas Priest was in the bible? I always thought they were Heavy Metal, not Christian Rock

 

@ Mathetais

Your wishing to help me out is touching - I mean that sincerely. But I don't think I need to be saved or anything like that. I wasn't trying to unnecessarily bash religion (and I don't think I did that). I was also in no way trying to personally insult you, as I know from previous postings you have a career in the church. Specifically, I don't know what you are, but I can only assume you are a priest/minister/something-of-the-like.

It is quite clear that we have categorical differences on this subject. I think all we can do is agree to disagree. To use a religious metaphor, consider this extending an olive branch.

 

We can indeed agree to disagree. I know that this is not a forum to necessarily change people's ideas ... too hard to do in print. My concern is that by calling yourself a "christian" while totally disagreeing with the basis of that religion, you are heaping coals on your head. I know that there is a cultural sense of being "christian" just as many non-practicing jews are still "jewish" ... its just a point I'm a stickler on.

Right now I'm between full-time church jobs, but I was the senior pastor of a church and looking to do the same (after my wife is done having babies .. they are expensive, the church doesn't pay well).

And I know I was being a bit of a stickler, but your previous posts made me think you wouldn't get offended ... which you proved correct. A little debate and pushing ideas is fun.

Olive Branch accepted.

 

Maybe we need a thread "Do you think Atheism would exist today without Christianity being a part of it?"