Og

I'm curious about our interpretation of judas' role in the events of the crucifiction. First, it was necessary for this act to fulfill the prophecies and for jesus to demonstrate his final act of transcendance.

When at the last supper, when jesus said "he who I hand this piece of bread to will betray me" was he indicating that he knew that someone would betray him or was he giving a command to one of his most spiritually advanced disciples?

The act of crucifiction was necessary for completion in the jewish tradition and it's clearly the pivotal symbol of christianity (easter being the biggest holiday where churches have the highest attendance).

The story of the cruicifiction itself even contains the opposites of good and evil when you look at the good theif and the bad theif on either side of jesus (in the middle). It shows jesus back in the garden of eden at the fruit of the pairs of opposites of good and evil. This ultimate symbol of christ's message of transcendence of sin was not possible without judas' action.

I once played the character of JohnTheBaptist/Judas in a production of Godspell (a 70s version of the gospel according to matthew) and really enjoyed the way that the author of the play had placed these two characters together as very deeply spiritual people and how the transformation throughout the play was virtually non-existant as they always stood out as the counterpart to jesus. Jesus' shadow, so to speak.

John the baptist baptizes jesus and judas delivers him to the crucifiction with a kiss.

Anyway, just some thoughts.

Og

The gospel of Judas (found in the past century)
Gospel of Judas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Seems to support this point of view. Judas as being a chosen of jesus because he HAD to experience this transcendence. And I don't think anyone who takes a first look at the act of that self-immolating monk during the vietnam war who isn't immediately struck with a similar feeling of that which was expressed in the 4 canonical gospels.

We're talking about an OLD text from before canonization:
I can see quite clearly why this wouldn't be included in the canon regardless of it's factual nature. I just can't reconcile the fact that the crucifixtion is such a powerful symbol of Christianity and necessarily representative of christ's transcendence and that what judas did was a bad thing.

Christ means "Anointed One"
Buddha means "Awakened One"

lemmex

I view both of these characters and maybe the situation differently. I see Jesus allowing Judas to betray him. Jesus obviously could have choosen not to let events unfold. The betrayal was a situation that got out of hand and if Judas had known the outcome he would not have betrayed Jesus. It's clear he felt terrible remorse in the end which he would not have felt if Jesus were not a friend or someone important to him. I don't believe Judas knowingly intended to deliever him to be crucified. But this is not even relavent. What I am most struck with are the last words of Jesus when he says "Father forgive them for they know not what they do." It's clear all who were involved in having a part of the crucifition were forgiven. It had to come about.

As far as the character of John the Baptist I debate if he wasn't killed off as a figure to make way for Jesus. A first time reader immediately gets the impression John is greater then Jesus in the beginning. His death solves the problem and removes him from the conflict. What confuses me about John is the conflict when John "knows" who Jesus is at one time yet while he is in prision he sends his deciples to asks if he is.

Is the crucifiction pivotal or the resurrection.

Og

That's one quote of jesus on the cross before death. Jesus, in the canonical gospels, is also quoted as saying "My God, why hath thou forsaken me!"

Quite different images of his attitude. I forget which is from where, but they're from different gospels of different people with different ideas about the crucifixtion. Both in the bible. But yeah.. What you're putting forward is the generally accepted view that the various canonical gospels and the tradition of the church's teachings and dogma illustrate.

I'm offering a different interpretation which parallels the life of the buddha from 500 years earlier (a theme which would be available in the region at the time of year 0). It also parallels other available non-canonical texts (gnostic ideas) and happens to answer the question of how the crucifixtion was necessary for fulfillment of the prophecies.

icer

In a related issue, I'm wondering if Judas was consigned to Hell. Some awful cursed death happens to him, I think in the beginning of the book of Acts. But obviously it was virtually predestined by God that Judas would betray Jesus and hand him over. So he didn't have much free will in the matter and was virtually forced by God to sin. So did Judas even have a chance to repent or be forgiven? It doesn't seem very fair. Events like this in the Bible cause me to worry that God might 'love' humanity as a whole, but sees individual humans as like ants in a colony - the individual worker ants are expendable pawns for the good of the colony, like cells in a body. [And it doesn't really matter if they go to hell because of it]

Og

People come up with the most bizarre rationalizations to make this stuff work. They're willing to question their idea of god and god's attitudes, but not the content of the bible itself. So weird.

__________________
Vi veri veniversum vivus vici. (By the power of truth, I, while living, have conquered the universe)
The self is not a fixed entity but a dynamic process of relationships
You & I, no distinction. - Tat Tvam Asi
Become Who You Are

Providence

I've always wondered if he actually knew that Jesus was going to die when he turned him in. Assuming that the basic story is true (for the sake of argument), Judas turns Jesus over to the temple authorities, who had no authority to execute him. The temple authorities, in turn, handed Jesus over to the Romans, who did have that authority. Notice that Judas tries giving them their money back after that. Maybe he had no idea that Jesus was going to be executed in the first place. Just a thought.

The An-Jel

Didn't you watch Dracula 2000? Typical bloody Vamp/Dracula story but it turns out that Judas is actually Dracula and he can never be destroyed because he like Jesus' eternal light for being the betrayer Judas must be in eternal darkness!

Hollywood aside. If Jesus really planned Judas betrayal Jesus really couldn't be a good guy could he. While interesting in a historical context (if it did happen) for me it doesn't make Jesus a really good guy like everyone says he is. Jesus=God=All-Knowing... he damned his own worshiper! I wouldn't want to be a part of anyone like that unless Judas volunteered to do it.

__________________
"And let there be Light!" said the Blind man.

Life is simple, people make it complicated - Basilisk

Nulli Expugnabilis Hosti - Royal Gibraltar Regiment

jaej

Yeah..It kinda does bug me how much of Christianity treats Judas like some sort of sub-human animal. I mean, without him, there would be no crucifiction, no Christianity. Judas was just the catalyst. Don't blame him.

__________________
Μολὼν Λαβέ

Lasciate ogne speranza, voi ch'intrate