Did Judas do God's will?

[rheff78]

This might belong in a different spot. But I've been struggling with this one for a while. As you can see, I'm Catholic, but I'm still not sure on this one. We all have freewill, including Judas, but without him betraying Jesus to the HIgh Priests then Jesus wouldn't have died for our sins. I guess my question is, was Judas doing God's will? Was he born for that specific reason? Keep in mind, I understand we all have freewill and he could have chose not to turn on Jesus. But, without his actions, the crucifixtion wouldn't have taken place. Just a thought.

 

[Phasmid]

This might belong in a different spot. But I've been struggling with this one for a while. As you can see, I'm Catholic, but I'm still not sure on this one. We all have freewill, including Judas, but without him betraying Jesus to the HIgh Priests then Jesus wouldn't have died for our sins. I guess my question is, was Judas doing God's will? Was he born for that specific reason? Keep in mind, I understand we all have freewill and he could have chose not to turn on Jesus. But, without his actions, the crucifixtion wouldn't have taken place. Just a thought.

If Jesus carried on what he was doing regardless of Judas, wouldn't he eventually have been crucified? He did have a gift for annoying the religious leaders at the time.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I guess my question is, was Judas doing God's will? Was he born for that specific reason? Keep in mind, I understand we all have freewill and he could have chose not to turn on Jesus. But, without his actions, the crucifixtion wouldn't have taken place. Just a thought.

I think it depends on how you view the crucifixion.

If the crucifixion is supposed to be one final, perfect ritual sacrifice, consider this: in the sacrifices that came before the crucifixion, would the man who led the sheep in to be sacrificed have been doing the will of God? In the ritual as it existed before Jesus, if Judas had brought a literal lamb to be sacrificed, would he have been considered a holy man or a criminal?

I think that if you want to conclude that Judas was not doing the will of God, you first have to decide that the crucifixion itself was not the will of God.

 

[rheff78]

I think it depends on how you view the crucifixion.

If the crucifixion is supposed to be one final, perfect ritual sacrifice, consider this: in the sacrifices that came before the crucifixion, would the man who led the sheep in to be sacrificed have been doing the will of God? In the ritual as it existed before Jesus, if Judas had brought a literal lamb to be sacrificed, would he have been considered a holy man or a criminal?

I think that if you want to conclude that Judas was not doing the will of God, you first have to decide that the crucifixion itself was not the will of God.

I guess illustrates my point. IMHO, I view the crucifixtion as God's will. Jesus was born to die for our sins, so where does Judas fit in? Was HE doing God's will, was he righteous or evil, or what?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I guess illustrates my point. IMHO, I view the crucifixtion as God's will. Jesus was born to die for our sins, so where does Judas fit in? Was HE doing God's will, was he righteous or evil, or what?

If you go by that interpretation, I'd say that the result of his actions was God's will. His motives may have been suspect, though.

If an action is done for bad reasons but has a good result overall, is it a good action? Depends on your point of view, I guess.

 

[logician]

The passion story was a made up story, Judas betraying the the suppsed Jesus was I guess a needed element in that story.

 

[Yeshua_Lives]

This might belong in a different spot. But I've been struggling with this one for a while. As you can see, I'm Catholic, but I'm still not sure on this one. We all have freewill, including Judas, but without him betraying Jesus to the HIgh Priests then Jesus wouldn't have died for our sins. I guess my question is, was Judas doing God's will? Was he born for that specific reason? Keep in mind, I understand we all have freewill and he could have chose not to turn on Jesus. But, without his actions, the crucifixtion wouldn't have taken place. Just a thought.

Judas is a Dark Angel. Without Judas, the crucifixion would NOT take place.

 

[Melancholy]

If you go by the Gospel of Judas then the plan was for Judas to turn Jesus over to the pharisees for the final act to be carried out.
it was an agreement between the two and Judas was not happy about it, but carried it out regardless.

 

[trinity2359]

If you go by that interpretation, I'd say that the result of his actions was God's will. His motives may have been suspect, though.

If an action is done for bad reasons but has a good result overall, is it a good action? Depends on your point of view, I guess.

This goes against Catholic teaching that the ends NEVER justify the means. I was just thinking this from Catholic reading about abortion - saving the mom does not justify aborting the baby because the means don't justify the good ends. (read from Cathlolicism for dummies).

Back to topic, therefore, God to allow Judas to 'sin' to bring about the crucifixion wouldn't work...hmm have to think about this.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

This goes against Catholic teaching that the ends NEVER justify the means. I was just thinking this from Catholic reading about abortion - saving the mom does not justify aborting the baby because the means don't justify the good ends. (read from Cathlolicism for dummies).

OTOH, Catholic teaching allows for "just war": the Church allows an action where innocent people suffer and die, so long as that the net result is better than what would have occurred otherwise, and no less extreme means would have acheived those ends.

Sometimes the ends do justify the means, apparently.

In any case, I wasn't trying to justify the means, I was addressing the motive. It seems to me that if you consider Jesus to take the place of a sacrificial lamb, then it's necessary that he actually be sacrificed. The question in my mind is whether why Judas did it would have any bearing on our opinion of the act and its results.

The Bible describes Judas helping the Romans find Jesus out of fear and greed; as was pointed out before, the apocryphal Gospel of Judas describes him acting out of duty and loyalty. The means and the method are the same in both; the primary difference is the motive.

 

[Captain Civic]

the primary difference is the motive.

I personally think that's the part that matters.

 

[Katzpur]

This might belong in a different spot. But I've been struggling with this one for a while. As you can see, I'm Catholic, but I'm still not sure on this one. We all have freewill, including Judas, but without him betraying Jesus to the HIgh Priests then Jesus wouldn't have died for our sins. I guess my question is, was Judas doing God's will? Was he born for that specific reason? Keep in mind, I understand we all have freewill and he could have chose not to turn on Jesus. But, without his actions, the crucifixtion wouldn't have taken place. Just a thought.

In my opinion, each of us -- including Judas -- has free will. I don't believe for a minute that he was doing God's will, but that God knew that he was the kind of person who would be willing to sell out on the Savior. Judas could have been born at any time or place. The fact that he was born in the Holy Land and met up with Jesus Christ was, in my opinion, neither a mere coincidence nor was it in violation of Judas's free will.

 

[Jeremy Mason]

(John 6:70) states that Jesus picked the Twelve but that one was the devil: this being Judas. (John 12:6) states that Judas had been taking money from the money bag for his own purposes. It's apparent to me that Judas, by freewill, was acting against God's will well before he betrayed Jesus. Just as good builds on good, evil builds on evil.

 

[mudge991]

Hmm Then explain Acts 1:13

1:13 And when they were come in, they went up into an upper room, where abode both Peter, and James, and John, and Andrew, Philip, and Thomas, Bartholomew, and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon Zelotes, and Judas the brother of James.

Then reference it with Mark 3:14-18

3:14 And he ordained twelve, that they should be with him, and that he might send them forth to preach, 3:15 And to have power to heal sicknesses, and to cast out devils:
3:16 And Simon he surnamed Peter; 3:17 And James the son of Zebedee, and John the brother of James; and he surnamed them Boanerges, which is, The sons of thunder: 3:18 And Andrew, and Philip, and Bartholomew, and Matthew, and Thomas, and James the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus, and Simon the Canaanite

Mark says that Thaddeus was one of the twelve apostles, but his name is not included in the lists given in Luke (6:14-16) or Acts (1:13), which list Judas the brother of James instead.

Maybe Judas was just a guy in the wrong place at the wrong time?

 

[crystalonyx]

None of the disciples existed, just like Jesus, just a story invented by bishops of the early literalist church to create a real Jesus to gain believers.

 

[rheff78]

ALright, this isn't a question for people that don't believe in Jesus or Judas. If you don't believe, great. But kindly back out of the debate if you don't have anything productive to add.

 

[Katzpur]

ALright, this isn't a question for people that don't believe in Jesus or Judas. If you don't believe, great. But kindly back out of the debate if you don't have anything productive to add.

Thank you. I don't know what these bozos think they are contributing by their off-topic comments. You might want to request that a moderator move this debate to the "Same Faith Debates," rheff. You could ask that it be restricted to "Catholics Only," "Christians Only," or "Abrahamic Faiths Only."

 

[logician]

ALright, this isn't a question for people that don't believe in Jesus or Judas. If you don't believe, great. But kindly back out of the debate if you don't have anything productive to add.

If you want same-faith debates, put it it same-faith debates, otherwise you have no argument.

 

[Willamena]

None of the disciples existed, just like Jesus, just a story invented by bishops of the early literalist church to create a real Jesus to gain believers.

Perhaps, but that would be a topic for another thread.

 

[rheff78]

Perhaps, but that would be a topic for another thread.

ALright, do I just ask for this to be moved to same-faith debates? I guess I'm asking then. For Abrahamic Religions only then?