Was Judas a villain?
 

If you have even the slightest knowledge of Christianity, you know that Judas betrayed Jesus and revealed to the Pharisees (I think that's what they were called), and thus caused his crucifixion.

Do you believe this act of betrayal was something to be villified, or something to be commended? After all, without Judas' treachery, there would be no crucifixion. Or there might have been, we'll never know.

I haven't posted here in a while, so I thought a new thread would be a good way to reenter. :)

My opinion on this needs a little explanation behind it, so bear with me here.

My belief is that every person that has walked this planet (exception: Jesus) has sin in his/her life. And that "all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God", and that all human sins are just as offensive to God because He designed a world without any to begin with. Thus, we are all on the same level as Judas and he cannot be condemned above anyone else, you or me. God just used Judas' sin in a way that would bring about Christ's crucifixion and be the ultimate example of how we have all turned our backs on Jesus/God. I definitely would not say he is a villain.
Sucky position to be in to tell the truth, but that's just how God envisioned it to play out.

And in the words of my father: "But hey what do I know, I just sell soap" (works for Gojo Ind.)

I'm not a christian and so his status is of no concern to me, but I'd probably say he's a hero, given that Jesus knew he would and even told him to, and that he was instrumental above all the others in letting Jesus die for our sins, like he was s'posed to. Not that I really believe he did, but thats another matter altogether...

Made a bad-move... not a villain, not by a long-shot.

Welcome back Novae!

I am not a Christian (as most will know :P) but I always found this a fascinating conundrum: on the one hand Judas supposedly betrayed his Lord and beloved friend, for the price of 30 silver.....on the other hand he was carrying out his part of the Divine plan. It comes down to to the argument between free will and determinism. If it was God's plan all along that he act in that way, could he really be said to be guilty? If he had free will and yet decided to betray his friend and Lord, then how can he be said to be innocent?

Toughie.

Every good vs evil story needs a villain. Judas is just a poorly thought out plot complication in the Christian mythology.

I'm not sure where, but I remember this line from somewhere...

I'm not sure I agree, Elspode, I believe that the essentials, the bare-bones of the Jesus story are true, I believe he really did live, and had all those disciple dudes, and all that... and I believe he was a really, really cool, chill, rad, wise dude, but I don't think he was the son of god.

Judas just didn't have a good press agent. If he were alive today, the story would have gotten better spin in his favor.


BTW, speaking of Judas, has anyone else ever read the book "Virgin"? It's actually a great book and Judas plays a major part in it.

Well, if I remember my Bible stories, God had a history of messing with people and their free will. He hardened the Pharaoh's heart, causing the Pharaoh to persecute the Jews, and then God punished the Pharaoh for picking on the Jews. Not terribly fair.

We're all the sons and daughters of God...and Goddess.

And if you have an extensive knowledge of Christianity you'll realize that this is a complex question when you consider the utter lack of veracity of the King James the pederast version of the bible.

Consider reading Bart Ehrman's "Misquoting Jesus" as a start.

Judas was neither hero or villain, just a piece of the intelligent design. :redface:

Jesus did some things specifically to fulfill the Messianic prophecies. He purposely rode into Jerusalem on a donkey, as it was prophesied the Messiah would. I believe that Jesus planned the whole crucifixion thing, and Judas was a willing participant.

So, kinda like "Wag the God"?

(of course, in reference to my, above, answer) I do not believe in "bad" people or, even, in the concept of actual evil.

That was hilarious. =D

This is generating some good response, I'm seeing some points that make a lot of sense.

I believe that, agreeing with the story of Christ for the sake of argument, Judas knew he had to betray Jesus or the prophecy would not be fulfilled; I don't think he went to the Pharisees with the intent of hurting his guru. I just think it's been two thousand years, and the story's been warped to show it that way. They both (Judas and Jesus) knew what they were doing.

Give up on what exactly? That was certainly a sudden outburst

EDIT: RK, that still blows my mind, have you gone over any sort of explanation of that somewhere?

I think Judas was the fulcrum of the lever with which Christianity moved the world. He was a tool - as good as any other.

If Judas hadn't betrayed Jesus, Jesus would probably have lived to a ripe old age, writing obscure scrolls for a quaint little sect that modern historians would consider an offshoot of Judaism that briefly flourished and then died out. The rest of us would currently be pagans or atheists or insurance brokers.

Had Pontius Pilot caught Judas on a good day, Judas might well have said, "No way, man!" But the rent was probably due, the car was in the shop, and baby needed a new pair of sandles. Judas figured those 20 pieces of gold would come in handy.

Is the butterfly who flaps his wing in the Amazon and causes a hurricane a villain or a hero? Don't ask the butterfly, a parrot ate him months ago.

Of which later the story goes Judas felt guilty and took back the money but the priests would not accept blood money because it was unclean. The priests bought a plot of land which later Judas died on perhaps by hanging humself. We don't know.


Also Judas may not have been an apostile anyway so other storys go. I think Bruce might be right. He might be another intelligent design scapegoat for the Church. Maybe he was a mole from the church? lol

Anyway I don't know if he was a villian or not. Living is messy business.
He might just be away for attention to be off Pontius Pilot who didn't want to stand up to an angry Jewish mob for political reasons?

A couple of times. The very, very, short version:
There are several aspects of it... a human cannot be as simple as "bad" or "good".
As a Buddhist I think our spiritual nature is altruistic at heart (as far as what our inner-self wants). Scientifically, this follows for a pack-animal. The universe is a mechanical structure, trying to assign animistic attributes to anything such as "evil" or "benevolent" is just lazy.
But, as an atheist (not all Buddhists are atheists, I happen to be, just making sure no one jumps to conclusions) I just don't see the benefit of such mythology and self-delusion. Evil/benevolence is just a way of hiding from having to figure out the deeper meaning/connections in what has happened.

"good" and "evil"
 

One fundamental problem with "good" and "evil" is that they are subjective. As quick labels to slap on things, for a sloppy description, I think we all understand what they mean, but the problem is that nobody agrees on what the parameters of the supposed two distinct categories are. Lazy thinking shouldn't be relied upon, unless you're okay with shoddy results. People lean on these words like immovable objects, basing huge decisions on them, but in fact they are so vague as to almost be arbitrary. More often than not, they are purposefully exploited.

Exactly, you can't argue with a blanket label like that, one that makes no sense.

If it is something you talk about, why atheism over agnosticism? I'm actually reading my third book in a row on Buddism. So far, I find it very healthy for the individual but have some concern that the society that develops from it may lack the drive to improve. This may just be from my cursory reading of it so far, though, and not a valid criticism.

You can be both. Atheist: lacks a belief in gods.
Agnostic: theres no way to tell whether there are gods.

Whether you think it's possible to know is a different question from what your opinion is on the matter, which is different from whether you have religious faith in that opinion.

You have to personalize abit, you can't know ALL aspects of someones life, but you don't have to. If your relationship with someone is professional then you judge them based on their actions as a professional. If someone is a really lousy worker or does things which negatively affect you in that professional context then they come out as having a net negative. If they then go home and are a great dad/mom that's irrelevent to your opinions about them because you never come in contact with their personal life. Humans are a sum of parts, some parts of a person are productive while others are a drain on things around them, we're all a mix. The difference is whether the sum is positive or negative. And again, the crucial thing is that not every part of a person is relevent in the decision, only the parts that you can quantify.

I hadn't parsed it that way. Thanks for the insight. g

John 13:26-27 proves that Judas was only a pawn; Jesus predicts that whomever takes the bread Jesus has dipped into the bowl will betray him.

A loose quote, I'm not sure it's exact, but: "As soon as Judas took the bread, the devil entered him."

So, interesting.

Agnosticism is probably a more accurate term, the fact is that if I have to make a statement I do not believe in a sentient "God".
However, personally, I do not spend any energy on it. There is just too much to deal with in the here and now. What happens next does not matter.
Either you do your best to be the best human you can be now or you do not, either way it just does not matter.
If there happens to be the very unlikely event of a "God" that wants me to "worship" them and do things "in their name" they can kiss my ass, for more reasons than I care to list and that anyone with any intelligence can figure out on their own. But, even with Christianity, I feel that that has been taken out of context... Biblically, we have free will and are here on our own, period. Though that is just a fun story for me. The study of religions is a hobby for me, nothing more.

One of the surprising revelations of the Lost Gospel of Judas (as I recall the news stories, haven't read the text myself) was that Judas only did what he was asked by Jesus to do. Whether or not this text is authentic, without the betrayal, the Crucifixion would not have occured, and my European forebears would have been able to go along happily worshipping their own Gods.

I remember watching something about that, a special on the apocryphal books of the Bible. That's something else I don't like about the organized Christianity, the fact that a certain group of people defined the knowledge available. Who knows if Judas was trying to absolve himself from blame he didn't deserve?

Yep. But, that seems to be a pattern with organised religions generally (particularly those which have at any time been 'State religions'), it appears to be a part of the process by which a religion becomes powerful and widespread.

I'm pretty sure the Bible says that what damned Judas was that he killed himself instead of repenting for what he did. The point being that even the worst among trators are not beyond the chance for redemption. He just didn't take it.:cool: