Posted on 01/12/2006 7:42:57 AM PST by Alouette
Proposed ‘rehabilitation’ of the man who was paid 30 pieces of silver to identify Jesus to Roman soldiers in the Garden of Gethsemane, comes on the ground that he was not deliberately evil, but was just ‘fulfilling his part in God’s plan, the London Times reports
Judas Iscariot, the disciple who betrayed Jesus with a kiss, is to be given a makeover by Vatican scholars, according to the London Times.
The proposed “rehabilitation” of the man who was paid 30 pieces of silver to identify Jesus to Roman soldiers in the Garden of Gethsemane, comes on the ground that he was not deliberately evil, but was just “fulfilling his part in God’s plan,” the London Times said.
Christians have traditionally blamed Judas for aiding and abetting the Crucifixion, and his name is synonymous with treachery. According to St Luke, Judas was “possessed by Satan.”
According to the London Times, a campaign led by Monsignor Walter Brandmuller, head of the Pontifical Committee for Historical Science, is aimed at persuading believers to look kindly at a man reviled for 2,000 years.
Mgr Brandmuller told fellow scholars it was time for a “re-reading” of the Judas story. He is supported by Vittorio Messori, a prominent Catholic writer close to both Pope Benedict XVI and the late John Paul II.
Signor Messori said that the rehabilitation of Judas would “resolve the problem of an apparent lack of mercy by Jesus toward one of his closest collaborators.”
He told La Stampa that there was a Christian tradition that held that Judas was forgiven by Jesus and ordered to purify himself with “spiritual exercises” in the desert.
'Judas portrayed with a hooked nose'
In scholarly circles, it has long been unfashionable to demonize Judas and Catholics in Britain are likely to welcome Judas’ rehabilitation.
The London Times quoted Father Allen Morris, Christian Life and Worship secretary for the Catholic Bishops of England and Wales, as saying, “If Christ died for all — is it possible that Judas too was redeemed through the Master he betrayed?”
The “rehabilitation” of Judas could help the Pope’s drive to improve Christian-Jewish relations, which he has made a priority of his pontificate.
Some Bible experts say Judas was “a victim of a theological libel which helped to create anti Semitism” by forming an image of him as a “sinister villain” prepared to betray for money.
In many medieval plays and paintings Judas is portrayed with a hooked nose and exaggerated Semitic features. In Dante’s Inferno, Judas is relegated to the lowest pits of Hell, where he is devoured by a three-headed demon.
The move to clear Judas’s name coincides with plans to publish the alleged Gospel of Judas for the first time in English, German and French. Though not written by Judas, it is said to reflect the belief among early Christians — now gaining ground in the Vatican — that in betraying Christ Judas was fulfilling a divine mission, which led to the arrest and Crucifixion of Jesus and hence to man’s salvation, according to the London Times.
'Fell headlong'
Mgr Brandmuller said that he expected “no new historical evidence” from the supposed gospel, which had been excluded from the canon of accepted Scripture.
But it could “serve to reconstruct the events and context of Christ’s teachings as they were seen by the early Christians.” This included that Jesus had always preached “forgiveness for one’s enemies.”
Some Vatican scholars have expressed concern over the reconsideration of Judas. Monsignor Giovanni D’Ercole, a Vatican theologian, said it was “dangerous to re-evaluate Judas and muddy the Gospel accounts by reference to apocryphal writings. This can only create confusion in believers.”
The Gospels tell how Judas later returned the 30 pieces of silver — his “blood money” — and hanged himself, or according to the Acts of the Apostles, “fell headlong and burst open so that all his entrails burst out."
Why is it so important for you to believe that Christ's petition was not answered?
Uhhh. do what? Are you spouting the gospel according to the book of Daniel?
I think the way it works is that if GOD can forgive us our sins, who are we to not forgive ourselves, and to keep beating ourselves up after penitence and absolution.
It's a subtle difference, but essential.
We have to keep in mind that Jesus did not come to judge the world the 1st time, He came to save it. When He comes again He will be judge.
PM we are born deserving Hell, men are not going to be condemned because they committed a sin and therefore deserve hell, they will be condemned because they did not repent and come to the cross in faith. So even if that sin was not laid to their charge, they stood would stand condemned without Christ.
Every person that attends the banquet supper of the lamb will have nailed Christ to that cross, that will be covered only by the righteousness of Christ.
So wether they will be held accountable for that one sin at the final judgment will be the least of their concerns if they did not come to Christ before their last breath .
Because the only alternative -- to disavow the rest of the Bible with respect to forgiveness of sins -- is unreasonable. No passage of Scripture stands alone. The proper way of interpreting Scripture is in the light of the rest of Scripture. So, if verse A seems to say something, but verses B, C, D, E, etc say something (apparently) to the contrary, the A must be understood in accord with the rest. You have not offered any response that accounts for all the other verses I mentioned (and I could mention many more).
Why is it so important for you to believe that -- based on one verse -- this sin was not charged to those who ultimately may not have repented and turned to Christ for forgiveness of all their sins?
Watch this:
And he entered into a ship, and passed over, and came into his own city. And, behold, they brought to him a man sick of the palsy, lying on a bed: and Jesus seeing their faith said unto the sick of the palsy; Son, be of good cheer; thy sins be forgiven thee. (Matthew 9:1-2 KJV)
OK, where was the repentance? Jesus unilaterally forgave him of his sins for no other apparent reason than that he knew it would get the Pharisees goats. It did.
In the parallel account in Mark we read:
"And when they could not come near Him because of the crowd, they uncovered the roof where He was. So when they had broken through, they let down the bed on which the paralytic was lying. When Jesus saw their faith, He said to the paralytic, 'Son, your sins are forgiven you.'" (Mark 2:4,5)
In this case there was a genuine expression of faith.
Which underscores the point, of those at the cross, if they believed on Christ then they would receive forgiveness of their sins. Not until.
I'm not sure why you continue to kick against the testimony of Scripture? What does it serve to insist that those who are not in Christ may not have had one sin charged to their account?
I guess Jesus was not omnipotent. His ability to forgive men was conditional upon their ability to see their sin and repent of it?
Jesus called upon his Father to forgive them "for they know not what they do." Now you have two possibilities. Either they knew what they were doing, and thus Jesus was a liar, or they did not know what they were doing, and Jesus forgave them.
It's your choice.
I think we've beaten this horse to death. The bible says it, I believe it, that settles it.
You analogy is interesting. However, the scripture clearly states that the Mustard seed is the smallest seed. Even if taken in the context of who Christ was talking to, it would have been easier to explain that a small seed, like a mustard seed can grow into something large and strong. But He didn't. He said it was the smallest.
At least two.
The other possibilites are that:
- Jesus was addressing only the soldier mentioned at the end of the same verse, "Then Jesus said, 'Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they do.' And they divided His garments and cast lots." It could be perhaps He was simply speaking of the Roman soldiers.
- Jesus was speaking only about the Jews who were following the leadership in ignorance. Obviously all the leaders knew exactly what they were doing to Christ. Just compare this to the parable in Matt. 21 where Jesus said, "Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken from you and given to a nation bearing the fruits of it." They were hardly innocent. "Now when the chief priests and Pharisees heard His parables, they perceived that He was speaking of them. But when they sought to lay hands on Him, they feared the multitudes, because they took Him for a prophet." (Matt. 21:45,46)
But regardless, it does not mean they were ever forgiven of this one sin apart from total forgiveness in Christ. That would violate the sense of the rest of the Bible, as you have yet to dispute from the Scriptures.
It's your choice.
Certainly not as cut and dried as you make it to be. I don't wish to ignore the rest of the Bible to make some triffling theological point.
Can we agree that everyone who was there that didn't know what they were doing was forgiven?
I can agree that 1) Christ asked the Father to forgive them, and 2) all who are found in Christ, and only those, are truly forgiven of any and all sins.
Thus saith the Scriptures.
And it would be in the agricultural context in which it was used at that time. i.e., sewing small seeds and growing big plants.
Next.
Posted by XeniaSt to Alouette
On Religion 01/12/2006 10:50:37 AM CST · 20 of 232
Here we go again.
Man's tradition, again, trumps the Holy Word of G-d.
Worse yet, it is Gnostic ( secret spiritual exercises to gain access to Heaven ).
Don't ignore the last part of your statement.
The passage refers to the seed as being "the least of all seeds" which is to say, the smallest of all seeds. We've agreed on that.
Since Christ does not lie and the mustard seed is not the smallest seed, then we must conclude the writer was in error as to what Christ said.
For using apologetics in the way I have, it would then be entirely possible that Christ spoke only of a small seed, not the leaset seed, growing into to a large and vibrant plant. Otherwise He could have spoken to knowing of seeds even smaller than the mustard. But in scripture, he has declared it to be the least or smallest. However, according to scripture, He didn't.
But that's the problem with apologetics. It's the Christians liberalism. The same as political liberals do with our founding documents. There are a number of ways to explain away a conflict. But the question then remains; are those apologetic conclusions inspired or simply conspired by well meaning people trying to explain a biblical conflict?
See 198
Christian liberalism starts with the phrase: "Did Jesus really say...." or "Did Jesus really do..."
Christian conservatism starts with the a priori assumption that the Bible is the inspired word of God. The state of the church in the world is such now because of Christian liberalism. If you want to go down that road, then have a nice trip.
<><
Marlowe
I did - and there is no reason for you to toss out the "Gnostic" accusation at the Catholic Church. What exactly are you learning in your cult meetings?
it is good to fast and pray to open your heart and allow the Holy Spirit to lead you. "How can the Holy Spirit lead you if your heart is far from Him?" Nothing about "earning your salvation".
Don't trust the London Times for religious information... or for anything really.
If it doesn't say it as seen, then it doesn't say it.
I believe the story of the bible. I cannot believe the details, written by humans, are not without error. Especially since so many of the writings, including those of the Gospels were done after the fact.
The story is divinely guided. The details....well there are some problems.
Again, apologetics allows Christians to get to their desired outcome, similar to the way liberals use a form of apologetics to get to outcomes deired in the Declaration and Constitution.
But when interpreting a document you must take into consideration the intention of the framers. The intention of the framers of the Bible was to tell the truth as led by the holy spirit. So we start with the a priori assumption that what they have told us is true.
If you start questioning whether or not they told the truth, then you are left without a framework and the bible becomes just another book of fairy tales.
For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty. (2Pe 1:16 KJV)
Did Peter REALLY say that?
Can you see where you will end up if you start going there?
Now which method is more "liberal"?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.