“Well, if he was the devil as John implies, or devil-possessed, then he could not.”
John does imply Judas was the devil.
I can say he could not do this or that but that's a conclusion neither stated nor indicated in the account.
and yes, I am aware of the difference in the two Greek words, repent being being used of both and by both of us.
Judas felt reget, metameletheis, “repent”, used also in Matt.21:29 for regret, repent, and a change of action by the son of the farmer. I'm not misled at all.
“So, yes, Judas was unable to repent, because if he did God would have forgiven him. Just being sorry doesn't cut it. In fact, John's account makes no sense in this regard since Judas, if he were the devil as John alleges, would have not even regretted, let alone repented!”
Some of us are not able to read the mind of God so perfectly that we can say what He would do under all circumstances and events. Or know what others are capable of doing in some different circumstance than what happened.
John’s account says Jesus called Judas a slanderer or devil in the broad or general sense, a devil, a slanderer, not in the specific, THE Devil or THE Slanderer. It's an important distinction.
“No human being is a clean vessel.”
That's what I call nit picking. and it deserves no further.
” It's just that John makes sure no one feels that Judas was a victim whose regret could have been forgiven.”
Well, we, who are MERE MORTALS, find reading John's motives, John's unstated motives, from a distance of 2000 years more difficult than you might, but as I say, we're mere mortals.
Wouldn't he know that from the start (given that he chose him for a,specific purpose)? Instead it sound like he had to "find out."
That would a devil, not THE Devil.
That is not a given. καὶ ἐξ ὑμῶν εἷς [no article] διάβολός ἐστιν
leaving out the article altogether which is translated as "a devil". But we find the same grammatical form by the same author in John 1:1
καὶ [no article] θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος
which should be consistently translated as "a god" instead of [the] God (as it would read in Greek since Greek has definite articles for proper names) and since he was with (pros) God, and therefore not God. I realize that this is also Arian argument, which doesn't make it any less consistent or logical.
But it really makes no difference if Judas was a demon (devil) possessed man all along, or if he became Satan-possessed at the Last Supper, the important thing is that either way he would not be able to exercise his free will.
Some of us are not able to read the mind of God so perfectly that we can say what He would do under all circumstances and events.
No need to. Luke 13:3, 5 says "unless you repent you will likewise perish." See also Luke 15:7, "there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who need no repentance" and in 15:10 he says "I tell you, there is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner who repents."
Luke 17:3-4 says outright that repentance calls for forgiveness "Be on your guard! If your brother sins, rebuke him; and if he repents, forgive him. And if he sins against you seven times a day, and returns to you seven times, saying, 'I repent,' forgive him"
Luke 24:17 "and that repentance for forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in His name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem."
Acts 3;19 "Therefore repent and return, so that your sins may be wiped away"
Rom 2:4, 2 Cor 7:9 God grants repentance (it's not free will!)
2 Cor 7:10 "For the sorrow that is according to the will of God produces a repentance without regret leading to salvation."
In other words, the reason the Greek doesn't use metanoia in the case of Judas is because Got did not grant repentance to Judas. To those to whom God grants repentance and they repent, God forgives. Those who repent have been granted the opportunity to be saved.
Without God's permission, they cannot repent. No free will involved, and the Greek text makes that obvious by grammatically staying with the appropriate word (metomellomai) inappropriately translated in KJV as repent, instead of metanoia.
“No human being is a clean vessel.” That's what I call nit picking. and it deserves no further.
Because it's true and orthodox. truth can be nit picking. It's still true.
Well, we, who are MERE MORTALS, find reading John's motives, John's unstated motives, from a distance of 2000 years more difficult than you might, but as I say, we're mere mortals.
Some mere mortals can read Greek and understand. :) Other mere mortals read crappy translations that have become entrenched as traditions of men (KJV) and are revered over the original language. Easy does it...