Note: this topic was posted 04/09/2006. Thanks jude24.
Posted on 04/09/2006 3:45:01 PM PDT by jude24
With his plan of betrayal beginning to take root, Jesus's comment to Mary in Verse 7 probably begins to galvanize his antipathy towards Christ even further, as someone he has come to view as unbearably impotent, as it relates to Jesus's restoration of a real, live Kingdom of this world. And it probably really ticks him off, because it's dismissive.
As I understand it, Judas was a zealot and any other kind of Kingdom held little, if any meaning for him. And all of this invigorates his pursuit of ending what he believes to be a fraud. He's probably even more angry for having been 'taken in.'
1Six days before the Passover, Jesus arrived at Bethany, where Lazarus lived, whom Jesus had raised from the dead. 2Here a dinner was given in Jesus' honor. Martha served, while Lazarus was among those reclining at the table with him. 3Then Mary took about a pint[a] of pure nard, an expensive perfume; she poured it on Jesus' feet and wiped his feet with her hair. And the house was filled with the fragrance of the perfume.4But one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, who was later to betray him, objected, 5"Why wasn't this perfume sold and the money given to the poor? It was worth a year's wages.[b]" 6He did not say this because he cared about the poor but because he was a thief; as keeper of the money bag, he used to help himself to what was put into it.
7"Leave her alone," Jesus replied. " It was intended that she should save this perfume for the day of my burial. 8You will always have the poor among you, but you will not always have me."
9Meanwhile a large crowd of Jews found out that Jesus was there and came, not only because of him but also to see Lazarus, whom he had raised from the dead. 10So the chief priests made plans to kill Lazarus as well, 11for on account of him many of the Jews were going over to Jesus and putting their faith in him.
"Judas' revealing to the authorities where Jesus' private spot was so that He could be arrested without the crowd's presence."
But Jesus was not really hiding from anyone. The next time Jesus ministered in Jerusalem, he would certainly have been arrested by the Temple and/or Roman authorities to answer questions regarding His Beliefs.
If there had been a huge amount of Jesus' supporters nearby , so what? Jesus would have told them not to use violence to protect Him, just as he told his Disciples. That was what the glory of Jesus was all about.
The fact that Judas kissed Jesus in the garden is put in new perspective in the Gospel of Judas. From this view, it wasn't a kiss of treason, but a kiss of genuine admiration. Why else did not Jesus try to stop Judas from betraying Him? Most likely because He wasn't outraged by it, merely thought it was part of God's plan for him
Several times in the Gospels, it is mentioned that "the authorities" could not lay their hands on Him because it was not His time yet. I am thinking that the crowd protected Him in these cases, allowing Him to escape. On several other occasions, Jesus purposely avoided certain places "because the Jews were trying to kill Him". One time, He didn't go to a festival - but only came incognito later to Jerusalem (John's Gospel). Apparently, Jesus did not have freedom of movement in the latter portion of His ministry.
If there had been a huge amount of Jesus' supporters nearby , so what? Jesus would have told them not to use violence to protect Him, just as he told his Disciples. That was what the glory of Jesus was all about.
If it wasn't Jesus time yet to fulfill His "hour", then He certainly could have "let" the crowds protect Him from the authorities. The Romans were not about to use a heavy hand in this case. Pilate was already in hot water for doing just that on several occasions before Christ's trial. And the Jews were not about to start a riot in trying to arrest Christ who had the support of the crowds. It would be much easier to take Jesus when the crowds went home and many of His disciples were sleeping while Christ was in prayer.
The fact that Judas kissed Jesus in the garden is put in new perspective in the Gospel of Judas. From this view, it wasn't a kiss of treason, but a kiss of genuine admiration. Why else did not Jesus try to stop Judas from betraying Him? Most likely because He wasn't outraged by it, merely thought it was part of God's plan for him
Judas didn't betray someone he "admired". That's not how things work. He lost faith in Christ's plan of how He was to save the Jews. You don't kiss someone you "admire", then say "here he is, arrest him"...
According to the Gospels, Jesus knew that Judas would betray Him. Thus, how was He surprised, and why WOULD He stop Him? Didn't He pray in the Garden JUST BEFORE that if it was God's will, to take away this cup? Apparently, it was NOT God's will, because the arrest party showed up immediately after Jesus prayed this to His Father...God answers prayers, doesn't He?!
Regards
I, also, was continuously educated in the Publik Skools; from KinderGarten, through Grammar School, and through High School, until I reached Jerry Falwell's Liberty University*.
When I condemn the Gubmint Skools, I speak not from Private-School-Elitism, but FROM PERSONAL EXPERIENCE.
2. The textual evidence is useful to show that the New Testament is substantively what it was ca. 150 AD. It does not, standing alone, prove authority. Ultimately, it is not sufficient to answer to floridaobserver's allegations that the NT misrepresents Judas's actions.
The Textual Evidence, however, is sufficiently useful to prove the Authenticity of the Text (I.E., whether one believes its Truth or not, the Majority Text in our possession is an Authentic rendition of the Original). As you say, "The textual evidence is useful to show that the New Testament is substantively what it was ca. 150 AD". Modern Biblical Revisionism -- whether "The Passover Plot", or "The Da Vince Code", or what have you, is largely based upon the claim that the New Testament is somehow "tampered" or "white-washed".
That CLAIM is simply NOT Logically-defensible.
The New Testament IS what it IS, and has a Thousand Times more Proof of its Textual Authenticity than "The Annals of Tacitus" or "Julius Caesar's Gallic Wars" or any other important Document of Ancient History; the only question, then, is whether or not One Chooses to Believe what The New Testament says -- the notion of impugning its Textual Authenticity should be relegated to the scrap-heap of history.
3. The aforementioned said, you are absolutely right about his misunderstanding of the origins of the word "Iscariot" - that he was a Zealot.
And more particularly, a "Sacarii" Zealot Radical, who of course would be thus disillusioned by Jesus Christ's unwillingness to directly confront to Roman Authorities.
I will relent, however, in saying that "floridaobserver" need not continue to be a Fool. He might, of course, find himself inspired to examine real Bible Scholarship (which somewhat exceeds what you'll find on the Discovery Channel).
But that depends on his own Choice.
Best, OP
POTTER'S FIELD
Historical Background
"Then Judas, which had betrayed Him, saw that he was condemned, repented himself, and brought again the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests . . . and they took counsel, and bought with them the potters' field to bury strangers in." This excerpt from the Gospel of St. Matthew is probably the origin of the name Potter's Field; certainly, even in pre-Biblical times, man felt the obligation to do justice and honor to the dead with proper burial.
___________________________________________________________
Dear Yahoo!:
Where did the term "Potters Field" come from?
Dale
Aurora, Ohio
Dear Dale:
We set out to unearth the origin of this curious term for the place where indigent or unknown people are laid to rest with a search on "potters field origin." We hit pay dirt with our first result, a web page from the New York Correction History Society.
According to the page, the term "Potters Field" probably derives from the Gospel of Matthew. In the book, after Judas Iscariot betrays Christ, he repents and returns his payment of 30 pieces of silver to the priests before hanging himself. The priests called the coins "the price of blood" and did not want to put them in the temple treasury, so they used them to buy a field:
And they took counsel, and bought with them the potter's field, to bury strangers in.
The original Potters Field is thought to have been located in Hinnom valley in Jerusalem. The burial ground was also called the "Field of Blood" or "Aceldama" in the Aramaic language.
Usually with etymology questions, we find a number of likely explanations (along with some not-so-likely ones). But in the case of "Potters Field," there seems to be a general consensus that the term comes from the Bible, and we uncovered no other popular explanations.
If "choice" equals free will, then so am I. (You'd have to say, though, that I am either not calvinist, or calvinist of my own peculiar brand.)
The Gospel of Judah
There is a bit of pathos in the prominence given here to the publication of the Gospel of Judas. The story appeared prominently on the front page of Ha'aretz. Prominent radio talk shows interviewed leading experts and asked time and again, would the revelation work to end the religious basis of anti-Semitism?
For those not in the loop, the Gospel of Judas surfaced in a Coptic translation discovered in an Egyptian desert repository. Tests find it to be an ancient document, perhaps from the third century, which tells a story that Judas was the favored disciple; his turning over Jesus to the Roman authorities was in keeping with Jesus' wish to be put to death in order to free his spirit from the encumbrance of his body.
What was found was a copy in Coptic of a Gospel composed many years earlier, known to Church fathers, and kept out of the New Testament. Whether the story it tells is historically true or not is lost to us. Scholars recognize that early Christians conceived of numerous ideas not canonized, or accepted by those who put together the New Testament. The assignment of the name Judah (Jew) to the disciple defined as evil may well have been made in order to further the emphasis against the Jews. The modern recognition that the New Testament was composed several decades after Jesus' death, and is something other than true history recorded in real time, is part of the effort made by Catholics and others to discount its accusations against the Jews. It is common among scholars to view the New Testament as designed to tell the story of a new and weak religious community, concerned to justify itself in the eyes of Roman authorities and to cast aspersions on the dominant Jews.
Roman Catholic Church leaders have said in recent days that they do not expect the Gospel of Judas to alter Church doctrine. What was categorized with other heresies many centuries ago will not easily win recognition as authentic. Changing the canonized Christian Bible will be especially difficult when there are many Christian churches, each with its own authorities and inclinations, in a period when the issue of authenticity is very much open to question in religious circles as well as elsewhere. A century ago Albert Schweitzer wrote his doctoral dissertation around the question of finding what is real in the New Testament's material about Jesus. Since then numerous other scholars have worked the field, typically admitting that there is a great deal of uncertainty. Replacing one set of tendentious stories with another does not make a great deal of intellectual sense.
The Hebrew Bible also has its problems as historic text, as is well known to anyone who has entered the endless list of books and articles that wrestle with the problems of finding historic reality in a collection of good literature composed before historians worried about portraying accuracy. As in the case of the New Testament, those who contributed to the accumulation of the Hebrew Bible as we know it decided in favor of some stories, and against others. Scholars see real signs of political conflict between those who wanted to advance one group of priests, or the Temple in Jerusalem, against other claimants of being the true priests, or the site that should have a monopoly of being the Holy Temple. What we read as ancient Jewish history is no more certain in its details than what we read about Jesus and the disciples in the New Testament. We read the stories of the winners: those who wrote the history that came to be accepted as authentic.
We should hope for the best in the continuing efforts of the Roman Catholic Church and other Christian leaders to accept Jews as something other than Christ killers. But it may be that the cartoonist of Ha'aretz got the story better than the serious writer of the front page article. He pictures two worried fathers of the Church, with one of them saying, "That Judah is again causing problems."
Posted by Ira Sharkansky at 11:17 PM | Comments (1)
The only argument I've ever heard for the notion that the traditional view of Judas "defamed Jews in general" was based on his name -- Yehuda or Judah in Hebrew.
But there's another apostle named Yehuda, Judah, Judas -- the "brother of the Lord" who wrote an epistle and is considered by Catholics to be the beloved St. Jude, patron of impossible causes. In fact, a litany to St. Jude my family and I sometimes say refers to him as "redeemer of the name of Judas".
Why is the traditional view of the Iscariot discounted as propaganda intended to defame Jews in general because of his given name, in view of the fact that another man with exactly the same given name is a dearly beloved and revered Christian saint and inspired author of Scripture?
Judas was indeed a Zealot... in fact, a Radical "Sacarii".
If you truly desire Understanding, then it is time to put away the childish Irrationalism of Atheism... and come into the Light of Rational, Aristotelian-Causality, Logical Christian Calvinism.)
Judas would have been delighted when handed off {Jesus} to the Romans and certain execution...
No, you're not putting yourself in his sandals.
Judas Iscariot -- the Zealot, the "Sacarii", the Political Assassin -- WANTED a Revolutionary, Military, Political Messiah. He was, according to his own desires, convinced that Jesus was that Messiah; at least at one point.
He'd walked with Jesus, seen the Miracles, even seen Jesus refuse Worship to Caesar (Matthew 22:21). AND YET, in spite of it all, Jesus would not directly assault the Roman Authority.
Judas was getting impatient at this point. He'd wasted three years of his life on this Messiah, and he was convinced that the purpose of the Jewish Messiah was to Destroy Rome. It was time for Jesus of Nazareth to "put up" or "shut up"; Judas wanted a direct military confrontation between Jesus and Rome, and he was prepared to do anything to acheive it.
So, the Iscariot Revolutionary sold out his Messiah... "put up or shut up!"... and the Messiah went willingly to the Accursed Roman Cross!
Talk about a major bummer. Judas saw Jesus raise the Dead to Life, it don't get any more Messianic than that. And yet, even under Roman Arrest, Jesus STILL would not directly assault the Roman Political Authority.
Judas, a broken and disappointed Political Revolutionary, went out and hanged himself.
Moral of the Story? Don't trust Politics. Jesus Alone Saves.
Best, OP
Note: this topic was posted 04/09/2006. Thanks jude24.
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.
