Posted on 08/27/2012 7:49:28 AM PDT by marshmallow
In today's Angelus, Benedict XVI talks about Judas, the traitor who stayed in the Church even though he did not believe. He felt betrayed by Jesus because he expected a "winning Messiah." By contrast, Peter "believed in and knew" that Jesus was "the Holy One of God."
Castel Gandolfo (AsiaNews) - "Jesus knew that among the 12 Apostles one did not believe, Judas," said Benedict XVI. In speaking about Judas, his unbelief, his desire to betray, his devilish nature, the pontiff used a tone not usually associated with homiletics. Compared this to Saint Peter who, in response to Jesus' question "Do you also want to leave?", answered, "Master, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. We have come to believe and are convinced that you are the Holy One of God" (John, 6:67-69)."
In meeting pilgrims before the Angelus prayer in the courtyard of Castel Gandolfo, the pope spoke about today's Gospel, Twenty-first Sunday in Ordinary Time. He brought to a conclusion his discussion of the 'bread of life', referring to time when the disciples refused Jesus' offer of eating his body and blood and "returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him" (John, 6:66).
"Judas could have left as many disciples did," the pontiff explained. "Indeed, he should have left had he been honest. Instead, he stayed with Jesus, not out faith, nor out of love, but with the secret desire of taking revenge against the Master. Why? Because Judas felt betrayed by Jesus, and decided in turn to betray him. Judas was a Zealot; he wanted a winning Messiah, one who would lead a revolt against the Romans. However, Jesus did not live up these expectations. The problem is that Judas did not leave, and his fault is that of.....
(Excerpt) Read more at asianews.it ...
How about ... "Judas was a thief?" That IS supported by the text. He betrayed the Lord for 30 silver, that IS supported by the text.
I think it’s a good explanation. Nobody just “is” a thief, especially a good Jew (which Judas would have been before he even considered following Jesus) who actually held an important position in this little group.
Judas was probably cynical, embittered because things weren’t going the way he wanted them to, expressed himself with a little pilfering from the boss because he thought he deserved it, and just took the low-ball offer to betray Jesus almost as his final insult. He reminds me of the Occupy types or any of the other people throughout history whose lives are sunk in self-righteous egoism and envy, and feel justified in their misdeeds because of their enormous sense of entitlement and pride.
So Judas was not a Zealot? He wasn’t angered by Christ’s seeming disregard for political power? And no connection to so many disciples walking away, hearing not at all what they wanted to hear in Christ’s words about eating his body and blood, and that Judas would logically have agreed with them, but stayed to exact revenge? It seems logical that Judas would have acted thus - why dismiss it?
The Gospel of Judas, is a manuscript accepted by Pope Benedict, (but gives it no credence,) that was written before the gospels, and tells a different story.
also,
St. Luke & St. John suggest that judas didn’t gradually over time become a “non-beleiver”...but rather “Satan came to him”.
I think he did believe, but wanted Jesus be the earthly king that would bring about immediate change with power. This motivation of the dicsiples was certainly present in the text.
IMHO he betrayed Jesus to force His hand, not with the intent of Jesus being crucified. Rather, Judas could not conceive that the Son of God would allow Himself to be harmed. Then everyone would be forced to accept Him as king.
What of the silver?
1. First, it wasn't a vast sum for the times, but people have done horrible things for far less.
2. To be convincing, Judas would have had to present a motive to the Pharisees. So taking a payoff would have fit in with that.
3. Supporting my premise, he threw the money back into the temple and then committed suicide, after the outcome did not meet his plan. If he was wholeheartedly selling out Jesus, why the unhappiness? These are actions of a believer who considers themself a failure.
The story of the cruxifiction is a series of human failings.
What of Peter?
In fact, the two failings that are most common among the faithful, might just be the failings demonstrated by Judas and Pilot.
Judas wanted to make God be who he wanted God to be, which served his personal ends (If I'm right).
And Pilot wanted to act in a good and decent manner, but was not willing to go out on a limb to do it. “I find no fault with this man” became “Do what you must, but I wash my hands of it.”
Of course, God is God and not our servant. And we can never wash our hands of evil when it is within our power to stop it. Running with my premise, Judas' greatest fault was in failing to seek forgiveness, as Peter did.
That doesn't necessarily mean he was a "thief" though, does it? He didn't actually steal anything, did he?
He was financially compensated by the high priests for services rendered. That is, the betrayal of Jesus. He was their eyes and ears amongst the Apostles. A liar and a traitor certainly, but I'm not sure you'd get a conviction for theft out of that.
I think I'll stick with the Pope's exegesis.
I think the movie (and play) Jesus Christ Superstar hit upon a convincing portrait of Judas. In that piece, he was depicted as someone who saw Christ as a great Community Organizer. He did not accept Jesus as being divine, and thought "the message" was to "help the poor". So, I think that's a good way to think of Judas. He was a typical lib who worshiped a community organizer but not the Son of God; and he was not averse to skimming off the top like a any libtard would do.
Because its not in the text of the Bible?
Answering a question with a question is indicative of how weak your objection is. It's a crutch frequently used by those who are losing an argument.
How do linguistic literalists like yourself deal with the following?
"Many other signs also did Jesus in the sight of His disciples, which are not written in this book." John 20:30
"But there are also many other things which Jesus did; which, if they were written every one, the world itself, I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written." John 21:25
"Understanding this first, that no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation. For prophecy came not by the will of man at any time: but the holy men of God spoke, inspired by the Holy Ghost." 2 Peter 1:20-21
"And account the longsuffering of our Lord, salvation; as also our most dear brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, hath written to you: As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction." 2 Peter 3:15-16
John 12:1-7
1 Jesus, therefore, six days before the Passover, came to Bethany where Lazarus was, whom Jesus had raised from the dead.
2 So they made Him a supper there, and Martha was serving; but Lazarus was one of those reclining at the table with Him.
3 Mary then took a pound of very costly perfume of pure nard, and anointed the feet of Jesus and wiped His feet with her hair; and the house was filled with the fragrance of the perfume.
4 But Judas Iscariot, one of His disciples, who was intending to betray Him, said,
5 “Why was this perfume not sold for three hundred denarii and given to poor people?”
6 Now he said this, not because he was concerned about the poor, but because he was a thief, and as he had the money box, he used to pilfer what was put into it.
So he was clearly a thief ... and I think that adequately explains the text.
I think I'll stick with the Pope's exegesis.
Let's be clear ... the pope was not doing exegesis (bringing out of the text) with this message ... he was doing eisegesis (putting into the text).
Exegesis is bringing out of text that which is there. Exegesis involves the original language, rules of grammar, lexicon data, etc.
Eisegesis is bringing out of the text that which is not there, reading INTO the text what is not there. Eisegesis involves speculation, fanciful insights, allegorical interpretation, etc.
However, you cited the example of the betrayal for 30 pieces of silver as evidence that he was a thief. He was paid for providing information to the high priests'.
John 12:1-7
King James Version (KJV)
12 Then Jesus six days before the passover came to Bethany, where Lazarus was, which had been dead, whom he raised from the dead.
2 There they made him a supper; and Martha served: but Lazarus was one of them that sat at the table with him.
3 Then took Mary a pound of ointment of spikenard, very costly, and anointed the feet of Jesus, and wiped his feet with her hair: and the house was filled with the odour of the ointment.
4 Then saith one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, Simon’s son, which should betray him,
5 Why was not this ointment sold for three hundred pence, and given to the poor?
6 This he said, not that he cared for the poor; but because he was a thief, and had the bag, and bare what was put therein.
7 Then said Jesus, Let her alone: against the day of my burying hath she kept this.
You didn't pick up on my written sarcasm. It was an answer posed as a question.
How do linguistic literalists like yourself deal with the following?
Did you not even read what I wrote back to you 2 days ago ... when you used this same tact?
lol ... linguistic literalists? You seem to view that in a negative connotation. I am proud to be a so-called liguistic literalist. Since you didn't even define your terms, I defined it for you ...
And of course, whatever your definition is of "linguistic literalists" that surely is not what Catholics do when interpreting John 6? Like I said the other day ... I call what you do "exegetical hallucination." And let me define it again ... exegetical hallucination is seeing something in the text that is not there ... superimposing the normal rules of grammar and language to place something that MUST be there to support a preconceived theological interpretation.
"Many other signs also did Jesus in the sight of His disciples, which are not written in this book." John 20:30
Again ... by skipping the next verse you have missed the entire point of Johns gospel.
30 Therefore many other signs Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book;
31 but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name.
Believe -> have eternal life.
Not hope for, not "gotta wait until I die to find out" ... you can KNOW that you have it ...
1 John 5:13
13 These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life.
Present tense verb ... that you may know ... not future tense ... that you hope for ... that you will know someday when you die ... you can know now ... you can have full assurance. What must you do?
He betrayed Christ because he loved the money ... as evidence that he was a thief.
Etc. ... my point was that the popes explanation is not in the text and is elaborate. Could it still be true? Yeah ... but the text doesnt say that.
Enough said ...
Just a thief would have taken the money and run and been happy to pull it off.
Judas did not do so.
Just a thief could have been more successful as a thief than devoting so much time and effort for that payoff.
Obviously, there’s more to Judas and the story than thievery.
Actually, if we're going to be strictly "textual", I'm not sure what you say is in the Bible, either.
We know 1) Judas was a thief and 2) he betrayed Jesus and received 30 pieces of silver in return. It's an assumption to allege that #1 led to #2.
In fact, if you read the sequence in which Luke describes the events....
"And Satan entered into Judas, who was surnamed Iscariot, one of the twelve. [4] And he went, and discoursed with the chief priests and the magistrates, how he might betray him to them. [5] And they were glad, and covenanted to give him money. "
Luke 22:3-5
....it appears as if Judas' primary interest was in betraying Jesus. The priests were glad and subsequently agreed to give him money.
or is he tipping his hand to the fact that he is aware there is a segment of the Priesthood that does not believe?
And I could accept your explanation as being derived from the text ... but I think we would both agree ... that is nowhere near what the pope said.
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.