Posted on 04/15/2006 7:21:06 PM PDT by Lorianne
I don't normally mind offending holy men, but I can remember feeling absolutely aghast at the injured look that spread across the fine features of the Coptic Archbishop of Eritrea as we sat in his quarters in Asmara in 1993. Was it true, I had asked him, that in the Coptic Christian tradition Judas was considered to be a saint? He jumped like a pea on a hot shovel and, when he had regained his composure, demanded to know how I could possibly have heard such a wicked rumor. Nothing more profane could be imagined than this perversion of the Easter story. (Looking back, I think I may have misunderstood something I read in Graham Greene.)
Nonetheless, the idea of a sacred Judas always seemed rational to me, at least in Christian terms. The New Testament tells us firmly that Jesus went to Jerusalem at Passover to die and to fulfill certain ancient prophecies by doing so. How could any agent of this process, witting or unwitting, be acting other than according to the divine will? It did seem odd to me that the Jewish elders and the Romans required someone to identify Jesus for them, since according to the story he was already a rather well-known figure, but that was a secondary objection.
(Excerpt) Read more at slate.com ...
Old Hitch, stirring the pot again for mischievious reasons.
yeah, people will do anything to convince us the bible as we know it is wrong, or incomplete, or translated badly. people run so hard to escape the reality that doesn't fit their life choices.
Taken from the article "Two millennia of stupidity and cruelty and superstition dissolve in an instant when we notice that even some early believers were shrewd enough to see though the whole sham. On this weekend of official piety, let us all therefore give thanks for our deliverance from religion,"
So if the source being slate wasn't enough of a clue this pretty much proves its a worthless article. An intolerant person spreading their hate. ( to use their terminology)
The pedigree of this "finding" is also suspect since it spent many years in questionable hands. The group credited with writing this document are well known among bible scholors and rarely given much credence.
The entire question of whether Judas was in a back handed way doing God's 'dirty work' is a subset of a much larger question to which we will never have the answer on this side.
Theodicy.
What is the role of evil in the Divine Plan ?
Take it from the source: Hitchens is a man who sees what he wants to see...especially when it comes to spiritual things. Look what he's said about Mother Teresa.
This and the Da Vinci Code will lead many astray. It's all lies designed to undermine Christianity!!
It's also in the Old Testament, notably in the early chapters of the Book of Genesis.
Chris Hitchens is a theodiot.
"Take it from the source: Hitchens is a man who sees what he wants to see"
I'm not familiar with his writing so if this is an example I evidently haven't missed much.
He will come out from time to time and call looney leftwing behavior looney on some issues, but he has a hard time understanding the true motives behind committed spiritual people.
It takes a neo-pagan to know a old pagan. What barf!
Hitch is an idiot. He can't decipher between knowing the future and forcing it to happen.
Cheap shot for the sake of it. As he doesn't mind offending hoy men, I hope he makes a tour of the Islamic world soon.
A much more interesting lesson about Judas is, "Why?"
Judas had seen the miracles. The money was really no great sum, and he couldn't bring himself to keep it. So why?
The best explanation that I've heard, is that Judas truly did believe that Jesus was the Christ. His betrayal was designed to force Jesus' hand. In essence, he had a vision of what the Christ was to be, and he wanted to force Jesus into this role. The role of an earthly king, who would throw off Roman rule.
Judas could not ultimately accept God on God's terms. It is instructive as well that unlike Peter, Judas did not repent for his failings, despite knowing that he had failed.
Theodicy.
****
What is the role of evil in the Divine Plan?
In the Garden of Eden Lucifer Tempted Eve which Heavenly Father predicted would happen for Evil always trys to spoil good!
The Garden of Eden was a kingdom where one could stay for ever or if they violated the laws of the kingdom they would have to vacate!
So once Adam and Eve paetaken of the tree of Good and Evil they were in danger of eating from the tree of Life!
Which means they could not be tested and would be in the garden for ever, never to be able to have joy nor procreate!
***
Even Jesus had to be tested and Satin did that and Jesus honored the Father so Satin could not cause Jesus to stumble
The world of evil operates on "The End Justifies the Means!"
But as a Child of God I know that my Heavenly Father nor the Son Jesus Christ uses those methods!
What I am saying is at no time did Jesus nor the Heavenly Father have an prearrangement with Judas!
Heavenly Father know all our hearts and minds, yet we come to earth to prove ourselves worthy or an unfaithful servant!
Many over comes weakness and grow in the ways of the Lord, some will always be the Sons of Perdition!
As far as Judas goes I like to think he had a conscience afterwards and was very ashamed he was used by the Devil and that is why he retrun his 30 pieces of Silver and ended up in Potter Field!
****
Matt. 27: 3
3 ¶ Then Judas, which had betrayed him, when he saw that he was condemned, repented himself, and brought again the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders,
Matt. 27: 5
5 And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself.
Matt. 27: 6
6 And the chief priests took the silver pieces, and said, It is not lawful for to put them into the treasury, because it is the price of blood.
Good commentator, but nutty and bad when he gets on his Christian rants ... I'm not going to bother.
And America couldn't have been founded without Christianity.
So?
I read the New Yorker article by Adam Gopnik on this, and just by his relating what is in this "gospel" (ignoring his commentary), it is obvious that it is more of the same old Gnostic stuff -- salvation by knowledge instead of grace, with a big ol' helping of wild-eyed "gods" and so forth thrown in. I am really a bit surprised at Hitch and his take on this. The Gnostics were interesting as a sect, but I believe their stuff was all thrown at at the Coucil of Nicaea. This new "gospel" is interesting historically, but how could you possibly regard it as part of the original story? Stick to commenting on the war effort, Hitch....
"Judas could not ultimately accept God on God's terms. It is instructive as well that unlike Peter, Judas did not repent for his failings, despite knowing that he had failed."
****
Scripture says different...
Matt. 27: 3
3 ¶ Then Judas, which had betrayed him, when he saw that he was condemned, repented himself, and brought again the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders,
Matt. 27: 5
5 And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself.
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.