A major betrayal like that when he could have been arrested at some other point?
This is often cited as prophetic of Jesus' betrayal:
"Also the man at peace with me, in whom I trusted,
Who was eating my bread, has magnified [his] heel against me." (Psalm 41:19)
But it was mostly the timing that was important. Jesus had to die on the Passover.
As Paul said ". . . For, indeed, Christ our passover has been sacrificed." (1Corinthians 5:7)
Yes, to fulfill prophecies that had been written hundreds of years previous.
I still fail to connect why there had to be a Judas in the story.
Because it makes for good drama.
edgar, I remember being to told the story in Sunday School and feeling a shared sense of guilt at what Judas had done, it made me feel more pity for Jesus and that the enemy wasn't the enemy, it was the dishonesty and treachery within each of us that was most to be feared. Perhaps that is the purpose.
(I was eventually expelled from Sunday School for asking too many questions)
I have no personal stake in the outcome of my query. I don't really believe in these characters anyway. To me, it just doesn't fit that they could not have arrested him a day early or something.
Well, now that I've seen the National Geographic special - it was on tonight - it seems to me the program treated the matter rather more maturely and responsibly than did the media in their typical frenzy of hyping the whole thing.
edgarblythe wrote:I still fail to connect why there had to be a Judas in the story.
All that was necessary for mankind's redemption was for Jesus to have died as a substitute for Adam. The torture and humiliation he experienced were imposed by Satan in an attempt to break his integrity to his father.
There were many prophecies connected to Jesus' death that have implications that appear less profound. Some, like the fact that no bones were to be broken in the passover lamb, seem easily understood.
But, as for why Jesus had to be betrayed, I know of no reason other than it having been foretold.
Eorl wrote:. . . (I was eventually expelled from Sunday School for asking too many questions)
Monsignor Clark wouldn't answer my questions, either; but they didn't take attendance at CCD, so I just started sneaking off to my friend's house instead.
What is profound here, Neo, is the contention on your part that someone who is everywhere described, by that point in his life, as a focus of public attention, could not easily have been found without a betrayer. It is buried in a profundity of burroshit.
Basically, though, you are continually hobbled with a gospel canon which is internally contradictory; which attempts, often in an hilarious manner, to reconcile itself to alleged prophecy; which does extraordinary violence not only to history, but to credulity--and which, in the end, requires the true believer to do very painful contortions in the attempt to make it all sound plausible.
So if that silly story about not being able to find the most popular figure of the day without a betrayer contents you, i withdraw all objection.
As to the question of why the authorities needed a Judas:
The Jewish leaders were dealing with a man who a large portion of the populace were praising as a possible Messiah. They were fearful that a public arrest would lead to violence and bloodshed, thus needed to make the arrest away from the passover crowds. To do so, they needed someone who could and would divulge when and where Jesus could best be arrested. Judas stepped in very nicely and provided that info.
Hope this helps answer the question of why Judas was needed.
Which answer is, of course, predicated upon an assumption that any of this story actually occured--something for which there is no reliable historical evidence.
The public execution did not lead to violence and bloodshed.
Setanta wrote: What is profound here, Neo, is the contention on your part that someone who is everywhere described, by that point in his life, as a focus of public attention, could not easily have been found without a betrayer. It is buried in a profundity of burroshit.
Basically, though, you are continually hobbled with a gospel canon which is internally contradictory; which attempts, often in an hilarious manner, to reconcile itself to alleged prophecy; which does extraordinary violence not only to history, but to credulity--and which, in the end, requires the true believer to do very painful contortions in the attempt to make it all sound plausible.
Whatever . . .
Setanta wrote: So if that silly story about not being able to find the most popular figure of the day without a betrayer contents you, i withdraw all objection.
You're right. Jesus even called this to their attention: "Day after day I used to sit in the temple teaching, and yet YOU did not take me into custody. 56 But all this has taken place for the scriptures of the prophets to be fulfilled." (Matthew 26: 55,56)
It's just a story, right?
That's right, Neo--it is just a story, written long after the fact (if, indeed, any fact is involved), and perfected over a couple of centuries by people such as Origen, Pamphilus and Eusebius, until the current doctrinal canon was enshrined at Nicea in 325 CE.
If the authors of the Bible were tested as creative writers, I don't think it would be for non-fiction, of course, but as a fantasy which is severely lacking in coherent continuity. It's as if a hack editor got hold of it. It was written, after all, by a committee and everyone knows a camel is a horse designed by a committee. The greatest story every told to me is Shakespeare's traversal of historic figures. The syntax of the Bible can only be described now as quaint.
Setanta wrote:That's right, Neo--it is just a story, written long after the fact (if, indeed, any fact is involved), and perfected over a couple of centuries by people such as Origen, Pamphilus and Eusebius, until the current doctrinal canon was enshrined at Nicea in 325 CE.
With only minor deviations from the Muratorian Fragment of 170 C.E., it should be noted.
It should also be noted that 170 CE is a date nearly 150 years after the putative Jesus was allegedly executed. Furthermore, note the use of the word fragment.
True, but there are over a dozen catalogues between 170 and 395 C.E. expressing nearly identical contents.
Not that it is proof of anything other than remarkable consistency.
