Judas.. Pure Evil or A friend of Jesus..., page 3

reply to post by gerg357

---

Judas was a good man who became evil. He simply allowed greed to corrupt his heart. Remember that even Satan was once an angel in good standing, created perfect, but chose to do do wrong.

www.secularhumanism.org...
www.economicexpert.com...ius:XII.htm
www.rapidnet.com...

One God to sit in judgment over the entire world is indeed one world government.
Religion and Spirituality are 2 very different things.
If not Judas in the story, then who? Tom? Leonard? Someone would have had to "do it" correct?
Its all very nasty bastardized info, destroyed from the original teachings and morphed long ago into what its been doing the best........
CONTROLLING and MAKING CASH.

GOD=GOD

Originally posted by cosmicpixie
reply to post by gerg357

---

google "the lost gospel of judas"....in it Judas talks of Jesus ASKING him to do the deed. As Peter lemesurier demonstrated well in his book "The Armageddon Script", Jesus' birth and ministry was planned from the start by a strict religious sect called The Essenes who were felt it their divine calling to MAKE prophecy come true in order to pave the way for the kingdom of heaven. Lemesurier didn't know about the Lost Gospel of Judas back in 1981, it was only discovered a couple of years or so ago. The book is worth a read, far too much to go into here.

I was going to bring up the same thing. That Judas was aksed by Jesus to "rat him out". I didn't know about The Essenes, but I have always thought that, if it were true what was written in the Book of Judas, and if any of the events of the New Testament really happened, then the only conclusion one could draw is that Jesus told Judas to "rat him out" in order to fulfill the prophecy.

Originally posted by AshleyD
reply to post by gerg357

---

But i feel he was forced into this.

The way I see it is that just because an omniscient being knows what happens in advance does not mean it forces a human to perform a certain action. Therefore, I believe God knew what Judas was going to do (hence the messianic prophecies about the Messiah being betrayed by a friend). But that does not mean God forced Judas to do what he did.

With that said, I like to think Judas was forgiven. He did not die with an unapologetic heart. In fact, he was extremely remorseful and tried to undo the damage he had done, to no avail. Of course we don't know for sure but I do like to think he was forgiven.

But if god sees this happening it has to happen judas doesnt really have a say so in it..

Originally posted by octotom
reply to post by gerg357

---

What youre not getting is judas had to betray jesus because this was meant to happen. Jesus had to die on the cross and judas had to be the one to do this. If god seen this happen before it happens then its got to happen. So judas really didnt have a choice but to do as he was programmed.

No, I understand what you're getting at. But, simply because God knew that Judas was going to do something doesn't mean that Judas was preprogrammed to do it. He still had a choice to make, and made the decision to betray Jesus. He wasn't a robot

My theory is based on freewill. The fact that judas couldnt be in hell or be punished since he had no free will to stop himself.

But he did have free-will. Whether or not God knew something was going to happen didn't mean that Judas didn't have free will. All the prophecies said was that the Messiah would be betrayed for the price of a slave. (Until Jesus predicted that Judas was going to betray him; then it was a done deal.) Judas could've resisted the temptation to betray Jesus and the unfortunate role could've passed to someone else. Know what I mean? (Just for fun, I think that if Judas hadn't betrayed Jesus, Peter would have, but that's neither here nor there.)

You make some good points. I guess we can agree to disagree. In my opinion the only way you could have free will is for not even god to know whats going to happen. And since he does know. Theres basically no freewill. Jesus was meant to die and i think judas was picked to do this.


If i see something happening tomorrow its going to happen and nothing will change that because i see it happening. If god seen this happening then there is nothing judas could have done. Because judas was programmed to carry this out. Jesus could have very well stopped judas but he didnt. He knew this is what had to happen. Judas gets a bad wrap but he brought on the world religion to a extent and he helped form the cross which is supposed to mean faith.

I see your point about free will. But i still thik if someone knows something before it happens then the person whos gonna do this dont have a choice because its already set in motion.

reply to post by nunya13

---

And if a crucifixtion really did take place, plenty of apocryphal books infer Jesus (Or Julius Caesar incognito , whoever...) did not die . In keeping with what Lemsurier uncovered about the Essenes self-appointed "mission" to manifest OT prophecy it was merely made to look like he had died so that the masses could be given a reason to believe this man was who they all thought and hoped he was. The "death" and "resurrection" were the deciding factor in whether or not the mission would succeed or fail as without these events the Jesus character, whoever he really was, would have been merely another in a long line of prophets/visionaries and religious orators.

The issue of whether or not Jesus was to be confirmed as "just a man" or "the son of God" was an issue DEBATED at the Council of Nicaea centuries after this Jesus person was long gone. It was not a given until then, it was all up in the air as to who this man was and in the end the vote went in favour of him being "Divine" - the only real option if Rome was to ever hope of installing a state religion that the masses could be forced into accepting. If it was not for Rome's decision to make an attempt at creating a "world religion" Christianity as we know it today would simply not exist - it was a fringe sect before then, with the majority of people being Pagan. Rome soon set about putting an end to all that once their new man-made religion was invented.

For all this Jesus character's good intentions when it comes down to it, he was a willing actor in a play he felt his "mission" to act out. He was, quite frankly, an egocentric of the highest order who set in motion a series of deliberately orchestrated moves in an attempt to revive faith in the coming "kingdom of god on earth". Read Lemsurier, read the apocryhpa, read about what was going on politically and religiously when Jesus emerged on the scene and a picture of a misguided religious fanatic is the basic personality make up of this man. There was no immaculate conception, there was no resurrection from the dead, there were no miracles....that was all total BS as anyone who has read around enough outside of their little book is able to realize.

reply to post by octotom

---

Yes, if you're assuming that Catholicism is correct. You still are forgetting the , Josephus, for Jesus' existance.

As I understand it Josephus turns out to be a simple case of fraud, for the sake of time I'll have to quote Kenneth Humphries here

Whole libraries of antiquity were torched by the Christians. Yet unlike the works of his Jewish contemporaries, the histories of Josephus survived. They survived because the Christian censors had a use for them. They planted evidence on Josephus, turning the leading Jewish historian of his day into a witness for Jesus Christ ! Finding no references to Jesus anywhere in Josephus's genuine work, they interpolated a brief but all-embracing reference based purely on Christian belief.

Do we need to look any further to identify Eusebius himself as the forger?

Sanctioned by the imperial propagandist every Christian commentator for the next thirteen centuries accepted unquestioningly the entire Testimonium Flavianum, along with its declaration that Jesus “was the Messiah.”

And even in the twenty first century scholars who should know better trot out a truncated version of the 'golden paragraph' in a scurrilous attempt to keep Josephus 'on message.'


Following is a list of important Christian authorities who studied and/or mentioned Josephus but not the Jesus passage:

Justin Martyr (c. 100-c. 165), who obviously pored over Josephus's works, makes no mention of the TF.
Theophilus (d. 180), Bishop of Antioch--no mention of the TF.
Irenaeus (c. 120/140-c. 200/203), saint and compiler of the New Testament, has not a word about the TF.
Clement of Alexandria (c. 150-211/215), influential Greek theologian and prolific Christian writer, head of the Alexandrian school, says nothing about the TF.
Origen (c. 185-c. 254), no mention of the TF and specifically states that Josephus did not believe Jesus was "the Christ."
Hippolytus (c. 170-c. 235), saint and martyr, nothing about the TF.
The author of the ancient Syriac text, "History of Armenia," refers to Josephus but not the TF.
Minucius Felix (d. c. 250), lawyer and Christian convert--no mention of the TF.
Anatolius (230-c. 270/280)--no mention of TF.
Chrysostom (c. 347-407), saint and Syrian prelate, not a word about the TF.
Methodius, saint of the 9th century--even at this late date there were apparently copies of Josephus without the TF, as Methodius makes no mention of it.
Photius (c. 820-891), Patriarch of Constantinople, not a word about the TF, again indicating copies of Josephus devoid of the passage, or, perhaps, a rejection of it because it was understood to be fraudulent

reply to post by octotom

---

Yes, if you're assuming that Catholicism is correct. You still are forgetting the Talmud, for Jesus' existance.

This prophecy is from Isaiah 7:14, which is mistranslated in the King James Bible as follows:


(KJV) Isaiah 7:14 …Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

This passage in Isaiah is mistakenly regarded as a prophecy for the coming of Jesus Christ. However, when the whole scripture is read and the passage is taken in context, it's clear that this is not the case for three reasons:

Incorrect Translation: The original text in Hebrew doesn't use the word for “virgin” which would be “bethulah”. The word that was actually used is “almah” which means “young woman”. So the correct translation (as it appears in the NRSV) is (bold emphasis added):


(NRSV) Isaiah 7:14 …Look, the young woman is with child and shall bear a son, and shall call him Immanuel.[2]

That a young woman might bear a son is hardly a great prophecy. This certainly happens all the time. That the child would be called “God with us” (Immanuel), while rare today, happened a number of times in that era.

The Jews had many declared “messiahs” during the time of Roman occupation, as they were understandably looking for any sign that they might be liberated at any time by their god. Therefore, this whole prophecy seems much like predicting a hot day in Arizona in the middle of July (which is the habit of all successful prophets anyway).

The Prophecy Referred to the Days of Isaiah: Isaiah was speaking of a revelation for his time. It was for the King Ahaz, to offer him reassurance that the Israeli-Syrian alliance against him would not prevail. These events were hundreds of years before the alleged life of Christ and therefore the whole prophecy had nothing to do with Jesus.

reply to post by octotom

---

Yes, if you're assuming that Catholicism is correct. You still are forgetting the , other extra-biblical sources for Jesus' existance.

Extra biblical sources for Jesus, where Octotom ?

Pliny ?

Tacitus ?

Suetonius ?

Did the Rabbis Know Jesus?

In a most ironic twist, Christian apologists sometimes bring forward an ancient anti-Jesus slur, circulated by the rabbis, as "evidence" that their godman existed.

Yet the earliest rabbinic writings – for example, the Mishnah ("study") (of which the Talmuds are later commentaries) – make no reference to a "Jesus" character at all.

In the vast corpus of material the closest we get to such testimony is Mishnah Yevamot 4.13 which has a very oblique reference to a 'peloni' (rabbinic Hebrew for 'so and so') but nothing more:

"Simeon ben Azzai has said: I found in Jerusalem a book of genealogies; therein was written: That so and so is a bastard son of a married woman."


The reference could have been to anyone. Though difficult to date the verse could well be a rabbinic counter-stoke to Matthew's manufacture of a genealogy for JC early in the 2nd century.

A later, 2nd or 3rd century, rabbinical reference is to a magician who had led some Jews into apostasy. This is in an addendum to the Mishnah – 'Baraitha Sanhedrin 43a' – which records the hanging of a 'Yeshu' on the eve of Passover for sorcery. It also adds that he had 5 disciples – Mattai, Naqai, Netzer, Buni and Todah – not exactly the familiar names!

The 3rd century Tosefta (another supplementary commentary on the Oral Law, even later than the Mishnah) tells of an attempt to invoke the name of 'Yeshu ben Pandira' to cure a rabbi of a snake bite (Chullin 2:23).

Later still, the references to Yeshu get more colourful.

Both Talmuds are 'late' constructions: the Jerusalem Talmud was compiled in the early 5th century AD and the Talmud of Babylon was compiled during the 6th century. By this date the only source of information about Jesus available to the rabbis was the Christians themselves! But far from confirming anything found in the gospels the rabbinic authors appear to have confounded at least two Jesuses – a 1st century BC Yeshu ben Pandira and 2nd century AD Yeshu ben Strada.

According to Talmud Shabbat 104b, Sanhedrin 67a, JC is apparently the son of an adulterous hairdresser ('Miriam Megaddela') and is executed in Lud. Talmud Sanhedrin 107b, Sotah 47a, has the magician Jesus worshipping a brick during the 1st century BC reign of John Hyrcanus.

If the 3rd century Church Father Origen is to be believed (Contra Celsum 1.28) Celsus, the pagan opponent of Christianity, writing in the late 2nd century, had heard from Jewish sources the scandalous rumour that the Christian hero was the result of an illicit affair between Miriam, a young Jewess, and a Roman trooper called 'Pantheras.' The woman had been driven off by her husband when he discovered she had got herself pregnant by a soldier of the occupying power.

One could hardly conceive of a more disreputable pedigree for a would-be Jewish Messiah!

Which of course reveals the whole point of the slur: to damn the iconic figure held high by apostate Jews who, together with their gentile converts, now formed the rival Christians. In comparison, simply denying that the hero figure had ever existed would have appeared weak and conveyed none of the scurrilous insult of a bastardised racial impurity. The rabbis responded to a fable with a lie of their own.

The rumour probably originated among the rabbis shortly after the Christians invented their nativity story, in the late 130s.

Quote from KH

reply to post by cosmicpixie

---

For all this Jesus character's good intentions when it comes down to it, he was a willing actor in a play he felt his "mission" to act out. He was, quite frankly, an egocentric of the highest order who set in motion a series of deliberately orchestrated moves in an attempt to revive faith in the coming "kingdom of god on earth"

Well this brilliantly sums up the xtian lie excellent homework, I note that rebuttals to your posts are thin on the ground. Probably because their very hard to argue with.

reply to post by Lemon.Fresh

---

God saw where Judas was going to go, but he did not force him to go there . . . he went there by his own choice.

In order for judas to go anywhere the place to go would have to be created, there is a huge difference between seeing where he will go and knowing where he went.

The creator of everything cannot, not know the outcome of any event or this would imply something not created by the creator.

In order for the creator of all that there is, was or ever will be to flip a coin it has to create the coin and also all possible outcomes, it cannot not know an outcome because it created all outcomes.

Originally posted by moocowman
reply to post by Lemon.Fresh

---

God saw where Judas was going to go, but he did not force him to go there . . . he went there by his own choice.

In order for judas to go anywhere the place to go would have to be created, there is a huge difference between seeing where he will go and knowing where he went.

The creator of everything cannot, not know the outcome of any event or this would imply something not created by the creator.

In order for the creator of all that there is, was or ever will be to flip a coin it has to create the coin and also all possible outcomes, it cannot not know an outcome because it created all outcomes.

That made absolutely no sense.

Look at time like this

< is God's eye looking.

| is time. Top is the future, bottom is the past

This is God's relation to our time:

<|


He sees it from an overhead view, not how we see time as linear.

He created everything. He knows what will happen, though you are free to make your choices. But He even knows what choice you are going to make because He is seeing it from His angle, not yours.

reply to post by Lemon.Fresh

---

That made absolutely no sense. Look at time like this < is God's eye looking. | is time. Top is the future, bottom is the past This is God's relation to our time: <| He sees it from an overhead view, not how we see time as linear. He created everything. He knows what will happen, though you are free to make your choices. But He even knows what choice you are going to make because He is seeing it from His angle, not yours.

Not too removed from where your coming from. there's no real need to get hung up on time as it would appear to be merely an illusion creating a frame of reference.

There's simply no him/he/she about it, if your god is the creator then it is not only the creator of all that there is/was or ever will be, it simply is "everything".

If the creator is everything ,as it has to be if it created everything (including itself in the xtian paradigm) then there is simply "zero" that the creator is/was nor will ever be.


If we are using simple ideas like plans or designs in relation to this creator, then there cannot exist anything outside of this plan/design as this would imply something other than the creator.

When we get back to an outcome of an action, then we simply cannot have an outcome that is not part of the plan/design as all action/outcomes must be the creator in action or experiencing the outcome.

Any outcome/action requires impetus and for the creator to remain the creator of all that there is/was or will ever be, all impetus must be the creator.

If Judas is to make a choice between A and B, both A and B have to be created, to imply that choice A was in conflict to the will of the creator is simply foolishness, as the impetus has to be created and thus would imply that the impetus came from something/somewhere other than the creator.

The only way to have your cake and eat it, is for the impetus/choice (free will ) to be an illusion created by the creator.

If let's say Satan is is the impetus, then satan is simply an illusion/device created by the creator. Otherwise would imply that this impetus is outside of the creator, implying that the creator is not after all the creator of is/was or will ever be.

In a nutshell you simply cannot have the creator of "everything" not being directly responsible for "anything" within creation.

When we are young we may well choose to believe that Dr Bruce Banner created the Hulk, but as our minds mature we observe that Marvel is the daddy.

If we then turn around and have Batman fighting the Hulk, well this simply changes everything DC and Marvel would require us to accept two gods in one room to feed hungry young minds.

reply to post by Luminaught

---

Christ had big plans, as usual there was a warrant out for him, disorderly conduct, for his running the money changers out of the temple with the jawbone of a ass.

If you read through Cosmicpixies post you may well observe this incident is yet another parody of Old Testament myths that Cosmic is alluding to.

There seems to be a constant thread within the Jesus myth of hijacking and reenacting in order to persuade and create the illusion of fulfilled prophesy.

I would argue that there is a lot more going on here, and there is some great information in this thread that could perhaps help penetrate what the jesus myth was really all about.

It would appear on the face of it (perhaps I could be accused of generalizing) that xtians are too entrenched in their own opinion and agenda took take a little peek around the corner of perspective.

Sadly this stance will never illuminate and it would appear that 20, 50 years from now what few xtians are left will still be clinging to narrow minded dogmas spouted by bling plated cathode like Pastors.



[edit on 3-11-2009 by moocowman]

"God is an Imaginary Friend" Athiest Billboards in Denver-
  Posted 18 days ago with 31 member flags

Why are these 10 figures just like Jesus Christ??
  Posted 5 days ago with 14 member flags

What if all the major religions started out with the same story and it slowly diverged from there
  Posted 7 days ago with 11 member flags

I am an imposter in Church
  Posted 4 days ago with 11 member flags

Christians Waking Up? Voluntary \'De-Baptism\' Rising in Europe
  Posted 19 days ago with 7 member flags

What Kind of Christianity Is This?
  Posted 16 days ago with 7 member flags

The Great Flood Was Caused By A Comet?
  Posted 11 days ago with 7 member flags

Advert claiming cure through prayer is banned
  Posted 4 days ago with 7 member flags

Newest topics, updated in real-time:

Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time: