I see the Bible as the word of God. To be sure, His writing instruments were not perfect (effected by cultural context), and 1 Tim 2 is my particular example of that. But such certainly doesn’t apply in this case, and I don’t take reasoning like you have used to be a good reason for discounting the contents.
But Genesis 3 is crystal clear about who he is in opposition to. And subsequent stories do not have Him in opposition to God but only in opposition to man.
Now you are becoming incoherent. To say Satan is not so powerful or clueless has absolutely NOTHING to do with God being a dictator. I have pointed out that God CAN create a world and beings independent of Himself, because the reasons why He would do so are quite obvious. But to create an evil being with power to rival His own? Seriously??? You should switch from Christianity to Zoroastrianism.
You are the one who seems to need this great Satanic power and conspiracy, not me.
I could not agree more! We do not need any scapegoat. The problem is that we so often demand one. And if we do, it is far better if God isn’t that scapegoat. But even better than blaming a devil for things is to take responsibility for them ourselves as Adam and Eve did not.
According to Paul and Jesus Him getting killed was the plan all along.
The whole story of the Hebrew scriptures was God shaping a people for Himself from whom the Messiah would come and shaping the situation for that coming.
That has always bugged me. The only answer that comes close to making sense to me is that there needed to be a traitor for the Plan to work, that Jesus came to die and that meant someone had to betray Him.
It certainly was part of the plan as a contingency – in fact, it was probably well understood by Jesus to be the most likely outcome by far. But Jesus also makes it clear in the garden that this was not the most desirable outcome. Jesus betrayal and murder was not a victory – both the text and common sense makes that obvious. The victory was Jesus’ unwavering determination and resurrection. Yes God will win in end regardless, but no, everything does not always go as God desires.
It is only natural that Paul focused on what was and not on might have beens. But I cannot agree with the rather obvious tendency of Christians to try making the whole universe and God Himself all revolve around their religion. It also makes for some glaring blind spots, like the inability of Christians to see Jesus’ scathing criticism of John the Baptist in Matthew 11. No everything does not go according to the plan of God in every detail – not now, and not then either.
Shaping people is not like shaping clay. People have a mind and choices of their own. And cooperation is more the miraculous exception than the rule.
How? There’s nothing in the Garden Prayers that indicate any such thing.
The Crucifixion was the victory. His death was “necessary”, Greek δεῖ (dei), which expresses a requirement to which there is no alternative, something that cannot be otherwise. This is why Paul says almost off-handedly that if the rulers of the age – that is, Satan and the other “powers of the air” – had understood then they wouldn’t have crucified Christ, and it is why the early church regarded the Crucifixion as Jesus’ enthronement. It is bound up in the declaration “τετέλεσται” (teh-TEH-less-tie), ‘tetelestai’, “It is now and forever completed, finished, fulfilled, accomplished, managed, concluded”. It is why Paul refers to the Resurrection in terms of a Roman triumph procession, and why he wrote that he preaches Christ crucified and says that is the power and wisdom of God.
So? Everything from David through the Exile and the Return shaped Israel into the proper “receptacle” for the Incarnation, a situation where God the Son could be made flesh, live and grow, teach, and then use death to destroy death.
John 17:12
While I was with them, I kept them in your name, which you have given me. I have guarded them, and not one of them has been lost except the son of destruction, that the Scripture might be fulfilled.
In this verse, Jesus said that the son of destruction (most likely Judas) had been lost. Should it mean that Judas was not saved? Most likely as well.
Luke 23:34
And Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.” And they cast lots to divide his garments.
In Luke, Jesus prayed to the Father for forgiveness of sin. Whether this prayer was for the soldiers at the time or for all that brought this suffering to Jesus including Judas remained a question. Another thing was “whether Jesus’ prayer for forgiveness of sin was approved by the Father?”
Jesus said in His prayer that He did not desire that outcome.
Nothing you have said changes anything of what I said.
Yes, the crucifixion certainly was a mistake. On that I quite agree.
At some point it was made necessary by the circumstances. That is what a contingency plan is all about. People demanded it, shouting crucify him – and that sums it up as far as I am concerned. Jesus observed they had a habit of killing those sent to them – but the obvious implication is it would be better if they didn’t do this.
My pushback is why did he need to be betrayed? He could have been arrested and crucified a thousand different ways. Nothing necessitates a close confidant betraying him. Unless there is some super specific prophecy in the OT I am unaware of?
Jesus may have been Tom Bombadil to money but the problem is putting an alcoholic in charge of a bar (or a person with money issues as treasurer) is being a Tom Bombadil to people. I didn’t intend to imply Jesus was worried about money. His words are the exact opposite. Just trust God. I meant to claim it just seems inhuman to put Judas in that position. I am questioning the moral aspect of that…
Interesting observation and one i do agree with. However, when i read it from a third person angle, I have a bit of a curve ball for you…
Given that the notion of birthright is used quite extensively in the salvation story, how do you explain that Jacob with intent and deceipt at the behest of his mother, stole the birthright from his brother?
We know Esau didnot receive the birthright because he largely squandered it away, but is salvation seen as something we steal from those who squander this gift?
When one also considers that in Matthew 24 Christ talks of being ready for the second coming because he will come like a theif in the night…?
I think my dilemma here is that we would normally associate thieves in the night with evil and its consequences…the opposite of what is generally proposed in the Christian model. How does good come from Jacob stealing the birthright from his brother? That seems to me to give Christians the green light to “steal salvation” if you like from atheists.
It all becomes very confused at this point in my mind.
Are you sure Jesus actually did, though? (I’m really asking - not just rhetorically.) Maybe there’s some passage I’m not remembering that speaks to that. All I’m recalling off the top of my head is that it gets a brief “matter-of-fact” mention (in John?) that Judas happened to be in charge of the money (tied to the observation that he helped himself to it on occassion.) Maybe Jesus did - or maybe he didn’t assign Judas to that; maybe Judas just forcefully volunteered himself into it. To which Jesus or the others might have then just been … “sure … whatever.”
Sometimes one might need to let a person just “run with it” regarding their own obsessions so that they can learn first hand that those things cannot truly fulfill them.
I would tend to agree that it was unnecessary. Was Jesus so obscure that no one knew who he was? By this time he had irritated enough Pharisees and Saddusees that they surely could have pointed him out, even though he was was not “the guy in a white robe who I has a glow about him.” Therefore, there must be a theological aspect to the betrayal. Perhaps to allow us to see ourselves as betraying Christ, or perhaps to contrast his response to that of Peter’s?
that is an excellent point St Roymond. I do agree with you on this point, however, i have had little success in proposing a similar idea to atheists.
My argument was that if someone who denied God all their lives was on their deathbed, i challenged that those individuals who know 100 % in that moment that all hope is gone, they would perhaps change their minds.
Deaspite my protests in support of the above notion, Ive had individuals who claim to be nurses tell me that from their own experiences with terminal patients on their deathbeds in hospitals, that my argument there was nonsense.
I align wholeheartedly with your idea on this one though, surely even in the moment of plunging, a persons life and choices must flash before them and said individual might well wonder if this was actually the best option after all.
Trouble is, even i have had to face the reality that not all suicide events are slow enough to allow for those thoughts. What about an individual who shoots themselves in the head? I think there is this dilemma of whether or not scaling the time invovled in the event makes any difference…
perhaps these individuals already did all of what you suggest before they “pulled the trigger” so to speak?
Take cancer patients for example, particulary those who contract the disease specifically because of well known and forewarned bad personal choices?
Judas surely must have been forewarned during his time with Christ and yet he seems to have ignored those stories and the associated warnings anyway.
I think the son of destruction is actually talking about Lucifer (Satan).
I suggest this because Christs ministry was in fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy…that predates Judas by thousands of years. So I feel that my claim here is consistent with the notion that Christs ministry/his purpose was to reverse the introduction of evil into this world by Satan.
Jesus was arrested by Roman soldiers…not the temple guard. Contrary to what a lot of Christians think, Christ was not well known among Romans, his ministry was mainly engaged with Jews. So the soldiers would not necessarily have known in the darkness which one among the disciples he was.
As for why Judas didnt simply point to him saying “thou art the man”???
We do not live in that culture nor understand the notion, however, it isnt an unusual method of betrayal. Gang warfare throughout the ages has shown its quite common to betray using such a method.
I ado agree with the theological notion though,
consider the events surroundingJulias Ceasar’s death…
stabbed to death, in the perceived safety of the chambers of the Senate, by Senators.
No – that’s not what the Greek means; it does not indicate a contingency plan, it indicates destiny, a single option with no alternative. And the fact that Jesus stated that the Hebrew scriptures essentially decreed His death supports that.
Matthew considered Zechariah’s passage to be specific about the aftermath, though not about the betrayal itself.
I considered this before posting above, and my question was how He would be crucified any other way without a riot or revolt. The Romans wouldn’t be bothered by anything short of an actual uprising, and the chief priests couldn’t grab Him publicly. And since the point was to get crucified, having a betrayer would have been the most effective route.
It’s kind of a parallel to the Exodus: for the judgments against the Egyptian gods to be accomplished completely, Pharaoh couldn’t give in, he had to be stubborn so all the ‘plagues’ could be carried out. That leads to a point some church Fathers mused on: if God hardened Pharaoh’s heart, then does Pharaoh carry any blame? I don’t know if any extended that to Judas, and the cases aren’t an exact match, but it’s something else to ponder.
In context the point of comparison is the element of surprise, not the nature of the one doing the surprising.
That last is how I’ve figured it. I find plenty of articles that say Jesus assigned Judas to the job, but there’s no passage that says this.
I think we need to keep in mind that this was Passover week and Jerusalem was packed, with people that included Zealots and others; they needed a way to corner him quietly.
I’d say that’s a given. As Dr. Heiser says, just because it actually happened doesn’t mean it can’t be theological.
I was at a mellow party once when a phone call came that a girl who’d been expected to show up had been found in front of her house, her head pretty much blown off with a 12-gauge shotgun. Everyone looked to me for comment/comfort.
The only thing I could think of was how in a dream that actually takes a few seconds weeks of time can be experienced – it was the only possible hope I could think of. But it was just conjecture; I have no idea how the brain can behave under the knowledge of incipient death.
In regards to Jacobs fleshly birthright it was underhanded or shrewd, but eternal birthright given by the spirit is divine.
Romans 9
1 though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls— 12 she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” 13 As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”
So Gods Sovereign election of Jacob was not based on his behavior, but was a free gift of God. It is a divine mystery.
If you believe with your heart and profess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord, You like Jacob have been given the birthright of sonship from God, not based on anything good in you or me but entirely Of the divine mercy and Love of God!
Matthew 16
And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.
and
john 1
But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, 13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.
and
Eph 2
For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast. 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.
Yes, I have a higher opinion of Jesus than you do.
Sounds like Zoroastrianism. I certainly don’t believe in any such thing.
I do not agree.
That is just silly. Jesus certainly was not saying killing those sent to them was a good thing and they should keep doing it. I am very much reminded of the way creationists twists the scriptures to mean the opposite of what they say.
Matthew 23:37 “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, killing the prophets and stoning those who are sent to you! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not! 38 Behold, your house is forsaken and desolate.
It is part of a speech by Jesus with a list of things which are a cause of woe to those he is speaking to that the things they have done will be a cause of woe to them. There is certainly nowhere that Jesus says that killing Him like so many of the prophets will be a cause for rejoicing.
On the contrary, Jesus speaks right here of the better alternative “How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings.”