Religious debate (split from main board)

jesus' death was inevitable no? judas simply sped up the process.



who says jesus said he was the son of god? we've seen many examples of great men and women dying only to have their followers flat out make things up to raise them above human.

People prophesied about him and he fulfilled the prophecies. Or, is that false and made up after the fact, too?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
People prophesied about him and he fulfilled the prophecies. Or, is that false and made up after the fact, too?
Posted via VolNation Mobile

This is what drives me crazy........ why is it fine to accept all the writings of Jesus and simply ignore the writings of Judas when it is from the same people.

The historicity of Christ is unquestioned...... the same should be given to Judas and the other apostles for that matter. All of them had their faults and short comings.
 
How am I being angry? The guy betrayed Jesus. Period. End of story.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

Denial is the first step..... keep going.......

We'll get through your anger issues.

Period? Really? You have no desire to understand why Judas did what he did?

None whatsoever, you are willing to leave it right there. A guy randomly chosen by the son of God to be his disciple, merely betrayed him????????

:blink:
 
People prophesied about him and he fulfilled the prophecies. Or, is that false and made up after the fact, too?
Posted via VolNation Mobile

they propehsied about a messiah. what's your evidence he fufilled the prophecies? besides what was written hundreds of years later that is?
 
All of this is not different to any other religious text. People will find answers, lessons, and teachings where they see fit in the text.

The person is the deciding factor in each case, the text is almost inconsequential. While the actual text is a guide, it is the person interpreting and deciding what is useful, worthless, real, and allegory.

I agree to an extent and it is specifically the reason I do not condemn those who believe differently than I do. I do not know the answers, all I can do is the best I can with the info and belief system I have.
 
I agree to an extent and it is specifically the reason I do not condemn those who believe differently than I do. I do not know the answers, all I can do is the best I can with the info and belief system I have.

I agree up in a hardcore church that codemned every one and their brother. It was too the point where my church made it known that my best friend who is a weslyan was going to hell because he was of a "different" religion.

The garbage "churches" put out is sickening. It is to the point any more that Church=Gov't.
 
How am I being angry? The guy betrayed Jesus. Period. End of story.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

If we are to believe this we must also accept the fact that Peter betrayed Jesus. Why would we look at one differently than the other? They both "betrayed" Jesus, or so it appears at first glance.
 
If we are to believe this we must also accept the fact that Peter betrayed Jesus. Why would we look at one differently than the other? They both "betrayed" Jesus, or so it appears at first glance.

That is what I said, and Peter got a church out of it.

I mean, hello, Peter and Jesus on the water.
 
That is what I said, and Peter got a church out of it.

I mean, hello, Peter and Jesus on the water.

Peter denied Jesus. He didn't betray him.

I would much rather argue over the different accounts of Judas's death, than to try to make him out to be some kind of misunderstood person
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
Peter denied Jesus. He didn't betray him.

I would much rather argue over the different accounts of Judas's death, than to try to make him out to be some kind of misunderstood person
Posted via VolNation Mobile

1.) I would love to hear how you figure this.

2.) I thought that is what we are doing but you keep running off the misunderstood tangent?
 
1.) I would love to hear how you figure this.

2.) I thought that is what we are doing but you keep running off the misunderstood tangent?

1) I'm making a rational thought. Peter denied that he knew Jesus to save his life. Judas sold Jesus to his enemies for monetary gain. Clearly there is a difference.

2) I'm talking about Matthew compared to Acts
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
but you must admit peter is much more likely to get a more favorable story in the bible considering the authors. (btw i'm just playing devils advocate)
 
To deny Jesus somehow doesn't equal betrayal? For a man to deny the light and THE way is almost equal to renouncing his faith isn't it?
 
During the Last Supper, Jesus told Peter than he would deny him three times. He also told them that one in this room would betray him. Jesus knew who this was, but would not tell.

Both Peters and Judas' destinies had been chosen by God. Just as it was Jesus' destiny to die on the cross for our sins.

That may be totally wrong, but that is how I see it.
 
If we are to believe this we must also accept the fact that Peter betrayed Jesus. Why would we look at one differently than the other? They both "betrayed" Jesus, or so it appears at first glance.

I don't accept that Peter betrayed Jesus.

I think Peter was showing his weakness, his lack of faith.

At the time Peter denied knowing Jesus. Jesus had already been captured. Peter was scared for his own safety/life therefore he denied being one of the twelve.
 
To deny Jesus somehow doesn't equal betrayal? For a man to deny the light and THE way is almost equal to renouncing his faith isn't it?

Denying you know the man and handing him over to his enemies is just different to me. Not sure why
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
1.) Where did what come from, Judas was a sicarii.


Where in the bible does it say Judas Iscariot was a member of the sicarii ?

Some scholars have a theory that the name Iscariot, if derived from Latin means assassin or bandit. If bandit is the meaning he and his father Simon may have been members of the Zealots.

Most scholars believe that it is a Hebrew name meaning "Man of Kerioth" referring to the town of Kerioth.
 
During the Last Supper, Jesus told Peter than he would deny him three times. He also told them that one in this room would betray him. Jesus knew who this was, but would not tell.

Both Peters and Judas' destinies had been chosen by God. Just as it was Jesus' destiny to die on the cross for our sins.

That may be totally wrong, but that is how I see it.

Destiny is a sword that cuts on both sides. If we believe we are destined for something then that totally flies in the face of free will which in my view is one of if not the main reason Jesus was offered as a sacrifice.

The way I see it Jesus telling the disciples about the one among them who would betray him was more about preparing his disciples for the circumstances that were going to take place surrounding the outcome. I believe it very possible that Jesus and Judas had talked about this situation so that Judas could prepare himself for what he must do.

As I said earlier I don't have the answers but thinking over the words and stories with a critical mind I find it very plausible given what we know. I also believe Peter denying Jesus is a fascinating angle as well, it teaches us that even the strongest of foundations can be shaken to the ground and all is not as it seems.
 

VN Store



Back
Top