Announcement

Collapse

Welcome to Moorcock's Miscellany

Dear reader,

Many people have given their valuable time to create a website for the pleasure of posing questions to Michael Moorcock, meeting people from around the world, and mining the site for information. Please follow one of the links above to learn more about the site.

Thank you,
Reinart der Fuchs
See more
See less

Does Judas get a bad press?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Heiron
    Heiron
    Pawn of multiverse
    Heiron
    Pawn of multiverse
    • Jun 2006
    • 374

    #76
    But then again if Jesus was born sinless,how could he be entirely,absolutely,100%,..(etc) human?

    Either original sin is the tendency to sin or the burden for the sins of our ancestors, it doesn't seem to be anyone's fault to have it.The wolf is not bad;he is born to kill and all the wolves before him have killed again and again but it's not right to send wolves to Hell.Of course man has the ability to understand that some acts/thoughts are bad but he sins whatsoever.This seems to be the original sin(the "tendency") and it seems it was in Adam since God gave him life.
    In fact isn't it best when you have thought to do something bad but you chose not to do it?If you don't know what evil is,how can you be really good?

    Comment

    • David Mosley
      David Mosley
      Eternal Administrator
      David Mosley
      Eternal Administrator
      • Jul 2004
      • 11823

      #77
      Originally posted by Heiron View Post
      But then again if Jesus was born sinless,how could he be entirely,absolutely,100%,..(etc) human?
      Because 'sinful' was not the default setting for humans before the Fall. The first Adam was not made sinful but he succumbed to temptation and fell into Sin. The second Adam was not born sinful, and though He too was tempted (by Satan in the wilderness) He resisted the temptation(s) and so did not fall into Sin. That's the difference.

      Originally posted by Heiron View Post
      Either original sin is the tendency to sin or the burden for the sins of our ancestors, it doesn't seem to be anyone's fault to have it.The wolf is not bad;he is born to kill and all the wolves before him have killed again and again but it's not right to send wolves to Hell.Of course man has the ability to understand that some acts/thoughts are bad but he sins whatsoever.This seems to be the original sin(the "tendency") and it seems it was in Adam since God gave him life.
      Think of it this way: Sin is a form of corruption, it makes what was once pure forever impure. Sin is a barrier between Man and his Creator; it puts him 'beyond the pale', so to speak. You know that scene in Goodfellas when Henry Hill goes to Paul Cicero for something and Cicero says to him, "If I give you this I can never see you again" and after he gives Hill what he wants Cicero turns his back on him? That's the effect that Man's sin has on God. He can't bear to look upon us, yet He sent His only Son to save us. We share in Adam's sin because we would have done the same as him, just as we share in the guilt of the crowd who chose Barrabas over Jesus because we also would have called for Barrabas. If a dog acquires rabies do we not destroy it, even though it is not the dog's fault that it caught the disease? If a cow gets Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy ('mad cow' disease) do we not slaughter and burn it although the cow did not ask to become infected? Whether Man has the ability to understand sin and make a conscious decision not to sin (in other words, to observe in full the Law given to Moses and the Israelites) he is still tainted by the sin of his forefather Adam. So rather than complain that "it's not right to send wolves to Hell" we should rejoice that God sees fit to save those wolves who recognise the sacrifice made for them, while.

      I guess the next question would be something like: "If God's so decent why doesn't He just save everyone?" I would argue that if I offend you in some way and you say, "That's okay, I forgive you" but I show no remorse or even acknowledgement that I have offended you then there can be no forgiveness. Forgiveness is a two-way street; one has to offer the forgiveness and the other has to accept it. If there is no acceptance then the 'gift' isn't being used. Suppose you're sitting in a darkened room because the light bulb has gone and I give you a replacement light bulb (free and gratis) and you say 'Thanks, that's great' but then you put the bulb in your pocket and go back to sitting on the floor what good is my gift? The bulb only fulfils its purpose if you screw it into the socket. I could screw it in for you but perhaps that's not what you really want? Perhaps you like sitting in the dark? Well, I wouldn't want to do something that you didn't want me to do, I mean that would be like coercion: "You will sit in the light, whether you like it or not because it's good for you, goddamnit!". Well, that's hardly the way to give someone a gift, is it? And anyway, why shouldn't you get off your lazy ass and screw it in yourself? If the light bulb is a gift then I have to let you make your own choice whether to use it or not.

      Originally posted by Heiron View Post
      In fact isn't it best when you have thought to do something bad but you chose not to do it?If you don't know what evil is,how can you be really good?
      If I may return to your nephew for a moment. At some point in his development his parents might say to him, "Don't put your finger in the electric socket, because it will kill you". He doesn't need to actually 'know' what electricity is to do as he's told, all he has to do is not stick his finger in the electric socket. The default status is not to do something rather than doing something, so, yes, it's very easy for him to be 'good' and you might say that such goodness doesn't deserve a reward and I'd agree. As Bob Jones said when he was congratulated for penalising himself two strokes in the 1925 US Open (which he lost by one stroke): "You may as well praise a man for not robbing a bank".

      Mind you, wouldn't his parents be right to be mad as hell with him if he did stick his fingers where they shouldn't go? Of course, 240v going through the body of a toddler is likely to be fatal so there probably wouldn't be any second chances (though miracles do happen). What (human) parent wouldn't sacrifice themselves in order to save their child - if only it was within their ability to do so?

      Hmm... this is probably going into more detail than anyone wants to discuss (or read) so I'll stop there.
      David Mosley
      Eternal Administrator
      Last edited by David Mosley; 01-10-2009, 01:40 PM.
      _"For an eternity Allard was alone in an icy limbo where all the colours were bright and sharp and comfortless.
      _For another eternity Allard swam through seas without end, all green and cool and deep, where distorted creatures drifted, sometimes attacking him.
      _And then, at last, he had reached the real world – the world he had created, where he was God and could create or destroy whatever he wished.
      _He was supremely powerful. He told planets to destroy themselves, and they did. He created suns. Beautiful women flocked to be his. Of all men, he was the mightiest. Of all gods, he was the greatest."

      Comment

      • Heiron
        Heiron
        Pawn of multiverse
        Heiron
        Pawn of multiverse
        • Jun 2006
        • 374

        #78
        David,we're saying the same thing.
        I don't mean that one has to actually sin to know what sin is!
        If the nephew puts his finger in without being warned about that,it's not his fault.If he is warned,he will "have sinned" if he tries to put his finger in.If he doesn't,he is no saint just a normal man.If another kid says "Put your finger in!I'll give you some chocolate" and he still doesn't do it,he is a good boy-still no saint of course.
        Anyway,I guess he'll learn about electricity pretty soon.His uncle has studied physics and his grandfather is an electrician...

        Getting back to Judas,perhaps he got the role of the bad guy by the Greco-Galilean community that started christianity.The example of a "typical Jew from Judea".(This negative archetype is common even today: A greedy guy that cooperates with the authorities.)In Greek-the language of the original Gospels-all these words are similar(they are not much different in English anyway).Jesus preached in Galilee mainly,and perhaps the fact that Galilee had many Greeks or "hellenised Jews"(ever wondered what kind of names are Phillip and Andrew?) was important.Fanatic Jews couldn't accept a new religion.Besides,it was the Greeks that were the main target of the people that spread the religion.The gospels were in Greek,the first churches were in Greek cities(except for Jerusalem-the headquarters and Rome-the capital of the empire) etc.
        Faithful Jews saw christianity as a bad cult(never actually embraced it);the Greeks and others as a nice new religion(except for the emperors who didn't like it).So,it was quite normal to present the Jews as bad in the Gospels,with the example of Judas.

        Comment

        • Kyrinn S. Eis
          Kyrinn S. Eis
          Psychwar Vet
          Kyrinn S. Eis
          Psychwar Vet
          • Aug 2007
          • 2585

          #79
          Well, as for your second point, getting back to Judas, there were 'more hated' elements of the 12 than Judas, whose own background occupation isn't given, such as a tax-collector. So, I'm not certain that your supposition that the Greek influence upon the Gospels in that regard is very clear (i.e., that Judas was a 'bad Jew').

          Further, most of the Greeks-believers were converts from Judaism, and not Pagans. The fact that Koine Greek was the Lingua Franca of the period has far less to do with the influence of Hellenic culture than the fact that Rome was clever enough to have adopted the most-spoken language of the region in which to communicate. As you know, Hellenic influence had been destroyed a good deal of time prior to Roman dominination of the region. The fact, for instance, that it was Koine Greek and not Classical Greek being spoken is a strong evidence.

          So, now that we've come back to Judas Iscariot, whose last name has possible translations to 'Assassin', we've yet to establish his motivation apart from greed. I don't think we can do much better than what was written, and wonder what the original issue of the thread truly is. Surely it isn't Antisemitics, given that the first wave of Messianic converts were all Jews, as were the 'Sent-out Ones' (Apostolos).

          So, may I ask what we are hoping to decipher from the postulate that he may have received bad press? Further, from whom, and to what ends, given the remarkably Jewish nature of the early congregational movement of the Messianics?

          I have striven to demonstrate, from Scriptural positions, that Jews are perfectly capable of identifying their own traitors (Cain; apostates during the Exodus who were destroyed in fire and earthquakes; king Saul; the kings of Judah and Samaria; and then, Judas Iscariot, and by his own admission, Saul of Tarsus -- from which he later repents when confronted by the L-rd Himself).
          I can't see who else would be necessary to vilify a villain than the Jewish Messianics themselves, simply recording the events as they transpired.

          What more is there to say on the matter?
          Ani Maamin B'emunah Sh'leimah B'viyat Hamashiach. V'af al pi sheyitmahmehah im kol zeh achake lo b'chol yom sheyavo.

          "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." - Phillip K. Dick

          Comment

          • J-Sun
            J-Sun
            Priest of Nadsokor
            J-Sun
            Priest of Nadsokor
            • Dec 2007
            • 2173

            #80
            Originally posted by David Mosley View Post
            Just to say, in the Protestant tradition (at least the one I follow) baptism is merely the outward sign of an inner commitment and is entirely symbolic, there's nothing mystical about it at all, it's doesn't 'wash our sins away'. Our sins are forgiven when we repent of our sinful nature and accept Christ into our lives. It's good - if you're a Christian - to get baptised but it doesn't make you any less of a Christian or any less 'saved' if you don't.
            Some day we can have that discussion on baptism in a different thread. The "protestant" tradition I ascribe to actually equates baptism a little more forecfully with salvation. This is not to say that I am a water-regenerationist, but that we put baptism in the same category as faith and repentance. As always, it's based upon what verses you give what weight, and how you read the texts.
            "Self-discipline and self-knowledge are the key. An individual becomes a unique universe, able to move at will through all the scales of the multiverse - potentially able to control the immediate reality of every scale, every encountered environment."
            --Contessa Rose von Bek, Blood part 4, chapter 12

            Comment

            Working...
            X