Judas: Christianity's hero

So I'm reading this book by Jasper Kent called Thirteen Years Later. It brings up the idea that Judas is one of the heroes of Christianity.

It states without Judas, there would be no arrest at Gethsemane. Without the arrest, no trial. Without the trial, no crucifixion. Without the crucifixion, no resurrection, and without the resurrection, no Christian religion. And also the gospel of John has it Christ selected him as the betrayer, and Satan only entered him after that. And yet Christ sits up there at the right hand of God, and Judas ends up in hell.

So it was a really interesting thought and have I been thinking about it for a while. What about you guys. Is Judas still a traitor?

They were eventually going to find Jesus. Judas just made it happen alot faster.

What I find really funny is how many Christians condemn Judas for his actions, despite Jesus himself forgiving him... which of course is the whole lesson tied to that event. Forgive everyone, for everything, no matter what. Another really odd thing is that in Acts and Thessalonians, there are conflicting accounts of what happened to Judas after Jesus' death.

I've actually had similar thoughts. If one believes that the entire purpose of Jesus' coming to Earth was to die and rise again, then the people who were responsible for his death were the most important players in the entire story, and everyone else was irrelevant, yet the people responsible for his death instead are reviled as evil for having killed Jesus. It makes no logical sense.

Well if what you said is true (that Jesus picked Judas as his betrayer) then he isnt a hero, but a mere puppet. :twisted:

By the same token, Hitler was Judaism's hero. Godwin's Law be damned, you can't treat every catalyst as a hero.jimmyjammer69

[QUOTE="jimmyjammer69"]By the same token, Hitler was Judaism's hero. Godwin's Law be damned, you can't treat every catalyst as a hero.foxhound_fox

I thought the Jewish people were ordained by God to set up the state of Israel. Was Judas commanded by God to betray Christ, or would Jesus have died and been ressurrected regardless of whether Judas had been the catalyst?jimmyjammer69

[QUOTE="jimmyjammer69"]I thought the Jewish people were ordained by God to set up the state of Israel. Was Judas commanded by God to betray Christ, or would Jesus have died and been ressurrected regardless of whether Judas had been the catalyst?foxhound_fox

No, that would not be consistent with most Christian doctrine.

EDIT: Let me add, that in this line of reasoning, every person who committed an evil act anywhere in the Bible is also a hero, since it setup the precise history for Judas to betray Christ and the Romans to execute him.

I don't believe that Jesus chose Judas to betray him, but ratherJesus just knew that the betrayer would be Judas.

I've actually had similar thoughts. If one believes that the entire purpose of Jesus' coming to Earth was to die and rise again, then the people who were responsible for his death were the most important players in the entire story, and everyone else was irrelevant, yet the people responsible for his death instead are reviled as evil for having killed Jesus. It makes no logical sense.GabuEx

I'm not sure how that would make no logical sense though. Christian scripture tends to put intent and thoughts of the heart at a very high level, as high as actual activity in some cases. The actors in this case may have inadvertently helped the plan move forward, but their intent was certainly not to do that.

This is a theme you find throughout scripture in any case. The Pharoah refused to listen to Moses, and eventually lost his first born son and was himself killed in a watery grave, yet the entire time it was made out to be a very important part of God's plan for them. He was reviled, yet God was the one who "ardened his heart".

The Northern House of Israel begins idolatry, Sabbath-breaking, bringing the name of YHWH to naught, and prophets say that God sent Assyria to enslave them, yet some of the same prophets say that Assyria will be punished for what they did at some later date. Later on the Southern House of Judah does the same sins, and God sends Babylon to take them into captivity, with the same promise that they will eventually be punished-- repeat, wash, rinse.

Outside of the specific part about God hardening Pharoah's heart, I think the general theme is that God can see future events, intentions, etc. and use them to his advantage. That doesn't make the intent of those he used to be any less, for lack of a better word, "sinful" based on the Torah.

I don't believe that Jesus chose Judas to betray him, but ratherJesus just knew that the betrayer would be Judas.

zmbi_gmr

He also knew that peter would deny him three times before the cock crowed.

I don't see how you could call him a "hero." It's not like his actual act was something noble or admirable. Meinhard1

It makes no logical sense.

GabuEx

The book of Judas also explains in more depth his side of the story and unlike the rest of the bible, doesn't make him out to be pretty much the spawn of satan.

On another note, I am yet to read thirteen years later. Twelve was epic so I will have to get onto it.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]I've actually had similar thoughts. If one believes that the entire purpose of Jesus' coming to Earth was to die and rise again, then the people who were responsible for his death were the most important players in the entire story, and everyone else was irrelevant, yet the people responsible for his death instead are reviled as evil for having killed Jesus. It makes no logical sense.m0zart

I'm not sure how that would make no logical sense though. Christian scripture tends to put intent and thoughts of the heart at a very high level, as high as actual activity in some cases. The actors in this case may have inadvertently helped the plan move forward, but their intent was certainly not to do that.

This is a theme you find throughout scripture in any case. The Pharoah refused to listen to Moses, and eventually lost his first born son and was himself killed in a watery grave, yet the entire time it was made out to be a very important part of God's plan for them. He was reviled, yet God was the one who "ardened his heart".

The Northern House of Israel begins idolatry, Sabbath-breaking, bringing the name of YHWH to naught, and prophets say that God sent Assyria to enslave them, yet some of the same prophets say that Assyria will be punished for what they did at some later date. Later on the Southern House of Judah does the same sins, and God sends Babylon to take them into captivity, with the same promise that they will eventually be punished-- repeat, wash, rinse.

Outside of the specific part about God hardening Pharoah's heart, I think the general theme is that God can see future events, intentions, etc. and use them to his advantage. That doesn't make the intent of those he used to be any less, for lack of a better word, "sinful" based on the Torah.

Yes, but the thing is that, as foxhound_fox touched upon, this wasn't just something that happened that turned out to be positive; orthodox Christian doctrine holds that the entire purpose of Jesus coming to Earth was to be killed and then rise again. In other words, Judas wasn't just a dick who accidentally did something good; what he did was the fulfillment of the entire plan behind Jesus' first coming. If God sent Jesus to Earth specifically to die, then I can scarcely imagine God just kind of crossing his fingers and hoping that someone kills Jesus; one would think that he had a plan, and that Judas was a key player in that plan. According to orthodox Christian doctrine, the death of Jesus was both God's plan from the beginning and basically the greatest thing that ever happened to the world.

Yes, but the thing is that, as foxhound_fox touched upon, this wasn't just something that happened that turned out to be positive; orthodox Christian doctrine holds that the entire purpose of Jesus coming to Earth was to be killed and then rise again. In other words, Judas wasn't just a dick who accidentally did something good; what he did was the fulfillment of the entire plan behind Jesus' first coming. If God sent Jesus to Earth specifically to die, then I can scarcely imagine God just kind of crossing his fingers and hoping that someone kills Jesus; one would think that he had a plan, and that Judas was a key player in that plan.

GabuEx

Christian doctirne holds that Jesus came to Earth and made a choice to die for the sins of humanity, not Jesus came to Earth to be betrayed by Judas. Most Christians (and most people in general) believe that human beings possess free will. Judas chose to betray Christ. If he hadn't, Jesus would have been still been put in a position where he had to choose to die.

And as I said earlier, under the viewpoint in this thread, all people throughout all of history up until about 35 AD contributed in some way or another to the planet being in its precise state when Jesus was born. This renders all acts prior to Christ's death morally irrelavant, since they must have been orchestrated by God (since He didn't cross his fingers) to create Jesus' death. If this is your opinion, I don't see why Judas is such a big deal.

[QUOTE="m0zart"]

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]I've actually had similar thoughts. If one believes that the entire purpose of Jesus' coming to Earth was to die and rise again, then the people who were responsible for his death were the most important players in the entire story, and everyone else was irrelevant, yet the people responsible for his death instead are reviled as evil for having killed Jesus. It makes no logical sense.GabuEx

I'm not sure how that would make no logical sense though. Christian scripture tends to put intent and thoughts of the heart at a very high level, as high as actual activity in some cases. The actors in this case may have inadvertently helped the plan move forward, but their intent was certainly not to do that.

This is a theme you find throughout scripture in any case. The Pharoah refused to listen to Moses, and eventually lost his first born son and was himself killed in a watery grave, yet the entire time it was made out to be a very important part of God's plan for them. He was reviled, yet God was the one who "ardened his heart".

The Northern House of Israel begins idolatry, Sabbath-breaking, bringing the name of YHWH to naught, and prophets say that God sent Assyria to enslave them, yet some of the same prophets say that Assyria will be punished for what they did at some later date. Later on the Southern House of Judah does the same sins, and God sends Babylon to take them into captivity, with the same promise that they will eventually be punished-- repeat, wash, rinse.

Outside of the specific part about God hardening Pharoah's heart, I think the general theme is that God can see future events, intentions, etc. and use them to his advantage. That doesn't make the intent of those he used to be any less, for lack of a better word, "sinful" based on the Torah.

Yes, but the thing is that, as foxhound_fox touched upon, this wasn't just something that happened that turned out to be positive; orthodox Christian doctrine holds that the entire purpose of Jesus coming to Earth was to be killed and then rise again. In other words, Judas wasn't just a dick who accidentally did something good; what he did was the fulfillment of the entire plan behind Jesus' first coming. If God sent Jesus to Earth specifically to die, then I can scarcely imagine God just kind of crossing his fingers and hoping that someone kills Jesus; one would think that he had a plan, and that Judas was a key player in that plan. According to orthodox Christian doctrine, the death of Jesus was both God's plan from the beginning and basically the greatest thing that ever happened to the world.

though he played an extremely important role, he was completely unaware of any sort of greater plan. his only intent intent was to betray his friend.

he was playing into god's plan, but that doesn't make his actions any more noble or heroic.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

Yes, but the thing is that, as foxhound_fox touched upon, this wasn't just something that happened that turned out to be positive; orthodox Christian doctrine holds that the entire purpose of Jesus coming to Earth was to be killed and then rise again. In other words, Judas wasn't just a dick who accidentally did something good; what he did was the fulfillment of the entire plan behind Jesus' first coming. If God sent Jesus to Earth specifically to die, then I can scarcely imagine God just kind of crossing his fingers and hoping that someone kills Jesus; one would think that he had a plan, and that Judas was a key player in that plan.

Palantas

Christian doctirne holds that Jesus came to Earth and made a choice to die for the sins of humanity, not Jesus came to Earth to be betrayed by Judas. Most Christians (and most people in general) believe that human beings possess free will. Judas chose to betray Christ. If he hadn't, Jesus would have been still been put in a position where he had to choose to die.

And as I said earlier, under the viewpoint in this thread, all people throughout all of history up until about 35 AD contributed in some way or another to the planet being in its precise state when Jesus was born. This renders all acts prior to Christ's death morally irrelavant, since they must have been orchestrated by God (since He didn't cross his fingers) to create Jesus' death. If this is your opinion, I don't see why Judas is such a big deal.

Eh? No it doesn't. The Gospel of John especially specifically states that Jesus was sent by God. Sent for what purpose? To die for humanity's sins. I know of no form of Christian orthodoxy that says that Jesus just decided one day, "Well, I guess I'll die for those people," and previously thought he might not.

"'My food,'said Jesus, 'is to do the will of him who sent me and to finish his work.'" (John 4:34)

[QUOTE="Palantas"]

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

Yes, but the thing is that, as foxhound_fox touched upon, this wasn't just something that happened that turned out to be positive; orthodox Christian doctrine holds that the entire purpose of Jesus coming to Earth was to be killed and then rise again. In other words, Judas wasn't just a dick who accidentally did something good; what he did was the fulfillment of the entire plan behind Jesus' first coming. If God sent Jesus to Earth specifically to die, then I can scarcely imagine God just kind of crossing his fingers and hoping that someone kills Jesus; one would think that he had a plan, and that Judas was a key player in that plan.

GabuEx

Christian doctirne holds that Jesus came to Earth and made a choice to die for the sins of humanity, not Jesus came to Earth to be betrayed by Judas. Most Christians (and most people in general) believe that human beings possess free will. Judas chose to betray Christ. If he hadn't, Jesus would have been still been put in a position where he had to choose to die.

And as I said earlier, under the viewpoint in this thread, all people throughout all of history up until about 35 AD contributed in some way or another to the planet being in its precise state when Jesus was born. This renders all acts prior to Christ's death morally irrelavant, since they must have been orchestrated by God (since He didn't cross his fingers) to create Jesus' death. If this is your opinion, I don't see why Judas is such a big deal.

Eh? No it doesn't. The Gospel of John especially specifically states that Jesus was sent by God. Sent for what purpose? To die for humanity's sins. I know of no form of Christian orthodoxy that says that Jesus just decided one day, "Well, I guess I'll die for those people," and previously thought he might not.

"'My food,'said Jesus, 'is to do the will of him who sent me and to finish his work.'" (John 4:34)

Eh? No it doesn't. The Gospel of John especially specifically states that Jesus was sent by God. Sent for what purpose? To die for humanity's sins. I know of no form of Christian orthodoxy that says that Jesus just decided one day, "Well, I guess I'll die for those people," and previously thought he might not.

"'My food,'said Jesus, 'is to do the will of him who sent me and to finish his work.'" (John 4:34)

GabuEx

Then perhaps your knowledge of Christian orthodoxies is not as comprehensive as you may think. Putting aside doctrine and even scripture: Let's think about this. This is another question of free will. If Jesus is an automaton, then what sacrifice did he make? He's no more hero or villian than Judas: He's just a cog in a titanic clock, and none of this s*** matters.

Now, moving ahead to scripture. In the Garden of Gethsemane, one of Christ's associates attacked the men sent to capture him. Jesus told him to put away his sword, and said,"Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels?" Jesus was fulfilling his role as the Messiah by his decision. If you want to think otherwise, fine, but then address the ramifications of it. Just don't expect me or other Christans to do so.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

Eh? No it doesn't. The Gospel of John especially specifically states that Jesus was sent by God. Sent for what purpose? To die for humanity's sins. I know of no form of Christian orthodoxy that says that Jesus just decided one day, "Well, I guess I'll die for those people," and previously thought he might not.

"'My food,'said Jesus, 'is to do the will of him who sent me and to finish his work.'" (John 4:34)

Palantas

Then perhaps your knowledge of Christian orthodoxies is not as comprehensive as you may think. Putting aside doctrine and even scripture: Let's think about this. This is another question of free will. If Jesus is an automaton, then what sacrifice did he make? He's no more hero or villian than Judas: He's just a cog in a titanic clock, and none of this s*** matters.

Now, moving ahead to scripture. In the Garden of Gethsemane, one of Christ's associates attacked the men sent to capture him. Jesus told him to put away his sword, and said,"Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels?" Jesus was fulfilling his role as the Messiah by his decision. If you want to think otherwise, fine, but then address the ramifications of it. Just don't expect me or other Christans to do so.

In what way does that quote show that it was Jesus' decision, as though it was in doubt that he was going to do what he did? And if you don't believe that Jesus' purpose was to die for humanity's sins, then answer this: who was "him who sent (Jesus)", and what does it mean to finish his work?

Paul wrote to Timothy that "Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners" (1 Timothy 1:15). In other words, the entire purpose of his coming to the world was to become the world's savior. Your assertion that it was ever in doubt that that would happen does go against Christian orthodoxy, it totally does. It suggests that God had no plan in mind for Jesus, and that he just happened to decide to die for our sins, but might not have.

As for the ramifications of this, I don't believe that there is any way in which true free will could exist that would not violate the principles of cause and effect, so the fact that this goes against free will is not terribly troubling to me. Even if it were, the uncomfortable implications of something are not a reason to find it to be false.

Judas is a prime example of a person who has been offered God's gift of salvation and forgiveness of sin, but flatly rejects it. From the time Jesus called Judas as a disciple, Judas learned from Jesus. Jesus never treated him any differently from the other disciples. In the end, Judas sold the Savior. One of the saddest things about Judas is that the remorse he felt afterwards was only superficial. If he had truly repented from his sins and asked God's forgiveness, I believe God would have forgiven him. The Bible says that if we confess our sins, God is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. The Bible also says that the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Judas rejected that gift.

Judas wasn't a hero, by any means. He made himself a willing instrument of Satan.

Rather, the Hero is Jesus Christ, the perfect, sinless Son of God, who came to pay the price for our sin on the cross, who conquered the grave, and who defeated sin and death.

In the end, Judas sold the Savior.

MathMattS

And, in doing so, brought salvation to the world by allowing Jesus to be killed as he needed to be. Which is the point. Had he not done so, Jesus' purpose on Earth would have been unfulfilled.

[QUOTE="MathMattS"]

In the end, Judas sold the Savior.

GabuEx

And, in doing so, brought salvation to the world by allowing Jesus to be killed as he needed to be. Which is the point. Had he not done so, Jesus' purpose on Earth would have been unfulfilled.

Bringing salvation to the world was God's plan, not Judas'. God's plan was not dependent on Judas, as God is omnipotent and His plan doesn't depend on man. God is completely sovereign over all.

If Jesus of Nazereth never got crucified then there would be no hope of a future resurrection from the deadandentrance into the kingdom of GOD. Let alone the temporary forgiveness of sins without going by the old testament laws. Judas was possesed by the devil which is why he betrayed the Lord and the reason Jesus selected him is because he already knew what was going to happen just like how he knew Peter would deny him.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="MathMattS"]

In the end, Judas sold the Savior.

MathMattS

And, in doing so, brought salvation to the world by allowing Jesus to be killed as he needed to be. Which is the point. Had he not done so, Jesus' purpose on Earth would have been unfulfilled.

Bringing salvation to the world was God's plan, not Judas'. God's plan was not dependent on Judas, as God is omnipotent and His plan doesn't depend on man. God is completely sovereign over all.

God's plan was obviously dependent on someone; if it hadn't been Judas, it would've had to have been someone else. Jesus had to be killed by someone.

In what way does that quote show that it was Jesus' decision, as though it was in doubt that he was going to do what he did?

GabuEx

I thought that was self-evident, but all right: Jesus is directly stating that if he were to ask for it, God would stop him from being killed. Unless he is lying, then he's stating he has the capacity to make a choice. You have a different interpretation?

As for the the rest of your post, there are a whole host of supposed contradictions up here that are obviously nonsense. Numerous persons in the Biblical account were sent by God to do certain things. They had a choice in this, just as Jesus had a choice.

And this is doubly nonsense:

It suggests that God had no plan in mind for Jesus, and that he just happened to decide to die for our sins, but might not have.

GabuEx

I'm not even going to answer this one. Your assertion here is that if one thinking being can make a choice, then another cannot have a plan for them. I'll let you figure out what's wrong with that. Then you can address how a sacrifice can be made when...actually, it doesn't matter. If you don't believe in free will, then we're our positions are fundamentally incompatible. Is this the case?

it went down like this.

"one of you will betray me"

"zomg? no wai we won't do it!"

*jesus sighs and clenchs his teeth* "i said...one of you..... WILL...betray me!" *under breath* "stupid chumps"

Yes, but the thing is that, as foxhound_fox touched upon, this wasn't just something that happened that turned out to be positive; orthodox Christian doctrine holds that the entire purpose of Jesus coming to Earth was to be killed and then rise again. In other words, Judas wasn't just a dick who accidentally did something good; what he did was the fulfillment of the entire plan behind Jesus' first coming. If God sent Jesus to Earth specifically to die, then I can scarcely imagine God just kind of crossing his fingers and hoping that someone kills Jesus; one would think that he had a plan, and that Judas was a key player in that plan. According to orthodox Christian doctrine, the death of Jesus was both God's plan from the beginning and basically the greatest thing that ever happened to the world.GabuEx

If you take Christianity at face value, then two things have to be true at the same time: (1) God has to be omniscient and omnipotent, and (2) human beings have to have freewill.It has to be well wthin his ability given those parameters to look at future events and use them to the advantage of a specific part of his plan (usually by simply not preventing individuals from acting on their bad intentions) while at the same time not condoning the activities of those he allowed to act.

Hence, I don't see why the qualification that you and foxhound touched upon do anything disrupting here. I wasn't predicating my statement on "just something that turned out to be positive". Whether it turns out to be just some positive event or a specific purpose would be irrelevant from the perspective of an omniscient and omniopotent God, as any being at that supposed level of existence would be planning these things well in advance based on complete knowledge. Every activity would be something he would know about well in advance and use to his advantage, which necessarily includes the bad intents of others being used to further a specific purpose as well as the good. He could easily allow Judas to perform his intentions without regard to whether they are motivated by "sin" or "righteousness" without Judas' awareness or a granting of impunity.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

In what way does that quote show that it was Jesus' decision, as though it was in doubt that he was going to do what he did?

Palantas

I thought that was self-evident, but all right: Jesus is directly stating that if he were to ask for it, God would stop him from being killed. Unless he is lying, then he's stating he has the capacity to make a choice. You have a different interpretation?

As for the the rest of your post, there are a whole host of supposed contradictions up here that are obviously nonsense. Numerous persons in the Biblical account were sent by God to do certain things. They had a choice in this, just as Jesus had a choice.

Having the capacity to make a choice is irrelevant unless there is a greater than zero percent chance that that choice will actually be made. Given that Jesus was specifically sent to Earth to be the atoning sacrifice for humanity's sins, the fact that Jesus was technically physically capable of doing something else had he the desire to do so is irrelevant. His purpose was what happened. That was God's desire, and there was never any chance that something else would have happened, making any talk of it being a "choice" rather hollow.

I'm not even going to answer this one. Your assertion here is that if one thinking being can make a choice, then another cannot have a plan for them. I'll let you figure out what's wrong with that. Then you can address how a sacrifice can be made when...actually, it doesn't matter. If you don't believe in free will, then we're our positions are fundamentally incompatible. Is this the case?

Palantas

I do not see how a meaningful definition of "free will" could be compatible with cause and effect, nor do I even believe that the concept of "free will" is even really well-defined.

That said, I also don't see how one's ability to meaningfully make a choice is compatible with having a plan for that person. If you have a plan, that implies a series of steps, each of which you ensure will be fulfilled. If something is guaranteed to happen, then there was never any choice at all. A choice implies that there is no guarantee that something will happen until the actor chooses to make it so... which is exactly what I said. If Jesus actually had the ability to meaningfully make a choice, then that means that God's plan could have been in jeopardy. God's plan was never in jeopardy (he is God, after all); therefore, Jesus did not have the ability to meaningfully make a choice. This is just a basic logical argument that goes from premises to conclusions. Your only argument against it seems to be, "I don't like what that implies; therefore it must be wrong."

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]Yes, but the thing is that, as foxhound_fox touched upon, this wasn't just something that happened that turned out to be positive; orthodox Christian doctrine holds that the entire purpose of Jesus coming to Earth was to be killed and then rise again. In other words, Judas wasn't just a dick who accidentally did something good; what he did was the fulfillment of the entire plan behind Jesus' first coming. If God sent Jesus to Earth specifically to die, then I can scarcely imagine God just kind of crossing his fingers and hoping that someone kills Jesus; one would think that he had a plan, and that Judas was a key player in that plan. According to orthodox Christian doctrine, the death of Jesus was both God's plan from the beginning and basically the greatest thing that ever happened to the world.m0zart

If you take Christianity at face value, then two things have to be true at the same time: (1) God has to be omniscient and omnipotent, and (2) human beings have to have freewill.It has to be well wthin his ability given those parameters to look at future events and use them to the advantage of a specific part of his plan (usually by simply not preventing individuals from acting on their bad intentions) while at the same time not condoning the activities of those he allowed to act.

Hence, I don't see why the qualification that you and foxhound touched upon do anything disrupting here. I wasn't predicating my statement on "just something that turned out to be positive". Whether it turns out to be just some positive event or a specific purpose would be irrelevant from the perspective of an omniscient and omniopotent God, as any being at that supposed level of existence would be planning these things well in advance based on complete knowledge. Every activity would be something he would know about well in advance and use to his advantage, which necessarily includes the bad intents of others being used to further a specific purpose as well as the good. He could easily allow Judas to perform his intentions without regard to whether they are motivated by "sin" or "righteousness" without Judas' awareness or a granting of impunity.

Yes, but as I said, if God has some master plan, then that master plan must be fulfilled. If that master plan must be fulfilled, then humans cannot act in a way that would cause it to be unfulfilled. If humans cannot act in a way that would cause it to be unfulfilled, then humans cannot meaningfully make a choice when that choice would impact God's master plan. If humans cannot meaningfully make a choice, then humans have no free will. The very premise that God has a master plan necessarily takes away humans' ability to have free will when it comes to anything affecting that master plan. As such, the two premises that God has a master plan and that humans have free will are already logically inconsistent, rendering any logical argument pointless that attempts to accept them both as premises.

[QUOTE="m0zart"]

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]Yes, but the thing is that, as foxhound_fox touched upon, this wasn't just something that happened that turned out to be positive; orthodox Christian doctrine holds that the entire purpose of Jesus coming to Earth was to be killed and then rise again. In other words, Judas wasn't just a dick who accidentally did something good; what he did was the fulfillment of the entire plan behind Jesus' first coming. If God sent Jesus to Earth specifically to die, then I can scarcely imagine God just kind of crossing his fingers and hoping that someone kills Jesus; one would think that he had a plan, and that Judas was a key player in that plan. According to orthodox Christian doctrine, the death of Jesus was both God's plan from the beginning and basically the greatest thing that ever happened to the world.GabuEx

If you take Christianity at face value, then two things have to be true at the same time: (1) God has to be omniscient and omnipotent, and (2) human beings have to have freewill.It has to be well wthin his ability given those parameters to look at future events and use them to the advantage of a specific part of his plan (usually by simply not preventing individuals from acting on their bad intentions) while at the same time not condoning the activities of those he allowed to act.

Hence, I don't see why the qualification that you and foxhound touched upon do anything disrupting here. I wasn't predicating my statement on "just something that turned out to be positive". Whether it turns out to be just some positive event or a specific purpose would be irrelevant from the perspective of an omniscient and omniopotent God, as any being at that supposed level of existence would be planning these things well in advance based on complete knowledge. Every activity would be something he would know about well in advance and use to his advantage, which necessarily includes the bad intents of others being used to further a specific purpose as well as the good. He could easily allow Judas to perform his intentions without regard to whether they are motivated by "sin" or "righteousness" without Judas' awareness or a granting of impunity.

Yes, but as I said, if God has some master plan, then that master plan must be fulfilled. If that master plan must be fulfilled, then humans cannot act in a way that would cause it to be unfulfilled. If humans cannot act in a way that would cause it to be unfulfilled, then humans cannot meaningfully make a choice when that choice would impact God's master plan. If humans cannot meaningfully make a choice, then humans have no free will. The very premise that God has a master plan necessarily takes away humans' ability to have free will when it comes to anything affecting that master plan. As such, the two premises that God has a master plan and that humans have free will are already logically inconsistent, rendering any logical argument pointless that attempts to accept them both as premises.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="m0zart"]

If you take Christianity at face value, then two things have to be true at the same time: (1) God has to be omniscient and omnipotent, and (2) human beings have to have freewill.It has to be well wthin his ability given those parameters to look at future events and use them to the advantage of a specific part of his plan (usually by simply not preventing individuals from acting on their bad intentions) while at the same time not condoning the activities of those he allowed to act.

Hence, I don't see why the qualification that you and foxhound touched upon do anything disrupting here. I wasn't predicating my statement on "just something that turned out to be positive". Whether it turns out to be just some positive event or a specific purpose would be irrelevant from the perspective of an omniscient and omniopotent God, as any being at that supposed level of existence would be planning these things well in advance based on complete knowledge. Every activity would be something he would know about well in advance and use to his advantage, which necessarily includes the bad intents of others being used to further a specific purpose as well as the good. He could easily allow Judas to perform his intentions without regard to whether they are motivated by "sin" or "righteousness" without Judas' awareness or a granting of impunity.

jimmyjammer69

Yes, but as I said, if God has some master plan, then that master plan must be fulfilled. If that master plan must be fulfilled, then humans cannot act in a way that would cause it to be unfulfilled. If humans cannot act in a way that would cause it to be unfulfilled, then humans cannot meaningfully make a choice when that choice would impact God's master plan. If humans cannot meaningfully make a choice, then humans have no free will. The very premise that God has a master plan necessarily takes away humans' ability to have free will when it comes to anything affecting that master plan. As such, the two premises that God has a master plan and that humans have free will are already logically inconsistent, rendering any logical argument pointless that attempts to accept them both as premises.

I'm not necessarily calling him a hero and if I said as much before then I misspoke; what I'm saying is that it makes no sense to vilify someone and consider him evil when he was part of a plan and when without him God's plan would have been unfulfilled.

You've been proceeding under the premise that free will does not exist. I do not accept that premise, so we've been interpreting scripture under different frameworks, which is pointless.

Your only argument against it seems to be, "I don't like what that implies; therefore it must be wrong."

GabuEx

Yeah, that must be it. I would rather accept limitations on God than accept the idea that God created mindless robots. I believe that God gave everybody a choice whether to love him or not, and from there to generally do as they please. I also believe that for Christ's sacrifice to be meaningful, he had to have a choice to do as he pleased. If you don't accept free will, then obviously this is a non-issue.

[QUOTE="jimmyjammer69"][QUOTE="GabuEx"]

Yes, but as I said, if God has some master plan, then that master plan must be fulfilled. If that master plan must be fulfilled, then humans cannot act in a way that would cause it to be unfulfilled. If humans cannot act in a way that would cause it to be unfulfilled, then humans cannot meaningfully make a choice when that choice would impact God's master plan. If humans cannot meaningfully make a choice, then humans have no free will. The very premise that God has a master plan necessarily takes away humans' ability to have free will when it comes to anything affecting that master plan. As such, the two premises that God has a master plan and that humans have free will are already logically inconsistent, rendering any logical argument pointless that attempts to accept them both as premises.

GabuEx

I'm not necessarily calling him a hero and if I said as much before then I misspoke; what I'm saying is that it makes no sense to vilify someone and consider him evil when he was part of a plan and when without him God's plan would have been unfulfilled.

That said, I also don't see how one's ability to meaningfully make a choice is compatible with having a plan for that person. If you have a plan, that implies a series of steps, each of which you ensure will be fulfilled. If something is guaranteed to happen, then there was never any choice at all. A choice implies that there is no guarantee that something will happen until the actor chooses to make it so... which is exactly what I said. If Jesus actually had the ability to meaningfully make a choice, then that means that God's plan could have been in jeopardy. God's plan was never in jeopardy (he is God, after all); therefore, Jesus did not have the ability to meaningfully make a choice. This is just a basic logical argument that goes from premises to conclusions. Your only argument against it seems to be, "I don't like what that implies; therefore it must be wrong."GabuEx

This is not about what I believe. Frankly, I haven't known what I believe, if anything, for a decade now at least. However, once I did believe, and this was never a problem for me. Even now I don't see this particular outcome as an issue or a reason why I departed from religious beliefs in general. If I were to accept these two ideas (God is omniscient and omnipotent and human beings have freewill), then I have to concede that the same God could use that prior knowledge to act or fail to act all according to a purpose, and do so without making any excuses or provisions for those heisacting around. I realize that there is a classic argument against either omniscience or freewill based on the claimed contradiction you stated, though I've always felt that for someone who accepts Christianity at face value, there cannot be a real acceptance of that contradiction. The Christian view of God seems to be that God is able to flip through history like a rolodex without leaving fingerprints on the pages. As long as he isn't forcing them to act against their own decisions, then that belief does not result in something the average Christian would recognize as a contradiction.

Essentially, no Christian, outside of those who follow a Calvinist view of God-willed predestination, believes that God's ability to tell the end from the beginning is equivalent to his acting and forcing them to make a particular decision.

You've been proceeding under the premise that free will does not exist. I do not accept that premise, so we've been interpreting scripture under different frameworks, which is pointless.

Palantas

It's not a premise; it's a conclusion. It is something that I have been lead to believe to be the case through a logical analysis of the evidence available.

Yeah, that must be it. I would rather accept limitations on God than accept the idea that God created mindless robots. I believe that God gave everybody a choice whether to love him or not, and from there to generally do as they please. I also believe that for Christ's sacrifice to be meaningful, he had to have a choice to do as he pleased. If you don't accept free will, then obviously this is a non-issue.

Palantas

Then you accept that God's plan for Jesus had a meaningful chance of failing had Jesus chosen differently?

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]That said, I also don't see how one's ability to meaningfully make a choice is compatible with having a plan for that person. If you have a plan, that implies a series of steps, each of which you ensure will be fulfilled. If something is guaranteed to happen, then there was never any choice at all. A choice implies that there is no guarantee that something will happen until the actor chooses to make it so... which is exactly what I said. If Jesus actually had the ability to meaningfully make a choice, then that means that God's plan could have been in jeopardy. God's plan was never in jeopardy (he is God, after all); therefore, Jesus did not have the ability to meaningfully make a choice. This is just a basic logical argument that goes from premises to conclusions. Your only argument against it seems to be, "I don't like what that implies; therefore it must be wrong."m0zart

This is not about what I believe. Frankly, I haven't known what I believe, if anything, for a decade now at least. However, once I did believe, and this was never a problem for me. Even now I don't see this particular outcome as an issue or a reason why I departed from religious beliefs in general. If I were to accept these two ideas (God is omniscient and omnipotent and human beings have freewill), then I have to concede that the same God could use that prior knowledge to act or fail to act all according to a purpose, and do so without making any excuses or provisions for those heisacting around. I realize that there is a classic argument against either omniscience or freewill based on the claimed contradiction you stated, though I've always felt that for someone who accepts Christianity at face value, there cannot be a real acceptance of that contradiction. The Christian view of God seems to be that God is able to flip through history like a rolodex without leaving fingerprints on the pages. As long as he isn't forcing them to act against their own decisions, then that belief does not result in something the average Christian would recognize as a contradiction.

Essentially, no Christian, outside of those who follow a Calvinist view of God-willed predestination, believes that God's ability to tell the end from the beginning is equivalent to his acting and forcing them to make a particular decision.

Yes, but on the other hand, if one arrives at the conclusion, as I have, that those two premises are logically incompatible, then I don't even see how I could logically deduce what could be the case if those two were true. It'd be like beginning with the two premises of "This shape is a circle" and "This shape is a square" and then trying to figure out what that implies.