Here is another question...did Judas know what his betrayl would cost Christ? Did he know it would lead to his execution?

I was reading in John last night where Christ mentions of Judas being a son of perdition. Could he have been perdition when he had not yet received the Holy Ghost? When you view the actions of the apostles before Pentecost and then after, it gives pause to wonder.

Ultimately, Judas did have his agency, and it was premeditated. He would have had to been blind not to see what the Pharisees et al were trying to do and wanted to do. Basically, I think Judas had his head up his wazoo and then finally came to a realization of the gravity of what he had done.

With regards to what Euph said, Cat, I took it as in a similar reference to what Abraham went through or Joseph Smith. We do learn how far we will go to servce Christ, regardless of the cost. BH Roberts speaks of the reason of Abraham doing what he did with Isaac as Abraham needing to learn something about Abraham.

You know that's another speculative vein... Had Judas NOT killed himself, would the ressurrected Christ have forgiven him? Could there have been a path of redemption for him?

--Ray

Mark 14:47 "And one of them that stood by drew a sword, and smote a servant of the high priest, and cut off his ear.
48 And Jesus answered and said unto them, Are ye come out, as against a thief, with swords and with staves to take me?
49 I was daily with you in the temple teaching, and ye took me not: but the scriptures must be fulfilled.
50 And they all forsook him, and fled."

It appears that all the disciples had a moment of forsaking during this unprecedented time. Peter just after this denied him three times, vehemently and with cursing. But Judas' betrayal seems to take on a more sinister tone, with the selling for money factor (30 pieces of silver) and also the incident where the woman washed and anointed Jesus's feet with expensive ointment and he comments what a waste that was and the nobler road would've been to sell it and give to the poor. (We have some people nowadays that I think would say the same thing.)

ray asks why Christ did not "let" Judas go off and benignly live a terrestrial life of sorts... I think there are those that have certain capacities... you've got the 1 talent people and the 10 talent people. I think Judas (and all the disciples) was a 10 talent type person that was not going to live a half-way existence. You can recall other "devils" like Hitler, etc... and you think, how did these evil people have so immense an influence? There are people that I think live either *really* good or *really* bad... there is no half-way for them. Sometimes it leads to their destruction.

I think all of the above and more. I think pride could be a big factor... "What does Christ care for ointment on His feet? He has powers that this silly woman knows nothing of... Couldn't we have made a good example out of this and done some good deed?" I think he longed for recognition. I think he thought he was deeper and more intelligent than the other disciples. I think he wanted to be esteemed and revered. I think he was the type that partakes of the fruit and then heeds the mocking of others.

-- Edited by Cocobeem at 14:44, 2007-08-17

The Greek verb (paradídonai) can be translated as either 'to betray' or 'to hand over'. The word "betray" has much stronger connotations. Perhaps it is not the best translation?

There is no mention of Judas in the LDS scriptures, outside the Bible. So is there really a canonical argument for his consignment to Perdition?

I think most LDS have inherited the centuries-old Christian view of Judas as a betrayer and altogether bad guy. There is some grounds for this in the New Testament, where he is described as a thief (by Matthew) and as possessed or inspired by Satan (by John). It would stand to reason that the early disciples of Jesus would look unfavorably on the betrayer of their Messiah. That might color their relation of the events.

Another fun wrinkle: many of the early Christians saw "the Jews" as the enemy, especially in the Book of John, where they are blamed for the death of Christ. The name "Judas" is just a greek form of "Judah." Perhaps there was something going on there....

Shiz asked / stated "So is there really a canonical argument for his consignment to Perdition".

If you are referring to there being nothing in the quad combination (Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine & Covenants, Pearl of Great Price) that supports this, I think you are mistaken.

John 17:12, which is the passage where the original apostle John recorded the Saviors great intercessory prayer reads (speaking specifically of the twelve): While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled.

Looking at the cross-reference to that scripture leads us to 3 Nephi 27:31-3, which is again an account written by an apostle of Christ directly teaching His apostles, and reads: 31. Behold, I would that ye should understand; for I mean them who are now alive of this generation; and none of them are lost; and in them I have a fullness of joy. 32. But behold, it sorroweth me because of the fourth generation from this generation, for they are led away captive by him even as was the son of perdition; for they will sell me for silver and for gold, and for that which moth doth corrupt and which thieves can break through and steal. And in that day will I visit them, even in turning their works upon their own heads.

That was a pretty simple exercise and took all of ten minutes to find and review those two references. Are the scriptures correct, or is there some sort of mistranslation of the Savior's words from both ancient records?

Besides those references, we have confirmation from modern day prophets and apostles. We still consider and accept the inspired words and writings of apostles and prophets as scripture, equal in truth and validity as the canon.

Consider the words of Elder James E. Talmadge from Jesus The Christ on Judas Iscariot:

p. 592 "Under the impulse of diabolic avarice, which, however, was probably but a secondary element in the real cause of his perfidious treachery, he bargained to sell his Master for money" ... "We are yet to be afflicted by other glimpses of the evil-hearted Iscariot in the course of this dread chronicle of tragedy and perdition; for the present let it be said that before Judas sold Christ to the Jews, he had sold himself to the devil; he had become Satan's serf, and did his master's bidding."

p. 598-599 "The others understood the Lord's remark as an instruction to Judas to attend to some duty or go upon some errand of ordinary kind, perhaps to purchase something for the further celebration of the Passover, or to carry gifts to some of the poor, for Judas was the treasurer of the party and "had the bag." But Iscariot understood. His heart was all the more hardened by the discovery that Jesus knew of his infamous plans, and he was maddened by the humiliation he felt in the Master's presence. After the sop, which he had opened his mouth to receive from the Lord's hand, "Satan entered into him" and asserted malignant mastership. Judas went out immediately, abandoning forever the blessed company of his brethren and the Lord."

p. 642 "Then, under the goading impulse of his master, the devil, to whom he had become a bond-slave, body and soul, he went out and hanged himself."

pp. 649 - 651, all of footnote 8. Pretty clear that the ancient apostles knew Judas Iscariot became a son of perdition and this is confirmation by just one latter-day apostle.

So do we believe Talmadge was inspired as he wrote Jesus The Christ in or out of the temple? Take your pick as to where it was written, not that it makes a difference really. The book was written by special appointment by church leaders and read by and approved by the then living First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve. Those men were either in a position to get a direct thumbs up or thumbs down from The Savior or were not. So if they were in that position, I therefore take it Elder Talmadge was given some pretty special dispensation by The Lord with regards to insight, understanding, and having his eyes opened to things as they occurred. If they were not in that position, then the book is nothing more than a well written treatise of extrapolations about the life and mission of The Savior. As far as I know, Jesus The Christ is considered part of the approved, sanctioned, and even requested reading and study by all full-time missionaries.

I have also seen nothing on a search of the churchs on-line library of conference talks and magazine articles in which any latter-day apostle or prophet has intimated anything differently about the status of Judas Iscariot.

Shiz, that "opinion", as you refer to it, came long ago from study and spiritual confirmation... long before your "thought-provoking" suggestions. It is not useful to question facts one has had confirmed as true.

Jesus request :"That thou doest, do quickly". (John 13:27)

Was he saying to Judas "the less time you premeditate and scheme my death the better it may serve you when the punishment is meted out"?  Or was it implying the Savior's desire to see the Atonement through sooner rather than later and get on with it?

I guess I want to give this a second look because I feel it is harsh and presumptuous to judge and irredeemably condemn a man who lived 2000 years ago and about whom we have very little information--and what we do have comes through the recollections of men who have little reason to like the guy. It is hard enough for me to judge the motives and hearts of people whom I know well.

I don't think the question of Judas is going to affect my life or my hereafter, so I don't have enough stake in it to fight for one position or another. I guess I just would prefer to show him compassion, as that is what I want for myself.

The mob that slew Joseph Smith knew when he was slain... so it's not like a mob can't recognize their intended victim...

Cocobeem wrote:

---

I'm wondering... back to the original question... WHY indeed a betrayer at all? Why this whole episode with "pointing out" Jesus with a kiss... like they didn't know who He was? "We want to put an end to this Jesus, He's causing such a stir... if you could just kindly point him out to us, we'll take it from there..." ??? Why not just the whole mob of them coming and seeing Him ... no kiss ... or even if they call out, "Jesus of Galilee!" or something and He steps up and says, "I am He."

---

I have always wondered this too.  I have never heard an explanation that satisfied me.

 

Personal opinion alert.

I don't think it was the priests, scribes, pharisees, and members of the Sanhedrin that went with Judas to apprehend Jesus...

Those whom Christ had offended publicly by His teachings -- remember, this was the night the Passover was being celebrated -- being the "good" jewish leaders they were, would have been attending to their parties and guests.

John 18:3 states "Judas then, having received a band of men and officers from the chief priests and Pharisees, cometh thither with lanterns and torches and weapons." So, I infer that to mean it was a group of men (possibly temple guards) that were simply assembled and ordered to go with Judas to serve the arrest warrant. Perhaps the leader of the group was Malchus, the servant to Caiaphas the high priest. Would any or all of these men who made up the constabulary group assembled to fill the command of Caiaphas and the Sanhedrin have heard about Christ? Sure, it is highly probable based on the "fame" that was going around in Jerusalem. But, that doesn't mean they necessarily would be able to sight identify him. Hence Judas advising them of the sign he would give to signify who the right man was.

An interesting thing goes on in the next couple verses (4-8). Jesus asks who they are looking for, they say Jesus of Nazareth. He responds I am he. What is their response? They "went backward and fell to the ground." Why? I think because He had just declared to them His divinity and well, it was kind of the whoosh effect. I think we would probably experience the whoosh effect too if The Savior did the same directly to us. These were normal people, not the leaders who had already heard him say it and whose hearts were hardened and had decided to try him for blasphemy. I AM is one of the names used in their language as a name of God. As I've understood it, great effort was made to avoid saying that combination of words to avoid blaspheming the name of God, so when referring to themself the I no longer becomes the grammatic subject of the phrase (like the OT prophet Samuel as a lad responding to his name being called in the night with "here am I"). If Christ was not declaring His divinity at that moment, wouldn't He have followed the pattern of "he am I"? Anyway, just thought that was kind of interesting. Don't know if it is accurate or not.

I don't see that as an indicator that they would necessarily have recognized him. I think this is more or less a bold statement that He is reminding them that this action is not really lawful, when if He was really guilty of the charge, they (meaning the leaders) could have ordered this during the day when he taught in the temple.

Of course, there is the probability that some of them would physically recognize him, but are only acting upon orders from the leaders.