In Honor of Judas

  • Thread starter FZ+
  • Start date
  • #26
kyleb
yes, i understand that according to some of the people who draw form the same basic theology, Jesus considered the sole incarnation of god. But i don't is some bum on the street, Miss Cleo, or the almighty making a prediction, all of them would have been right for makeing the claim and none of them removed anyone's free will by doing so.
 
  • Like
Likes mheslep
  • #27
469
0
I agree judas did the best he could and could not have done any different at that moment even if it repeated itself in time for a thousand years it would have happened the same way no differences. Only if variables could change would it change. God the father did not chose Judas to do this and yet it was forseen or so they say. I don't know if they did or not and do not require it for myself. I have my own experiences.

People make the best possible choices they can at every moment. If they make bad choices and go against the grain, or do what is considered bad by themselves, they will pay within themselves. So one cannot cop out and say my life is worthless what is the purpose and give up(Ecleasiasties). I wish I could spell sometimes.

Creation has a balance sheet. I saw this when I figured out what gravity is.

Not every word in the bible is correctly quoted from Jesus or any other prophet of any other religion. Heck today I see things being rewritten and they have no clue sometimes to what the passage means.

This was in the bible and taken out of a version which was given to my family. "He that finds the spirit within him will go no more out" pretty close to that. What do you think it means? Do you know catholism believed in reincarnation at one time and decided to pull it out since if people thought they had to many lives to live they would not improve themselves(><400AD). There are many inconsistancies, but there are also consistancies.

Satan has never existed except within us by our actions.
 
  • #28
kyleb
it should be noted that it was foretold that Peter would betray Jesus three times that same night; and this came true as well but the betrayal was not to the point that he was a party to the crucifixion. i just learned this one of the bible beaters on this history channel while i was eating dinner last night.
 
  • #29
755
0
Originally posted by kyleb
wow carl that is quite a vulgar tongue you have there, i am sorry as i didn't mean to stir you by any means; i suppose i might have gone better if i quoted the source straight off. regardless, i don't think there is anything nearly so demeaning about Mary Magdalene in the standard translations though i can't say i have actually read it cover to cover. however, makes the fact that Simon is Peter rather clear in every version i have checked, Matthew 4:18 and 16:17-18 are probably the most obvious spots in kjv and such. what do you find so distasteful about this anyway?
No offence intended. My hormones get active when I think about the bastardization of history. (pardon my vulgar tongue)

I believe there was more than one Simon in Jesus's company. The fact that Judas's father's name was Simon should point that out. In fact, I wouldn't be suprized if Judas's Father was the secret disciple who stood in for Jesus. It all starts looking like the same devoted and suicidal families of today, in the middle east, acting in the face of the monsterously overbearing Roman occupancy of Jesus's time.
 
  • #30
kyleb
oh no offence taken, i don't really hold offence towards words regardless of their nature; i was just a bit shocked to see it used in such context. however, i am curious as to where this idea of a " secret disciple" stems from. i didn't know Judas's fathers name was Simon but i assumed that Peter was not the only one, yet i also know that many do not realize that Peter's given name was Simon and that is the only disciple by that name i have ever heard of at all so i figured it was just a matter of confusion.
 
  • #31
755
0
Originally posted by kyleb
oh no offence taken, i don't really hold offence towards words regardless of their nature; i was just a bit shocked to see it used in such context. however, i am curious as to where this idea of a " secret disciple" stems from. i didn't know Judas's fathers name was Simon but i assumed that Peter was not the only one, yet i also know that many do not realize that Peter's given name was Simon and that is the only disciple by that name i have ever heard of at all so i figured it was just a matter of confusion.
Let me put it this way.

"The Romans adopted Christianity".

That's a bit like the Nazi's telling everyone they've adopted Judeaism.

Now imagine the Koran or whatever the Jewish bible is called... imagine what it would read like after the Nazi's edited it to their taste and to their culture of fear and controlling.

This is what I think has happend to the bible. And people keep refering to it as though it was written yesterday and has never seen the light of a malicious editor's desk.

I really think people might think about researching the source before they quote or believe what is written in it... or in any publication... for that matter. Thanks Kyleb!
 
  • #32
kyleb
well damnit carl that is exactly what i am doing here. i know that there has been some scriptural revisionism thoughout history; i have never claimed otherwise. i am not even a Christian let alone a bible-beater. however, my curiosity as to were the notion of a secret disciple named Simon has gone unanswered. oh, and as for "whatever the Jewish bible is called"; it is called the Old Testament, or in Hebrew it is referred to as the Tanak. :wink:
 
  • #33
755
0
Originally posted by kyleb
well damnit carl that is exactly what i am doing here. i know that there has been some scriptural revisionism thoughout history; i have never claimed otherwise. i am not even a Christian let alone a bible-beater. however, my curiosity as to were the notion of a secret disciple named Simon has gone unanswered. oh, and as for "whatever the Jewish bible is called"; it is called the Old Testament, or in Hebrew it is referred to as the Tanak. :wink:
Thanks kyleb. My copy of the "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" was stolen by an ex-convent chick. I'd be looking up all the gossip and the gospel about the secret psy-op christian, Simon, for you right now if I had the book. You can buy it at one of the few, monopolizing, bookstores left in the world.

Personally, I'd say this thread could be titled "In Honour Of The Romans"... because without them, the whole Christian, Jesus thing probably wouldn't have happened.

"Tanak", that's the Hebrew name for the Old Testament? Very cool.
 
  • #34
1,481
0
FZ+ I think Jesus had already forgiven him if any forgiveness was needed when he handed him the bread. It, in my opion, was necessary to fulfill the prophecies; thus, it was the will of God, the father.
Judas had only to forgive himself which apparently he was unable to do. I have forgiven him though no forgiveness was or is necessary. Maybe I feel sorry for him and sympathize would be a better way of putting it. But then by the same token are we to forgive Lucifer and Satan as doing the will of God?
 
  • #35
174
0
well first off I would dissmiss Luke he was not there and was saul/paul's lacky who was the main respinner of the story of JC to make it acceptable to the roman overlords

and it seams JC instructed judas to go and DO IT so he was following the masters orders, maybe in a pre-planned plot

I think the whole death was staged
see my post about the ressurection

so old judas got a bumm rap he was just a loyal follower doing what he was told to do!!!
 

Related Threads on In Honor of Judas

  • Last Post
2
Replies
40
Views
4K
  • Last Post
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
19
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
15
Views
3K
Replies
11
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
21
Views
9K
  • Last Post
Replies
19
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
3K
Top