The other guy is right but this is a slightly better explanation
Comment on I think Judas kissed him
dependencyinjection@discuss.tchncs.de 2 months agoHow so? I don’t know the Bible and I’m curious now.
BambiDiego@lemmy.world 2 months ago
dependencyinjection@discuss.tchncs.de 2 months ago
That was incredibly succinct. Thanks.
WhatsTheHoldup@lemmy.ml 2 months ago
There are 4 gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.
Mark was the earliest so it should be given fhe greatest historical significance over latter written Gospels
And while he was at Bethany in the house of Simon the leper, as he was reclining at table, a woman came with an alabaster flask of ointment of pure nard, very costly, and she broke the flask and poured it over his head. There were some who said to themselves indignantly, “Why was the ointment wasted like that? For this ointment could have been sold for more than three hundred denarii and given to the poor.” And they scolded her. But Jesus said, “Leave her alone. Why do you trouble her? She has done a beautiful thing to me. For you always have the poor with you, and whenever you want, you can do good for them. But you will not always have me. She has done what she could; she has anointed my body beforehand for burial. And truly, I say to you, wherever the gospel is proclaimed in the whole world, what she has done will be told in memory of her.”
Then Judas Iscariot, who was one of the twelve, went to the chief priests in order to betray him to them. And when they heard it, they were glad and promised to give him money. And he sought an opportunity to betray him.
-Mark 14: 3-11
Mark seems to illustrate a clear cause and affect from the disagreements over the wasting of the oil/the anointing for a burual.
Aa common view at the time (for example among the zealots) was that the messiah would be a mitary figure who would overthrow Rome.
Hearing the oil was anointing for burial must have been difficult to hear.
Luke and John use Mark and what is believed to be an unknown Q source which has since been lost.
John is known as a gospel with very high Christology, and presents it as the work of Satan as OP already mentioned so I won’t source that.
Let’s compare the deaths of Judas in Mark and later Acts (same author as Luke) to get a sense of what they thought in between the earliest Mark and the later higher Christology John.
When Judas, who had betrayed him, saw that Jesus was condemned, he was seized with remorse and returned the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and the elders. “I have sinned,” he said, “for I have betrayed innocent blood.”
“What is that to us?” they replied. “That’s your responsibility.”
So Judas threw the money into the temple and left. Then he went away and hanged himself.
The chief priests picked up the coins and said, “It is against the law to put this into the treasury, since it is blood money.” So they decided to use the money to buy the potter’s field as a burial place for foreigners. That is why it has been called the Field of Blood to this day. Then what was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet was fulfilled: “They took the thirty pieces of silver, the price set on him by the people of Israel, and they used them to buy the potter’s field, as the Lord commanded me.”
-Mark 27:3-10
Judas feels regret and hangs himself. Notice the part about the prophecy though, there’s clearly a preexisting reason they want this story to tell what it tells.
Versus the latter Acts
With the payment he received for his wickedness, Judas bought a field; there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out. Everyone in Jerusalem heard about this, so they called that field in their language Akeldama, that is, Field of Blood.
Acts 1:18
You can see here the prophecy of “field of blood” is now being interpreted way more literally than earlier Mark and they’re now in full improv mode yes anding each other into the idea that it was all predestined.
Each gospel implies something different about the story of Judas and each is interesting in its own right.
Diddlydee@feddit.uk 2 months ago
Someone had to betray Jesus so that he could be crucified. Without the betrayal by Judas it wouldn’t have happened. In John 17:12, Jesus calls Judas “the son of destruction” and that he was “doomed to destruction so that Scripture would be fulfilled," which suggests that Judas was chosen and had no real choice in the matter.
MDCCCLV@lemmy.ca 2 months ago
It’s the same idea as the actual Satan in the bible who is mostly just a dude given tasks by god to tempt people.
dependencyinjection@discuss.tchncs.de 2 months ago
So the Devil is a good person? And it’s only you if you do what they suggest are bad?
MDCCCLV@lemmy.ca 2 months ago
Well that’s not really in there, he is often described as an adversary. But it is notable that there are many times where he is used by god in a necessary way.
dependencyinjection@discuss.tchncs.de 2 months ago
Thank you for this.
Very interesting and I would agree that based solely on this information I would say bro was hard done by.
Also, intrigued by the idea of free will if he was given this task to complete.