Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
GoldenWolf

How can Judas have betrayed Jesus?

735 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Will do
Quote

When the sordid and sinful business [of crucifying Jesus of Nazareth] was all over, this renegade mortal [Judas], who thought lightly of selling his friend for thirty pieces of silver to satisfy his long-nursed craving for revenge, rushed out and committed the final act in the drama of fleeing from the realities of mortal existence—suicide.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Habitat

It really all revolves around the human fascination with drama, preferably someone else's. Soap operas survive on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
eight bits
4 hours ago, Captain Risky said:

I remember somewhere that Judas was cursed and condemned to walk the earth until the second coming of Jesus. Is this biblically true ? 

Kind of. Jesus in the synoptic Gospels speaks of his own generation seeing the second coming (as Paul, a contemporary of Jesus, had said his generation would see the coming of Jesus). Obviously, by 100 CE or so, any contemporary of Paul and Jesus would have died. So, there are always a number of ways to explain away any failed prophecy, and one of the ways for this one was "the Wandering Jew" (searchable) myth, somebody who was kept alive in order that the prophecy would still be unresolved. Judas would be an obvious choice for which Jew was punished that way.

That is counter-biblical however, since both Matthew and Acts kill Judas off (in different ways, of course, but dude is dead before Pentacost in either story). However, being unbiblical may not have been a problem (what we the living call "New testament scripture" may not have been viewed as strictly "scriptural" until sometime in the Second Century). There is a third known ancient death-of-Judas story from a Christian source, which has nothing to do with anything that made it into the canon: Judas got morbidly obese, and ... one way or another got killed by a wheeled vehicle:

https://www.roger-pearse.com/weblog/2009/07/28/papias-on-judas-iscariot-as-reported-by-apollinaris-of-laodicea/

On a point arising, the first we hear about Judas is in the earliest canonical Gospel (which most estimate to be Mark, composed somewhere around 65-80 CE). If Judas originates that early or slightly earlier, then it is hard to be sure that despite the "symbolic name" (a possible pun on the phrase treacherous Jew in Aramaic or Hebrew) that Judas is supposed to be a representative Jew introduced for antisemitic or other such reasons.

Mark is full of Jewish characters, on both sides of the John the Baptist and Jesus ministries. Although by the Second Century both Jews in general and Gentile Christians were "distancing" themselves from each other. that Christianity originated among Jews was no secret (Tacitus places the origin in Judea in his remarks of around 115 CE or so).

My own view is that Mark is a freely composed fiction, often using phrases in Paul as "prompts." In his institution narrative, Paul uses the ambiguous phrase on the night he was handed over - "handed over" could, but doesn't necessarily, mean "betrayed." And regardless, Paul never says handed over by whom? Mark has about 100 identifiable characters, representing various ways to react to Jesus. Betrayal is a possible reaction (or, judging Jesus by his own professed standards, however you care to look at it). No suprprise, then, that Mark has a character to do that.

Of those 100 characters not otherwise mentioned in secular history books, Jesus, Peter and Judas are Mark's biggest hits. (Mary Magdalene is in canonical Mark, but the guild says her star-turn role was mostly added in later ... mmm, I think that's misogynist BS, but that's another thread).

The other part of Paul's phrase is unambiguous: Jesus was "handed over" at night. Not that Mark couldn't change that if he wanted to, but as a "prompt" it would have posed an interesting storytelling challenge back then. There is no artificial illumination worth crap ... how could anything complicated have happened at night?

And so we have Judas hired to be a spotter for law enforcement, so they know whom to arrest by flickering torch light. And how does Mark's Judas accomplish his mission? By one of the most memorable literary inventions of all times - betrayed with a kiss. That phrase has "passed into the language" throughout the world, it has inspired visual artists and stage directors.

Screw ideology, theology, tax avoidance, or all the other learned explanations. Judas' existence is fully explained not so much by what he did, betray Jesus (they all did, except Peter in Mark), but how he did it - with style!

Edited by eight bits
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
third_eye

Oh I don't know, that three times before the rooster clock a doodle do crow is pretty neat... 

~

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hammerclaw
1 hour ago, eight bits said:

Kind of. Jesus in the synoptic Gospels speaks of his own generation seeing the second coming (as Paul, a contemporary of Jesus, had said his generation would see the coming of Jesus). Obviously, by 100 CE or so, any contemporary of Paul and Jesus would have died. So, there are always a number of ways to explain away any failed prophecy, and one of the ways for this one was "the Wandering Jew" (searchable) myth, somebody who was kept alive in order that the prophecy would still be unresolved. Judas would be an obvious choice for which Jew was punished that way.

That is counter-biblical however, since both Matthew and Acts kill Judas off (in different ways, of course, but dude is dead before Pentacost in either story). However, being unbiblical may not have been a problem (what we the living call "New testament scripture" may not have been viewed as strictly "scriptural" until sometime in the Second Century). There is a third known ancient death-of-Judas story from a Christian source, which has nothing to do with anything that made it into the canon: Judas got morbidly obese, and ... one way or another got killed by a wheeled vehicle:

https://www.roger-pearse.com/weblog/2009/07/28/papias-on-judas-iscariot-as-reported-by-apollinaris-of-laodicea/

On a point arising, the first we hear about Judas is in the earliest canonical Gospel (which most estimate to be Mark, composed somewhere around 65-80 CE). If Judas originates that early or slightly earlier, then it is hard to be sure that despite the "symbolic name" (a possible pun on the phrase treacherous Jew in Aramaic or Hebrew) that Judas is supposed to be a representative Jew introduced for antisemitic or other such reasons.

Mark is full of Jewish characters, on both sides of the John the Baptist and Jesus ministries. Although by the Second Century both Jews in general and Gentile Christians were "distancing" themselves from each other. that Christianity originated among Jews was no secret (Tacitus places the origin in Judea in his remarks of around 115 CE or so).

My own view is that Mark is a freely composed fiction, often using phrases in Paul as "prompts." In his institution narrative, Paul uses the ambiguous phrase on the night he was handed over - "handed over" could, but doesn't necessarily, mean "betrayed." And regardless, Paul never says handed over by whom? Mark has about 100 identifiable characters, representing various ways to react to Jesus. Betrayal is a possible reaction (or, judging Jesus by his own professed standards, however you care to look at it). No suprprise, then, that Mark has a character to do that.

Of those 100 characters not otherwise mentioned in secular history books, Jesus, Peter and Judas are Mark's biggest hits. (Mary Magdalene is in canonical Mark, but the guild says her star-turn role was mostly added in later ... mmm, I think that's misogynist BS, but that's another thread).

The other part of Paul's phrase is unambiguous: Jesus was "handed over" at night. Not that Mark couldn't change that if he wanted to, but as a "prompt" it would have posed an interesting storytelling challenge back then. There is no artificial illumination worth crap ... how could anything complicated have happened at night?

And so we have Judas hired to be a spotter for law enforcement, so they know whom to arrest by flickering torch light. And how does Mark's Judas accomplish his mission? By one of the most memorable literary inventions of all times - betrayed with a kiss. That phrase has "passed into the language" throughout the world, it has inspired visual artists and stage directors.

Screw ideology, theology, tax avoidance, or all the other learned explanations. Judas' existence is fully explained not so much by what he did, betray Jesus (they all did, except Peter in Mark), but how he did it - with style!

He dropped a dime on Jesus, to use an old term and, of course, was bribed to do it. Paid in silver, cash on the nail, the archetypical greedy Jew. Every story has to have a villain and with the Jewish revolt and it's savage suppression, fresh in everyone's minds, a ready made one. We'll never know, really. Once Titus had finished with the old city, he turned his troops loose on what was left of Jerusalem, Cried Havoc! as it were. They burned, raped, pillaged and murdered everyone and everything. Any records of the preceding years were lost, up in smoke, as well as any Roman records the Scicarii had already destroyed. Little wonder all we are left with are second hand accounts and religious "fiction". His father, Emperor Vespasian, feted him with a Triumph, when he returned, victorious, to Rome, an event forever immortalized in stone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
eight bits
4 hours ago, third_eye said:

Oh I don't know, that three times before the rooster clock a doodle do crow is pretty neat... 

~

In Mark, Peter's situation and how he works through it that night are very complicated. In later Gospels, Mark's elaborate set-up is removed, so that what Peter does gets simpler, more cowardly and badder, until finally, what Peter did and what Judas did are both betrayals, separated only by a matter of degree. At least Judas shows he has a pair. (In Mark, and only there in the canon, Peter came fully equipped, too.)

Also, it has somehow become an element of faith within the guild that Mark is ideologically favorable to Paul and hostile to Peter. Therefore Mark would supposedly like to have shown Peter doing evil, in addition to being a simpleton. I don't think that that what's on the page.

Just as Judas' rep has suffered by the later prosperity of Jesus' followers, Peter's has suffered, at least in Protestant circles, from his later being conscripted by the Roman Catholic church as its first Pope. As far as I can see, that claim has as much historical foundation as Mary Magdalene having been a courtesan.

 

3 hours ago, Hammerclaw said:

He dropped a dime on Jesus, to use an old term and, of course, was bribed to do it. Paid in silver, cash on the nail, the archetypical greedy Jew.

But not so much in Mark. If you want to argue that the later Gospels ramped up the stereotypical potential of the character, then I'm good with that. The "distancing" thing must have played out over the course of the "Gospel Era" (maybe 65-110 CE, give or take), and perhaps the Gospels' development from Mark reflected that.

3 hours ago, Hammerclaw said:

Every story has to have a villain

Mark has several, with or without Judas.

For example, Herodias is much more of a badass than Judas. Pimps her daughter to murder the innocent John and then desecrates his corpse? Hey, all Judas asked for was an honest night's wage for an honest night's work. What the criminal justice system did with the felon he assisted in apprehending isn't on him.

3 hours ago, Hammerclaw said:

and with the Jewish revolt and it's savage suppression, fresh in everyone's minds, a ready made one.

Apart from Mr Walker and his phantom Roman tax records, there's little reason to think anybody ever confused a Gentile with a Jew, Christian or otherwise. The bacon cheeseburgers are a giveaway. There needn't be a practical reason for two groups to hate one another, then or now.

As to Titus and Vespasian, I suspect that you and I are in agreement that war is hell, also then or now.

 

Edited by eight bits
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XenoFish

How can Judas have betrayed Jesus. Doesn't a story need a bit of suspense and a plot twist?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XenoFish
6 hours ago, eight bits said:

Kind of. Jesus in the synoptic Gospels speaks of his own generation seeing the second coming

Didn't Jesus respawn after 3 days. Thus "fulfilling" that prophecy.

Edited by XenoFish
  • Like 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Will do
Quote

Judas became increasingly a brooder over personal disappointment, and finally he became a victim of resentment. His feelings had been many times hurt, and he grew abnormally suspicious of his best friends, even of the Master. Presently he became obsessed with the idea of getting even, anything to avenge himself, yes, even betrayal of his associates and his Master.

139:12.10

But these wicked and dangerous ideas did not take definite shape until the day when a grateful woman broke an expensive box of incense at Jesus’ feet. This seemed wasteful to Judas, and when his public protest was so sweepingly disallowed by Jesus right there in the hearing of all, it was too much. That event determined the mobilization of all the accumulated hate, hurt, malice, prejudice, jealousy, and revenge of a lifetime, and he made up his mind to get even with he knew not whom; but he crystallized all the evil of his nature upon the one innocent person in all the sordid drama of his unfortunate life just because Jesus happened to be the chief actor in the episode which marked his passing from the progressive kingdom of light into that self-chosen domain of darkness.

 

Judas Iscariot

 

 

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Crikey

The temple guards would have collared Jesus anyway even if Judas hadn't led them to him, so it seems Judas was needed purely to fulfil ancient Old T scripture to tie up any loose ends-

"So they paid me thirty pieces of silver, and the Lord said to me, "Throw it to the potter"..So I took the thirty pieces of silver and threw them..to the potter" (Zechariah 11:12-13, 500 BC)

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Crikey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Will do
Quote

Judas was a good business man. It required tact, ability, and patience, as well as painstaking devotion, to manage the financial affairs of such an idealist as Jesus, to say nothing of wrestling with the helter-skelter business methods of some of his apostles. Judas really was a great executive, a farseeing and able financier. And he was a stickler for organization. None of the twelve ever criticized Judas. As far as they could see, Judas Iscariot was a matchless treasurer, a learned man, a loyal (though sometimes critical) apostle, and in every sense of the word a great success. The apostles loved Judas; he was really one of them. He must have believed in Jesus, but we doubt whether he really loved the Master with a whole heart. The case of Judas illustrates the truthfulness of that saying: “There is a way that seems right to a man, but the end thereof is death.” It is altogether possible to fall victim to the peaceful deception of pleasant adjustment to the paths of sin and deathBe assured that Judas was always financially loyal to his Master and his fellow apostles. Money could never have been the motive for his betrayal of the Master.

 

Judas Iscariot

 

 

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hammerclaw
2 hours ago, eight bits said:

In Mark, Peter's situation and how he works through it that night are very complicated. In later Gospels, Mark's elaborate set-up is removed, so that what Peter does gets simpler, more cowardly and badder, until finally, what Peter did and what Judas did are both betrayals, separated only by a matter of degree. At least Judas shows he has a pair. (In Mark, and only there in the canon, Peter came fully equipped, too.)

Also, it has somehow become an element of faith within the guild that Mark is ideologically favorable to Paul and hostile to Peter. Therefore Mark would supposedly like to have shown Peter doing evil, in addition to being a simpleton. I don't think that that what's on the page.

Just as Judas' rep has suffered by the later prosperity of Jesus' followers, Peter's has suffered, at least in Protestant circles, from his later being conscripted by the Roman Catholic church as its first Pope. As far as I can see, that claim has as much historical foundation as Mary Magdalene having been a courtesan.

 

But not so much in Mark. If you want to argue that the later Gospels ramped up the stereotypical potential of the character, then I'm good with that. The "distancing" thing must have played out over the course of the "Gospel Era" (maybe 65-110 CE, give or take), and perhaps the Gospels' development from Mark reflected that.

Mark has several, with or without Judas.

For example, Herodias is much more of a badass than Judas. Pimps her daughter to murder the innocent John and then desecrates his corpse? Hey, all Judas asked for was an honest night's wage for an honest night's work. What the criminal justice system did with the felon he assisted in apprehending isn't on him.

Apart from Mr Walker and his phantom Roman tax records, there's little reason to think anybody ever confused a Gentile with a Jew, Christian or otherwise. The bacon cheeseburgers are a giveaway. There needn't be a practical reason for two groups to hate one another, then or now.

As to Titus and Vespasian, I suspect that you and I are in agreement that war is hell, also then or now.

 

It's the answer to the perennial skeptic's question of why there aren't any records. I don't give credence to the hard dates on when the gospels were written and of course, they were re-written, over and over, again. Whatever it's origins, Christianity is a Roman religion, a multi-cultural religion. The Jewish Revolt 66-74 C.E. left it's indelible mark on it. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Will do
Quote

To Jesus, Judas was a faith adventure. From the beginning the Master fully understood the weakness of this apostle and well knew the dangers of admitting him to fellowship. But it is the nature of the Sons of God to give every created being a full and equal chance for salvation and survival. Jesus wanted not only the mortals of this world but the onlookers of innumerable other worlds to know that, when doubts exist as to the sincerity and wholeheartedness of a creature’s devotion to the kingdom, it is the invariable practice of the Judges of men fully to receive the doubtful candidate. The door of eternal life is wide open to all; “whosoever will may come”; there are no restrictions or qualifications save the faith of the one who comes.

1,567

This is just the reason why Jesus permitted Judas to go on to the very end, always doing everything possible to transform and save this weak and confused apostle. But when light is not honestly received and lived up to, it tends to become darkness within the soul. Judas grew intellectually regarding Jesus’ teachings about the kingdom, but he did not make progress in the acquirement of spiritual character as did the other apostles. He failed to make satisfactory personal progress in spiritual experience.

 

Judas Iscariot

 

 

Edited by Will Due

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GlitterRose

It seemed to me in the story like it was always known to be part of the plan. Jesus certainly knew it was going to happen.

Judas betrays Jesus so the sacrifice can happen. Not because he's a decent guy just trying to help, but because he's a not decent guy who manages to help along the plan, anyway.

I did not know anything about it being an antisemitic device, though. Learn something new every day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jujo-jo
13 hours ago, Captain Risky said:

I remember somewhere that Judas was cursed and condemned to walk the earth until the second coming of Jesus. Is this biblically true ? 

That would be so hard to say if it were true or not, but I do recall also something along those lines but have bot sought further in this. I'd have to do some more research on that for sure.

But I think what they were talking about here was possibly in the Catholic belief that if you commit suicide then you are condemned and your enternity is spent in hell. Not sure I could be wrong but I do believe this is what they were referring to.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Crikey
22 minutes ago, Jujo-jo said:

..the Catholic belief that if you commit suicide then you are condemned and your enternity is spent in hell..

 

Yes that's just another thing cooked up by the catholics even though the bible never condemns suicide.

Certainly some people got a bit fed up at times but then don't we all-

"Elijah came to a broom tree, sat down under it and prayed that he might die. "I have had enough, Lord ," he said. "Take my life; I am no better than my ancestors." Then he lay down under the tree and fell asleep. All at once an angel touched him and said, "Get up and eat." (1 Kings 19:3-7)

I think the moral of that is- "Cheer up, put the kettle on, do yourself a sandwich, plonk yourself in front of the TV with your feet up and soldier on if you can.."

Edited by Crikey
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
22 hours ago, Captain Risky said:

I remember somewhere that Judas was cursed and condemned to walk the earth until the second coming of Jesus. Is this biblically true ? 

"The wandering jew"

Not biblical

There is one biblical tradition not connected to judas, however, about a jew condemned to live forever until christ returns

It is classified as folklore or a folk tale

 

quote

The shouts of the Jews, however, increasing, he, at their request, released unto them Barabbas, and delivered Jesus to them to be crucified. When therefore the Jews were dragging Jesus forth, and had reached the door, Cartaphilus, a porter of the hall in Pilate's service, as Jesus was going out of the door, impiously struck him on the back with his hand, and said in mockery, "Go quicker, Jesus, go quicker, why do you loiter?"

And Jesus looking back on him with a severe countenance said to him, "I am going, and you will wait till I return."

And according as our Lord said, this Cartaphilus is still awaiting his return; at the time of our Lord's suffering he was thirty years old, and when he attains the age of a hundred years, he always returns to the same age as he was when our Lord suffered.

After Christ's death, when the Catholic faith gained ground, this Cartaphilus was baptized by Ananias (who also baptized the apostle Paul), and was called Joseph. He often dwells in both divisions of Armenia, and other eastern countries, passing his time amidst the bishops and other prelates of the church.

He is a man of holy conversation and religious, a man of few words and circumspect in his behaviour, for he does not speak at all unless when questioned by the bishops and religious men; and then he tells of the events of old times, and of the events which occurred at the suffering and resurrection of our Lord, and of the witnesses of the resurrection, namely those who rose with Christ, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto men; he also tells of the creed of the apostles, and of their separation and preaching; and all this he relates without smiling or levity of conversation, as one who is well practised in sorrow and the fear of God, always looking forward with fear to the coming of Jesus Christ, lest at the last judgment he should find him in anger, whom, when on his way to death, he had provoked to just vengeance.

Numbers come to him from different parts of the world, enjoying his society and conversation, and to them, if they are men of authority, he explains all doubts on the matters on which he is questioned. He refuses all gifts that are offered to him, being content with slight food and clothing.

He places his hope of salvation on the fact that he sinned through ignorance, for the Lord when suffering prayed for his enemies in these words, "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do."

 

https://www.pitt.edu/~dash/type0777.html

 

Wandering Jew, in Christian legend, character doomed to live until the end of the world because he taunted Jesus on the way to the Crucifixion. A reference in John 18:20–22 to an officer who struck Jesus at his arraignment before Annas is sometimes cited as the basis for the legend. The medieval English chronicler Roger of Wendover describes in his Flores historiarum how an archbishop from Greater Armenia, visiting England in 1228, reported that there was in Armenia a man formerly called Cartaphilus who claimed he had been Pontius Pilate’s doorkeeper and had struck Jesus on his way to Calvary, urging him to go faster. Jesus replied, “I go, and you will wait till I return.” Cartaphilus was later baptized Joseph and lived piously among Christian clergy, hoping in the end to be saved. An Italian variant of the story named the culprit as Giovanni Buttadeo (“Strike God”).

https://www.britannica.com/topic/wandering-Jew

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
preacherman76
On ‎2‎/‎6‎/‎2020 at 8:52 PM, Golden Duck said:

The betrayal is just an act; there's no motive and there is no damnation attached to it.  The confusion is the consequence that it would be better for Judas if he had not been born, such is the woe.  It describes the greatness of the guilt rather than a prohibition of forgiveness.

The subsequent judgement, displayed by suicide, infers that his judgment, of being beyond forgiveness, is superior to God's.

If I remember correctly from my bible study days, and I doB) Christ himself said Judas would never be forgiven.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
docyabut2

Jhn 21:20

Unchecked Copy BoxJhn 21:20 - Then Peter, turning about, seeth the disciple whom Jesus loved following; which also leaned on his breast at supper, and said, Lord, which is he that betrayeth thee?

Unchecked Copy BoxJhn 21:21 - Peter seeing him saith to Jesus, Lord, and what shall this man do?

Unchecked Copy BoxJhn 21:22 - Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? follow thou me.

Unchecked Copy BoxJhn 21:23 - Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die: yet Jesus said not unto him, He shall not die; but, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?

 

 
 
Lord, which is he that betrayeth thee?
 
I think they were referring to Judas 
 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Liquid Gardens
6 hours ago, preacherman76 said:

If I remember correctly from my bible study days, and I doB) Christ himself said Judas would never be forgiven.

Do you have a quote?  The only one I can find is a bit vague.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
LeonKennedy
On 2/8/2020 at 8:10 PM, Dejarma said:

false 

Every opinion is appreciated.;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
On 2/9/2020 at 11:25 PM, eight bits said:

 

Apart from Mr Walker and his phantom Roman tax records, there's little reason to think anybody ever confused a Gentile with a Jew, Christian or otherwise. The bacon cheeseburgers are a giveaway. There needn't be a practical reason for two groups to hate one another, then or now.

As to Titus and Vespasian, I suspect that you and I are in agreement that war is hell, also then or now.

 

In the beginning :) All christians including christ were a type of liberal/reformed jew

That was how they were seen and perceived by everyone, Including themselves, and roman  authorities 

The y worshipped as jews kept the holy day as the seventh day and followed jewish religious and civil customs, albeit   with a liberal flavour.

Attha t ime the bacon test would NOT have differentiated jewish christian from  jewish non christian 

By the AD70/80s rome had separated christianity from judaism  for the purposes  of taxes 

Paul played a large part in this, by evolving christianity away from  judaism into a new religious form 

This was encouraged by the christians at that time, maybe because taxes on jews became particularly punitive 

After the fiscus l(j)udaicas, christians had a good reason not to pay the tax. After all, many were no longer jewish and the y could save money as roman citizens by not being counted as jews  

quote

The followers of Jesus first took this message to the synagogue communities of Jews in the Eastern part of the Roman Empire. Many Jews did not believe that Jesus was the expected Messiah, but to the surprise of these apostles (messengers), Gentiles (pagans) wanted to join the movement. This unexpected occurrence raised questions of inclusion: should these pagans become Jews first, entailing circumcision, dietary laws, and Sabbath observance? At a meeting in Jerusalem (ca. 49 CE, The Apostolic Council), it was decided that pagans could join without becoming Jews. However, they had to observe some Jewish principles such as draining blood from meat, sexual morality, and the cessation of all idolatry (Acts 15). By the end of the 1st century, these Gentile-Christians dominated the Christianoi (“the followers of the Christ”).

The decision to persecute Christians most likely began during the reign of Domitian (83-96 CE). A depleted treasury motivated Domitian to take action in two areas: he enforced the collection of the Jewish Temple tax and mandated worship at the Imperial Temples. After the destruction of their Temple, Domitian’s father, Vespasian (69-79 CE), had ordered the Jews to continue paying the Temple tax, now sending it to Rome as war reparations, but apparently, no one enforced this until the reign of Domitian. In seeking out tax evaders among Jews, his officials became aware of another group who worshipped the same god but were not Jews and thus not responsible for the tax.

https://www.ancient.eu/article/1205/early-christianity/

Probably, by then, the bacon test might have been usable, although even then many christians probably kept many jewish customs and religious laws Eg worship on sunday only started officially much later (about 300 years later)  

Edited by Mr Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Habitat

This Judas fella, given he was "right there', in the inner circle. and yet the direct presence of the great man couldn't over-rule his baser instincts, is strongly suggestive that what he was actually on about, was not really transferable. And if the so called Christians love to hate the chap, rather than regarding him as an unfortunate case, then it did not transfer to them either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Will do
32 minutes ago, Habitat said:

This Judas fella, given he was "right there', in the inner circle. and yet the direct presence of the great man couldn't over-rule his baser instincts, is strongly suggestive that what he was actually on about, was not really transferable. And if the so called Christians love to hate the chap, rather than regarding him as an unfortunate case, then it did not transfer to them either.

 

Transferable?

What, when it comes to a person's sovereign free will you want Jesus to perform a miracle and overthrow their free will?

That's pretty funny Hab. :lol:

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Habitat
Just now, Will Due said:

 

Transferable?

What, when it comes to a person's sovereign free will you want Jesus to perform a miracle and overthrow their free will?

That's pretty funny Hab. :lol:

 

 

I am saying if he couldn't convert this bloke at point blank range, how is it reasonable to expect people to be convinced by words on a page ? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.