there was no betrayal because he assigned the task. Funny thing is that the archieologist found the Gospel of Judas. how could Judas have a gospel if he commited suicide?
people back then could have very filthy feet back in those days.
I think most christians interpret the whole love eachother thing as pertaining only to other christians. And on top of that tons of christian fundies are always saying "ya know lots of people go to church and say they are christian but there are very few people who are actually saved." Man I hate hearing that crap. Great Videos! I too hope you do more chapters:)
"And on top of that tons of christian fundies are always saying "ya know lots of people go to church and say they are christian but there are very few people who are actually saved". Man I hate hearing that crap."
So do you hate Matthew 7:21? Because that is what they probably are meaning when they say that or even quoting it.
Perfect! So there are even fewer people that christians are required to love, and some of them you can't even tell for sure! So to be safe don't love anybody uless they meet your certain criteria.
What a knockout blow. Jesus actually tells satan to enter Judas. Or he foresees the moment satan does that, and does nothing to stop it. His plan actually depends on satan "entering" Judas. Poor judas! Doesn't seem fair. And WHY would satan play along with this?
Wouldn't the same be achieved by telling Judas to go tell the romans to come get Jesus? It isn't betrayal if he is told to do so. No need for satan here. Seems oddly complicated. The fictional Jesus is a prick.
"Or he foresees the moment satan does that, and does nothing to stop it."
How is he supposed to stop it? It wouldn't change much if he had. Peter could have lopped Judas head off, but the Romans would have eventually found Jesus and crucified him. Jesus came to Jerusalem voluntarily, he wasn't hiding.
"It isn't betrayal if he is told to do so."
Betrayal isn't central to the point. Jesus sacrifice is the point. The Romans eventually find Jesus without Judas, it wouldn't change much.
You missed my point entirely. Let me reiterate it for you : What was the point of allowing or making satan enter Judas when Jesus was bound to the cross anyway?
"Betrayal isn't central to the point."
Here you missfire yet again. I don't care what the central point of the story was. I care about the fact that it has absurdities in it.
"The Romans eventually find Jesus without Judas"
Even if true, completely besides the point. I have to conclude that you didn't understand what I was saying.
"What was the point of allowing or making satan enter Judas"
Who says there is a point. The point of the whole story is Jesus sacrifice. Judas betrayal is just a sidelight.
"I don't care what the central point of the story was. I care ... it has absurdities in it."
Why is that an absurdity? Jesus time had come. Earlier it mentions times he could have been killed, but his time wasn't ready. He was ready now. Can you explain exactly what you see as absurd, because I see nothing absurd.
You are making a deliberate effort not to understand me.
Jesus could stop satan entering his friend Judas right? The point is to help a friend, because satans entering does not have any effect on the whole sacrifice thing anyway. Judas is treated unfairly.
Also the whole thing is extremely absurd. God has scripted the whole event. Why he chose to do it this way is beoynd anyones reason. Why would he involve satan in his plan? And why does satan play along with it?
No he isn't. Judas has been around Jesus when Jesus does all the miracles, raises Lazurus from the dead, walks on water, loaves & fishes, long-term blind people see, and yet Judas is still receptive to Satan. Despite all of Judas experiences, he doesn't resist Satan.
"God has scripted the whole event...Why would he involve satan in his plan?"
Satan is intricately involved in the whole plan. From his temptations of Jesus in the wilderness to Jesus death.
You talk like Judas had a choice. Like it wasn't already in the script that he betrays Jesus. And why is being "receptive to satan" bad when it leads to the salvation ending?
Oh satan is intricately involved in the whole plan? That's really interesting now considering how the christians are out to make him to be the bad character. Apparently he's just part of the plan! He helped to "save mankind"! Praise satan! We are going deeper and deeper to the rabbithole.
Where does it say that Judas didn't have a choice? That he couldn't try to resist Satan?
"... how the christians are out to make him to be the bad character"
Satan is the bad character. The plan has to deal with the bad characters in the world. Just because the plan deals with him doesn't mean he isn't bad. The Allies had Nazi's usual conduct and reactions as a part of their plans in WWII, that doesn't mean they get credit for helping us win WWII.
"Where does it say that Judas didn't have a choice?"
In the book of logic. The plan is to get betrayed by Judas and whacked on the cross for the sins of man. Jesus knows what happens next like he's reading from a script. Judas faith is therefore pretedermined. Hes pretedermined to be "receptive to satan".
The nazi comparison is awful. Allies didn't beat the nazi's by manipulating them like they had no will of their own. Also omnipotent being wouldn't have to go through those hoops. Pointless
"In the book of logic. The plan is to get betrayed by Judas and whacked on the cross ..."
Maybe logic can explain that there is often a plan that has more than one way to accomplish its main objective? That the goal was the sacrifice on the cross, not the betrayal? It was just one likely way it would happen. If Judas had manned up and cast off Satan, Jesus wasn't going anywhere nor hiding. The Chief Priest & Romans would have found him. Logic doesn't says Judas role was unalterable by him.
Would that manning up have to happen before Jesus said "one of you is going to betray me"? Otherwise that would kinda make him a liar. Or was that just some kind of satan lottery? No, the Jesus character clearly knows exactly what is going to happen.
Whoever kills or betrays Jesus is just fulfilling the plan. Or are you saying that if no-one would have killed him, he would have nailed himself on the cross? Someone has to be "receptive to satan" to get on with the script.
So Jesus could see how deeply Jatan had his hooks into Judas and that Judas had made his decision already. The implication from the 30 pieces was that Judas had already negotiated his price with the High Priest.
"Or are you saying that if no-one would have killed him, he would have nailed himself on the cross?"
God carefully chose the time period for Jesus to come. Maybe in part because it was so easy for Romans to kill others. Having willing executioners then wasn't too difficult.
"God carefully chose the time period for Jesus to come." ..so that he could be betrayed and or whacked on the cross. That IS his goal by your own admission. So why is Judas a villain again? It's shitty job but someone has to do it, right?
God apparently plays satan and he plays people. It's a rigged game and there is no reason to look down upon Judas, or anyone else for that matter. Not even the Satan character. The only questionable character to me is god and himself as his son.
"there is no reason to look down upon ... anyone else for that matter"
Correct. Only God is supposed to Judge (Matt 7:1-2) and being humble is considered a virtue. Also we all have sinned and fallen short (Rom 3:23). So no one should be "looking down" on others. It just isn't the Christian mindset, which is to help others, even those who are sinners. On Satan, you are kinda minimizing his role as God's adversary and in tempting Adam/Eve and everyone else into sin.
How am I minimizing satans role? It's non-existent. It's supposedly an entity created by this omnipotent being, which also knows it's every move in advance (also uses him in his plans by manipulating him apparently). So the relationship is closer to like a master and a robot. Responsibility of all of satans actions falls on the creator. There really is no way around it.
By saying stuff like "Responsibility of all of satans actions falls on the creator". Sorry, I don't buy it. Satan is a free moral agent, just like us. He chose to be evil. He is the opposite of a robot. I know many atheists are ardent anti-"free will" types. There are many videos on YT where those arguments about free will are hashed out to no one's satisfaction. The Bible I read indicates that we have free will, Judas had free will and Satan has free will.
We should probably stop, but I am compelled to continue.
Just correct this last one in what is right in your own view (I will stop here) :
If there is a creator of all, responsibility of absolutely everything falls on him. The good and the bad. The world and everything in it either is his creation or it isn't. He's all knowing and all powerful and he made all this stuff and it doesn't behave like he expects? And even if he doesn't know how it all behaves, it's still his responsibility.
That's an argument saying God should never let anyone have a free choice about anything. That he shouldn't make anything but robots, because otherwise you may choose to do something bad. I like him allowing others free choice. I don't think that makes him responsible for everything bad that you choose to do.
2 words.... FOOOOOOT FETIIIIIISH! What a creep. I will judge him because apparently he is judging me.
Anyway great vids. I watched up to 4 the other day, and caught up on all of them today. Now I'm up to date. Looking forward to the rest, and I'm in agreement with
WineisyourFriend. It would be sweet if you did other books.
13:4-5, Two reasons: he could not participate in the feast wearing soiled garments and it foreshadows his crucifixion.
The reason John did not include the communion is a subject of intense debate. Personally, I feel it is partial evidence for an early date of composition.
13:27, I tend to side with those who call this verse metaphoric, not literal.
"I tend to side with those who call this verse metaphoric, not literal."
How does one make such decisions, when the text makes no difference between "Satan entered him" and "God was a burning bush." Which is literal and which is symbolic?
It has to do with context. When Moses encountered the burning bush there was nothing which would indicate the writer was being metaphorical. Nor is "burning bush" used metaphorically in other places. "Satan entered in" or "an evil spirit entered in", etc., is often used in the New Testament to indicate someone choosing to do something "evil". The only literal appearance is in Jesus' temptation and the book of Revelation. Similarly, "casting out demons" often indicates mental/emotional healing.
its like Jesus asinged the role to Judas.
there was no betrayal because he assigned the task. Funny thing is that the archieologist found the Gospel of Judas. how could Judas have a gospel if he commited suicide?
people back then could have very filthy feet back in those days.
emancoy 3 years ago
I think most christians interpret the whole love eachother thing as pertaining only to other christians. And on top of that tons of christian fundies are always saying "ya know lots of people go to church and say they are christian but there are very few people who are actually saved." Man I hate hearing that crap. Great Videos! I too hope you do more chapters:)
AfrSkin 3 years ago
"And on top of that tons of christian fundies are always saying "ya know lots of people go to church and say they are christian but there are very few people who are actually saved". Man I hate hearing that crap."
So do you hate Matthew 7:21? Because that is what they probably are meaning when they say that or even quoting it.
Matthew 7:21 "Not everyone who says to
me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven."
BattleshipTx 3 years ago
Perfect! So there are even fewer people that christians are required to love, and some of them you can't even tell for sure! So to be safe don't love anybody uless they meet your certain criteria.
AfrSkin 3 years ago
What a knockout blow. Jesus actually tells satan to enter Judas. Or he foresees the moment satan does that, and does nothing to stop it. His plan actually depends on satan "entering" Judas. Poor judas! Doesn't seem fair. And WHY would satan play along with this?
Wouldn't the same be achieved by telling Judas to go tell the romans to come get Jesus? It isn't betrayal if he is told to do so. No need for satan here. Seems oddly complicated. The fictional Jesus is a prick.
slipcurve 3 years ago
"Or he foresees the moment satan does that, and does nothing to stop it."
How is he supposed to stop it? It wouldn't change much if he had. Peter could have lopped Judas head off, but the Romans would have eventually found Jesus and crucified him. Jesus came to Jerusalem voluntarily, he wasn't hiding.
"It isn't betrayal if he is told to do so."
Betrayal isn't central to the point. Jesus sacrifice is the point. The Romans eventually find Jesus without Judas, it wouldn't change much.
BattleshipTx 3 years ago
You missed my point entirely. Let me reiterate it for you : What was the point of allowing or making satan enter Judas when Jesus was bound to the cross anyway?
"Betrayal isn't central to the point."
Here you missfire yet again. I don't care what the central point of the story was. I care about the fact that it has absurdities in it.
"The Romans eventually find Jesus without Judas"
Even if true, completely besides the point. I have to conclude that you didn't understand what I was saying.
slipcurve 3 years ago
"What was the point of allowing or making satan enter Judas"
Who says there is a point. The point of the whole story is Jesus sacrifice. Judas betrayal is just a sidelight.
"I don't care what the central point of the story was. I care ... it has absurdities in it."
Why is that an absurdity? Jesus time had come. Earlier it mentions times he could have been killed, but his time wasn't ready. He was ready now. Can you explain exactly what you see as absurd, because I see nothing absurd.
BattleshipTx 3 years ago
You are making a deliberate effort not to understand me.
Jesus could stop satan entering his friend Judas right? The point is to help a friend, because satans entering does not have any effect on the whole sacrifice thing anyway. Judas is treated unfairly.
Also the whole thing is extremely absurd. God has scripted the whole event. Why he chose to do it this way is beoynd anyones reason. Why would he involve satan in his plan? And why does satan play along with it?
Satan has his uses? wtf
slipcurve 3 years ago
"Judas is treated unfairly."
No he isn't. Judas has been around Jesus when Jesus does all the miracles, raises Lazurus from the dead, walks on water, loaves & fishes, long-term blind people see, and yet Judas is still receptive to Satan. Despite all of Judas experiences, he doesn't resist Satan.
"God has scripted the whole event...Why would he involve satan in his plan?"
Satan is intricately involved in the whole plan. From his temptations of Jesus in the wilderness to Jesus death.
BattleshipTx 3 years ago
All of that just made it worse.
You talk like Judas had a choice. Like it wasn't already in the script that he betrays Jesus. And why is being "receptive to satan" bad when it leads to the salvation ending?
Oh satan is intricately involved in the whole plan? That's really interesting now considering how the christians are out to make him to be the bad character. Apparently he's just part of the plan! He helped to "save mankind"! Praise satan! We are going deeper and deeper to the rabbithole.
slipcurve 3 years ago
"You talk like Judas had a choice"
Where does it say that Judas didn't have a choice? That he couldn't try to resist Satan?
"... how the christians are out to make him to be the bad character"
Satan is the bad character. The plan has to deal with the bad characters in the world. Just because the plan deals with him doesn't mean he isn't bad. The Allies had Nazi's usual conduct and reactions as a part of their plans in WWII, that doesn't mean they get credit for helping us win WWII.
BattleshipTx 3 years ago
"Where does it say that Judas didn't have a choice?"
In the book of logic. The plan is to get betrayed by Judas and whacked on the cross for the sins of man. Jesus knows what happens next like he's reading from a script. Judas faith is therefore pretedermined. Hes pretedermined to be "receptive to satan".
The nazi comparison is awful. Allies didn't beat the nazi's by manipulating them like they had no will of their own. Also omnipotent being wouldn't have to go through those hoops. Pointless
slipcurve 3 years ago
"In the book of logic. The plan is to get betrayed by Judas and whacked on the cross ..."
Maybe logic can explain that there is often a plan that has more than one way to accomplish its main objective? That the goal was the sacrifice on the cross, not the betrayal? It was just one likely way it would happen. If Judas had manned up and cast off Satan, Jesus wasn't going anywhere nor hiding. The Chief Priest & Romans would have found him. Logic doesn't says Judas role was unalterable by him.
BattleshipTx 3 years ago
Would that manning up have to happen before Jesus said "one of you is going to betray me"? Otherwise that would kinda make him a liar. Or was that just some kind of satan lottery? No, the Jesus character clearly knows exactly what is going to happen.
Whoever kills or betrays Jesus is just fulfilling the plan. Or are you saying that if no-one would have killed him, he would have nailed himself on the cross? Someone has to be "receptive to satan" to get on with the script.
slipcurve 3 years ago
So Jesus could see how deeply Jatan had his hooks into Judas and that Judas had made his decision already. The implication from the 30 pieces was that Judas had already negotiated his price with the High Priest.
"Or are you saying that if no-one would have killed him, he would have nailed himself on the cross?"
God carefully chose the time period for Jesus to come. Maybe in part because it was so easy for Romans to kill others. Having willing executioners then wasn't too difficult.
BattleshipTx 3 years ago
"God carefully chose the time period for Jesus to come." ..so that he could be betrayed and or whacked on the cross. That IS his goal by your own admission. So why is Judas a villain again? It's shitty job but someone has to do it, right?
God apparently plays satan and he plays people. It's a rigged game and there is no reason to look down upon Judas, or anyone else for that matter. Not even the Satan character. The only questionable character to me is god and himself as his son.
slipcurve 3 years ago
"there is no reason to look down upon ... anyone else for that matter"
Correct. Only God is supposed to Judge (Matt 7:1-2) and being humble is considered a virtue. Also we all have sinned and fallen short (Rom 3:23). So no one should be "looking down" on others. It just isn't the Christian mindset, which is to help others, even those who are sinners. On Satan, you are kinda minimizing his role as God's adversary and in tempting Adam/Eve and everyone else into sin.
BattleshipTx 3 years ago
What the hell were we discussing then?
This is getting sidetracked fast.
How am I minimizing satans role? It's non-existent. It's supposedly an entity created by this omnipotent being, which also knows it's every move in advance (also uses him in his plans by manipulating him apparently). So the relationship is closer to like a master and a robot. Responsibility of all of satans actions falls on the creator. There really is no way around it.
slipcurve 3 years ago
"How am I minimizing satans role?"
By saying stuff like "Responsibility of all of satans actions falls on the creator". Sorry, I don't buy it. Satan is a free moral agent, just like us. He chose to be evil. He is the opposite of a robot. I know many atheists are ardent anti-"free will" types. There are many videos on YT where those arguments about free will are hashed out to no one's satisfaction. The Bible I read indicates that we have free will, Judas had free will and Satan has free will.
BattleshipTx 3 years ago
We should probably stop, but I am compelled to continue.
Just correct this last one in what is right in your own view (I will stop here) :
If there is a creator of all, responsibility of absolutely everything falls on him. The good and the bad. The world and everything in it either is his creation or it isn't. He's all knowing and all powerful and he made all this stuff and it doesn't behave like he expects? And even if he doesn't know how it all behaves, it's still his responsibility.
slipcurve 3 years ago
That's an argument saying God should never let anyone have a free choice about anything. That he shouldn't make anything but robots, because otherwise you may choose to do something bad. I like him allowing others free choice. I don't think that makes him responsible for everything bad that you choose to do.
BattleshipTx 3 years ago
2 words.... FOOOOOOT FETIIIIIISH! What a creep. I will judge him because apparently he is judging me.
Anyway great vids. I watched up to 4 the other day, and caught up on all of them today. Now I'm up to date. Looking forward to the rest, and I'm in agreement with
WineisyourFriend. It would be sweet if you did other books.
snugsaltynutz 3 years ago
I'm enjoying these..,especially the "Final Countdown" interludes. Keep it up. Do you think you'll do another book after you complete John?
WineisyourFriend 3 years ago
Maybe. Not sure. Perhaps not immediately, but since I've got such great responses, I probably will.
morsec0de 3 years ago
13:4-5, Two reasons: he could not participate in the feast wearing soiled garments and it foreshadows his crucifixion.
The reason John did not include the communion is a subject of intense debate. Personally, I feel it is partial evidence for an early date of composition.
13:27, I tend to side with those who call this verse metaphoric, not literal.
13:34, I'm trying! V(^_^)
Brotoi 3 years ago
"I tend to side with those who call this verse metaphoric, not literal."
How does one make such decisions, when the text makes no difference between "Satan entered him" and "God was a burning bush." Which is literal and which is symbolic?
morsec0de 3 years ago
It has to do with context. When Moses encountered the burning bush there was nothing which would indicate the writer was being metaphorical. Nor is "burning bush" used metaphorically in other places. "Satan entered in" or "an evil spirit entered in", etc., is often used in the New Testament to indicate someone choosing to do something "evil". The only literal appearance is in Jesus' temptation and the book of Revelation. Similarly, "casting out demons" often indicates mental/emotional healing.
Brotoi 3 years ago
Mental/emotional illness, in those days, was often credited to demons, after all. It was only in the 19th Century that psychology emerged.
Brotoi 3 years ago
@morsec0de Have you ever studied the original texts? No? Your answer lies there.
ultimathio 1 year ago
Great vid, thanks for the series.
Fatso1000100 3 years ago