Why did Judas betray Jesus?

[Major Nikon]

The bible tells us it was for 30 pieces of silver. OK so how much is that? It was a day's pay for a shepherd in the book of Zechariah, but that was 500 years prior. Unless there were some serious deflationary forces going on it seems reasonable it might be as much as that or perhaps less.

The next question is how much was the ministry bringing in? It safe to say these people weren't rolling in cash, but they were evidently making enough to pay the tax man. Given the numerous accounts of them giving sermons to, or healing the rich, it seems reasonable they were pulling in enough funds for general expenses. Whatever the amount was, it was enough for one of them to be treasurer.

Which is the segue into the next point.

Turns out the treasurer was Judas himself. So why not simply run off with the till? Wait till you get a good haul from healing a rich dude's dead penis or something, then take the money and run. Seems like he could have easily cleared more than 30 small.

I realize all of this is made up anyway, but you think they could have made up a better story.

[relayerbob]

1. Wow, incredibly inappropriate

And actually misses much of the point. But, no sense in trying to explain an answer, since it is clear you are trolling and not actually trying to learn an answer.

[Major Nikon]

7. Inappropriate how exactly?

You mean I can't read the same text you are reading and come up with my own interpretation which is different than your own? You kinda say this as if you are the gatekeeper of the one and only truth which I always find amusing to hear. Please do enlighten me.

[relayerbob]

14. "I realize all of this is made up anyway, but you think they could have made up a better story."

This isn't the atheist group.

Would you go after a major tenet of the Jewish faith in a Jewish group? Mohammed in a Islamic group?

[No Vested Interest]

16. Good question, relayerbob. I seriously wonder about the DUers that feel a need

to come to the site and beat up on ideas that they must realize are important to many other DUers.

Many wonderful people here, but some I know I would not enjoy their company.

[Major Nikon]

18. I seriously wonder about people who can't stand the thought of having their beliefs challenged

It's as if they really were never all that sincere about the beliefs they hold and they feel compelled to attack anyone who dares offer a counterpoint. So yeah, many wonderful people here.

[relayerbob]

20. For the record, I;m not a Christian

Intolerance is intolerance, and I don’t actually a flying fuck who provides the intolerance or who it’s targeted at.

[Major Nikon]

23. I don't really care what you are or aren't

Once again, that word doesn't mean what you think it means. If it did we would all be "intolerant" of the GOP which while literally true just doesn't fall into the same context you imagine it does.

[relayerbob]

25. You're right, I was trying to be nice

And not call you out for what you obviously are.

[Major Nikon]

26. Bullshit

You started off right out of the gate calling me inappropriate and a troll. Do you even listen to yourself? Geez.

[Major Nikon]

17. This isn't a Christian group or any of the others you mentioned

If you are looking for a protected space where you are free to promote religion without the injection of critical thought, then there's plenty of sub-groups available to you which do offer such protections. This is the one and only group on DU where religion can be both promoted and criticized. I get that the latter causes you discomfort, but such discourse is exactly why this group exists. You are free to offer whatever counter point you wish and I invited you to do so, but if all you're going to do is give me a sermon about what I should or should not be discussing here in regards to religion, I'm just going to invite you to read the SOP for this group and think hard about what it really means.

Happy Holidays!

[relayerbob]

21. As I pointed, I'm not a Christian and not discomforted

I am, however, more than happy to point out that your intolerance of Christians, is no better than intolerance of any other religious or ethnic group. Go ahead and feel smug in your condescension, but at the root of it, you are no better than the people you are actively trying to offend.

[Major Nikon]

22. I'm pretty sure you are discomforted or you wouldn't be throwing around false allegations

Christianity is an idea and like all ideas it should never be free from critical thought. I get you think it should be elevated to some status where it must be free from criticism, but that's a silly misguided idea that does more harm to religion than you have bothered to put much thought into. Your false analogy comparing it to an ethic group just demonstrates how critical thinking isn't being applied here. Intolerance does not mean what you think it means.

If you think I'm just going to sit back and accept your half-fast insults and not respond appropriately, then you are living in a fantasy world just as surely as any fanatic. You responded to me first and obviously came loaded for a fight. Seems a bit lame to whine about getting what you asked for.

[relayerbob]

24. OK, whatever you say

But you are as insulting and bigoted as they come. Someday, mybe you'll understand that. But... doubtful.

Good bye

[Major Nikon]

27. Believe it or not you aren't the first to come into this group with your sermons

...about what is and isn't "appropriate" to discuss here. In fact you are far from the first and best. After all these years they are long gone and I'm still here. Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

35. From the group information:

"Discuss religious and theological issues. All relevant topics are permitted. Believers, non-believers, and everyone in-between are welcome."

Nothing there says you can't discuss it from a non-believer viewpoint. There are groups that are protected. This isn't one of them.

[Gore1FL]

2. I think the silver was a bonus he wasn't counting on. IIRC, he believed he was doing the right thing

I would agree that the story is made up, but, fictional or not, I am not sure you have the motivations of the characters correctly defined.

[Major Nikon]

8. The question remains open to interpretation

So while some may claim to know the answer. The reality is they are either guessing or just repeating what they have been indoctrinated to believe.

The gospels themselves don't even agree on the subject. All of the synoptic gospels say the devil made him do it. The gospel of John suggests the same thing, but goes further on to say he was an asshole all along.

[multigraincracker]

3. At that time, tax collectors were called Publicans.

I refer to the current Republicans as Re-publicans.

[Effete Snob]

4. Odd thing is...

…if the entire point was that Jesus was going to die for our sins anyway, then I don’t see why Judas is cast as a villain instead of the engine room of salvation.

[Marcus IM]

5. Yes. Without Judas, the fable would be too similar to other fables.

[msongs]

6. since judas did god's bidding judas should be a hero. no judas, no christ nt

[Major Nikon]

9. Everyone who has ever watched professional wrestling knows there must be a villian

Without the dichotomy of good vs evil you would just have 12 guys hanging out with each other.

[keithbvadu2]

10. Judas was an early, modern-day, conservative disciple.

Judas was an early, modern-day, conservative disciple.

Judas got 30 pieces of silver, but just once, for selling Christ.

Franklin Graham, Jim Bakker, Pat Robertson, and their ilk get millions of dollars repeatedly for selling Christ.

Judas was a fool for doing a one-time sale.

[Major Nikon]

11. Nobody had figured out how to make some serious cash out of the deal until Paul came along

[Igel]

36. On the other hand,

a lot of exegesis says he was fearful of having the Jewish people--vulnerable--being put at risk for daring to defy the government.

Fear of governmental authority is a powerful motivator. Loss of power, loss of property, loss of autonomy, loss of life. Most are willing to surrender much of that "essential liberty" for "temporary safety."

At the same time, the religious PTB were in the same boat, being of and in the general populatoin. They enjoyed limited liberties under the Roman authorities--more than most provinces, a bone of contention at the time. Anti-semitism was already extant. They wanted to safeguard their liberties. Jesus would have been very much non-Hellenizing, and while not obviously anti-Rome in the recorded narratives (in other words, not anti-colonialist and anti-imperialist), what he said smacked of both. The PTB also wanted to safeguard their power--in the event of a Roman clamp-down, they'd lose that (and much, much more--I'd assume that relative rankings of importance for the losses varied a lot).

[Frasier Balzov]

12. The gospels of Luke and John state that the devil gained entrance to Judas's soul.

No further examination of Judas's motives is required.

Satan uses Judas to try and stop Jesus's ministry.

Judas allows Satan's influence to overtake him, even though Judas had followed Jesus for three years and been present for all the miracles.

Thus Judas had the spiritual tools he needed to rebuff the devil, yet he failed to do so.

Judas was as hopeless a case as Satan himself, with no salvation possible, only damnation.

[Major Nikon]

19. According to most Christian doctrine is that not true of any sinful act?

I mean the devil made me do it seems to be the excuse for the first sin, so why not all the rest?

[AZSkiffyGeek]

13. ...

[NoRethugFriends]

15. Andwritten by Leon Rosselson

[muriel_volestrangler]

28. If you think that Zechariah says it's a day's pay for a shepherd

then you need to work on your literary comprehension skills.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Zechariah%2011&version=NIV

It is about the Israelites turning away from God. The "thirty pieces of silver" there is not "a day's pay" for an actual shepherd, but, even if you take it all literally, money that the people paid to be free of their religious obligations (when the flock pays, you know it's not a flock of sheep). With the mention of "the potter", it may even be that which inspired the same sum being used for Judas (in one version, buried "in the potter's field" ).

[Major Nikon]

29. I think you need to dig a little deeper

Depending on which translation you pick it either says “pay” or wages, so I’m pretty sure it means wages. So your comprehension that the flock are somehow making wages makes even less sense.

But as a once prolific poster in this group and self-proclaimed bible expert frequently assured us the bible is metaphorical and not to be taken literally, or in other words all made up.

[muriel_volestrangler]

30. Pay or wages, that doesn't make any difference

It doesn't say "day" at all; it does say that the "flock" paid it, so it's not about an actual shepherd.

Of course a lot of the Bible is metaphorical; you just have to decide how much that matters to you, and how much to take as metaphorical if it does (I'd think it doesn't matter to you, from your posts in this thread, for instance "could be pay, could be wages, so I’m pretty sure it means wages" - LOL).

It's not *all* "made up"; it contains various details that are confirmed by history and archaeology. There was, for instance, a country called Egypt, ruled by pharaohs.

[Major Nikon]

31. Wages isn't ambiguous, so yes it most certainly does matter

And it matters from exactly the same comprehensive literal standpoint. It’s utterly ridiculous any other way. You don’t get wages out of a flock, you get wages for work. You are correct in that it does not say for a day, but wages pretty much everywhere in the bible are referenced per day so that’s a reasonable assumption.

The whole exercise was to come up with a meaningful value for the 30 pieces of silver Judas was given. If you can come up with a better guess, have at it. Even if you can’t it’s pretty safe to assume it was a relatively trivial sum of money or the made up story doesn’t work so well.

OTOH, you are correct, it’s not all made up. There are words that are actual words that taken by themselves mean something. So you sure got me there. I certain messed up by making you think I meant it was completely full of random numbers and letters. Remember that comprehension does involve a bit of reading between the lines and I can only imagine there’s volumes of information you’re missing out on if you derived nothing more than the strict literal meaning of what I wrote.

There’s also details in the bible that did not occur in the time period alleged. There’s contradictions, and descriptions of things that are just flat out wrong. All of the four principal gospels of Christianity were written anonymously and not by those attributed long after the events occurred. There are a few historical figures mentioned, but all of the major characters, including Jesus we know virtually zero about. As any sort of historical document the bible sucks. We know a shitton about other notable figures during the same time period and well before because the Romans wrote down pretty much everything, yet strangely here’s this guy traveling all over Roman territory doing awe inspiring miracles yet somehow they forgot to write any of it down.

So to provide the absolute level of precision you are demanding, I’ll correct my previous statement and estimate 99% of it is made up. Now if you can come up with a better number then by all means do tell and we’ll see if we can reconcile the two.

[muriel_volestrangler]

32. If it matters, are you going to rewrite your OP which says "a day's pay"?

Because you seem to be arguing your original interpretation was wrong.

"You don't get wages out of a flock". Yes, that's my point - since he gets the money from the flock, we know they are not sheep, and he was not a literal shepherd.

"wages pretty much everywhere in the bible are referenced per day so that’s a reasonable assumption" - well, no, not when it says he worked for a month, and did the work of three "shepherds".

"If you can come up with a better guess, have at it."
Yes - it's at least the wages of 3 people for a month. But remember this is not someone looking after sheep; it's someone looking after the people of Israel. "The flock detested me, and I grew weary of them and said, “I will not be your shepherd. Let the dying die, and the perishing perish. Let those who are left eat one another’s flesh.”"

"Even if you can’t it’s pretty safe to assume it was a relatively trivial sum of money or the made up story doesn’t work so well."

So, not so trivial.

Neither you nor I care about an estimate of what in the bible is verifiable history, what is plausible, what its BS, and what is metaphor, so we're not going to look into that. I just want trolling OPs to be better quality.

[Major Nikon]

33. It's a rather silly exercise which entirely misses the point

But since you want to put so much time and energy into the effort, I’ll just direct you to the wiki page which lists between $91.28 and $441.28 in today’s dollars as literally a more educated guess.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty_pieces_of_silver

Hopefully this puts the matter at rest that it is indeed a trivial sum and if it doesn’t feel free to update the wiki page, but don’t expect any more participation from me in this ad nauseum effort.

So as it turns out it was of pretty decent quality, and your counter not so much. And as far as trolling goes I suppose it should be noted you utterly ignored 75.8% of everything else I wrote to focus on one small detail you were certain you could offer enlightenment, but failed miserably. So there’s that.

In the interest of the lack of comprehension in regards to reading between the lines, the underlying point of this exercise is yet another demonstration that the bible is a work of literary amateurism(as if more were needed). I do get there are some people out there who believe in an unerring bible and experience a certain dissonance hearing these things. Probably none on DU, but certainly others who are here will feed the need to express outrage on their behalf. It is really for their benefit because if they had their way they might go their entire lives blissfully unaware 99%(approximately) of the book is little more than smoke and mirrors.

Hopefully the 99% figure is to your liking. Since you didn’t challenge it I’ll take that as tacit acceptance it’s a reasonable estimate.

[muriel_volestrangler]

34. As the link says, "would roughly be comparable to four months' (120 days) wages"

QED. Remember that people, especially in the west, are richer now than actual shepherds from 2500 years ago.

Ad nauseam, indeed. It's your thread, and you're now sick of it. From "one day's pay" to "four months' wages".