How can Jesus have been betrayed if he knew ?

[dio9]

Tradition clearly states Jesus was betrayed.
How can Jesus have been betrayed if he knew Judas was going to betray him? Betrayal is a surprise unexpected . Betrayal means taken by surprise. Have you ever been betrayed?

I believe Jesus was betrayed but as a biblical buff question the Gospel account where Jesus dismisses Judas to go do what he has to do.

John 13:26
Jesus replied, “He’s the one I give the piece of bread to after I have dipped it.� When He had dipped the bread, He gave it to Judas, Simon Iscariot’s son.

How can he be betrayed if he knows he is going to be betrayed?

As I said I believe he was betrayed but am afraid the account in John's Gospel is drama.

Show me I am thinking wrong.

[ThePainefulTruth]

[Replying to post 1 by dio9]

Jesus ended up believing he was betrayed by God, thus the realization from the cross. Jesus thought God would assume the throne if they cleansed the Temple, but God never intervenes, to Jesus' shock and dismay.

[FWI]

The following is a rebuttal to the statements made by shnarkle (post 59) related to my comments to JehovahsWitness.

Being sinless wouldn't result in immortality.

The third and fourth chapters of Genesis informs us of the type of life Adam/Eve had (before and after their fall) and shows us that they weren't going to die, as long as, they obeyed God's instructions. This was due to their access to the tree of life (Gen. 3:2-3). Yet, when they disobeyed God, Adam/Eve were expelled from the garden and access to the tree of life was denied (Gen. 3:22-24). So, when Adam/Eve obeyed God they (technically) were immortal, because they didn't sin. But, when they did sin, immortality was lost and they now would die. The same type of principle would apply to the Christ, he didn't sin. Hence, he didn't earn "the wages of sin," which is death.

We know this because he had already reached the ripe old age of 33, and in those days he was no young buck anymore.

This is not an accurate claim and the idea that life expectancy was around 35-40 years old in the first century C.E. is due to a false understanding of averages. The article: Human life spans nearly constant for 2000 years (published in LiveScience) gives us an example of the problem of using averages for these types of statistics:

Discussions about life expectancy often involve how it has improved over time. According to the National Center for Health Statistics, life expectancy for men in 1907 was 45.6 years; by 1957 it rose to 66.4; in 2007 it reached 75.5. Unlike the most recent increase in life expectancy (which was attributable largely to a decline in half of the leading causes of death including heart disease, homicide, and influenza), the increase in life expectancy between 1907 and 2007 was largely due to a decreasing infant mortality rate, which was 9.99 percent in 1907; 2.63 percent in 1957; and 0.68 percent in 2007.

Hence, trusting averages for certain types of information can be deceiving. The infant (five and under) mortality rate during the first century C.E. was extremely high. We have data that claims the infant mortality rate around 1800 C.E. was over 40%. This reality would certainly affect the average age of life expectancy for human beings in a negative way, giving a false perception of the true facts.

Simple example: A 75 year old man dies and a 5 year boy dies. Hence, the life expectancy is 40 years (75 + 5 = 80 divided by 2 = 40)

The resurrection isn't what pays the penalty for sin. It is his death that pays the penalty.

The bible tells us that "the wages of sin" is death (Ezekiel 18:4, 20, Romans 6:23 and James 1:15. So, we pay for our own sins by dying. This is undeniable, nobody else pays for these sins. Therefore, since death is permanent, all who have died are lost.

However, the Christ, who was sinless, did not earn the wages of sin. But, he did earn the right to an immortal physical life, just like Adam/Eve and their descendants could have. So, the Christ (technically) earned immortality in the flesh by being sinless. But, the Christ gave up this reward and offered it up to God for mankind. God accepted this offering and was so pleased that He granted mankind the opportunity to be resurrected and to learn the true ways of God and be granted life in the ages to come.

The apostle Paul clearly outlines the importance of the resurrections in 1 Cor. 15. He also states that if the resurrection of the Christ didn't occur, then mankind's faith is futile and they are still in their sins or the wages of sin, which is death. This example clearly shows how valuable the Christ's resurrection was.

So, the theory that the Christ bore our sins (literally) is false. Because, if the Christ was guilty of sin (at his crucifixion), then his punishment was just. And, as Albert Barnes (1955) with his notes on 2 Cor. and Galatians observed that if it was deserved, there can hardly be merit in it for others…
Also, the theory of imputed sin is nonsense. The act of sin is an individual choice, which does not conform to God's standards. Therefore, an individual cannot be sinful by the act of another (Ezek. 18:20).

Some would even go so far as to say that the penalty is eternal separation from God which comes under the heading of the second resurrection unto damnation. Eternal life isn't the penalty for sin.

It is correct that eternal life is not the penalty for sin. This is derived from the false concept of heaven or hell. However, the concept of eternal separation from God and His family is real. This just shows that those who refuse the gift of God will just cease to exist. This is just showing mercy. The angels who sinned are in a different class, they have life inherent and cannot die (unless God decides to destroy them). This is why the bible states that the evil angels are in torment for eternity, but this is not the case for humans.

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 1 by dio9]

Jesus ended up believing he was betrayed by God, thus the realization from the cross. Jesus thought God would assume the throne if they cleansed the Temple, but God never intervenes, to Jesus' shock and dismay.

This is an interesting point, especially from the standpoint of those who claim that Jesus couldn't have been betrayed if he knew what his betrayer was doing all along. As some have already pointed out even when a spouse knows that their wife is cheating on him, this doesn't negate the fact that she has betrayed him.

However, this isn't the case with Christ on the cross especially when it is intended and known beforehand. Jesus asks if it is possible for God's will to be manifested some other way. Seeing that there is no other way, he is resigned to his fate, but what is his fate? His fate is to take on the punishment for sin which is to be forsaken of God, and forsaken is not betrayed. He doesn't cry out "Why have you betrayed me?". He cries out "Why have you forsaken me"? He's also quoting from the Hebrew sacred scriptures which don't suggest betrayal, but the fulfillmelnt of prophecy.

Jesus taught to repent which was his way of teaching to cleanse one's own temple so that God could come to dwell in his people individually. On some level, an unrepentant Israel also meant to destroy the temple because a temple that is without God is inevitably going to be destroyed. The Temple in Jerusalem as well as what little remains is a testament to that fact.

These are quite brilliant illustrations of the two outcomes. The temple that is cleansed is fit for God to dwell in while the temple that is polluted is only fit for destruction and Christ came to show both. First he comes preaching repentance/the need for cleansing the temple, then when that message is rejected, he shows the necessity for destruction of a forsaken temple. His body hanging on a cross is that illustration.

When the author has Jesus say things like, "Into your hands I commend my spirit", or "It is finished" or equating "lifting up" in glory to the crucifixion, there is no shock or dismay being conveyed, but someone who is in complete control.

[shnarkle]

Being sinless wouldn't result in immortality.

The third and fourth chapters of Genesis informs us of the type of life Adam/Eve had (before and after their fall) and shows us that they weren't going to die, as long as, they obeyed God's instructions. This was due to their access to the tree of life (Gen. 3:2-3).

Which the texts indicate they had as yet not eaten from. Had they eaten from the Tree of Life they would have become immortal.

“The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.�

Ceasing from eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil doesn't allow them admittance back into the garden of Eden. If they had already eaten from the Tree of Life, they wouldn't have bothered eating from the Tree of knowledge of Good and Evil. They made the wrong choice. If they had eaten from the Tree of Life prior to eating from the Tree of knowledge of good and evil, they would have been damned to the same fate as Satan.

Regardless, my point still stands as Jesus was aging, and aging is not a characteristic or trait of immortality. It is the inevitable characteristic of those who are going to die.

Yet, when they disobeyed God, Adam/Eve were expelled from the garden and access to the tree of life was denied (Gen. 3:22-24). So, when Adam/Eve obeyed God they (technically) were immortal,

Nope. Technically they were still subject to death. They simply had access to immortality; access which they hadn't taken advantage of.

Christ, he didn't sin. Hence, he didn't earn "the wages of sin," which is death.

Christ was subject to death because he came in the likeness of sinful flesh.

God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:

The flesh was always subject to death, and always will be. Had Adam and Eve not sinned, they would have transcended their fleshly existence and attained to a position above the angelic host of heaven. Their disobedience resulted in a cosmic interlude. There is no reason to suppose God would have any purpose for eternal life in the flesh. The texts even point out that he repented of the idea soon after he saw what a mess was created by creating man on the earth.

“And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.�

We know this because he had already reached the ripe old age of 33, and in those days he was no young buck anymore.

This is not an accurate claim and the idea that life expectancy was around 35-40 years old in the first century C.E. is due to a false understanding of averages.

Beside the point. Straw man argument. The point is that he's aging, and aging people don't live forever. They grow old and die. There is nothing from any of the biblical scriptures to suggest as human beings age the aging process slows to a standstill to reveal immortality.

The resurrection isn't what pays the penalty for sin. It is his death that pays the penalty.

The bible tells us that "the wages of sin" is death (Ezekiel 18:4, 20, Romans 6:23 and James 1:15. So, we pay for our own sins by dying.

Yep, and this is exactly what Jesus said as well, i.e. he came into the world for the expressed purpose of dying. He would have died regardless of whether he was crucified or not. He came in the likeness of sinful flesh which is subject to death.

This is undeniable, nobody else pays for these sins.

I don't think you fully understand the Mosaic law's purpose for sacrifice, nor that it pointed the way for Christ's sacrifice which does in fact pay for sin. The Mosaic law explicitly points out that sin kills innocence, purity, etc. and eventually kills those who sin.

But for this purpose I have come to this hour. Now is the judgment of this world; now will the ruler of this world be cast out. And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.� He said this to show by what kind of death he was going to die.

Therefore, since death is permanent, all who have died are lost.

Death is permanent? Which death? The first death or the second death? Isn't it only the second death that is permanent? If there is a second death, the first one can't be permanent.

the Christ, who was sinless, did not earn the wages of sin.

Again, this is beside the point. He came in the likeness of sinful flesh which necessarily brings death along with it. Christ didn't earn the wages of sin, he paid the wages of sin. We all do, but Christ also showed that this was the way to eternal life. Adam didn't get that far in God's program while Christ did.

But, he did earn the right to an immortal physical life, just like Adam/Eve and their descendants could have.

Except for the fact that he didn't. The fact is that there was no physical resurrection, and Christ never taught it. The gospel writers illustrate this fact by having the risen Christ walk through walls, appear out of nowhere and disappear leaving no trace. Physical bodies don't do that.

The apostle Paul clearly outlines the importance of the resurrections in 1 Cor. 15. He also states that if the resurrection of the Christ didn't occur, then mankind's faith is futile and they are still in their sins or the wages of sin, which is death.

Mankind's faith is futile, and they are still in their sins which will result in their death. Again, you seem to be making my point for me. What is important is to live life according to the gospel message which is what resurrection means. It isn't about hoping for some sinless life in the future when one doesn't want to stop sinning in the present.

This example clearly shows how valuable the Christ's resurrection was.

Your comments also clearly show how you believe this was something that happened in the past rather than the existential reality of the gospel message.

So, the theory that the Christ bore our sins (literally) is false. Because, if the Christ was guilty of sin (at his crucifixion)

Straw man. No one is claiming that Christ was guilty of sin ever. The sacrificial system does not require a damaged or marred sin offering , but instead requires a sin offering that is unspotted and genetically perfect. It is a type for a perfect sinless offering that takes upon itself the sins of the sinner. This in no way suggests that the sin offering is guilty of anything. It just shows that justice has been satisfied as the wages of sin is death; death pays the penalty.

Some would even go so far as to say that the penalty is eternal separation from God which comes under the heading of the second resurrection unto damnation. Eternal life isn't the penalty for sin.

It is correct that eternal life is not the penalty for sin.

So by this admission, may we assume that you are retracting your original statement?

This is derived from the false concept of heaven or hell.

What is derived from this concept?

the bible states that the evil angels are in torment for eternity, but this is not the case for humans.

Where does it state that evil angels are in torment for eternity? Satan is described as turning to ashes from within, and once everything that offends has jumped into the lake of fire, even death is consumed as well which doesn't indicate eternal torment. If death had been swallowed up PRIOR to those who had been tossed in, then I think you might have an argument. The chronology of events indicates otherwise.

[dio9]

[Replying to post 64 by shnarkle]

I particularly like this point you've made.;
"he came into the world for the expressed purpose of dying. He would have died regardless of whether he was crucified or not. He came in the likeness of sinful flesh which is subject to death."
He came into this life to be one of us. , saying implying God is one of us in him and through him , we in him everything a human is. Jesus was the perfect in imperfect humanity , the spirit in the material.
"

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 64 by shnarkle]

I particularly like this point you've made.;
"he came into the world for the expressed purpose of dying. He would have died regardless of whether he was crucified or not. He came in the likeness of sinful flesh which is subject to death."
He came into this life to be one of us. , saying implying God is one of us in him and through him , we in him everything a human is. Jesus was the perfect in imperfect humanity , the spirit in the material.
"

Yes, the spirit manifested in, with, and through Christ, although not so much God as one of us, but Christ in us and we in Christ, the image of the divine. Christ became the son of man that we may become sons of God.

One has to consider what would have happened had Israel repented at hearing the gospel message. The kingdom would have come into existence which is still what the world is groaning for in anticipation. That's the first option, but the sorrows of messiah are all mentioned prior to the glory which suggests that the crucifixion was an integral part of the plan of salvation all along.

There may be a chaisma here in the proclamation of the gospel followed by the rejection which is equivalent to death, which is necessary for resurrection.

This may also fit in with Paul's idea of the flesh being unable to refrain from sin, or even his statements about the death of the body leading to eternal life in the spirit.

[ThePainefulTruth]

[Replying to post 1 by dio9]

Jesus ended up believing he was betrayed by God, thus the realization from the cross. Jesus thought God would assume the throne if they cleansed the Temple, but God never intervenes, to Jesus' shock and dismay.

This is an interesting point, especially from the standpoint of those who claim that Jesus couldn't have been betrayed if he knew what his betrayer was doing all along. As some have already pointed out even when a spouse knows that their wife is cheating on him, this doesn't negate the fact that she has betrayed him.

However, this isn't the case with Christ on the cross especially when it is intended and known beforehand. Jesus asks if it is possible for God's will to be manifested some other way. Seeing that there is no other way, he is resigned to his fate, but what is his fate? His fate is to take on the punishment for sin which is to be forsaken of God, and forsaken is not betrayed. He doesn't cry out "Why have you betrayed me?". He cries out "Why have you forsaken me"? He's also quoting from the Hebrew sacred scriptures which don't suggest betrayal, but the fulfillmelnt of prophecy.

Jesus taught to repent which was his way of teaching to cleanse one's own temple so that God could come to dwell in his people individually. On some level, an unrepentant Israel also meant to destroy the temple because a temple that is without God is inevitably going to be destroyed. The Temple in Jerusalem as well as what little remains is a testament to that fact.

These are quite brilliant illustrations of the two outcomes. The temple that is cleansed is fit for God to dwell in while the temple that is polluted is only fit for destruction and Christ came to show both. First he comes preaching repentance/the need for cleansing the temple, then when that message is rejected, he shows the necessity for destruction of a forsaken temple. His body hanging on a cross is that illustration.

When the author has Jesus say things like, "Into your hands I commend my spirit", or "It is finished" or equating "lifting up" in glory to the crucifixion, there is no shock or dismay being conveyed, but someone who is in complete control.

The whole point is that Jesus wasn't betrayed in the first place. God didn't show when Jesus cleansed the Temple, but God never intervenes, as all the revealed religions suppose. Jesus was set up for an impossible outcome because he'd been taught to believe in the power of faith by his religion. God didn't set him up, his religion did, a religion with a false god.

And you could say that Jesus had warning, from the Book of Job. Job was a perfect person (allegory invented by priests tired of being asked Why?), and sued God to explain Himself. But God said, in effect, it's none of your business what I do or why. Even that's hokum of course, God stays hidden no matter what. But Jesus should have realized from Job, that he couldn't manipulate God or otherwise stroke God or even earn God's cooperation into interacting in a certain way. He had to have known about Job, but he must have chosen to ignore it. Either way, he set himself up.

[DPMartin]

Tradition clearly states Jesus was betrayed.
How can Jesus have been betrayed if he knew Judas was going to betray him? Betrayal is a surprise unexpected . Betrayal means taken by surprise. Have you ever been betrayed?

I believe Jesus was betrayed but as a biblical buff question the Gospel account where Jesus dismisses Judas to go do what he has to do.

John 13:26
Jesus replied, “He’s the one I give the piece of bread to after I have dipped it.� When He had dipped the bread, He gave it to Judas, Simon Iscariot’s son.

How can he be betrayed if he knows he is going to be betrayed?

As I said I believe he was betrayed but am afraid the account in John's Gospel is drama.

Show me I am thinking wrong.

if you entrust someone with something and they betray you it doesn't matter whether you knew when you entrusted them or not. betrayal is the act on the betrayers part no matter if the person entrusted them so they would betray them or not.


Judas still betrayed because he agreed to be trusted, and believed he was being trusted, but what the Lord Jesus trusted Judas to do was to betray Him, though Judas may or may not have been aware of that.

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 1 by dio9]

Jesus ended up believing he was betrayed by God, thus the realization from the cross. Jesus thought God would assume the throne if they cleansed the Temple, but God never intervenes, to Jesus' shock and dismay.

This is an interesting point, especially from the standpoint of those who claim that Jesus couldn't have been betrayed if he knew what his betrayer was doing all along. As some have already pointed out even when a spouse knows that their wife is cheating on him, this doesn't negate the fact that she has betrayed him.

However, this isn't the case with Christ on the cross especially when it is intended and known beforehand. Jesus asks if it is possible for God's will to be manifested some other way. Seeing that there is no other way, he is resigned to his fate, but what is his fate? His fate is to take on the punishment for sin which is to be forsaken of God, and forsaken is not betrayed. He doesn't cry out "Why have you betrayed me?". He cries out "Why have you forsaken me"? He's also quoting from the Hebrew sacred scriptures which don't suggest betrayal, but the fulfillmelnt of prophecy.

Jesus taught to repent which was his way of teaching to cleanse one's own temple so that God could come to dwell in his people individually. On some level, an unrepentant Israel also meant to destroy the temple because a temple that is without God is inevitably going to be destroyed. The Temple in Jerusalem as well as what little remains is a testament to that fact.

These are quite brilliant illustrations of the two outcomes. The temple that is cleansed is fit for God to dwell in while the temple that is polluted is only fit for destruction and Christ came to show both. First he comes preaching repentance/the need for cleansing the temple, then when that message is rejected, he shows the necessity for destruction of a forsaken temple. His body hanging on a cross is that illustration.

When the author has Jesus say things like, "Into your hands I commend my spirit", or "It is finished" or equating "lifting up" in glory to the crucifixion, there is no shock or dismay being conveyed, but someone who is in complete control.

The whole point is that Jesus wasn't betrayed in the first place. God didn't show when Jesus cleansed the Temple, but God never intervenes, as all the revealed religions suppose. Jesus was set up for an impossible outcome because he'd been taught to believe in the power of faith by his religion. God didn't set him up, his religion did, a religion with a false god.

And you could say that Jesus had warning, from the Book of Job. Job was a perfect person (allegory invented by priests tired of being asked Why?), and sued God to explain Himself. But God said, in effect, it's none of your business what I do or why. Even that's hokum of course, God stays hidden no matter what. But Jesus should have realized from Job, that he couldn't manipulate God or otherwise stroke God or even earn God's cooperation into interacting in a certain way. He had to have known about Job, but he must have chosen to ignore it. Either way, he set himself up.

Of course, God never intervenes because God is the origin of existence. Therefore God can only exist in, with, and through existence itself. For God "to show" is to ignore the fact that God is not subject to observation in the first place. Jesus plainly pointed out that the only way God would "show" is through God's image. God is manifesting his will through Christ, therefore, Christ couldn't have been attempting to manipulate God. Christ was a willing participant in God's will and the texts plainly point this out.

Christs willing cooperation in his own death is claimed by Christ himself so your theory is a bit too far fetched even for the tin foil hat crowd to believe.

[brianbbs67]

Aren't limits being placed on God by saying He can't do anything in the realm He created, without an intermediary?

God is limitless.

I have made many things in my life. I can influence or interact with all of them because i made them. Do I choose to is the question.