Did Judas go to Hell?

[Gordian Knot]

Thomas I agree with your points on both the sites. I added the second because it was a modern take on the religion. I have no idea how true this person's ideals are to modern Gnosticism though.

It is my perception (from my limited experience with them) that modern day Christian alternative western religions are based more on guess work and what the practitioners would have liked their religion to have been. There is so little left of the original religions, I suppose most of it must rely on filling in the huge gaps with the few tidbits that still remain. I'm thinking not just Gnosticism, but the many variants of the Pagan religions in Europe.

As far as the Church banning the teachings of alternate religions, it seems to me that the real crackdown began shortly after the first Counsel of Nicea (a little after 300 AD I believe?). That was when the accepted tenants of the Catholic faith were decreed.

Once what 'was' in was laid down, what was 'not' in was easy to identify. Hence there followed a fairly steady increase of the burning of any form of alternate Christian texts; and unfortunately, when the killings of these blasphemous believers began in ernest.

 

[Marcialou]

Matthew 27:3-5 (King James Version)

The action Judas took right before his death displays his admission of guilt and remorse. Should it or should it not suffice for him to be redeemed?

What about the fact that he committed suicide. Wouldn't that disqualify him from being redeemed?

 

[wil]

Not that spring to mind. My reference materials are book-based. Google?


I'm not falling for that one I know what you think of 'experts'!

Well it ain't easy....is the expert on the subject the one whose agenda is to discredit the subject....or the one whose agenda it is to support the subject.

We are talking about almost 2,000 year old information that has less data on it than the bible has on Jesus...

We know more about Harry Potter than we do about early Christian beliefs...

 

[DeiGratia]

>> What about the fact that he committed suicide. Wouldn't that disqualify him from being redeemed?

My perception is that salvation will be granted to anyone who admits his guilt and repents. It is not our sins themselves that separate us from God — we are all sinners. It is our failure to recognize our sins, or our refusal to repent.

And a consideration in the case of suicide is, one may not be responsible for one's brain giving out and losing sanity owing to severe distress, just as one would not be responsible for any other organ giving out owing to an illness.

If Judas's intense remorse had caused him to kill himself, if his realization of the gravity of his sin had driven him insane or to think he was not worthy to live any longer, I don't know how benevolent God would not have mercy on someone who writhes in agony of being consumed with his guilt.

 

[Thomas]

Thomas I agree with your points on both the sites. I added the second because it was a modern take on the religion. I have no idea how true this person's ideals are to modern Gnosticism though.

No quibble with that. I would have thought 'modern Gnosticism' – if we're talking the 'Gnosticism' of the 'Gnostics' (2-4th century) — would face the same problem as anyone else, how to reconcile all the disparate elements in a coherent teaching in the light of contemporary understandings.

As I have said often before, the Greek Philosophical Schools were caustic in their dismissal of the 'Gnostics' for the same reason Christian Theologians were, both agree that the Gnosticism lacks philosophical or metaphysical rigour, borrows stuff it doesn't understand ... and always relies on the trump card of having a 'secret teaching' that no-one else has got.

It is my perception (from my limited experience with them) that modern day Christian alternative western religions are based more on guess work and what the practitioners would have liked their religion to have been. There is so little left of the original religions, I suppose most of it must rely on filling in the huge gaps with the few tidbits that still remain. I'm thinking not just Gnosticism, but the many variants of the Pagan religions in Europe.

Oh sure! Wicca, for example, traces back to the imaginings of Gerald Gardner and Margaret Murray.

As far as the Church banning the teachings of alternate religions, it seems to me that the real crackdown began shortly after the first Counsel of Nicea (a little after 300 AD I believe?). That was when the accepted tenants of the Catholic faith were decreed.

325AD. But one could hardly call it a 'crackdown', pagan religions were still practiced, until outlawed by Emperor Theodosius in 380AD. The first execution took place in 385AD of a Christian – Priscillian.

Once what 'was' in was laid down, what was 'not' in was easy to identify. Hence there followed a fairly steady increase of the burning of any form of alternate Christian texts; and unfortunately, when the killings of these blasphemous believers began in ernest.

Not around Nicea, nor for centuries after. Think of the schisms that rocked the Church – Arianism, Donatism, Nestorianism – heretics were exiled, but not executed. Athanasias was exiled five times! Arius died of old age.

I think the widespread idea of the Church killing blasphemers and heretics has been retro-fitted from the Middle Ages back a few hundred years.

And the 'blasphemous believers' were Christians, not Gnostics! Gnosticism was on the way out if not burnt out, and no serious threat to Christianity, by the 3rd/4th century. Same with Mithraism.

Even later neo-gnostics heresies, like the Paulicians and Bogomils in the East, flourished from the 7th century and continued well into the 12th and 13th centuries, although persecuted by Roman and Byzantine Christianity. The Cathars were crushed in southern France in the 13th century, but only after a long series of failed negotiations with the papacy, that ended with the murder of Pierre de Castelnau, the papal legate.

 

[Thomas]

Well it ain't easy....is the expert on the subject the one whose agenda is to discredit the subject....or the one whose agenda it is to support the subject.

Quite. Or are they both experts, with differing opinions?

We are talking about almost 2,000 year old information that has less data on it than the bible has on Jesus...

True ... but this is one of those things that makes me smile. Everyone has their pet theory to discredit the canonical Gospels, and you and I have discussed the situation at length ... but whatever the outcome of that, the provenance of the canonical gospels has far more going for it than the Gnostic apocrypha, and yet critics of orthodoxy will often accept the apocrypha without question!

We know more about Harry Potter than we do about early Christian beliefs...

Are you sure? Have you verified that?

What do you make of J.N.D. Kelly's Early Christian Doctrines or Stevenson's Creeds, Councils and Controversies? Have you read the canons of the Ecumenical Councils? What about Margerie's The Christian Trinity in History, or The Early Church Fathers and The Later Church Fathers compiled by Bettenson?

And then there's Irenaeus Adversus Haereses which is the go-to textbook of Gnosticism – he actually details the doctrines before ripping into them, and his work has not been invalidated by the Q'mran finds.

Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Justin, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria and his illustrious successor Origen, Cyprian, Athanasius and his counterpart in the West, Hilary of Poitiers ...

The point is, these guys often discuss the contemporary scene, and the issues facing the Church – Justin's disputes with Typhro discusses Christianity and Judaism, Origen against Celsus defends Christianity as philosophically logical and particularly refutes certain neo-gnostic notions ...

... We have a vast store of documentary evidence. Get hold of Neuner & Dupois The Christian Faith that dates materials from the late 1st century on ... all through the period in question ...

You might know a lot about Harry Potter, I don't know ... but I think your comment serves your agenda rather than the truth?

 

[stranger]

Matthew 27:3-5 (King James Version)

3 Then Judas, which had betrayed him, when he saw that he was condemned, repented himself, and brought again the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders, 4 Saying, I have sinned in that I have betrayed the innocent blood. And they said, What is that to us? see thou to that. 5 And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself.


The action Judas took right before his death displays his admission of guilt and remorse. Should it or should it not suffice for him to be redeemed?

I think the question goes deeper then the mere meeting of certain requirements: Did Judas go to hell, or did he meet the requirements for repentance? I think the question should be rather, how deep is the love of God? What is the depth of the sacrifice of Christ? Can the son of perdition who was lost, be found again? Mercy says yes, love says yes, but questions remain. Can love be so deep that it sweeps a Judas along like a raging river, repentance and requirements being just bi-products of that overwhelming experience? I tend to believe so. I believe in hell (a state of being), but all my hope rests in the love of God, who will not leave me there.

Who is the prodigal and what is the depth of love that will move the father to run to meet him, once he comes to himself? Can the pain of being on the outside of the love of God be measured? Can the guilt be weighed? If not, then what the depths of mercy that can lift that one from those dark places? All questions we must do our best to answer from our own experience, I suppose.

Is it crazy to believe in hell, yet lean universalist? That's where I'm at, at the moment.

 

[Shibolet]

Yes, Judas did go to hell but, the hell according to Judaism aka sheol which is the grave. That's where we are all heading. The Christian doctrine of hell-fire does not exist; perhaps for Christians, not for the Jews and... Judas was a Jew.

Now, I would like to bring to the attention of the posters that Judas had nothing to do with the sentence of Jesus to be crucified. What caused Jesus to be arrested and condemned to the cross were the disciples of Jesus who were acclaiming him king of the Jews at the entrance of Jerusalem, a Roman province at the time. If Caesar was king over all Israel and a local Jew is acclaimed king of the Jews, what was Pilate expected to act if not by condemning him to the cross? Pilate would be in trouble himself if he had let that one go unnoticed. In fact, contrary to the Christian hatred of the Pharisees, it was the Pharisees that tried to save Jesus from being arrested by asking him to stop his disciples with that nonsense which could end up with him on the cross. As Jesus answered that he could not, he was arrested and taken to the cross with the Roman verdict nailed on the top of his cross: INRI. (Luke 19:37-40) Bottom line is that Jesus was crucified on political charges.

 

[DeiGratia]

Stranger,

I thank you for your thoughtful reply and apologize for the much delayed response.

>> I think the question goes deeper then the mere meeting of certain requirements: Did Judas go to hell, or did he meet the requirements for repentance?

I see what you mean. When I asked this question to my Christian friends, everyone said "Judas is in Hell". But I argue that Judas committing suicide shows how deeply regretful he was. He couldn't go on with the weight of what he has done. Can you imagine how much he was suffering from the pangs of his conscience? It's hard for me to think God not having pity on him.

An interesting thing is, if I describe the same scenario, without mentioning Judas at all, about someone who betrayed his friend but later regretted it so much that he killed himself, many of the same people (who think Judas in Hell) would say God will have mercy on him if he had repented. But as soon as I say "then the same with Judas", they change their opinions. I think it's because many churches have long taught that Judas is "the worst" villain (next to the Devil, maybe). It puzzles me ... when churches stress on repentance as the focal point in regards to salvation, why do they in the same breath discount Judas's repentance so dismissively.


>> Can love be so deep that it sweeps a Judas along like a raging river．．．

What a handsome expression ... It gives such a powerful image of the intrepid, unwavering love of God. It's exactly what I hope God's love to be ... you can't fight it, it's too powerful, you'll be swept away!


>> I believe in hell (a state of being), but all my hope rests in the love of God, who will not leave me there.

If Hell is a state of being, I think we can go there while we’re still alive too (as a state of mind). Judas surely went there in that case. I believe Hell exists, as a destruction of a soul, but I sure hope God's love won't let anyone stay there long enough that destruction is completed ... at least not for anyone who feels strong guilt for his wrongdoings.


>> Can the pain of being on the outside of the love of God be measured? Can the guilt be weighed? If not, then what the depths of mercy that can lift that one from those dark places?

These are great questions. How much it pains would depend on how much you love God. If you truly love God, the pain would be torturous. For unbelievers, I'd ask to interchange the word God with Good—In my mind, they are the same. How much does it pain when you know you're not Good, in other words, when you know you are guilty? If it pains too much, you'd desperately seek Good, and Good will lift you from those dark places. The depths of mercy can be that, as long as you seek God/Good, He/It will save you without exceptions. This is my humble belief, thus for me, Judas can't be an exception unlike what many Christians believe.


>> Is it crazy to believe in hell, yet lean universalist? That's where I'm at, at the moment.

I understand the appeal. Although I'm not aware of any theological giants endorsing Universalism, it's hard for me to robustly oppose it. When I talk to Universalists on a forum, I always end up saying "I so wish you're right" ... but what about criminals of the most atrocious kind feeling not even a shred of guilt for the enormities they commit? ... I got unbelievers covered though, I'm an inclusivist. I subscribe to the notion of Anonymous Christian.

 

[The Adept]

In my belief....there is no hell for Judas to be in...

But for those that believe in hell, I am interested in hearing their responses...

The irony here is that while there is no supernatural hell for him to go to, hell is the material Valley of Gehenna; which is where he lynched himself - such is the location of the Potters' Field.

 

[Nick the Pilot]

Wil, you said,

"But for those that believe in hell, I am interested in hearing their responses..."

--> I think it's possible that Judas went to hell, but I believe in a temporary hell, not an eternal one, which makes a big difference. I believe the Bible teaches the idea of a temporary, non-eternal hell.

Stranger, you said,

"Is it crazy to believe in hell, yet lean universalist?"

--> No, it is not crazy. The two ideas are compatible. I see no discrepancy between the two ideas.

 

[wil]

I believe hell is a construct of our mind...

Both heaven and hell are achievable in portion or in full on earth...and we dip our feet in both many times in this thing we call life...

 

[Gordian Knot]

Yep. Belief is the appropriate term here. There is no direct evidence of divinity. No test can be performed to prove or disprove such an entity. It all falls on personal belief.

 

[Shibolet]

--> I think it's possible that Judas went to hell, but I believe in a temporary hell, not an eternal one, which makes a big difference. I believe the Bible teaches the idea of a temporary, non-eternal hell.

There is no temporary hell. The only hell I believe in is the grave and it is not temporary. By the way, that's the only thing eternal about man. Every thing else is temporary.

 

[Shibolet]

Yep. Belief is the appropriate term here. There is no direct evidence of divinity. No test can be performed to prove or disprove such an entity. It all falls on personal belief.

I think there is. Logic is a concept that can be used as a direct evidence for the Divinity. I like to call the Divinity Primal Cause. If the universe is composed of caused elements that cannot cause themselves to exist, it is only obvious that the Primal Cause is evidenced to exist as a fact.

 

[Shibolet]

I believe hell is a construct of our mind...

Both heaven and hell are achievable in portion or in full on earth...and we dip our feet in both many times in this thing we call life...

You could be right on that one but, only we are to blame for making of this life either a hell or heaven.

 

[Thomas]

You could be right on that one but, only we are to blame for making of this life either a hell or heaven.

That's a good point. It also pinpoints the distinction between heaven and hell as theological concepts, and heaven and hell as a measure of comfort.

 

[wil]

You could be right on that one but, only we are to blame for making of this life either a hell or heaven.

Getting stuck in a mindset of blaming others is a gate to the down escalator...

 

[Shibolet]

That's a good point. It also pinpoints the distinction between heaven and hell as theological concepts, and heaven and hell as a measure of comfort.

Consciousness is necessary to experience comfort. Since there is no consciousness in hell, nothing can be experienced. In heaven yes but esoterically as heaven is only a peaceful state of mind we must be encouraged to invite into ourselves. (Luke 17:21)