What if Judas didn't do it?

[Neo-Scholastic]

I would love, however, to be presented with one single objective concept that every single person on the planet agrees to as being an absolute.

And they'd all be wrong. :-)

[The Grand Nudger]

Wouldn't matter if they were all wrong (in point of some objective fact) if the truth-making property was consensus itself. I feel like we can easily point out times and things where every person on the planet generally agreed to something that was very wrong - in point of fact or in point of moral import - assuming there's a difference. The issue of subhumans jumps to the front of mind.

An objective concept isn't properly formed by consensus building at all, though I think a person would be surprised at how much global consensus there is about minimal objectivist propositions. That would be a relative concept. Things we believe, not because they're true, maybe not even because they are personally satisfying, but because many people in our societies believe them.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Wouldn't matter if they were all wrong (in point of some objective fact) if the truth-making property was consensus itself. I feel like we can easily point out times and things where every person on the planet generally agreed to something that was very wrong - in point of fact or in point of moral import - assuming there's a difference. The issue of subhumans jumps to the front of mind.

An objective concept isn't properly formed by consensus building at all, though I think a person would be surprised at how much global consensus there is about minimal objectivist propositions. That would be a relative concept. Things we believe, not because they're true, maybe not even because they are personally satisfying, but because many people in our societies believe them.

I get your point. At the same time no personal existent truly has direct access to objective reality because that knowlege is always mediated by his or her subjective experience. Generally, knowlege people consider objective is considered so by imagining a third-person God's eye view.

[HappySkeptic]

I get your point. At the same time no personal existent truly has direct access to objective reality because that knowlege is always mediated by his or her subjective experience. Generally, knowlege people consider objective is considered so by imagining a third-person God's eye view.

A God's eye-view would be subjective to the consciousness known as God, wouldn't it?

Objective means that a consistent set of knowledge is available to any subjective observer who is willing to investigate it.  Unfortunately, the quantum world doesn't lend itself to objective knowledge.

[The Grand Nudger]

Wouldn't matter if they were all wrong (in point of some objective fact) if the truth-making property was consensus itself.  I feel like we can easily point out times and things where every person on the planet generally agreed to something that was very wrong - in point of fact or in point of moral import - assuming there's a difference.  The issue of subhumans jumps to the front of mind.  

An objective concept isn't properly formed by consensus building at all, though I think a person would be surprised at how much global consensus there is about minimal objectivist propositions.  That would be a relative concept.  Things we believe, not because they're true, maybe not even because they are personally satisfying, but because many people in our societies believe them.

I get your point. At the same time no personal existent truly has direct access to objective reality because that knowlege is always mediated by his or her subjective experience. Generally, knowlege people consider objective is considered so by imagining a third-person God's eye view.

Cant truly employ the word truly, in a claim denying that any of us possess any such thing. Don't get me wrong, I'm not disagreeing with you. I think it's certainly the case that what alot of people take to be objective comes from imaginary gods. They're wrong, objectively speaking. That would be, if it were true, the subjective...by definition.

-There I go using true again. Are word true? What is word?

[Foxaèr]

Subjectively. Judas. Subjectivity.

If a being, even a deific one, is sharing a personal perspective, it is doing so subjectively.

If someone else is believing the other being's personal perspective, he is doing so subjectively.

God's subjective opinion is only believed to be objectively true fallaciously via the number of believers who each, individually, subjectively think god's subjective notions aren't lies.

Just as two wrongs don't make a right, neither do multiple subjective perspectives make for a single objective truth.

Subjectivity is as eternal as god's supposed non-objective constancy.

There are no objective truths in the universe of religious faith.

Thus sayeth Judas, subjectively.

[Ferrocyanide]

Honestly, the whole thing in the Last Supper where Jesus outright states that Judas is going to betray him and tells him to do what he has to do (John 13:27)  only makes sense to me if Jesus sanctioned the betrayal in the first place.

Here is a quote I found from one of the old writings in my church. It interprets Judas' inclusion in the Passover, even statements that Jesus' knew about the betrayal, as attempts at redeeming Judas from that path.

"Even after he had twice pledged himself to betray the Saviour, there was opportunity for repentance. At the Passover supper Jesus proved His divinity by revealing the traitor's purpose. He tenderly included Judas in the ministry to the disciples. But the last appeal of love was unheeded. Then the case of Judas was decided, and the feet that Jesus had washed went forth to the betrayer's work."

Do you think that is something that makes sense?

Judas was hanging around Jesus, just like the others apostles. He saw the magical abilities of Jesus.

Was walking around town and casting out demons, fixing leprosy, fixing the vision of people a regular thing or was it something ultra rare?
Because if it is something ultra rare, what would motivate Judas to betray his friend, his very close friend with which he spent years for 30 silver coins?

On top of that, the story is treating Judas as an idiot.
The story says that at the last supper, Jesus used his magical abilities to know who was going to betray him.
Is Judas an idiot? Is Judas such a huge idiot that he did not understand what Jesus was talking about?

Think about the story a bit. See if it makes sense to you.

[The Grand Nudger]

Look, jesus tried to save The Jew..and they knew he was magic, they were just bad that way.

[John 6IX Breezy]

Do you think that is something that makes sense?

From what I recall, the issue wasn't that Judas didn't believe Jesus was the Christ, but rather that all the disciples believed Jesus had come to overthrow the government and establish a kingdom. So, the motive would be that Judas expected Jesus to resist arrest and kickstart the revolution. The regret he later feels for betraying innocent blood comes from seeing that Jesus didn't resist.

Here's another quote from the chapter above. 

"Judas did not, however, believe that Christ would permit Himself to be arrested... Since He had escaped so many snares, thought Judas, He certainly would not now allow Himself to be taken. Judas decided to put the matter to the test. If Jesus really was the Messiah, the people, for whom He had done so much, would rally about Him, and would proclaim Him king. This would forever settle many minds that were now in uncertainty. Judas would have the credit of having placed the king on David's throne. And this act would secure to him the first position, next to Christ, in the new kingdom."

[Ferrocyanide]

Do you think that is something that makes sense?

From what I recall, the issue wasn't that Judas didn't believe Jesus was the Christ, but rather that all the disciples believed Jesus had come to overthrow the government and establish a kingdom. So, the motive would be that Judas expected Jesus to resist arrest and kickstart the revolution. The regret he later feels for betraying innocent blood comes from seeing that Jesus didn't resist.

Here's another quote from the chapter above. 

"Judas did not, however, believe that Christ would permit Himself to be arrested... Since He had escaped so many snares, thought Judas, He certainly would not now allow Himself to be taken. Judas decided to put the matter to the test. If Jesus really was the Messiah, the people, for whom He had done so much, would rally about Him, and would proclaim Him king. This would forever settle many minds that were now in uncertainty. Judas would have the credit of having placed the king on David's throne. And this act would secure to him the first position, next to Christ, in the new kingdom."

I am curious. From which book are you getting those lines from?
Also, if it was you, wouldn’t you ask Jesus about his mission rather than just deciding “Let me go and tell the cops where Jesus is located.”

Again, I’ll ask. If Jesus points to you and tells you are going to betray him, would you betray him?
Does it make sense that Judas just ignores that at the supper and just goes on with his betrayal?
Would Judas or you just ignore it? You wouldn’t talk about it at all with Jesus?