Is Judas Iscariot saved?

[JackRT]

I don't know if this is proven in the Scripture or anywhere else, but I remember hearing in church sermon once that Judas Iscariot was a temple scribe before he became a disciple of Christ.

The lives of the apostles and other early disciples are mostly legendary. This is a legend that I have never heard before. I suspect it to be pure speculation.

Also, as far as I remember, to my knowledge, none of the other disciples had any formal religious training or temple service, did they ???

The only one who seems to have had formal training was Saul/Paul who took rabbinical training under Rabbi Gamaliel of Bet Hillel.

Saul of Tarsus, later renamed the Apostle Paul (after his incredible conversion to Christianity), was at one time paid by the temple to persecute Christians, but he wasn't formally trained as a temple priest or scribe. He was just a fanatical member of the temple laity, the way I understand it, right ? I don't think his position as persecutor of Christians was an official temple title, was it ? I think he was paid in sort of a shady, under the table arrangement, wasn't he ???

I suspect that Saul was an "undercover agent" of the temple guard.

So it is interesting, the only disciple who turned against Jesus was the one who had formal religious training, isn't it ?! Doesn't say very much for organized religion, does it ?!

While it is interesting, I don't think you can draw any conclusions from this.

Maybe that's what the message was about when Jesus withered the Fig Tree ? You know, the parables used by Jesus were also prophecies, don't you ?!

Prophetic only in the sense of being insights into spiritual and societal conditions.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

We can get a hint about Judas from the word "Iscariot" appended to his name. This is not a family name but a sort of nickname. It seems to be derived from the Latin word "Sicarii" meaning "Knifemen" which refers to the Zealot sect within Judaism. Judas was likely a Zealot.

You are wrong again my friend.

The Sicarii as anti-Roman assassins arose in the 40s AD so likely Judas was already dead by the time they were active. Also, the Zealots are a different group frim the Sicarii if you read your Josephus, but modern commentators often lump them together as both were nationalist. Another of the disciples, Simon, was known as a Zealot so if Judas was also one, why wasn't he known as Judas the Zealot?

Iscariot problably means "of Kerioth" a town in Judaea, making him one of the few non-galilean disciples. This is judged the most likely derivation by most first century scholars as it fits the Greek transliteration of Iscariot best (which would originally have been an aramaic nickname like Cephas for Simon Peter).
Alternate theories are that it derives from the Aramaic for choking and may thus be a retrospective name given to him on account of his death or that it is derived from the Aramaic for red (Judas is traditionally portrayed with red hair).

Following his arrest in the Garden of Gethsemane Jesus was dragged before the high priest and the “elders’. It is quite unlikely that there was any kind of formal trial at this time. To begin with there was no substantive religious charge that could be brought against him. It was not blasphemy to claim to be the "messiah" or a "son of God". If there was a blasphemy, a trial before the Sanhedrin would have brought that out and a sentence of death by stoning could have been brought down. The Sanhedrin did not lose the right to impose the death penalty until the year AD 39. The execution would have to be ratified by the Roman governor. This was just a rubber stamp procedure, after all what did the Romans care about Jews stoning one of their own to death for some obscure religious crime?

We also must take into account the nature of the Sanhedrin itself. It was a very dignified body of seventy elders somewhat in the nature of a supreme court. The high priest chaired but did not control the Sanhedrin, the majority of whose members were Pharisees. The Pharisees opposed the high priest at just about every turn. The high priest was in fact perhaps the most hated man in Judea. Under Roman administration, the high priest was personally appointed by the Roman governor. Caiaphas was the personal choice of Roman procurator Valerius Gratus. The Pharisees regarded Caiaphas as a collaborator and a traitor. The Sanhedrin was not likely to respond to a sudden midnight summons from the high priest. As a matter of fact, it was explicitly forbidden for the Sanhedrin to meet at night or on a religious holiday. They were also not to meet in any place but the Chamber of Hewn Stone on Temple Mount.

While the high priesthood (not "the Jews") certainly collaborated with the Romans, they did not condemn or execute Jesus.

Yes, a full Sanhedrin of 71 called the Greater Sanhedrin, was unlikely to meet. But a Lesser Sanhedrin of 23 members could easily have been called.
The Sanhedrin at this time were dominated by the Bet Shammai - from where Rabbinical Judaism would later arise. Now, they argued with the high priest and eventually replaced them in about 191 BC as head thereof when the title of Nasi was created. You are correct in arguing Pharisaic dominance, however a high priest could still call the court and convene it for a criminal trial and as stated above did not require the full numbers.
Also, while the court met at the Hall of Hewn stones as you mention, it would also meet at other locales at different periods so the fact of it meeting at Annias' house isn't that abnormal but it does underwrite the gospel writers' contention that it was an illegal meeting, hence placing it at night etc.
The fact is that it was during passover and Pontius Pilate had a turbulent period as Governor and there was a recent uprising of a Galilean prophet Judas and his followers preceding this. It is highly likely that during such a turbulent time, with so many pilgrims in Jerusalem of different Judaic sects, that the Romans would place a moratorium on allowing stonings for blasphemy. The Romans weren't idiots, they knew religion was a thing that caused frequent disorders in Judaea, especially over passover. They had initially intervened in Judaea over just such a dispute.
Also, Jesus was Galilean and thus fell under the tetrarch Herodus Antipas, so therefor was outside the Jurisdiction of the Lesser Sanhedrin as a criminal court without his consent.
For these reasons, the clandestine meeting by Roman collaborator Sanhedrin and then sending Jesus for execution to the Roman Prefect are highly plausible historically.
While your objections are noted and have some validity, some deeper study will show you that the gospel account is equally plausible.

 

[stephen583]

Well. While the history of Judas may remain a topic of controversy among Bible scholars forever, the main question put forward by this thread "Is Judas Iscariot Saved ? " is not really open to discussion in principle as far as Christian theology is concerned. None of us can judge Judas, no matter what he is alleged to have done or not done. I believe the Scripture states unequivocally over and over again, "Judgment is Mine, Sayeth the Lord" ! "Anyone who says Racca, is in jepordy of damnation himself" ! You guys don't actually need the chapter and verse quoted to you, do you ? This is like Sunday School Christianity 101.

Is Judas in Heaven or Hell ? It's not really my decision to make.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Some aspects of the story of Judas are contradictory. All four evangelists number Judas among "the twelve" apostles. Paul does not mention Judas explicitly but does say in 1 Corinthians 15:5 when speaking of the resurrection of Jesus "that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve." Whenever the phrase "the Twelve" is used in New Testament scripture the meaning is very clear that the reference is to the original twelve apostles of Jesus. Paul suggests here that Judas was a witness to the resurrection.

If we turn to the Gospels we quickly discover that in Mark, Luke and John the story of Judas ends with the betrayal and nothing further is mentioned of his fate. It is more explicit inMatthew 27:3-5 "When Judas, who had betrayed him, saw that Jesus was condemned, he was seized with remorse and returned the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and the elders. 'I have sinned,' he said, 'for I have betrayed innocent blood.' 'What is that to us?' they replied. 'That's your responsibility.' So Judas threw the money into the temple and left. Then he went away and hanged himself." This event clearly took place after Jesus had been seized but before the crucifixion and the resurrection. Acts 1:18 gives a more lurid description of the suicide of Judas but is not helpful in placing the time. The Acts account also provides further contradictions both in the manner of his death and what happened to the money.

Note also in Acts 1:24-26 that Matthias, the replacement for Judas, was elected after the ascension and just before Pentecost and thus could not be counted as among "the twelve" as a resurrection witness. There is a clear contradiction here. Either Paul is wrong or Matthew is wrong. Let me suggest to you that Paul knew nothing of any betrayal by Judas because the story was not developed until after Paul's death. The story itself is a midrashic construction based on a number of Old Testamentreferences. The necessity to develop Judas as a reviled scapegoat was to deflect blame from the Romans to the Jews in order to assist Christian survival in a Roman world, which was already turning a very negative eye on the early Christians. What better way to do so than to choose a character bearing the very name of the nation of the Jews? This aspect of scriptural motivation could be developed much further.

Matthew 19:28 Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, at the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

Luke 22:28 You are those who have stood by me in my trials. 29 And I confer on you a kingdom, just as my Father conferred one on me, 30 so that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom and sit on thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

In both citations above Jesus is addressing “the twelve” (including Judas) indicating to them that they (including Judas) would be with him in the kingdom. If Judas did indeed betray Jesus and is condemned then either Jesus was unaware of Judas’ impending betrayal or Jesus lied to Judas (and the other eleven). Everywhere a reference is made to ”the twelve” the roster includes Judas. But then we come to the following citation.

1 Corinthians 15:3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve.

Paul here is telling us that Judas was a witness to the resurrection. No mention is made of the betrayal or the “fact” that Judas committed suicide before the resurrection. It must also be pointed out that Mattias was not chosen to replace Judas until almost two months after the resurrection. There are some serious contradictions in these three sources. We do not have to invent ways to reconcile these problems when there is a single simple explanation --- the betrayal and suicide of Judas are a late developing interpretive mythology that Paul was unaware of.

One further point deserves to be mentioned and that is the historicity of the ‘thirty pieces of silver’. The fact of the matter is that pieces of silver were not used in the Temple and had not been for over 200 years. They were replaced by minted coins thereby avoiding the necessity of weighing on a balance to determine value.

Contradictions only exist when we are not flexible in what the text could be saying.

The twelve that seen Jesus after his resurrection is referring to Matthias and not Judas. For there is no indication in the text that it says that the 12th was in reference to Judas; And even if it was talking about Judas: This would not be impossible for Judas to see Jesus. Judas could have seen Jesus while Judas was in the place of Torment in Sheol. But more than likely this text is referring to Matthias and not Judas. Remember, Paul was writing with the events having taken place already. Matthias would have been of the 12 already to Paul at the point of his writing to the Corinthians. Also, Matthias did not have to be a disciple yet to have seen Jesus. Paul writing about Matthias having already been a disciple makes him one of the twelve (Regardless if Matthias had not yet been a disciple at the time of seeing Jesus when He was resurrected). Also, Matthias could have seen Jesus when He ascended, too (After he became a disciple), too. So again, there is no contradiction here.


...

 

[PsychoeDial]

Again the question remains. When Jesus was predestined to save the world as that final sacrifice, the unblemished lamb nailed to the cross and who was the propitiation for our sins, how else could his mission to earth be accomplished if not for Judas?

In the scriptures we read Jesus tell him to go forth and do what he intended to do, when Judas was with the Disciples and Christ at the last supper. Jesus foreknew Judas' intentions in that moment. Jesus commanded Judas to act.

I believe everything that happened from that moment on was part of the plan for the salvation of the world. Otherwise, what would have happened otherwise?

Let's imagine.
Judas rises from the table, Jesus calls him traitor, the 11 Disciples attack Judas and stop him from betraying Christ.
There is no subsequent dragging before the temple elders, there is no subsequent appearance before Pilate. There is no crucifixion.

Jesus remains an itinerant rabbi teaching about the Father and grace and peace until the day he dies a natural death. And the world after his passing remains the same.

 

[sdowney717]

Jesus said Judas was lost, the only one Jesus ever lost and that was God's will to fulfill what God had spoken about Judas. John 17

And Jesus says Judas was a devil so then a son of Hell.
John 6:70
Jesus answered them, “Did I not choose you, the twelve, and one of you is a devil?”

The apostles comment that Judas went to his own place in the afterlife.
"25 to take part in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place.”

That place was not heaven, this place is not the same place to which the apostles know they are destined for when they die.

Acts 1
Matthias Chosen
15 And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples (altogether the number of names was about a hundred and twenty), and said, 16 “Men and brethren, this Scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit spoke before by the mouth of David concerning Judas, who became a guide to those who arrested Jesus; 17 for he was numbered with us and obtained a part in this ministry.”

18 (Now this man purchased a field with the wages of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst open in the middle and all his entrails gushed out. 19 And it became known to all those dwelling in Jerusalem; so that field is called in their own language, Akel Dama, that is, Field of Blood.)

20 “For it is written in the Book of Psalms:

‘Let his dwelling place be desolate,
And let no one live in it’;

and,

‘Let another take his office.’

21 “Therefore, of these men who have accompanied us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us,22 beginning from the baptism of John to that day when He was taken up from us, one of these must become a witness with us of His resurrection.”

23 And they proposed two: Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias. 24 And they prayed and said, “You, O Lord, who know the hearts of all, show which of these two You have chosen 25 to take part in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place.” 26 And they cast their lots, and the lot fell on Matthias. And he was numbered with the eleven apostles.

‘Let his dwelling place be desolate,
And let no one live in it’;

This signifies DEATH for Judas, there is no life for Judas, Hell is a dead desolation of destruction where no one lives, since they are dead. This is not a physical desolation, it is a spiritual desolation and spiritual death which those in Hell experience.

 

[PsychoeDial]

God appointed Judas to fulfill his will for the mission of Christ and then damned him for all eternity?

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Jesus said Judas was lost, the only one Jesus ever lost and that was God's will to fulfill what God had spoken about Judas. John 17

And Jesus says Judas was a devil so then a son of Hell.
John 6:70
Jesus answered them, “Did I not choose you, the twelve, and one of you is a devil?”

The apostles comment that Judas went to his own place in the afterlife.
"25 to take part in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place.”

That place was not heaven, this place is not the same place to which the apostles know they are destined for when they die.

Acts 1
Matthias Chosen
15 And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples (altogether the number of names was about a hundred and twenty), and said, 16 “Men and brethren, this Scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit spoke before by the mouth of David concerning Judas, who became a guide to those who arrested Jesus; 17 for he was numbered with us and obtained a part in this ministry.”

18 (Now this man purchased a field with the wages of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst open in the middle and all his entrails gushed out. 19 And it became known to all those dwelling in Jerusalem; so that field is called in their own language, Akel Dama, that is, Field of Blood.)

20 “For it is written in the Book of Psalms:

‘Let his dwelling place be desolate,
And let no one live in it’;

and,

‘Let another take his office.’

21 “Therefore, of these men who have accompanied us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us,22 beginning from the baptism of John to that day when He was taken up from us, one of these must become a witness with us of His resurrection.”

23 And they proposed two: Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias. 24 And they prayed and said, “You, O Lord, who know the hearts of all, show which of these two You have chosen 25 to take part in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place.” 26 And they cast their lots, and the lot fell on Matthias. And he was numbered with the eleven apostles.

‘Let his dwelling place be desolate,
And let no one live in it’;

This signifies DEATH for Judas, there is no life for Judas, Hell is a dead desolation of destruction where no one lives, since they are dead. This is not a physical desolation, it is a spiritual desolation and spiritual death which those in Hell experience.

The quote in John 6 is out of proportion as it recounts a period where disciples abandon Jesus on account of His teachings. He is talking to the disciples who He asks if they also want to leave. Peter than talks how Jesus has the words of Life.
This is said as a rebuke to Peter for saying that they won't abandon Him (which they all will during the passion, except maybe John). It does not mean Judas is an actual devil and if Jesus could pardon the Good Thief who acknowledges he was suffering just punishment, why can't He pardon a repentant Judas?

The quote from Acts 1 also proves nothing for Judas may still have been alive then. It might just mean he went Home while they had remained. There is nothing in the text that says this refers in any way to the afterlife. Even if Judas was already dead, it does not mean He went to hell, for the disciples themselves would only be speculating as well.

As people have been saying repeatedly, the only one who truly knows where Judas is, is God. Not the Apostles. (As I said in the original post, this whole thread is purely speculation on the matter)
This therefore is not a definitive answer, but thank you for adding these verses to the discussion, they certainly are applicable.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Following his arrest in the Garden of Gethsemane Jesus was dragged before the high priest and the “elders’. It is quite unlikely that there was any kind of formal trial at this time. To begin with there was no substantive religious charge that could be brought against him. It was not blasphemy to claim to be the "messiah" or a "son of God". If there was a blasphemy, a trial before the Sanhedrin would have brought that out and a sentence of death by stoning could have been brought down. The Sanhedrin did not lose the right to impose the death penalty until the year AD 39. The execution would have to be ratified by the Roman governor. This was just a rubber stamp procedure, after all what did the Romans care about Jews stoning one of their own to death for some obscure religious crime?

We also must take into account the nature of the Sanhedrin itself. It was a very dignified body of seventy elders somewhat in the nature of a supreme court. The high priest chaired but did not control the Sanhedrin, the majority of whose members were Pharisees. The Pharisees opposed the high priest at just about every turn. The high priest was in fact perhaps the most hated man in Judea. Under Roman administration, the high priest was personally appointed by the Roman governor. Caiaphas was the personal choice of Roman procurator Valerius Gratus. The Pharisees regarded Caiaphas as a collaborator and a traitor. The Sanhedrin was not likely to respond to a sudden midnight summons from the high priest. As a matter of fact, it was explicitly forbidden for the Sanhedrin to meet at night or on a religious holiday. They were also not to meet in any place but the Chamber of Hewn Stone on Temple Mount.

While the high priesthood (not "the Jews") certainly collaborated with the Romans, they did not condemn or execute Jesus.



We can get a hint about Judas from the word "Iscariot" appended to his name. This is not a family name but a sort of nickname. It seems to be derived from the Latin word "Sicarii" meaning "Knifemen" which refers to the Zealot sect within Judaism. Judas was likely a Zealot.

I forgot to mention the bit about blasphemy in my previous post.

If you look at the gospel accounts, Jesus frequently says things that would constitute blasphemy by any first century definition and lead to stoning.

For instance, in John 8:58 He says: "before Abraham was born, I am". Here He is referencing the name of God as given to Moses on mount Sinai in Exodus to Himself. Essentially saying 'I am God', which is how the Jews took it in the text and wanted to seize Him.

They only needed two witnesses to attest to blasphemy, which really would not have been a difficult thing to organise. However, I don't think they went this route, likely as the Sanhedrin would not have wanted to alienate Jesus' many followers.

The fact that He was crucified actually point to a verdict of insurrection against the Roman state as this was the punishment reserved for this. For instance the slaves in Spartacus' revolt or a slave that 'revolted' against his master were crucified. The Romans didn't crucify everyone, so likely the two thieves were also rebels against Roman order, probably highwaymen which limited the smooth functioning of the province and were thus held to be in revolt.

In the context of Judaea, this means that Jesus was killed for calling Himself King of the Jews, which is in fact what we see inscribed on the Titulus above His head. That is a serious message of revolt against the Province of Judaea and why Pontius Pilate lay so much stress on asking if Jesus was a king.

In conclusion, I think Jesus could easily have been found guilty of Blasphemy, but was charged with Lese Majesty of the Roman state and insurrection in the end. Therefore, if the Sanhedrin could not pin blasphemy on Him, which I think was Jack RT's point, it makes sense for them to send Him to the Roman authorities for Rebellion. The Sanhedrin definately could not put people to death for civil offences, but that would mean that the Sanhedrin having the right to stone someone is immaterial to Jesus' execution.

 

[sdowney717]

The quote in John 6 is out of proportion as it recounts a period where disciples abandon Jesus on account of His teachings. He is talking to the disciples who He asks if they also want to leave. Peter than talks how Jesus has the words of Life.
This is said as a rebuke to Peter for saying that they won't abandon Him (which they all will during the passion, except maybe John). It does not mean Judas is an actual devil and if Jesus could pardon the Good Thief who acknowledges he was suffering just punishment, why can't He pardon a repentant Judas?

The quote from Acts 1 also proves nothing for Judas may still have been alive then. It might just mean he went Home while they had remained. There is nothing in the text that says this refers in any way to the afterlife. Even if Judas was already dead, it does not mean He went to hell, for the disciples themselves would only be speculating as well.

As people have been saying repeatedly, the only one who truly knows where Judas is, is God. Not the Apostles. (As I said in the original post, this whole thread is purely speculation on the matter)
This therefore is not a definitive answer, but thank you for adding these verses to the discussion, they certainly are applicable.

Considering this graphic description of what happens to Judas, he is very much not alive and gone home.

18 (Now this man purchased a field with the wages of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst open in the middle and all his entrails gushed out. 19 And it became known to all those dwelling in Jerusalem; so that field is called in their own language, Akel Dama, that is, Field of Blood.)

Judas is a good example that our destiny and salvation is of the Lord and not of ourselves. We see Judas numbered among the 12, yet his destiny was determined beforehand by God according to God's will. All people have a destiny predestined by God from before the world was made. All people do though go willingly along the path they walk.
Satan spoke through Peter however Jesus interceded for Peter, Christ told Peter he would be turned back again to God. Peter and Judas both had serious spiritual problems.

Matthew 16:23 New King James Version (NKJV)
23 But He turned and said to Peter, “Get behind Me, Satan! You are an offense to Me, for you are not mindful of the things of God, but the things of men.”

Luke 22:32 New King James Version (NKJV)
32 But I have prayed for you, that your faith should not fail; and when you have returned to Me, strengthen your brethren.”

Judas was also taken by Satan, but there was no intercession by Christ for Judas, Jesus told Judas (satan), what you do, do it quickly. Unless Christ is interceding for you, you will be walking the path of destruction.

John 13:27 New King James Version (NKJV)
27 Now after the piece of bread, Satan entered him. Then Jesus said to him, “What you do, do quickly.”

For those who are His, this
Psalm 23:3
He restores my soul; He leads me in the paths of righteousness For His name’s sake.

To be led, one must be under control.
Job 13:27
You put my feet in the stocks, And watch closely all my paths. You set a limit for the soles of my feet.

Rebels can not and do not walk the paths of God, they walk a path made themselves.
Job 24:13
“There are those who rebel against the light; They do not know its ways Nor abide in its paths.

Rebels walk the path of the destroyer, but His people they live by God's every spoken word.
Psalm 17:4
Concerning the works of men, By the word of Your lips, I have kept away from the paths of the destroyer.

Isaiah 59:8
The way of peace they have not known, And there is no justice in their ways; They have made themselves crooked paths; Whoever takes that way shall not know peace.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Considering this graphic description of what happens to Judas, he is very much not alive and gone home.

18 (Now this man purchased a field with the wages of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst open in the middle and all his entrails gushed out. 19 And it became known to all those dwelling in Jerusalem; so that field is called in their own language, Akel Dama, that is, Field of Blood.)

Judas is a good example that our destiny and salvation is of the Lord and not of ourselves. We see Judas numbered among the 12, yet his destiny was determined beforehand by God according to God's will. All people have a destiny predestined by God from before the world was made. All people do though go willingly along the path they walk.
Satan spoke through Peter however Jesus interceded for Peter, Christ told Peter he would be turned back again to God. Peter and Judas both had serious spiritual problems.

Matthew 16:23 New King James Version (NKJV)
23 But He turned and said to Peter, “Get behind Me, Satan! You are an offense to Me, for you are not mindful of the things of God, but the things of men.”

Luke 22:32 New King James Version (NKJV)
32 But I have prayed for you, that your faith should not fail; and when you have returned to Me, strengthen your brethren.”

Judas was also taken by Satan, but there was no intercession by Christ for Judas, Jesus told Judas (satan), what you do, do it quickly. Unless Christ is interceding for you, you will be walking the path of destruction.

John 13:27 New King James Version (NKJV)
27 Now after the piece of bread, Satan entered him. Then Jesus said to him, “What you do, do quickly.”

For those who are His, this
Psalm 23:3
He restores my soul; He leads me in the paths of righteousness For His name’s sake.

To be led, one must be under control.
Job 13:27
You put my feet in the stocks, And watch closely all my paths. You set a limit for the soles of my feet.

Rebels can not and do not walk the paths of God, they walk a path made themselves.
Job 24:13
“There are those who rebel against the light; They do not know its ways Nor abide in its paths.

Rebels walk the path of the destroyer, but His people they live by God's every spoken word.
Psalm 17:4
Concerning the works of men, By the word of Your lips, I have kept away from the paths of the destroyer.

Isaiah 59:8
The way of peace they have not known, And there is no justice in their ways; They have made themselves crooked paths; Whoever takes that way shall not know peace.

What I meant was that at the time the Apostles were speaking in that part of Acts, there is no proof Judas already died. The verses quoted could refer to a later time period and we do not know whether the Apostles would be aware of his death at that time anyway even if he had already passed away

 

[JoeP222w]

I know this is a tough one.
People would want to have revenge if a close associate betrayed them, but Jesus would just turn the other cheek.

Judas followed Christ throughout his ministry, was considered one of the twelve close disciples.

In Matthew 19:28 Jesus tells the disciples that they will have twelve thrones in the afterlife. Obviously Judas had been present at this discussion.

In all four gospel accounts Judas is present at the last supper. He leaves according to John, but he had already eaten by then. All the accounts seem to have him present during the first Eucharist (I know traditional accounts have him already gone by then, but if you read all four gospel accounts, I don't think thats justified).

He was familiar with Jesus to the point of calling Him master and of course the kiss of betrayal. Obviously he listened and understood Jesus' message as much as any other disciple.

He was repentent. He returned the money to the priests and was so tortured by his betrayal that he committed suicide. Now whether someone is saved that committed suicide is its own thorny problem, but if you see it as only another sin (which won't neccesarily doom you for having one sin on your slate, unless you hold mortal sins exist) or if you believe in once saved always saved, is it not possible we might meet Judas in heaven instead of the coldest circle of hell?

I would love to hear some thoughts on this matter.

"Judas followed Christ throughout his ministry, was considered one of the twelve close disciples. "

Appearing to follow Christ does not mean one is saved.

----------
Who sits on the twelve thrones is not named, so it would be a mistake to assume Judas is sitting on one of those thrones. That 12th throne could easily have be reserved for Matthais, who took Judas' position.

----------
"In all four gospel accounts Judas is present at the last supper. He leaves according to John, but he had already eaten by then. All the accounts seem to have him present during the first Eucharist (I know traditional accounts have him already gone by then, but if you read all four gospel accounts, I don't think thats justified)."

Which again does not mean he was saved.

--------
"He was familiar with Jesus to the point of calling Him master and of course the kiss of betrayal. Obviously he listened and understood Jesus' message as much as any other disciple."

A person can call a person "Master" but that does not mean he is regenerate. Hearing the word of God does not absolutely mean one is saved.

John 6:64-65 says that Jesus knew that people would hear his words and still not believe, giving clear implication of Judas not being a believer:

John 6:64-65 But there are some of you who do not believe." (For Jesus knew from the beginning who those were who did not believe, and who it was who would betray him.) (65) And he said, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father."


-------------
"He was repentent. He returned the money to the priests and was so tortured by his betrayal that he committed suicide. Now whether someone is saved that committed suicide is its own thorny problem, but if you see it as only another sin (which won't neccesarily doom you for having one sin on your slate, unless you hold mortal sins exist) or if you believe in once saved always saved, is it not possible we might meet Judas in heaven instead of the coldest circle of hell?"

Judas had regret because of the consequences of his betrayal, but not remorse for offending the holy and perfect God. There are different kinds of repentance.

-----------
There is no indication in the Bible that Judas was saved, but all the more clearly that he was "the son of perdition".

 

[JackRT]

The fact that He was crucified actually point to a verdict of insurrection against the Roman state as this was the punishment reserved for this. For instance the slaves in Spartacus' revolt or a slave that 'revolted' against his master were crucified. The Romans didn't crucify everyone, so likely the two thieves were also rebels against Roman order, probably highwaymen which limited the smooth functioning of the province and were thus held to be in revolt.

Crucifixion was reserved for just two crimes: rebellious slaves and political agitators of the lowest social classes. As a punishment it was designed to inflict maximum suffering and humiliation both before and after death and on both the victim and any onlookers. It was intended to be a slow agonizing death that sometimes took as long as a week. The fact that Jesus died after just a few hours indicates that he was physically debilitated, perhaps by torture and/or a long incarceration, before being crucified. Observers were kept well away from the site of execution and were never allowed to speak to or give any comfort to the victim. Finally, to complete the humiliation, the body was discarded into a shallow grave to be consumed by feral dogs and scavenger birds. Of all the tens of thousands of crucifixions the remains of only one have ever been found that was given a proper burial. Interestingly enough these remains indicated that the victim had been nailed through his ankles into the sides of the upright post.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

"Judas followed Christ throughout his ministry, was considered one of the twelve close disciples. "

Appearing to follow Christ does not mean one is saved.

----------
Who sits on the twelve thrones is not named, so it would be a mistake to assume Judas is sitting on one of those thrones. That 12th throne could easily have be reserved for Matthais, who took Judas' position.

----------
"In all four gospel accounts Judas is present at the last supper. He leaves according to John, but he had already eaten by then. All the accounts seem to have him present during the first Eucharist (I know traditional accounts have him already gone by then, but if you read all four gospel accounts, I don't think thats justified)."

Which again does not mean he was saved.

--------
"He was familiar with Jesus to the point of calling Him master and of course the kiss of betrayal. Obviously he listened and understood Jesus' message as much as any other disciple."

A person can call a person "Master" but that does not mean he is regenerate. Hearing the word of God does not absolutely mean one is saved.

John 6:64-65 says that Jesus knew that people would hear his words and still not believe, giving clear implication of Judas not being a believer:

John 6:64-65 But there are some of you who do not believe." (For Jesus knew from the beginning who those were who did not believe, and who it was who would betray him.) (65) And he said, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father."


-------------
"He was repentent. He returned the money to the priests and was so tortured by his betrayal that he committed suicide. Now whether someone is saved that committed suicide is its own thorny problem, but if you see it as only another sin (which won't neccesarily doom you for having one sin on your slate, unless you hold mortal sins exist) or if you believe in once saved always saved, is it not possible we might meet Judas in heaven instead of the coldest circle of hell?"

Judas had regret because of the consequences of his betrayal, but not remorse for offending the holy and perfect God. There are different kinds of repentance.

-----------
There is no indication in the Bible that Judas was saved, but all the more clearly that he was "the son of perdition".

I beg to differ, but you are ascribing conclusions that are not at all clear from the text. "There is no indication he was saved" is actually ambivalent in my understanding and there are some parts that support the one view or the other, hence I asked that we discuss the possibility.

On that note, the part in John 17:12 where Jesus talks of the son of Perdition is an excellent addition to the discussion. I had not considered this before. This can however be translated to 'the lost child' as Luther famously did, so is not clear either.

The other instance where the term the son of perdition appears in 2 Thessalonnians either refer to the Antichrist or Antiochus IV Epiphanes so is not applicable here.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Crucifixion was reserved for just two crimes: rebellious slaves and political agitators of the lowest social classes. As a punishment it was designed to inflict maximum suffering and humiliation both before and after death and on both the victim and any onlookers. It was intended to be a slow agonizing death that sometimes took as long as a week. The fact that Jesus died after just a few hours indicates that he was physically debilitated, perhaps by torture and/or a long incarceration, before being crucified. Observers were kept well away from the site of execution and were never allowed to speak to or give any comfort to the victim. Finally, to complete the humiliation, the body was discarded into a shallow grave to be consumed by feral dogs and scavenger birds. Of all the tens of thousands of crucifixions the remains of only one have ever been found that was given a proper burial. Interestingly enough these remains indicated that the victim had been nailed through his ankles into the sides of the upright post.

You are correct. Which was why Joseph of Arimathea had to ask special dispensation to bury and receive the body. This all fits the Biblical narrative.

However as the crucifixion of the inhabitants of Jerusalem by Titus shows, all rebels could be crucified. The Romans weren't picky with their enemies' class.

Could you please furnish details on this crucifixion victim that had been found with ankle nail wounds? I would like to investigate that further.

 

[JackRT]

Could you please furnish details on this crucifixion victim that had been found with ankle nail wounds? I would like to investigate that further.

http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/...of-crucifixion-and-roman-crucifixion-methods/