Was Judas een VERRADER? | Jezus van Nazareth

Подписаться 76 тыс.

Просмотров 2,8 тыс.

50% 1

Kefah reist door Israël, het hartland van het christendom, waar hij de draad van het verhaal oppakt na Jezus' kruisiging. Eerst probeert hij erachter te komen wat Judas, misschien wel de meest intrigerende apostel, tot diens verraad van Jezus dreef.
Bekijk de hele aflevering van Jezus van Nazareth hier: www.npostart.nl/jezus-van-naz...
Bekijk de hele aflevering van Jezus van Nazareth hier:
www.npostart.nl/jezus-van-naz...
Abonneer op ons kanaal via bit.ly/AbonneerEO
Meer van de EO zien? ✝️
👉 Instagram: / omroepeo
👉 Facebook: / evangelischeomroep
👉 Twitter: / eonl
👉 Website: eo.nl
#Jezus #judas #christendom

Опубликовано:

20 мар 2023

Ссылка:

Скачать:

Готовим ссылку...

Добавить в:

Мой плейлист

Посмотреть позже

Комментарии : 9

@johnraedts2219 Год назад

Ik denk dat Judas zich dicht bij een afgrond zichzelf opgehangen heeft, en toen naar beneden is gevallen, hij was zo verdrietig dat het beter was niet geboren te zijn,

@gekemoses6684 Год назад

Judas had wel een keuze. Maar hij had het geld meer lief dan Jezus. Dus niks offer. Het was hebzucht

@keesDonkersteeg-zb7cf Год назад

zonder Judas geen Cristendom? ik denk dat God alles in Zijn Hand heeft, Judas had een keuze, net als ieder van ons,God heeft Zichzelf overgegeven !

@thegospelmessenger1corinth634 10 месяцев назад

Graag deel ik met u het evangelie van redding in de dispensatie van God Zijn genade. “Genade kan gedefinieerd worden als de onverdiende gunst van God voor mensen die Zijn veroordeling verdienen.” God rekent ons geen zonden aan omdat er al voor betaald is (elke zonde voor elke persoon). Christus werd gemaakt om de zonde van iedereen te zijn (2 Korintiërs 5:21). Volledige verzoening wordt echter pas bereikt als een individu zich "verzoent" met God (2 Korintiërs 5:20). Dit gebeurt door geloof in het evangelie van onze zaligheid. De hele mensheid is vergeven, maar niet iedereen gelooft het. Vergeven worden staat niet gelijk aan gered worden, redding komt door geloof. Redding wordt toegeëigend door geloof, vergeving van zonden NIET. Je zonden zijn vergeven, ongeacht je geloof. God had jouw geloof op Golgotha niet nodig, Hij had alleen Zijn Zoon nodig. REDDING wordt alleen verkregen door op Christus te vertrouwen - via geloof in het woord van de waarheid (het evangelie van onze redding). Redding IS door werken, alleen niet die van onszelf. Het is niet uit onszelf, maar door de gave van Gods genade dat we gered worden. Bij het HOREN van het evangelie, als we het evangelie GELOVEN, worden we verzegeld met de heilige Geest van belofte tot de dag van verlossing (Efeziërs 1:13-14). Een verloren ziel kan alleen worden gered door erop te vertrouwen dat Christus alles heeft gedaan wat nodig is voor onze redding door middel van Zijn volbracht kruiswerk. Romeinen tot en met Filemon zijn de enige boeken in de bijbel die uitleg geven over redding voor vandaag. In die boeken vinden we dat redding alleen door geloof is, alleen in Christus, zonder-enige-werken-van-wat-van-aard-dan-ook. Christus stierf voor uw zonden en is opgestaan voor uw rechtvaardiging (1 Korintiërs 15:1-4). Stel uw geloof in wat Hij deed in plaats van in wat u hebt gedaan, doet of gaat doen. Redding is niet vergeving krijgen van je zonden, het is geloven dat ze dat al zijn. (2 Korintiërs 5:19) Truth Time Radio, o.a te vinden op youtube en facebook is hier om u te helpen uw bijbel beter te begrijpen en uw geloof beter onder woorden te brengen aan anderen.

@peterk.6930 Год назад

With regard to contradictions in the Bible Bart Ehrman has presented on various occasions the case of Judas Iscariot. He considers the two different accounts, in Matthew 27 and in Acts 1 as incompatible. He is right I suppose, but he overlooks something important. I have responded in different ways, but there is some confusion. To clarify, I want to evaluate my thoughts and rewrite my comment in a more subtle way. The two accounts indeed seem very weird, it is plausible to reject them as incompatible. So there must be something else going on rather than a hanging or another accident in which Judas burst open and his guts came out. To argue that Judas did not strangle himself, but is still alive when Jesus appeared to the twelve disciples, I would like to mention eight points. This is also an attempt to rehabilitate Juda(s), the Jew. 1 John 20:24 says: now Thomas one of the twelve, called the Twin, was not with them when Jesus came. Jesus appeared to twelve disciples, so including Judas, since he is only replaced after the Ascension. There is a problem with the grammar when you take 'the twelve' as a technical term. Please read carefully, the pronomen personel 'them' refers directly to ‘the twelve.’ The pronoun cannot refer to a situation in the past. 2 1 Corinthians 15:5 says: …and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. When Paul writes about the appearance of Jesus, he writes about the situation before the Ascension, so before the replacement of Judas by Matthias which happened after the Ascension. And then there were twelve disciples, Judas including. So it's not the question that Judas is replaced, but that he didn't hang himself. 3 The translation ’hanged himself’ is reasonable but disputable. The Greek απάγχω, composition of από and άγχω means literally squeeze (esp. the throat), strangle, throttle and is also used in derivative or metaphorical meanings as choked with anger, of pressing creditors, of a guilty conscience etc. In Matthew 27:5 απήγξατο appears as 3rd sg. Aoristus Medium and can therefore be translated as strangled or hanged himself. But as I said, a derivative meaning is obvious and more plausible. Therefore I propose the following translation: And hurling the pieces of silver in the sanctuary he left; and after he went off, he got very scared. Interestingly, the Dutch Statenvertaling, which is considered one of the most accurate translations in existence, translates with 'verworgde zichzelf.' It places the reflexive pronoun 'zichzelf' in italics, meaning that this word is not in the text, but has been added as a clarification. This is a textbook example of precise translation. In fact, it then says that his throat was constricted. So it doesn't say that he squeezes his throat himself. A derivative or metaphorical meaning is more likely in that case. The only English translation I know that lists the reflexive pronoun in italics is the Disciples' Literal New Testament (DLNT): And having thrown the silver-coins into the temple, he departed. And having gone away, he hanged himself. So again, this translation is not that literal as to get rid of the hanging. 4 After the Ascension the disciples assembled again to replace Judas. I consider the translation of Acts 1:18 to be very disputable. Only if we assume that Judas has hanged himself and felt, the translation is conceivable. First I would like to mention the passage in the King James Bible: Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the middle, and all his bowels gushed out. Let ‘s focus on the second part of verse 18: καί πρηνής γενόμενος έλάκησεν μέσος καί έξεχύθη πάντα τά σπλάχνα αύτού The word translated as headlong, πρηνής can mean: with the head foremost, but the first meaning of πρηνής (nom. sg.) is: with the face downwards, bended or lying on ones stomach. By the way, the word 'prone' is still used in English in the meaning of 'prone position.' It means: to lie on the stomach. Derived meanings are: susceptible, amenable, receptive, open minded, open for suggestions and even vulnerable. Nota bene: the word falling is not in the Greek text, γενόμενος (nom. sg. part. Aoristus of the verb γίγνομαι) means: come into being, take place. People have in their mind, Judas has hanged, so he has to fall. That is what we call prejudice. If we look at the text with an open mind, we will translate differently. I propose: (being) with his face turned to the ground; or shortly: stooped or knelt. To support my argument I mention the way in which the Vulgate reconciled the two reports. The Vulgate translates Acts 1:18 as following: …et hic quidem possedit agrum de mercede iniquitatis et suspensus crepuit medius et diffusa sunt omnia viscera eius (…. he hanged, burst in the midst and his viscera gushed out). The Wycliffe Bible remains the same. But these translations are plainly wrong. Does the Roman church want Judas to hang? Subsequent (protestant) translations, as the King James Version, changed the text in the falling headlong. The word translated as burst, έλακησεν (3rd. sg. Aoristus of the verb λάσκω, λακάω or ληκέω) means: ring, rattle, crack or burst (especially of things) and scream, shout or cry aloud (especially of animals or human beings). (1) That his bowels gushed out is a way of saying, to express a deep sort of compassion or affection. In Hebrew it is referred to as rechamim. In particular it is used to mention God's mercy. The Dutch language has a great word for it, namely: barmhartigheid. Σπλάχνα is been used at several places in the New Testament: 1 John 3:17; 2 Cor. 6:12, 7:15; Col. 3:12; Philemon: 7, 12, 20; Philippians 1:8, 2:1, Luke 1:78. To mention only Luke: Through the tender mercy of our God, whereby the dayspring from on high hath visited us. If it is metaphorically translated in those places, it is likely to do this here as well. To conclude, I suggest the following translation: Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity, when he knelt down, he screamed with great compassion.

@peterk.6930 Год назад

5 Acts 1:25 reads: to take the place in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas turned aside, to go to his own place. The current opinion is that the death of Judas is mentioned here, but that can be disputed, again based on the Greek text. Let alone that his own place can be understood as one’s death. The text says: είς τόν τόπον τόν ίδιον. It does not say: τόπον του άυτου, his (own) place, but τόπον τόν ίδιον, his own private place, in the sense of one’s own particular property. How can it be if Judas is dead, he turned aside and went to his own property? (see point 8) 6 In many translations of the Bible Judas is mentioned as a traitor. This is generally disputed by scholars. The Greek term which is used throughout the gospels, παραδιδωμι can better be described as: to hand over or deliver. More than thirty times this term is mentioned, without exception. For betrayed or traitor, the Greek has one specifically different word. Here we touch a deeper level of meaning in the gospels. What happens is that Judas hands Jesus over to the Romans, actually to overcome the Romans, that is to save them, not to destroy them. Jacob holds Esau, not to destroy him but to release him. In fact, the messiah is supposed to save his people from their enemies. (Luke 1:71) Obviously the enemy (the evil) in the gospels is Rome. So Israel delivers the best she has (her messiah) to enemy Rome. Nietzsche calls this act the hatred of the Jews, which is a spiritual revenge, but at the same time deepest love (Genealogie der Moral 7 and 8). The way Judas is considered as a betrayer and thief who desperately commits suicide is telling about the willingness of the Christian church to consider and understand the person of Judas, as the model and personification as the Jew in general. In comparison with Petrus, who denied and therefore, I would say, ‘betrayed’ Jesus; Judas is seen as the bad bloke referred to hell, Peter however became the first bishop of the Roman church. An obvious example of such a questionable mindset is Papias (2e century). He wrote: ¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬‘’Judas was a terrible, walking example of ungodliness in this world, his flesh so bloated that he was not able to pass through a place where a wagon passes easily, not even his bloated head by itself. For his eyelids, they say, were so swollen that he could not see the light at all, and his eyes could not be seen, even by a doctor using an optical instrument, so far had they sunk below the outer surface. His genitals appeared more loathsome and larger than anyone else's, and when he relieved himself there passed through it pus and worms from every part of his body, much to his shame. After much agony and punishment, they say, he finally died in his own place, and because of the stench the area is deserted and uninhabitable even now; in fact, to this day one cannot pass that place without holding one's nose, so great was the discharge from his body, and so far did it spread over the ground." Another pregnant example is a sermon of John McArthur (21e century) who knows oddly enough everything about de eternal destiny of the disciples in particular Judas. The sermon is called: A Tale of Two Sorrows. This caricature of Judas can be heard throughout the ages in sermons in all kind of churches. Between Papias and McArthur during Medieval and modern times Judas is depicted in all kind of stories and paintings as the Jew carrying the money bag. A revealing study in this respect is Judas of the British historian Peter Standford. 7 Concerning the thief and the money box, I would like to make the following observation. In John 12:6 the ISV reads: He said this, not because he cared about the destitute, but because he was a thief. He was in charge of the moneybag and would steal what was put into it. All modern translations read the same way, including the KJV21. These translations are highly suggestive and I would say plainly wrong. The KJV and the YLT are the most accurate: And he said this, not because he was caring for the poor, but because he was a thief, and had the bag, and what things were put in he was carrying. The Dutch Statenvertaling reads in a similar way. All translations agree that Judas was a thief. However the initial meaning of κλέπτης is someone who acted in a hidden way. Another weird thing is the use of the word γλωσσόκομον, derived from γλωσσα and κομέο, tongues and caring. The usual term for purse or money bag is βαλλαντιον (2). Gloossokomon means something as the case in which the tongues of flutes are stored. I suggest the following translation: He said this, not because he cared for the poor, but he acted in secret, and having the box, he carried what was thrown into (it). 8 Finally, I would like to mention a remarkable statement of Jesus that supports my position, namely Matthew 19:28. Jesus told them: I tell all of you with certainty, when the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne in the renewed creation, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, governing the twelve tribes of Israel. He says this to his disciples, in which Judas will have been present. He speaks explicitly of twelve thrones and twelve tribes, also emphasizing that the twelve disciples embody the twelve tribes of Israel. According to Acts 1:25 that I mentioned earlier, Judas occupies a unique place during world history: the redemption of the world (cosmos) depends on Juda(s) being separate. This is actually what we can observe throughout the Bible and through the entire history of the world.

@johnraedts2219 Год назад

Meschien krijgt Judas nog een kans als mens,mag hij nog een keertje terug komen op aarde, lichamelijke, zijn er veel dubbelgangers,