The importance of Judas the Iscariot

[Tumah]

......which would mean that Judas Iscariot was a nickname. If you write that as Judah Sicario (say that ten times and it sounds very similar), then this might refer to the fact that the disciples knew that Judas had once been a hired killer or assassin??? They mostly did have nicknames!
So...... if, in the same way that Cephas became hellenised as 'Peter' or Petros, could Judah have become nicknamed 'Sicario'...?

The word sicarii is a Latin word, not Hebrew or Aramaic. It is a Hellenized word. And it doesn't refer to just any assassin, it refers to the specific sect of Jews that used assassination as a form of revolt against the Romans.

Can ANYBODY tell me what the Galilean Aramaic would be for Hired Killer, or Assassin, or Hit-Man? That could have been Judas' true nickname.
....just a thought....

There is no such word in Hebrew or Aramaic. Which is why they needed a loan word from Latin for the Sicarii, right?

 

[oldbadger]

The word sicarii is a Latin word, not Hebrew or Aramaic. It is a Hellenized word. And it doesn't refer to just any assassin, it refers to the specific sect of Jews that used assassination as a form of revolt against the Romans.

Yes........ that is what I thought. Obviously Latin. I think the literal translation might be 'dagger-user' or 'dagger man'?
Some of the disciples were given nicknames before those names became used, I think. Simon the Zealot is an example, since the Zealots were a body opf Jews operating in the 60's CE? Cephas was given the name 'Peter' which he probably was not called by his friends and colleagues?

In any event, I am seeking for Aramaic (Not Hebrew) words for Paid Killer, Hitman, Murderer, Stabber etc....... I expect such folks did exist in Galilee and so maybe there might be such words.

 

[Tumah]

Yes........ that is what I thought. Obviously Latin. I think the literal translation might be 'dagger-user' or 'dagger man'?
Some of the disciples were given nicknames before those names became used, I think. Simon the Zealot is an example, since the Zealots were a body opf Jews operating in the 60's CE? Cephas was given the name 'Peter' which he probably was not called by his friends and colleagues?

In any event, I am seeking for Aramaic (Not Hebrew) words for Paid Killer, Hitman, Murderer, Stabber etc....... I expect such folks did exist in Galilee and so maybe there might be such words.

There is no such word as assassin to my knowledge. At least, its not used anywhere in the body of Aramaic literature that is available to me, to my knowledge. There is a word for murderer, that is "katola". I can't find the word in Aramaic anywhere, but to pierce someone with a sharp instrument in Hebrew is "doker", so I assume in Aramaic it would be something like "dekora".

 

[firedragon]

I looked it up in a book that explains words that share similar meanings. In this case, the two words in Psa. 21:6, 96:6, 111:3 and 104:1 'hod' and 'hadar'. From the explanation, the word hod refers to inner beauty. So glory can be a good translation of it.


This is kabbalistic stuff. Its not going to elucidate the meaning of the word. If anything it will make it more complicated.

I truly wish I was Jewish, Greek and Arabic.

 

[oldbadger]

There is no such word as assassin to my knowledge. At least, its not used anywhere in the body of Aramaic literature that is available to me, to my knowledge. There is a word for murderer, that is "katola". I can't find the word in Aramaic anywhere, but to pierce someone with a sharp instrument in Hebrew is "doker", so I assume in Aramaic it would be something like "dekora".

Thankyou very much.
I have been searching around for anything about Judas for some time now.
The similarity to Judas Iscariot with Jadah Sicari(o) just interests me.
And so nicknames like James (and John) thundervoice (or the-violent?), Simon zealot, Simon rock-hard )) or Judah the hitman just might have been.... who knows?

And I also like Celcius (Celcus?) mention of Jesus the peasant with ten boatmen a couple of tax officials as followers. Since Judas was the bagman, as well as probably very hard in nature, maybe he had been or was that second lake official, or publican, or taxman?

Thankyou again for your help......

 

[Nefelie]

What? Do you mean that without Judas it is impossible for someone else to betray Jesus?

Who else would?

And also, even if there was someone else, wheren’t we having this same conversation for the other guy too?

No, as it's pointless. Judas was given the best chance to be saved yet he missed it though God already knows who he is before hand.

Did you notice the part where the devil enters him?

I would say its the hoped for end of Judaism. The Jews finally feel remorseful for their evil ways. Judaism comes to an end, and Christ-ianity reigns among all.

It does make sense, but it’s a little too much, don’t you think? After all: Jesus was a Jew too and so where all his disciplines and crowd that followed him. Is just one Jew enough for such hate?

I see on Wikipedia, that there is also suspicion that Acts was being revised into the 2nd century.

I generally do not trust the Acts. Neither like them. Same goes for the Epistles, with just a couple of exemptions. IMO the NT should be only the Gospels. But that’s just my opinion

The way I read the story is that a man and woman inadvertently sinned (they were very guileless people and really didn't know much better) and infested the whole of humanity with a "virus" that condemned all of mankind to hell.

According to Judaism, there is no “original sin”. It was just a change of state. The “original sin” part is a Christian concept. I hope there is a Jew here that can confirm this…?

So, instead of being reviled, Judas should be praised

I wouldn’t go THAT far.

@Nefelie Really does seem as though Jesus was using Judas' name as a pun to describe the glorifying act of being delivered up.

I truly wish I was Jewish, Greek and Arabic.

All together??

~~~

BTW has anyone of you read the Gnostic Gospel of Judas?
And what about seen the firm “Last Temptation” or -even better- read the book, by N. Kazantzakis?

~~

 

[firedragon]

All together??

Yeah. Altogether. So that I can naturally understand them. Sigh.

 

[Tumah]

It does make sense, but it’s a little too much, don’t you think? After all: Jesus was a Jew too and so where all his disciplines and crowd that followed him. Is just one Jew enough for such hate?

As far as I'm aware, neither Jesus nor his disciples wrote the NT.

I generally do not trust the Acts. Neither like them. Same goes for the Epistles, with just a couple of exemptions. IMO the NT should be only the Gospels. But that’s just my opinion

I've never read the NT, just exposed to some stories here and there.

According to Judaism, there is no “original sin”. It was just a change of state. The “original sin” part is a Christian concept. I hope there is a Jew here that can confirm this…?

I think it just means something else in Judaism.

 

[columbus]

Who else would?

I realize that Jesus is depicted as God and all.
But isn't expecting Him to nail Himself to the cross a bit much?
Tom

 

[Nefelie]

As far as I'm aware, neither Jesus nor his disciples wrote the NT.

Yes, that is correct. But what’s your point on that?

I think it just means something else in Judaism.

Please elaborate!

I realize that Jesus is depicted as God and all. But isn't expecting Him to nail Himself to the cross a bit much? Tom

I totally and completely agree with you, but I think that this is another story for another thread

~~~

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

In order to effect this salvation god determined that, as Jesus, he would need to be crucified. Why a crucifixion in particular is anybody's guess.

Stoning or poisoning wouldn't have made the same merchandising impact?

 

[yiostheoy]

~~~

According to many, the role of Judas was very important. Judas -which literally means "glorious"- it was he who helped Jesus complete his work. The work of Jesus was prearranged to be completed in a specific way: to be betrayed and crucified, in order to resurrect.

But who would betray him and why? Who could take on this task rather than one of his closest disciples and who of them would accept such a heavy load as this?

The importance of the act of Judas is certainly a difficult concept. The name Judas has been linked with betrayal. He is one who does not understand, who is weak, who remained a prisoner of matter and finally "made a serious and unforgivable mistake". But was it really a mistake?

The wording chosen by John the Evangelist is very interesting:

<<… Jesus answered, He it is, to whom I shall give a sop, when I have dipped it. And when he had dipped the sop, he gave it to Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon. And after the sop Satan entered into him. Then said Jesus unto him, That thou doest, do quickly…>> [Jn 13:26-27]​

John the Evangelist is clear: the choice of betrayal was not of Judas but of Satan and Jesus, who seems to been addressing Satan -not in Juda- when telling him to do what he has to do.

Watching the story of Jesus after the betrayal of Judas, we see a series of crucial events, culminating to the death and Resurrection of Christ.
Jesus’ students scattered went to hide [Mt. 26:56]. It seems as if their love for their teacher was superficial.
Peter, who so earnestly earlier had declared his love and faith to his teacher [Mt. 26:35], now denies him [Mt. 26: 69-75].
The whole city is united and calls for condemnation while redeeming the criminal Barabbas. It seems as if humanity chose, showing it’s true face.

The betrayal of Judas triggered a sequence of betrayals. It is he who gave the opportunity to all to prove their faith, but all failed. And, as if that were not enough all this, Judah was the only one who later took responsibility for his actions, imposing on himself the ultimate penalty: death, with no hope of Resurrection.

The entire teaching of Jesus is based on his death and Resurrection. Without Judas there is no death and therefore no resurrection.

If you could go back in time, with the knowledge that you now have the history and the ability to change it, would you stop the betrayal of Judas?

~~~

"According to many ..." already starts your discussion with a fallacy of argumentum populum.

In Christian dualism, as explained by Jesus, and written down by his apostles (Matthew, John, Jude, Peter, and Paul) and evangelists (Mark, Luke), there is the Light and the Darkness. Everyone must choose whether to serve one or the other. No one can serve two masters.

Judas apparently choose the darkness. The temple police who were looking for Jesus because he overturned the money tables two years in a row would have found him eventually. Judas just made it easier for them. It would have happened anyway.

 

[yiostheoy]

Stoning or poisoning wouldn't have made the same merchandising impact?

Poisoning was a Greek concept in justice. The Jews never had anything like it.

Stoning was Hebrew, yes, introduced by Moses originally around 1450 BCE. But stoning is not a Roman concept.

The Romans used crucifixion -- to make a living (and dying) example out of the malefactor.

Crucifixion developed over time from impalement, which was an Assyrian and Babylonian activity.

Thought you might like that historical background, which bears upon your comment.

Historical anachronisms are sometimes hard to avoid since we live in the 21st Century and have the ability to look back 51 centuries -- which is sometimes confusing and leads to anachronisms.

 

[Skwim]

Stoning or poisoning wouldn't have made the same merchandising impact?

Gotta ask god about that. As far as I can figure, god could have saved everyone a lot of time and trouble and just decreed heaven open to everyone, or stipulated some kind of qualifications by permanently writing them in the clouds of the sky. "Do as I say and come on up, or don't do as I say and roast in Hell." Why all the drama with Jesus is beyond me.


.

 

[yiostheoy]

Gotta ask god about that. As far as I can figure, god could have saved everyone a lot of time and trouble and just decreed heaven open to everyone, or stipulated some kind of qualifications by permanently writing them in the clouds of the sky. "Do as I say and come on up, or don't do as I say and roast in Hell." Why all the drama with Jesus is beyond me.


.

It's all a lot more complicated than you are thinking.

It was never meant to be easy.

God is up to something and obviously your view is not privy to what it is.

You strike me as "non-religious -- not interested".

This is a 5% population of the US -- not sure about the rest of the world.

3% are atheist.

4% are agnostic.

25% are devout Theist.

The rest are Deist in America.

You are none of the above.

 

[Tumah]

Yes, that is correct. But what’s your point on that?

Maybe I didn't understand what you were saying. Your question was "is one Jew enough for such hate?" Can you explaine hat you meant there?

Please elaborate!

There is a concept in Judaism of the sin of Adam affecting later generations and the world at large, for instance with death.

 

[Skwim]

It's all a lot more complicated than you are thinking.

It was never meant to be easy.

I presume you come by this knowledge honestly; you and god had a one-on-one wherein he told you It was never meant to be easy

God is up to something and obviously your view is not privy to what it is.

But from your last remark, obviously you are. Interesting.

You strike me as "non-religious -- not interested".

It should strike you that way, my avatar lists me as, Religion: Agnostic. As for not being interested, believe me, I don't respond to comments that don't interest me. Do you? Does anyone?

This is a 5% population of the US -- not sure about the rest of the world.
3% are atheist.
4% are agnostic.
25% are devout Theist.
The rest are Deist in America.

You are none of the above.

Asserting that I am an agnostic under my avatar isn't enough, is it. Just what kind of verification do you require, a testimony from the likes of Karl Barth, Louis Berkhof, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Gordon Clark, James Hal Cone, or Oscar Cullmann perhaps?


.

 

[yiostheoy]

I presume you come by this knowledge honestly; you and god had a one-on-one wherein he told you It was never meant to be easy


But from your last remark, obviously you are. Interesting.

It should strike you that way, my avatar box lists me as, Religion: Agnostic. As for not being interested, believe me, I don't respond to comments that don't interest me. Do you? Does anyone?


Asserting that I am an agnostic under my avatar isn't enough, is it. Just what kind of verification do you require, a testimony from the likes of Karl Barth, Louis Berkhof, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Gordon Clark, James Hal Cone, or Oscar Cullmann perhaps?


.

Sorry I am not trained to look for the religious leaning yet. Just got here.

So you are "agnostic" rather than "not interested".

I think agnosticism is fairly popular these days among scientists.

The main reason is because science has become their/your religion.

A good Philosophy teacher in college would have taught you in college to keep Religion, Science, and Philosophy separate.

I have met a lot of science professors who truly worship Science.

Anyhoo agnosticism is simply a skeptical rational scientific Empirical approach to Religion -- mixing apples and oranges.

There is much more information available in Religion and Philosophy about Deity than there is in Science.

Anyway that's my speculation on the popularity of agnosticism -- Science.

Agnosticism is a really unhedged bet which can leave you without strength when you might need it. Also if the future does not turn out the way you think it is, you have no reward either. That is an uncovered position in stock market parlance.

 

[Skwim]

The main reason is because science has become their/your religion.

Errr, just what is your definition of "religion" that science could be included?

I have met a lot of science professors who truly worship Science.

Please forgive me for not buying into your exaggeration here.

Anyhoo agnosticism is simply a skeptical rational scientific Empirical approach to Religion -- mixing apples and oranges.

If you truly believe this then I suggest you look into the definition and concept of agnosticism much more closely.

There is much more information available in Religion and Philosophy about Deity than there is in Science.

Your point being, what?

Agnosticism is a really unhedged bet which can leave you without strength when you might need it. Also if the future does not turn out the way you think it is, you have no reward either. That is an uncovered position in stock market parlance.

I'm well aware of the need that religion fills in the needy. I'm not one of those. I'm quite able to face life head on without a security blankie.


.

 

[Acim]

If you could go back in time, with the knowledge that you now have the history and the ability to change it, would you stop the betrayal of Judas?

You mean the betrayal by Peter?

Just kidding (sort of).

I'd be honored if Jesus had chosen me as he chose Judas to play a role in scheme that would take less discerning eyes a couple millennia to figure out.