Half-Life

He then replied and said, "The one who dips his hand with me [into the bowl] simultaneously, he will betray me.
24. "And the Son of Man goes to where it is written about him, however, woe to the man who betrays the Son of Man. He would be better off never to have been born."

Now, Judas is one of the essential characters to the Jesus' story. Without Judas performing a homosexual act of kissing a man on the cheek , Jesus wouldn't have been recognized for unknown reasons by the chiefs.

So, why would Jesus say that it would be better if Judas had never been born? If Judas was never born, how would Jesus have been given up? The whole story would cease to exist and the whole plan would be fucked to shit?

This statement makes no sense coming from the omnipotent, all-knowing, timeless ruler of the universe.

Am I alone on this one, or was Jesus actually trying to say something here?

Solitary Man

What, are you homophobic? Why do you hate gay people?

Then maybe we would hear less of you people incessantly complaining about the story.

Can you show me where Jesus is supposed to have been this?

Half-Life

LOL!

What's wrong with you seriously? I was using a tongue-in-cheek joke because Christians say they hate homosexuals, but in their story, one of the main plot lines is Judas kissing another man. Got it now? I thought it was obvious.


Matthew 26:23
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...026&version=9;

23And he answered and said, He that dippeth his hand with me in the dish, the same shall betray me.

24The Son of man goeth as it is written of him: but woe unto that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! it had been good for that man if he had not been born.

Is Jesus extremely forgetful? Why would he want Judas, who is essential to the plot of the story, to not be born?

Solitary Man

Besides Fred Phelps and his ilk, what Christians say they hate gay people?

I was referring to Jesus being an omnipotent, all-knowing, timeless ruler of the universe, hence why I quoted it.

He didn't say he did not want him to be born. He said it would have been better if he were not born. Usually when someone says that, they're referring to the person, i.e. "I'm going to make you regret you were even born!" But that's my initial reading.

Amaleq13

Shouldn't your question be why would the author of Matthew place such a statement in the mouth of Jesus?

Or is your thread directed solely at literalists?

Malachi151

The statement didn't come from an all knowing God, it came from someone trying to write a story in the style and context of traditional Jewish stories in which God or prophets curse people who betray them and bring horrible death upon them.

This will explain it to you: http://www.rationalrevolution.net/ar...ospel_mark.htm

Although the link talks about Mark, much of it applies to Matthew as well.

Half-Life

It was meant for literalists. But, that link is interesting.

Solitary Man

I'm afraid you'll be hard pressed to find many "literalists" here. Aren't there better fora for that?

Tigers!

I never knew that the fathers of all those Maltese, Lebanese, Greek, Italian kids that I went to school with were homosexual. All that kissing when they met each other.
What about when brothers met and kissed each other on the cheek? Is that incest?
(Me thinks you have a fixation on homosexuality.)

chrisengland

I think Jesus is saying that Judas would go to Hell and it would be better for him if he had never been born.
That actually makes alot of sence.
Chris