Was Judas Iscariot saved, or was he not?

[JohnDB]

I may be wrong, because I don't know Hebrew, but I understand that the same word is translated "king" in the verse I quote as is used for "king" in this verse about David:

(2Sa 2:11) And the time that David was king in Hebron over the house of Judah was seven years and six months.

And of Solomon in this verse:

(1Ki 1:53) So King Solomon sent them to bring him down from the altar. And he came and fell down before King Solomon; and Solomon said to him, "Go to your house."

It is the word "melek". What does it mean, if not king? I have looked up I Samuel 15:1 in twelve English translations, and they all say "king."

Melekh and melakh.....singular are verbs and not nouns. And melek is messenger....and the other is ruler/giving orders.
When plural its meleheme....identical spelling for both and you just have to guess which is correct. The other odd thing is that both messenger and king/ruler have the accent on the first syllable.....absolutely destroying your Hebrew studies. Melakh has the aleph which has zero sound associated with it but change meaning and pronunciation of the word. Which is why an aleph will make a messenger boy a king.
The aleph is also a pictogram of an altar. Like the Beth is a pictogram of a home/house.

Now like I said....its been a few years since I looked at this last. But....I've also seen where some books have made Ashera out to be a storm god of conflict/war.....and I'm like....."Was she supposed to shoot arrows out of her breasts?" And if you ever see an Ashera totem you get the funny part of that joke. It was funny too because we were in a SS class and the teacher was reading out of the literature....and me and this nice lady (who had her masters of theology) and I were both in agreement on this. And I got scared she wasnt one much for sexual innuendo jokes either...

I'll have go go back and look when I get the time. (Printed books not subject to change)
If you have access to a Thayers.....

 

[DavidLamb]

Melekh and melakh.....singular are verbs and not nouns. And melek is messenger....and the other is ruler/giving orders.
When plural its meleheme....identical spelling for both and you just have to guess which is correct. The other odd thing is that both messenger and king/ruler have the accent on the first syllable.....absolutely destroying your Hebrew studies. Melakh has the aleph which has zero sound associated with it but change meaning and pronunciation of the word. Which is why an aleph will make a messenger boy a king.
The aleph is also a pictogram of an altar. Like the Beth is a pictogram of a home/house.

Now like I said....its been a few years since I looked at this last. But....I've also seen where some books have made Ashera out to be a storm god of conflict/war.....and I'm like....."Was she supposed to shoot arrows out of her breasts?" And if you ever see an Ashera totem you get the funny part of that joke. It was funny too because we were in a SS class and the teacher was reading out of the literature....and me and this nice lady (who had her masters of theology) and I were both in agreement on this. And I got scared she wasnt one much for sexual innuendo jokes either...

I'll have go go back and look when I get the time. (Printed books not subject to change)
If you have access to a Thayers.....

Thanks for replying. As far as the Old Testament is concerned, the same Hebrew word seems to be used for "king" whether the person involved is Saul, David, Solomon, Nebuchadnezzar, or whoever. I don't have Thayers. Thanks again.

 

[lrs68]

WRONG.
Saul's was anointed as a Military Commander....not as a king.

Just because you keep repeating a lie does not make it any more true than the first time you lied.

I am copying the Scholar and Theologians answer.

God commanded the prophet Samuel to anoint Saul, the son of Kish, as the first king of Israel. After Saul arrived in town searching for his lost donkeys, God revealed to Samuel that Saul was the chosen man, leading Samuel to privately pour a flask of oil on Saul's head.

 

[Dino246]

Without Scripture you are just voicing opinion and that's equivalent to man made Doctrine.

I gave you Scripture.

 

[JohnDB]

I am copying the Scholar and Theologians answer.

God commanded the prophet Samuel to anoint Saul, the son of Kish, as the first king of Israel. After Saul arrived in town searching for his lost donkeys, God revealed to Samuel that Saul was the chosen man, leading Samuel to privately pour a flask of oil on Saul's head.

Coming from you I absolutely refuse to put in any trust of simple copy pasting....

Sorry....but your attitude has never once inspired me to trust anything you have said. Just the opposite.

 

[JohnDB]

Thanks for replying. As far as the Old Testament is concerned, the same Hebrew word seems to be used for "king" whether the person involved is Saul, David, Solomon, Nebuchadnezzar, or whoever. I don't have Thayers. Thanks again.

What resource are you using?

 

[lrs68]

Coming from you I absolutely refuse to put in any trust of simple copy pasting....

Sorry....but your attitude has never once inspired me to trust anything you have said. Just the opposite.

You mean that in Samuel chapter 10 that describes Saul looking after his dad's donkeys and being crowned king with the anointing oil and then he gets married and has children and then rebels against God by not killing all of the Amalekites you are claiming that Saul was not obeying the Law when he was a simple shepherd?

Because nothing bad is mentioned about Saul until he chooses to save the king of the Amalekites
But you are just choosing to interject he was rebellious as a son obeying his father?

 

[DavidLamb]

What resource are you using?

Two concordances, Strong's and the one that comes with my Bible software.

 

[lrs68]

I gave you Scripture.

Many theologians point out that Jesus would not grant miraculous power to an agent of Satan. The ability to cast out demons meant Judas acted under divine authority.

How would an agent of Satan be able to cast out Satan?

 

[JohnDB]

Two concordances, Strong's and the one that comes with my Bible software.

WHICH SOFTWARE?
what is so wrong with giving CLEAR AND COMPLETE answers?

 

[Dino246]

Many theologians point out that Jesus would not grant miraculous power to an agent of Satan. The ability to cast out demons meant Judas acted under divine authority.

How would an agent of Satan be able to cast out Satan?

You accused me of not providing Scripture to support my post. Your post here cites unnamed theologians and no Scripture. You’re being inconsistent.

I see no value in discussing the opinions of others where no scriptural basis is provided for their opinions.

Further, I consider the matter entirely speculative because there is no Scripture addressing the issue.

 

[JohnDB]

You accused me of not providing Scripture to support my post. Your post here cites unnamed theologians and no Scripture. You’re being inconsistent.

I see no value in discussing the opinions of others where no scriptural basis is provided for their opinions.

Further, I consider the matter entirely speculative because there is no Scripture addressing the issue.

Everyone seems to only give partial incomplete answers about anything...literally anything...so I believe nothing they are saying. I have zero reason to.
They can't quote Scripture chapter verse book
Cite resources
Give much of any defense for their unbiblical answers.

Why would we believe anything they say? Especially when it's contradicting EVERYTHING we have ever heard, read, or seen.

 

[Lamar]

Believing is what those whom God saves do. That's why Paul wrote to the Ephesian Christians that they had been saved by grace through faith:
(Eph 2:8) For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God,
(Eph 2:9) not of works, lest anyone should boast.
(Eph 2:10) For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them.

You have a warped sense of election.

The elect do nothing. God does all.
The elect believe nothing. God does the believing.
The elect do not repent. God compels you to repent.
The elect do not stay faithful. God stays faithful.
The elect do no good works. God compels these works.

Neither the chosen nor non-chosen have any say so in regards to their fate.

God is sovereign.

This is the correct understanding of election.

I thank God I do not subscribe to such nonsense.

 

[Godsgood]

If we let the Lord Jesus Himself disclose the true sin of Judas, this is what He said.
MATTHEW 26:20-25
20 Now when the even was come, he sat down with the twelve.
21 And as they did eat, he said, Verily I say unto you, that one of you shall betray me.
22 And they were exceeding sorrowful, and began every one of them to say unto him, Lord, is it I?
23 And he answered and said, He that dippeth his hand with me in the dish, the same shall betray me.
24 The 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.
25 Then Judas, which betrayed him, answered and said, Master, is it I? He said unto him, Thou hast said.

If we read and understand what the Lord Jesus said, it is actually very simple. What do you think He intended to convey by His statement?
Especially what is stated in verse 23.
23 And he answered and said, He that dippeth his hand with me in the dish, the same shall betray me.
Those whom the Lord Jesus chose understood this, because they believed that the Lord often spoke in parables. That is why they continually asked Him questions.
MARK 4:34
34 But without a parable spake he not unto them: and when they were alone, he expounded all things to his disciples.

MARK 13:10
10 And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables?

Among the apostles, Judas was the one who carried the money bag.
JOHN 13:29
29 For some of them thought, because Judas had the bag, that Jesus had said unto him, Buy those things that we have need of against the feast; or, that he should give something to the poor.

From a human perspective, he functioned as the treasurer of their group.
However, to the Lord Jesus, this carried a deeper, symbolic meaning, it was a parable (Mark 4:34).

Concerning the money bag, whenever the Lord Jesus sent out His disciples, He gave them strict instructions not to take a money bag with them.
LUKE 10:4
4 Carry neither purse, nor scrip, nor shoes: and salute no man by the way.

What is the significance of the money bag that Judas carried, considering that the Lord Jesus had forbidden His disciples to carry a money bag?

 

[Dino246]

Among the apostles, Judas was the one who carried the money bag.
JOHN 13:29
29 For some of them thought, because Judas had the bag, that Jesus had said unto him, Buy those things that we have need of against the feast; or, that he should give something to the poor.

From a human perspective, he functioned as the treasurer of their group.
However, to the Lord Jesus, this carried a deeper, symbolic meaning, it was a parable (Mark 4:34).

Concerning the money bag, whenever the Lord Jesus sent out His disciples, He gave them strict instructions not to take a money bag with them.
LUKE 10:4
4 Carry neither purse, nor scrip, nor shoes: and salute no man by the way.

What is the significance of the money bag that Judas carried, considering that the Lord Jesus had forbidden His disciples to carry a money bag?

Jesus didn’t forbid the disciples fromever carrying a money bag. He forbade them from doing so on their early missionary journey.

Also, as usual, it’s not a parable.

 

[blueluna5]

No, I really don't think he was. He ended up killing himself after betraying the son of God. Jesus did not have anything positive to say to him.

I remember Jobs wife kept telling him to curse God and die, but he refused. Well that's exactly what Judas did.

Judas did a terrible thing and was a terrible person. He ultimately tried to give the money back but it was too late. I do think the pharasees were the real devil, but Judas was their pawn. Never make a deal with the devil.

 

[DavidLamb]

WHICH SOFTWARE?
what is so wrong with giving CLEAR AND COMPLETE answers?

Sorry, there is nothing wrong with giving clear and complete answers. I apologise that I did not do so. The program is called "Online Bible." It began many decades ago, so the "online" of the name doesn't mean that it is a web-based program. Details available here: https://onlinebible.net/program-downloads/ Sorry again for not giving this information before.

 

[DavidLamb]

You have a warped sense of election.

The elect do nothing. God does all.
The elect believe nothing. God does the believing.
The elect do not repent. God compels you to repent.
The elect do not stay faithful. God stays faithful.
The elect do no good works. God compels these works.

Neither the chosen nor non-chosen have any say so in regards to their fate.

God is sovereign.

This is the correct understanding of election.

I thank God I do not subscribe to such nonsense.

Just to make clear that I do not believe that the elect don't have to believe or that God does the believing for them, nor do I believe that the elect have no need to repent, or that God compels them to repent. I believe that the elect should be faithful, but that their faithfulness does not match God's perfect faithfulness. One of the verses I quoted, Ephesians 2:10, makes clear that saved sinners are indeed to do good works which God has prepared for them.

I fully agree with you that God is sovereign.

 

[Magenta]

Just to make clear that I do not believe that the elect don't have to believe or that God does the believing for them, nor do I believe that the elect have no need to repent, or that God compels them to repent. I believe that the elect should be faithful, but that their faithfulness does not match God's perfect faithfulness. One of the verses I quoted, Ephesians 2:10, makes clear that saved sinners are indeed to do good works which God has prepared for them.

I fully agree with you that God is sovereign.

Nothing quite like dealing with people who love to misrepresent, huh? Like Lamar.

 

[lrs68]

You accused me of not providing Scripture to support my post. Your post here cites unnamed theologians and no Scripture. You’re being inconsistent.

I see no value in discussing the opinions of others where no scriptural basis is provided for their opinions.

Further, I consider the matter entirely speculative because there is no Scripture addressing the issue.

Actually, you didn't provide Scripture until a post or two ago and that I was never debating against. I guess because you quoted a post that was directed towards another there was an idea that you were making a case for them. But I agree that the Holy Spirit was with them at that time and not in them because Yeshua said that He granted them this power.