Did Judas go to Heaven or Hell for telling on Jesus even though Judas had free will?

-- becky (kfiles@chesco.com), May 10, 1999

Answers

Response to Did Judas go to heaven for telling on jesus.

Recently I had a conversation on this topic for it has many times hit me deeply. My thoughts are as believers in an all forgiving Father surely we must accept Judas' act attempting to give cak the monies was in fact an act of repentance. His despair which brought him to the act of suicide is not for us to judge at any level whatsoever.

A priest had once been asked if a man jumped off a bridge to his death would he lose his soul? The answer was " it is a long way to the water. "

I believe Judas was an integral part of the Passion for Christ did not turn His back on Judas but replied " do what you must do. " or to that effect.

God Plan Of man is not ours to fully understand rather to follow as best we can i the footsteps of Raboni.

Peace And Well Being.

A Little Brother In Christ,

Jean Bouchard

-- Jean Bouchard (jeanb@cwk.imag.net), May 11, 1999.

Response to Did Judas go to heaven for telling on jesus.

Dear Becky

Wether or not Judas went to heaven or hell is soley the decision of God and we can just wonder.

-- E.H.Weiss (weisse@bmts.com), May 12, 1999.

Response to Did Judas go to heaven for telling on jesus.

Sorry Jamey, but I think what Jesus said is more definitive. We are told that Satan entered Judas when he betrayed Jesus (Luke 22:3). Furthermore, Jesus said, "But woe to that man who betrays the Son of Man! It would be better for him if he had not been born" (Matt 26:24). Jesus is implying far more than that Judas would fall alseep or lie unconscience in the grave. If Judas had not been born, it would have been the same as being annihilated. He will not suffer any punishment or pain for his crime. For some reason, I think Jesus was referring to his imminent punishment in the hereafter when the spiritual nature of man departs from his physical nature.

For example see from the NWT: "And the result was that as her soul was going out (because she died). . ." (Gen 35:18); "Finally Jehovah listened to Elijah's voice, so that the soul of the child came back within him and he came to life" (1Kings 35:22 [see 1Kings 35:17- 22]); "And do not become fearful of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul; but rather be in fear of him that can destroy* both soul and body in Gehenna" (Matt 10:28 [*destroy means to render powerless or useless, as when you destroy a dish, it does not mean to annihilate]); "Seated at the window, a certain young man named Eutychus fell into a deep sleep while Paul kept talking on, and, collapsing in sleep, he fell down from the third story and was picked up dead. But Paul went downstairs, threw himself upon him and embraced him and said: 'Stop raising a clamor, for his soul is in him" (Acts 20:9-10); "And when he opened the fifth seal, I saw underneath the altar the SOULS of those slaughtered because of the word of God and because of the witness work that they used to have. And they CRIED with a loud voice, SAYING: "Until when, Sovereign Lord holy and true, are you refraining from judging and avenging our BLOOD upon those who dwell on the earth? And a WHITE ROBE was given to each of them: and they were TOLD to rest a little while longer, until the number was filled also of their fellow SLAVES and their BROTHERS who were about to be KILLED AS THEY ALSO HAD BEEN" (Rev 6:9-11)(see also 2Cor 4:6-9; 1Peter 3:18-20: 4:6; Rev 20:4). [Caution must be used when interpreting passages with the word "soul" since it has a wide range of meanings in the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures such as the spiritual nature of man, his mere physical body, his mind, and his emotions to name a few. Context should guide interpretation.]

-- Jorge (jtrujillo7203@hotmail.com), June 20, 1999.

Response to Did Judas go to heaven for telling on jesus.

No, Judas Iscariot did not go to heaven when he told on Jesus, as he hung himself. He was an example of betrayal, suicide, condemning himself to hell as a son of perdition and one who is of the loss of hope. I hope this has answered your question, and the email address given obviously denotes that you may not email me, but I would love to hear from you. All of my love in Christ Jesus, and may the Lord God Almighty bless you always. No Jesus, no peace. Know Jesus, know peace. Peace to you from the Lord God Jesus Christ forever and ever.

-- Anonymous (noemail@no.email.com), December 03, 1999.

Response to Did Judas go to heaven for telling on jesus.

This, I think is an excellent site on Judas.

http://www.tentmaker.org/Dew/Dew3/D3-JudasIscariot.html

-- Aaron Odell (woadhyl@juno.com), April 20, 2001.

Response to Did Judas go to heaven for telling on jesus.

" IT WOULD OF BEEN BETTER FOR THIS MAN, IF HE NEVER HAD BEEN BORN". Now that sounds scary coming from God,

-- David (asdzxc8176@aol.com), March 30, 2002.

I think only God can truly judge Judas and know whether Judas will go to heaven or hell.

-- mrfrodo (bobnobson@hotmail.com), March 13, 2004.

That is correct mrfrodo. The Church does not declare that any specific human being is in hell. It does of course declare that certain individuals are in heaven. That's what canonization is.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), March 14, 2004.

Can the question of Judas be expanded to others involved in the Passion?

It is clear the God intervened to bring the our Blessed Mother into the world as the Immaculate Conception, thus enabling the Resurrection.

Could He also have intervened, by impinging on the free will of another to induce that person to sinfulness in order to allow His Son to be condemned to death? I don't know, but it seems this would be necessary to some extent in the same way the Immaculate Conception was neccessary.

-- Pat Delaney (pat@patdelaney.net), March 15, 2004.

Every man is a sinner and must acknowledge himself as such in order to be cleansed(1 Jn 1,9f). But this ackowledgement of unworthiness and confession with the lips have there value from reptance in the heart; and the confession of Judas is useless(Mt 27,4).

The doesn't teach who is in hell, but things sure don't look to good for Judas.

-- - (David@excite.com), March 15, 2004.

I left the word Church out..in my last post.

The Church doesn't teach who is in hell, but it sure doesn't look for Judas.

-- - (David@excite.com), March 15, 2004.

Could He also have intervened, by impinging on the free will of another to induce that person to sinfulness in order to allow His Son to be condemned to death?

If someone can "induce" a "person to sinfulness," he could not also be God. God is all-good. It would be an absurdity to connect with God anything having to do with evil.

Moreover, to rob a person of free will would render the latter not in need of being saved, for then the person would become an automaton, incapable of sinning (choosing to do good or evil).

-- Gobble (Let's@Talk.Turkey), March 15, 2004.

It seems I heard sometime back (can't remember by whom) that Judas is the one person the Church knows is in hell. When, where, how this was stated I do not know. It just stands out in my mind.

Also, I have been reading "The Dolorous Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ" and Ven. Anne Catherine Emmerich had a vision of Our Lord's descension into hell after his death on the cross. After freeing the souls from Limbo (Adam and Eve included [they prostrated themselves before Christ]) and relieving some souls from Purgatory, Christ then approached hell. The gates were opened before him, and all in hell were made to bow down and acknowledge him. He approached Judas and spoke to him.

I realize this is not infallible teaching, but very worthy of belief, nonetheless. I don't think God would give so many visions to a person concerning His life and death, and not have them be accurate. I highly recommend this book. I have had it since last summer and am sorry I waited this long to read it.

-- Isabel (joejoe1REMOVE@msn.com), March 15, 2004.

I don't think God would give so many visions to a person concerning His life and death, and not have them be accurate.

This is not a proper way for Catholics to think. In fact, it is how the devil wants people to think about private revelations in general, so that they will believe every enticingly interesting alleged revelation that comes along.

My comments are not meant as a criticism of Ven. Catherine's writings, which may be valid and acceptable. Rather they are a warning against the error known as credulousness (gullibility). It is wise to let the Church rule on private revelations before placing any trust whatsoever in them.

-- Gobble (Lets@Talk.Turkey), March 16, 2004.

The church has ruled them worthy of belief. They have also elevated her to the stature of Venerable.

Besides, I am far from gullible. If you are who I think you are, then you should know that. Stop trying to crush the traditionalists, and take a post for what it is. Whomever it is written by.

-- Isabel (joejoe1REMOVE@msn.com), March 16, 2004.

The church has ruled them worthy of belief. They have also elevated her to the stature of Venerable.

When a person has said something unwise, and a second person speaks up and corrects the first, the first sometimes has such an emotional, irrational reaction that he/she fails to read the second person's words carefully enough. That has apparently just happened here.

My previous post was not an attack on Ven. Catherine or on what she wrote. I even specifically stated as much. But these facts were overlooked by the person who had been corrected. It appears that she had had one of those all-too-human, but improper, reactions, and failed to read my words carefully enough.

My previous post was not about Ven. Catherine, but was a warning against the error of credulousness. Its intention was to explain that a Catholic must not have the general attitude that had been previously expressed (I don't think God would give so many visions to a person concerning His life and death, and not have them be accurate.). If one carries that general attitude, one can easily fall into the error of believing the alleged revelations of Veronica Lueken and/or of Maria Vaaltorta (which have been strongly rejected by the Church).

Having made all that clear, it must be said that the Church does not guarantee, as factual, even one word of Ven. Catherine's narrative that is not also recorded in public revelation (Bible and Tradition). We must not make the mistake of reading too much into the phrase, "worthy of belief." Those words to not mean, "These are genuine revelations." Instead, the Church only tells us that Ven. Catherine's writings are not contrary to Catholic doctrines and cannot harm us, not even if they happen to contain partially fictional (not historically accurate) narratives that may have arisen from her pious meditations, rather than from genuine private revelations.

-- Gobble (Let's@Talk.Turkey), March 16, 2004.

I said: (I don't think God would give so many visions to a person concerning His life and death, and not have them be accurate.).

You said: If one carries that general attitude, one can easily fall into the error of believing the alleged revelations of Veronica Lueken and/or of Maria Vaaltorta (which have been strongly rejected by the Church).

Hello? I said 'visions given by God.' Obviously those visions you referenced above are not given by God. That's the whole point, John. A vision truly given by God will not contain error. What may contain error is her remembrance and narrations of those visions. We are all aware of that. True, we don't have to believe in them, I think everyone knows that. But, this is not the first time you've done this. Tried to downplay private revelations. You always say you're not doing that, and even go on and on about how you're not doing it, but, yet, by your constant nitpicking into 'the errors of what others have said' in a way that pulls into question the importance of such revelations, that's exactly what you're doing.

I can take criticism, John. I could probably even take it from you. But the way you pull the slightest little phrase out of someone's post to find fault with it, is just a tad annoying. If it makes you feel high and mighty.......hey........all the power to ya'. But remember, only the meek shall inherit the kingdom of heaven.

Would you like me to nitpick your errors and/or faults, John? We'd be here all day.

-- Isabel (joejoe1REMOVE@msn.com), March 16, 2004.

Hello? I said 'visions given by God.'

Sigh! Your statement is incorrect, as shown by your very own quotation of yourself: "I don't think God would give so many visions to a person concerning His life and death, and not have them be accurate."
You did not say, "visions given by God."

You could not have said that, because no one except God knows if alleged visions were given by him. Not even the Church teaches us that any alleged visions are really from God -- but only that some are definitely not from Him. What I stated was correct and not subject to criticism or sarcasm. Simply put, you were wrong and are getting "wronger."

Would you like me to nitpick your errors and/or faults, John?

My name was given above, and should appear again below. If you have a problem with a "John," then write to him and stop deflecting attention from the subject matter of this conversation, please.

-- Gobble (Let's@Talk.Turkey), March 17, 2004.

Sigh! Your statement is incorrect, as shown by your very own quotation of yourself: "I don't think God would give so many visions to a person concerning His life and death, and not have them be accurate." You did not say, "visions given by God."

Sigh! I'm sorry John, it seems anger and wrath against traditionalists has........ummm.......dimmed your comprehension a bit, John. It's too bad, John. But let me help you out here: God would give so many visions is synonomous with visions given by God. Comprende? If not, may I recommend Hooked on Phonics? John?

You could not have said that, because no one except God knows if alleged visions were given by him. Not even the Church teaches us that any alleged visions are really from God -- but only that some are definitely not from Him.

There you go again, John. Trying to downplay private revelations. They are called private, but they always happen for a reason. There is very often a message given, or something to increase our devotion, or something to meditate upon. Do you pray the Rosary? Do you wear the scapular? Do you pray the Divine Mercy chaplets? Do you know how these things were given to us? Besides, reading this book and meditating upon the Passion of Christ will do nothing but bring about good fruits, John.

What I stated was correct and not subject to criticism or sarcasm.

Unless, of course, you say it to me. I can usually find a way to inject some sarcasm your way, John. It's free, on me. Heaven forbid, even the best of Catholics try to criticize anything you say, eh? Being educated by EWTN, and all.

Simply put, you were wrong and are getting "wronger."

Ah, well, wouldn't be the first time, you know. I have so much fun being 'wrong', though. It's much to easy to be 'right', you know. What's that about the path of least resistance......??????

My name was given above, and should appear again below. If you have a problem with a "John," then write to him and stop deflecting attention from the subject matter of this conversation, please.

Hey, John, wasn't it you that first deflected attention away from the subject at hand by trying to nitpick and point out what you perceived as error? Hey, John, can you ever let anything go just for the sake of letting it go? Hey, John, do you really need to nitpick everyone's posts into oblivion, causing arguments, anger, hard feelings [and in my case] sarcasm every step of the way? Hey, John, is it possible for you not to leave a pile of frustration every time you make a presence?

John? Jooohhhhnnnn? Yoo hoo, Joooooooooooohhhhhhhhhhhhhnnnnnnnnnnn?

-- Isabel (joejoe1REMOVE@msn.com), March 19, 2004.

isabel,

thats not john, sorry to disappoint

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), March 19, 2004.

Hmmm, it was written in pure Gecik style. Well, if it's not then I apologize to John for connecting him with that.

-- Isabel (joejoe1REMOVE@msn.com), March 19, 2004.

i would pass that along to john,

but the only time he comes to the forums nowadays is to update the new saints and blesseds threads... so i doubt he'd see it anyway.

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), March 19, 2004.

btw, paul. How can you say for sure it's not John? Is it you, then? Far as I know, you'd be hard pressed to say for sure it isn't a certain person, unless you yourself wrote those posts. Help me out here. 'Cuz I still think it's JFG. or you?

Be brave, man, whoever you are........pull yourself up by the bootstraps, and don't behind a turkey. Well, unless you are one. Then I guess you wouldn't be hiding, and you can gobble to your heart's content. At least until November rolls around........

Because the likes of me eats the likes of you for Thanksgiving.

-- Isabel (joejoe1REMOVE@msn.com), March 19, 2004.

its not me, isabel.

it isnt john because i emailed him with an update of the changes going on at the forum and he told me what i told you last time... he lurks and updates the saints threads, but that constantly responding to posts was causing him to become angry and act uncharitable and therefore he will no longer post outside of the aforementioned threads.

I, on the other hand, have only used a psuedonym once, and even then only on one thread which i believe eventually got deleted because my anonymous post was to someone who ended up banned.

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), March 19, 2004.

You do realize I was being facetious in my previous post, right? OK, that being said, JFG has stated exactly what you just told me before. But it never lasted long. Quite often during his abscences, there would be someone else posting with many pseudonyms. And he is the master at new pseudonyms when it suits him. So, you see, I'm a bit skeptical.

-- Isabel (joejoe1REMOVE@msn.com), March 19, 2004.