Featured Judas and Last Supper

I always thought what the bible says about the son of perdition was pretty straightforward. Guess I was wrong.

 

So “after supper was served” and before supper was ended seems the consensus.

For those that missed the “first episode” (or are just slow on the uptake) … how does this prove/disprove Jesus died for Judas (the Son of Perdition)?

 

Of course Jesus died for Judas, He died as a ransom for all. But does that mean Jesus paid for his specific sins, such as the false doctrine of PSA claims? Nope 2 Peter 2:1

 

That mere fact does not prove any such thing. What supports the notion Christ died also for Judas is the teaching where the plural you is used. Luke 22:20, ". . . the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you. . . ." Jesus was explicitly addressing those partaking of the remembrance He instituted. Also a use of a plural you is used to refer to others beyond the audiance spoken to.

That Judas was at and partook the institution of the remembrance is an important historical fact that is typically been denied in gospel harmonies. Also the fact that foot washing is a common practice, and is in some way ingnored in supposing Jesus' doing a foot washing was for that purpose before some eating. When their feet had already been washed unmentioned. It was just understood that foot washing was done.

 

What point of argument did I miss?

 

John 13:18, ". . . I speak not of you all: I know whom I have chosen: but that the scripture may be fulfilled, He that eateth bread with me hath lifted up his heel against me. . . ."
Jesus was refering in "not of you all" to Judas. ". . . He that eateth bread with me hath lifted up his heel against me."
Now it is understood, ". . . I know whom I have chosen: . . . ." excluded Judas. The subject of what Jesus was saying was "not of you all" was the fulfillment of Scripture refering to Judas.

So from that you suppose the "you" in Luke 22:20 exclued Judas? What am I missing here?

 

Judas was never a believer. John 6:70. Luke 22:21-22, ". . . But, behold, the hand of him that betrayeth me is with me on the table. And truly the Son of man goeth, as it was determined: but woe unto that man by whom he is betrayed! . . ." Acts of the Apostles 1:16, ". . . Men and brethren, this scripture must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake before concerning Judas, which was guide to them that took Jesus. . . ."

 

The problem would be 99.5% of the copies of John handed down would be corrupt until the 19th century, for that one reading. That number of mss can call to question even the 100% the text of the New Testament, would it not? But then Luke would be wrong "after the supper" that Jesus instituted His remembrance too. As it is, interperters from the second century have a lot of things wrong. Baptist claims go out the window.

 

I never made any such claim.