This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

Did Judas actually betray Jesus?

#1DarkContractorPosted 7/12/2013 5:51:23 PM
I know I'm proposing something but wording it as though it is fact, but a lot of this is copypasta from my notes on researching this so please bare with that.

The earliest mention of the betrayer of Jesus Christ is actually one of the approximately 8 things in the Pauline epistles that mentions the Gospels.

1 Cor. 11:23

Note that he claims his source to be from God, however, not the Gospels.

Notice immediately the complete lack of reference to Judas. However, furthermore, let's focus on the word 'betrayed'. It's Greek word, Paradidomi, literally means 'handed over'. The word "Prodidomi" is the word for betrayed. Paradidomi CAN mean betrayed, however its literal translation is 'handed over', a phrase Paul uses over and over to describe God doing something to Jesus, handing him over to suffering, for example. Furthermore, in 1 Corinthians 15 (which gives us one of the stronger arguments that there was some form of a Gospel going around during Paul's time, and it is very noteworthy to notice that Paul cites Scripture here, while he normally cites God as the source) where he specifically says Jesus appeared to the 12 after his Resurrection. Except Judas had betrayed Jesus, according to the Gospels. Meaning there was 11. (Mattias was not appointed as the new apostle until later in Acts)

Now let's look at our actual Gospel accounts. We have a fairly decent story about Judas in Mark. The Last Supper occurs, Judas betrays Jesus with a kiss, the Roman guards seize him. We see a similar story in Matthew. The exact words used, in fact. Except random details added. Note the bit about
proclamation of the tons of the angels that could have come to rescue him. Note Jesus putting back on the ear in Luke, and all the extra bits and the asking for permission from Jesus to retaliate. (Yet Peter did this anyways). Now what was Mark's purpose in this? To fulfill Scripture, as said in a few of the closing verses of these passages. Furthermore, Matthew and Luke did not like that Jesus' disciples would do this, so they made up stuff about the spectacular army of angels, the healing of the ear. It all passes the criterion of dissimilarity, with the goal of Jesus fulfilling Scripture.

Of course, I suppose I need to prove all this. And so I will.

Mark 3:14-19

"And he appointed twelve, whom he also named apostles, to be with him, and to be sent out to proclaim the message, and to have authority to cast out demons. So he appointed the twelve: Simon (to whom he gave the name Peter)l James son of Zebedee and John the brother of James (to whom he gave the name Boanerges, that is, Sons of Thunder); and Andrew, and Philip, and Bartholomew, and Matthew, and Thomas, and James son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus, and Simon the Cananaean, and Judas Iscariot, who betrayed him.

Matthew 10:1-4: Then Jesus summoned his twelve disciples and gave them authority over unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to cure every disease and every sickness. These are the names of the twelve apostles: first, Simon, also known as Peter, and his brother Andrew; James son of Zebedee, and his brother John; Philip and Bartholomew; Thomas and Matthew the tax collector [notice how the author refers to Matthew in the 3rd person]; James son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus; Simon the Cananaen, and Judas Iscariot, the one who betrayed him.
---
http://counteringchristianity.blogspot.com/ - My blog.
#2DarkContractor(Topic Creator)Posted 7/12/2013 5:51:37 PM
Now where am I going with this?

Luke 6:14-16

"Simon, whom he named Peter, and his brother Andrew, and James, and John, and Philip, and Bartholomew, and Matthew, and Thomas, and James son of Alphaeus, and Simon who was called the Zealot, and Judas son of James, and Judas Iscariot, who became a traitor.

The word usage isn't similar enough that we can attest his source to Mark, imo. In fact his word usage and context is entirely different from everything else. In fact he lists the wrong disciples! Thaddaeus is replaced with Judas, son of James! Why would Luke possibly make something up? This is not a scribal error; you don't simply forget about a disciple in place of one who didn't exist.

I can answer that question btw. The letter of Jude! Jude is an alternative name for Judas!

And Jude 1:1 opens up "Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ and brother of James, To those who are called, who are beloved in God the Father and kept safe for Jesus Christ"

Uh oh. Furthermore, Jude does not have any reference to any Gospel events, including, just like John's epistles, nor does he reference Paul in anyway. In fact, all of his proclamations of miracles are ALL Old Testament. Hell he even quotes the prophet Enoch, long before the Apocrypha would have been rejected by the early Church.

Yet, he was Jesus' brother (see 1:1 and compare with Matthew 13:55). Uh oh. The son/brother contradiction was likely a scribal error. There is probably a grain of truth to what Judas did; he betrayed Jesus. The same Judas who had been promised BY Jesus to be a leader of one of the twelve tribes when Jesus instituted the Kingdom. Judas had betrayed Jesus, who in Mark, always talked about himself as the Messiah in secret, with no public declaration of who he is. This is what someone could have betrayed, when pressed for miracles Jesus said "Only an evil, adulterous generation would demand a sign". He ordered that his miracles be kept secret, away from the Roman Empire and the Pharisees; the betrayer betrayed that Jesus was claiming to be the King of the Jews, and so he was arrested. This embarrassing event was then exegetically tied into the Old Testament, this is why we have contradicting accounts of Judas' death; because they were intended to show that Judas regretted his decision, and tie it into Scripture (See Matt. 27:9).

Another interesting thing is that Judas is a rather prominent character in the Gnostic texts; he frequently appears, having dialogue with the other disciples as though he's just another regular ol' disciple. He even has his own Gospel. Now, if the betrayal was a historical event, then it doesn't really make sense to me why the Gnostics would incorporate Judas as a character into Gnosticism. But if the betrayal is just another legend, then it makes perfect sense.

Biblical scholar John Spoog (I think that's his name) also makes a very interesting point. As he put it, the 'explosion' of information on the betrayal after Mark is written. While there's no information on the betrayal more or less prior to Mark, after Mark shows up we have three new books (the other Gospels) that would ALL have very embellished accounts of the betrayal story as offered by Mark. But you don't find anything from this myriad of details prior to Mark.

Thoughts?
---
http://counteringchristianity.blogspot.com/ - My blog.
#3Vado_UNPosted 7/12/2013 7:03:34 PM
You should read the gospel of Judas.
http://www.nationalgeographic.com/lostgospel/_pdf/GospelofJudas.pdf
---
"Heads start boppin' like who's this? Vado, that dude spits/
Sharper than steak knives from Ruth's Chris" - Vado
#4OrangeWizardPosted 7/12/2013 10:02:41 PM
From: DarkContractor | #001
Furthermore, in 1 Corinthians 15 (which gives us one of the stronger arguments that there was some form of a Gospel going around during Paul's time, and it is very noteworthy to notice that Paul cites Scripture here, while he normally cites God as the source) where he specifically says Jesus appeared to the 12 after his Resurrection. Except Judas had betrayed Jesus, according to the Gospels. Meaning there was 11.


It is normal to refer to a group as a group, even if one or two of them is missing.

How often do you hear "The U.N. (sans France, who was sick that day, and Australia, who got stuck at the airport.) met together today to discuss..."?

Never. They're just referred to as "The U.N." not "The Partial U.N."

notice how the author refers to Matthew in the 3rd person


Referring to yourself in the third person is not an impossibility. I know you believe that none of the gospels were written by the people who share the name of the book.


From: DarkContractor | #002
In fact he lists the wrong disciples! Thaddaeus is replaced with Judas, son of James! Why would Luke possibly make something up? This is not a scribal error; you don't simply forget about a disciple in place of one who didn't exist.


Or, you know, Thaddeus IS Judas. Perhaps he is known by both names. Need I remind you of the dual-named or name-changed people throughout the bible?

Judas Iscariot is called "Judas Iscariot" in order to differentiate himself from the other, less-significant Judases of the bible, like Judas of Galilee or Jesus' ancestor, or Thaddeus.


Yet, he was Jesus' brother (see 1:1 and compare with Matthew 13:55). Uh oh. The son/brother contradiction was likely a scribal error.


What brother/son contradiction?

He's a carpenter's son, not Jesus' son. Jesus' father was a carpenter. Who do you think Jesus learned carpentry from?

Yes, he was Jesus' brother. Just because you don't milk it, and instead, humbly call yourself a slave, doesn't mean you aren't related to him.

This embarrassing event was then exegetically tied into the Old Testament, this is why we have contradicting accounts of Judas' death; because they were intended to show that Judas regretted his decision, and tie it into Scripture (See Matt. 27:9).


You're simply claiming that things are true without proving them.
---
Trolling and making valid arguments are not mutually exclusive
#5OrangeWizardPosted 7/12/2013 10:06:42 PM(edited)
Another interesting thing is that Judas is a rather prominent character in the Gnostic texts; he frequently appears, having dialogue with the other disciples as though he's just another regular ol' disciple. He even has his own Gospel.


He does not have his own Gospel.

Now, if the betrayal was a historical event, then it doesn't really make sense to me why the Gnostics would incorporate Judas as a character into Gnosticism.


Why are you assuming that the bible is a Gnostic thing, as opposed to a historical thing? Historians are all about getting the story straight as it actually happened. Why are you assuming that the writers of the bible weren't trying to be as accurate as possible?

As he put it, the 'explosion' of information on the betrayal after Mark is written. While there's no information on the betrayal more or less prior to Mark, after Mark shows up we have three new books (the other Gospels) that would ALL have very embellished accounts of the betrayal story as offered by Mark. But you don't find anything from this myriad of details prior to Mark.


So? You cannot draw the conclusion that "everyone else must have been embellishing".

If Author A sucks at remembering the fine details, but Author B, C and D are all better at remembering stuff, of course B,C,and D are going to get more granular about it than Author A.

Remember, in order to prove that all the cards on a table are aces, you have to flip over every single card. If there's even one card left face-down, there's a possibility that not all of the cards on the table are aces.




****************


tl;dr DC's theory has factual inaccuracies, baseless assumptions, and holes in it.


****************


I find it sad that you've chosen to ignore me. I'm sometimes the only one who is willing and able to blow the whistle on you. I feel like you're turning a blind eye to criticism.
---
Trolling and making valid arguments are not mutually exclusive
#6DarkContractor(Topic Creator)Posted 7/13/2013 5:13:32 AM
Vado_UN posted...
You should read the gospel of Judas.
http://www.nationalgeographic.com/lostgospel/_pdf/GospelofJudas.pdf


I referenced that towards the end of my last post :p
---
http://counteringchristianity.blogspot.com/ - My blog.
#7DarkContractor(Topic Creator)Posted 7/13/2013 2:30:12 PM
No biters?

Here's another one, even though it's not as black and white, I think.

How come the disciples were so confused about Jesus's prediction about his death and resurrection? They were troubled greatly, devastated that this would be happening to their Messiah. Peter even took him aside to tell him this was a bad idea.

Except, y'know, Jesus proved that he had power over death already with Lazarus. If that had happened, why were the disciples so skeptical about his power over death?
---
http://counteringchristianity.blogspot.com/ - My blog.
#8Moorish_IdolPosted 7/13/2013 2:32:57 PM
DarkContractor posted...
No biters?

OW bit. I guess you can't see his rebuttals though.

Except, y'know, Jesus proved that he had power over death already with Lazarus. If that had happened, why were the disciples so skeptical about his power over death?

Jesus was alive when he rose Lazarus. It was probably hard to imagine Jesus rising when the only one who could accomplish that (himself) is dead.
#9DarkContractor(Topic Creator)Posted 7/13/2013 2:55:52 PM
Moorish_Idol posted...
DarkContractor posted...
No biters?

OW bit. I guess you can't see his rebuttals though.


Doesn't he know I have him on ignore?


Jesus was alive when he rose Lazarus. It was probably hard to imagine Jesus rising when the only one who could accomplish that (himself) is dead.


But he attributes it to God, it's all to glorify God, etc. I trust I don't need to dig up the verses that attribute the miracles to God rather than Jesus. And after all this is explained, Peter still denies Jesus.

Why does Mary get visited by angel, told that she will bear the Messiah by God's will, that the baby will be holy and be called the Son of God, and then give birth as a virgin, is told this is because of the Holy Spirit, is (assumedly) told by Joseph that the Spirit visited him too, then is bewildered by Jesus suddenly disappearing and is confused by what he means when he said he was at his "Father's house" (while Mary in the mean time says "Don't you know your father and I have been worried sick about you?"
---
http://counteringchristianity.blogspot.com/ - My blog.
#10OrangeWizardPosted 7/13/2013 3:03:57 PM(edited)
From: DarkContractor | #007
No biters?


This is exactly the reason why I think you're turning a blind eye to criticism, because you literally are.

I'm sometimes the only one who is ready and able to call you out on you ****, yet you blocked me. What a coincidence.


How come the disciples were so confused about Jesus's prediction about his death and resurrection? They were troubled greatly, devastated that this would be happening to their Messiah. Peter even took him aside to tell him this was a bad idea.


Being devastated that someone you love is going to pass from this mortal coil does not equal being confused.
---
Trolling and making valid arguments are not mutually exclusive