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

Did Judas actually betray Jesus?

#41_Rasl3rX_Posted 7/14/2013 11:27:21 PM
This is DC. I'm warned.


"You did? I thought you were just expressing surprise over "the twelve" being a formal name. If you want to call me out on a fallacy, then do so explicitly.

You can "believe" that if Paul meant 11, he would have said 11, but you can't believe holes away, now can you?


Or if you don't like that card, how about this one?

The 12th could have referred to Matthias. He wasn't an apostle at the time, true, but he could have been one by the time 1st Corinthians was written, and therefore, he could be retroactively named as an apostle in the book."

Yes, I do believe 11=11 and assume when people say 11 they mean 11 and not a different number. Anyone who wonders if 11 meant 12 or 12 meant 11 without reason is an idiot. Any evidence that twelve was supposed to mean eleven? If not, dismissed.

Matthias wasn't a disciple until Acts. He wasn't appeared to at the Resurrection.


Do you have evidence that the 12th was referring to Judas Iscariot?
Let me guess, your evidence is the rest of your theory?
That's circular reasoning.

You can't prove a part of your theory with the rest of your theory, because your theory relies on this part being true.

I'll say this again when I get down to the part where you commit this same fallacy again.


There's no other disciple it could have been; Matthias wasn't there yet. Deductive logic.


You don't think that the cards even exist in the first place, and claim that they require evidence.
I've been providing evidence, though, and we've been arguing over it, so the only way to prove whether or not my cards actually exist, is to determine whether or not the possibilites have any evidence behind them.

So lets get on with that.


Mere possibility is not evidence. By that logic Zeus has evidence for his existence.

See? I told you you'd do it again.

"Luke lying to cover it up" is a part of your theory. You cannot use your theory to prove your theory.


You asked for a motivation, I gave it to you. My evidence is the criterion of dissimilarity. You treated the lack of motivation as a hole. But there is no lack of motivation. Luke would have had motivation. This change is something that needs to be considered, and we look at the theory with the most explanatory power. That's why people tend to believe in evolution rather than a magician magically copy and pasting animals for billions of years because he sucked at making animals.


No I'm not. What's the third name?


DarkContractor
I'm quoting scripture because without the faith, you will never see, or acknowledge him as truth. That's biblical fact for believers that believe, those who do not will not see His goodness.


Oh look OrangeWizard either not reading or ignoring my earlier posts but still arguing bits and pieces of them. Exactly what I said he does. Your other bit about the alternative name of Thad was contingent of this, so this just dismissed that bit.
#42_Rasl3rX_Posted 7/14/2013 11:28:28 PM
"The evidence against that claim that they're the same, is that in the bible, people who share the same name are differentiated, often by referring to their relation to someone else, hence "brother of", "son of", etc. "

You need evidence that Judas was an alternative name, though.


"Why isn't the rest of Matthew a copy of Mark? Why can't we randomly pick any verse in Mark and see the copy in Matthew?"

Because not any verse was copied unto Matthew.

"You're cherry-picking here. You're looking at the spots where they match up, and ignoring all the places where they don't."

Because the chances of all these multiple word for word similarities is phenomenally low. You're rejecting a good chunk of like 99% of Biblical scholarship by not acknowledging the need for a solution to this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synoptic_problem

"You can't claim that Matthew is an embellished copy of Mark by examining the 10% where they match up."

Good thing that's not my claim and I just clarified that wasn't my claim.

"Or, that, you know, they all used a common source, but I don't really see that this is a big deal. I'm also not sure how this is supposed to back up your claim that Judas was good, or something."

That it's legendary, it didn't happen in the way described.

"So they included Judas because Judas really did betray Jesus. They included him for the sake of accuracy.

Obscuring Judas from the story would have been inaccurate.

I don't see your point here.

Who do you mean by the "Gonstics"? Are these a different group of people than the Christians? If not, why should I care about the "Gnostics"?"

This is legitimately one of the few posts on 263 that have made me irl lol.

The Gnostics were a schism from Christianity in the get go. They believed Jesus came for them, but had a weird theology. Noncanonical letters like the Sophia of Jesus, Acts of the 12 Apostles, the Apocalypse of Peter (debatably), Apocalypse of Paul, Gospel of Mary Magdalene, Gospel of the Egyptians, Gospel of Judas these are Gnostic texts. You know a lot of the times the epistles of John in the NT talk about "those who deny Jesus came in the flesh are antichrists"? These are anti-Gnostic propaganda, the Gnostics believed Jesus came down as a spirit who looked like he was in the flesh.

The argument is if Judas was an evil bad guy why would he be incorporated into the Gnostic texts? He's a very frequent character with plenty of dialogue and constantly affirms his loyalty to Christ.
#43_Rasl3rX_Posted 7/14/2013 11:28:34 PM
""YOU who have followed me..."

Judas didn't follow him, so..."

It's in the past tense, and Judas had been following him so far. Also if your interpretation was right, then that would mean he just told these 11 they would rule over the 12 thrones. But what about Mattias? Check.

"Then what was all that fluff up above? This is the first time I'm hearing of this, and from the looks of it, nothing else you've written has anything to do with this. If this is the crux of your argument, why is it being presented just now?"

I put it at the end of my first post (ok technically post 2 but you know what I mean).

My argument is that the biblical betrayal of Judas is historically inaccurate.

"1) The Romans didn't want him killed, the Pharisees did. Remember that whole deal with Pontius Pilate washing his hands of the ordeal?"

Philo, an extensive writer, was actually a contemporary of this event and a very close associate of Pilate and testifies to working together with him, making him pretty reliable on this subject. And he depicts Pilate as a ruthless a****** that would do anything he could to immediately kill someone, innocent or criminal. Not this reluctant, sorrowful Pilate in the Bible.

"2) What evidence do you have that the people who were actually taking Jesus into custody should have known what he looked like?"

Very weak evidence. The Bible testifies to Jesus feeding 5000 people, for example. Apparently lots of people met Jesus. He might have also been wearing rabbi robes, since he had been leading the Passover dinner.

Do you read non-JW Biblical scholarship? I don't know if they have a rule on that or not. But if you want to research the Bible historically and learn some of the reasoning for two source hypothesis, I really recommend Bart Ehrman's books, especially Misquoting Jesus and Jesus Interrupted. Haven't read much of Bruce Metzger, but he's the NT teacher at Princeton Theological Seminary and one of the most renown Bible scholars in the world, you can learn more about the stuff I'm claiming being claimed from a nonsecular viewpoint.
#44OrangeWizardPosted 7/15/2013 7:40:34 AM
From: _Rasl3rX_ | #041
Yes, I do believe 11=11 and assume when people say 11 they mean 11 and not a different number. Anyone who wonders if 11 meant 12 or 12 meant 11 without reason is an idiot. Any evidence that twelve was supposed to mean eleven? If not, dismissed.

Matthias wasn't a disciple until Acts. He wasn't appeared to at the Resurrection.


You're just flat-out ignoring the whole "group name" argument. The first time you responded with sarcasm, and then muttered something about some sort of equivocation fallacy, but then I never heard about it again.

I know Matthias wasn't a disciple until Acts. I already explained that. BY THE TIME THE BOOK WAS BEING WRITTEN he could have been a disciple, and thus, retroactively named as such.

How do you know he wasn't appeared to?

There's no other disciple it could have been; Matthias wasn't there yet. Deductive logic.


Too bad I already explained that.

Mere possibility is not evidence.


I know. That's why I've been demoting your arguments to the realm of possibility, so the most you can say is that "It's possible that Judas didn't betray Jesus"

Anyway, I never said that possibility was evidence. I was talking about finding evidence for the possibilities.

My evidence is the criterion of dissimilarity.


"The criterion states that if a saying attributed to Jesus is dissimilar to the Jewish traditions of his time and also from the early Church that followed him, it is likely to be authentic." -- Wikipedia.

According to Wikipedia, the "criterion" is all about determining whether something Jesus said is likely an authentic statement.

I don't see what a criterion that's exclusively used on Jesus has to do with anything, as we aren't investigating Jesus' words here.

But there is no lack of motivation. Luke would have had motivation.


Feel free to prove that.
---
Trolling and making valid arguments are not mutually exclusive
#45OrangeWizardPosted 7/15/2013 7:40:55 AM

"I'm quoting scripture because without the faith, you will never see, or acknowledge him as truth. That's biblical fact for believers that believe, those who do not will not see His goodness."


Oh look OrangeWizard either not reading or ignoring my earlier posts but still arguing bits and pieces of them. Exactly what I said he does. Your other bit about the alternative name of Thad was contingent of this, so this just dismissed that bit.


I don't see what that self-quote has to do with anything. Are you saying that I need to respond to that? Why would I? I don't care that you're quoting scripture, and I don't know what you're talking about when you say "you will never see or acknowledge him as truth". Are you talking about Jesus?

And what's the third name for Thad? You claimed that I had a third name for him. What is it?

From: _Rasl3rX_ | #042
You need evidence that Judas was an alternative name, though.


To quote you, "There is no other disciple it could have been".
Which is pretty much what I said the first time. And then, in response to that, you used circular reasoning to try and substantiate your theory with itself

Because the chances of all these multiple word for word similarities is phenomenally low.


What do you mean "all these multiple word for word similarities"? All you've shown me is that one instance about the capture of Jesus.

And besides, I still don't see this as a problem. As long as the story is true, I don't care how plagiarized it is.

Those bible scholars can tear their hair out over this, if they want.

That it's legendary, it didn't happen in the way described.


It didn't happen in the way described, because multiple people wrote down the event in question using the same wording?

Obscuring Judas from the story would have been inaccurate.


Yes. I know.
You yourself said that the Gnostics were focused on accuracy.
Hence, they included Judas, because it would be accurate thing to do.
---
Trolling and making valid arguments are not mutually exclusive
#46OrangeWizardPosted 7/15/2013 7:44:11 AM
The argument is if Judas was an evil bad guy why would he be incorporated into the Gnostic texts?


What was he incorporated as, a hero or a villain?
If he was incorporated as a hero, again, why should I care what the Gnostics think?
If he was incorporated as a villain, then it doesn't help your argument.

From: _Rasl3rX_ | #043
It's in the past tense, and Judas had been following him so far


Not really. Sure, he physically walked behind Jesus, but he was pick-pocketing the whole time, stealing from the treasury.

I doubt that Jesus meant "following" in the sense of "staying in close physical proximity to me".

Also if your interpretation was right, then that would mean he just told these 11 they would rule over the 12 thrones.


Except that my interpretation is that these are not 12 literal thrones. He's saying that they will make up the 144,000 kings of heaven. Neither are the 12 tribes of Israel literal.

It just symbolizes leadership and those who are under their leadership. 12 is also a pretty symbolic number in the bible.

I could get into it more, if you want, but it might take us pretty far off topic.

Philo, an extensive writer, was actually a contemporary of this event and a very close associate of Pilate and testifies to working together with him, making him pretty reliable on this subject. And he depicts Pilate as a ruthless a****** that would do anything he could to immediately kill someone, innocent or criminal. Not this reluctant, sorrowful Pilate in the Bible.


Okay. Philo didn't contradict the Gospel about anything Jesus related, though. Notes about his temperament don't contradict any actions he could have taken.

Just because someone is described as strong, does not mean that they'll never lose a fight, and someone described as ruthless does not mean that they'll never back down.

But since you trust the Gnostics so much, the Gonstics, in the Gospel of Peter, also testified that Pilate was innocent here.

Apparently lots of people met Jesus.


So I ask again, what makes you think that the people doing the capturing of Jesus were among those "lots"?

Or were you describing your own evidence as "very weak"?
---
Trolling and making valid arguments are not mutually exclusive
#47OrangeWizardPosted 7/15/2013 7:44:28 AM
Do you read non-JW Biblical scholarship?


Not really, but thanks for the recommendations.
---
Trolling and making valid arguments are not mutually exclusive
#48_Rasl3rX_Posted 7/15/2013 5:25:26 PM
You're just flat-out ignoring the whole "group name" argument. The first time you responded with sarcasm, and then muttered something about some sort of equivocation fallacy, but then I never heard about it again.


Because it's not a proper noun. It's just a number. You're equating a number to a proper noun and then using the property of the proper noun on the number.


I know Matthias wasn't a disciple until Acts. I already explained that. BY THE TIME THE BOOK WAS BEING WRITTEN he could have been a disciple, and thus, retroactively named as such.

How do you know he wasn't appeared to?


And I already explained that Mattias wasn't a disciple. So, how could he be named as a disciple if he wasn't a disciple? And there is zero evidence in any of the accounts of the Resurrection that Mattias was there and the Gospels tended to be specific with their namedrops. He also was not there with the whole group nor was he a disciple when this happened.

Too bad I already explained that.


No you didn't.

I know. That's why I've been demoting your arguments to the realm of possibility, so the most you can say is that "It's possible that Judas didn't betray Jesus"

Anyway, I never said that possibility was evidence. I was talking about finding evidence for the possibilities.


I gave you evidence. You just didn't like that I had evidence, so you're rationalizing it.

"The criterion states that if a saying attributed to Jesus is dissimilar to the Jewish traditions of his time and also from the early Church that followed him, it is likely to be authentic." -- Wikipedia.

According to Wikipedia, the "criterion" is all about determining whether something Jesus said is likely an authentic statement.

I don't see what a criterion that's exclusively used on Jesus has to do with anything, as we aren't investigating Jesus' words here.


You seriously think that you're going to trump me with 2minute wikipedia researching? I mean I don't mean to be cocky, but I read at least a book or two of Biblical scholarship a month - minimum. And I can guarantee you, without a doubt, that this criterion is used all the damn time for many things outside of Jesus' sayings. If you read the books I recommended you, you would know this. But, since we're going with wikipedia armchair research,

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Markan_priority

See the alternations section.


"Feel free to prove that."

Because Judas had betrayed Jesus and with a letter from Jude going around this would have not been good for the early Church. There's also a lot of evidence that Luke was writing to a late 1st century Church community and constantly edited his texts to create a more passionative, more theological driven Gospel. Sources: Bart Ehrman's Misquoting Jesus, Rick Strelan's Luke the Priest: The Authority of the Author of the Third Gospel)
---
DarkContractor
#49_Rasl3rX_Posted 7/15/2013 5:25:43 PM
""I don't see what that self-quote has to do with anything. Are you saying that I need to respond to that? Why would I? I don't care that you're quoting scripture, and I don't know what you're talking about when you say "you will never see or acknowledge him as truth". Are you talking about Jesus?

And what's the third name for Thad? You claimed that I had a third name for him. What is it?"

Sorry I copied and pasted the wrong thing. Some dude on facebook was giving me the whole 'just believe!!!!" ****, lulz.

Meant to paste this

DarkContractor
Actually, some of our manuscripts DO have an alternate name Lebbaeus

We also have a couple of manuscripts that read Lebbaeus who is called Thaddaeus

Now go ahead and give me your evidence that this was Judas, please.


From post 26.


To quote you, "There is no other disciple it could have been".
Which is pretty much what I said the first time. And then, in response to that, you used circular reasoning to try and substantiate your theory with itself


Well I have evidence regardless of legendary events surrounding the betrayal - this is what I demonstrated using the dissimilarity criterion and the synoptic problem. But we also have to explain the name change, and this has the most explanatory power. It explains this, the Gnostics usage of Judas, etc.

"What do you mean "all these multiple word for word similarities"? All you've shown me is that one instance about the capture of Jesus.


I'm not going to write you an essay. For another, check out the story of the leper being healed. Remember, Jesus was suddenly filled with compassion and healed the leper, and told him to keep it a secret? The syntopic Gospels all have the same wording. But there is one difference. Mark uses the phrase 'filled with compassion' when Jesus heals the leper. But this is the only missing bit from the other two gospels. Everything else is word for word. So from a dissimilar perspective how DO we explain this? Obviously it makes no sense to remove Jesus feeling compassionate.

However, the Greek for compassionate, Splangithesis, is actually not found in our best Markan manuscripts. Our betters one use "Origethesis", which means "Anger", which dissimilarity wise, we ask ourselves "Would they have changed an angry Jesus to a compassionate Jesus or vice versa?" Then we realize the other two Gospels removed this phrase because it originally used origethesis. There are many more examples, though. Again, Misquoting Jesus by Bart Ehrman. He made a ton of modern scholarship accessible to a general audience with that book.

"And besides, I still don't see this as a problem. As long as the story is true, I don't care how plagiarized it is."

Why do you think it's true?


"It didn't happen in the way described, because multiple people wrote down the event in question using the same wording?"

The embellishment that all passes the dissimilarity!

"
What was he incorporated as, a hero or a villain?
If he was incorporated as a hero, again, why should I care what the Gnostics think?
If he was incorporated as a villain, then it doesn't help your argument."

A hero. As I said, he has his own Gospel, linked for your reading pleasure in post 3. Your apathy makes zero difference here. This is a historical debate, not a theological one. And there is ZERO reason to treat the protoorthodox texts any more reliably than (some) of the Gnostics one. Why would he be treated as a hero? If this whole full fledged betrayal was accurate, then why is he a hero in Gnosticism?
---
DarkContractor
#50_Rasl3rX_Posted 7/15/2013 5:26:36 PM
"Not really. Sure, he physically walked behind Jesus, but he was pick-pocketing the whole time, stealing from the treasury.

I doubt that Jesus meant "following" in the sense of "staying in close physical proximity to me"."

I've never heard of this, mind pointing me in the direction that I can read about this? Is this a verse or something?

"Except that my interpretation is that these are not 12 literal thrones. He's saying that they will make up the 144,000 kings of heaven. Neither are the 12 tribes of Israel literal.

It just symbolizes leadership and those who are under their leadership. 12 is also a pretty symbolic number in the bible.

I could get into it more, if you want, but it might take us pretty far off topic."

You can make another topic if you want because I'm interpretting this as ad hoc'd "12 is a metaphor for 144,000" so far which makes zero sense.

"kay. Philo didn't contradict the Gospel about anything Jesus related, though. Notes about his temperament don't contradict any actions he could have taken.

Just because someone is described as strong, does not mean that they'll never lose a fight, and someone described as ruthless does not mean that they'll never back down."

Okay, but I think Philo is a lot more reliable of a source on Pilate than the Bible, and this seems like special pleading. In fact, why did none of this get mentioned in any of Philo's near two dozen texts? He was a Hellenic Jew living in Jersualem before, during, and after Jesus' ministry. He wrote extensively on Judaism, was very passionate about God, and is actually one of our best contemporary insights into the culture of Jersualem at the time of Jesus - Yet he does not mention a single lick of Jesus or Christianity or any other miracle or anything. When Jesus fed the 5000 bread - Philo was there. When Jesus told everyone the temple would be destroyed and caused a great commotion flipping over tables and ****, he was there. All the rumors about Jesus spreading from village to village; he was there.

"But since you trust the Gnostics so much, the Gonstics, in the Gospel of Peter, also testified that Pilate was innocent here."

First, I don't 'trust' the Gnostics in that I think they're just automatically truthful and accurate. If I did, I'd be a Gnostic. I'm saying I don't see why Judas is a major character in Gnosticism. Do you see the problem? Why would they write material with Judas in it if everyone knew he had been taken by Satan to succumb to money and crap and betray Jesus?

Also, scholars are in almost universal agreement that the Gospel of Peter wasn't even written until at least halfway through the second century. I don't think any religion is reliable. I look at the individual components and judge if they're reliable instead of dogmatism.

"Or were you describing your own evidence as "very weak"?"

Yep.

"Not really, but thanks for the recommendations."

No problem.

Did we just bond a teensey bit? :O Disgusting...
---
DarkContractor