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

Did Judas actually betray Jesus?

#61gamesrgreatPosted 7/17/2013 2:12:25 PM
Idk why this Wandering Hero guy is advocating for OW. OW is one of the worst posters I've seen and has admitted to being a troll/trolling numerous times. There's no point in engaging that guy
---
D-Jesus aka Flash aka 3, Christ Bosh aka the Prophet aka Raptor Jesus, King James 3:16 The Miami Heat 2012 and 2013 Champs
#62OrangeWizardPosted 7/17/2013 2:36:11 PM
gamesrgreat posted...
Idk why this Wandering Hero guy is advocating for OW.


Because he is sane.
---
Trolling and making valid arguments are not mutually exclusive
#63Wandering__HeroPosted 7/17/2013 3:17:43 PM
gamesrgreat posted...
Idk why this Wandering Hero guy is advocating for OW. OW is one of the worst posters I've seen and has admitted to being a troll/trolling numerous times. There's no point in engaging that guy


The debates on this board are genreally pretty pointless.

Atheist: Look I found something that might be a small loophole in the bible! or Look some books that are recognised by the church as not being part of the bible says your wrong! This is totally going to make you deconvert and make atheists the winning side! Christian: Nu ah. Ahtiest; Ah hah. Christian: Nu ah.

For many, many pages, rinse and repeat. I really don't get the point. It doesn't bring anyone closer to atheism you know. Your not going to cause a Christian to give up their faith because of something you read on a atheist website, even if your the greatest debater in the universe.

Then again, why do you complain about OW not responding to your posts when he does, but LSM bliterly ignored what anyone typed and would just keep going anyway? What does defeating a strawman really achieve anyway?
---
Click the sites these contain to donate to charity for free http://www.thenonprofits.com/
#64gamesrgreatPosted 7/17/2013 3:19:46 PM
Wandering__Hero posted...
gamesrgreat posted...
Idk why this Wandering Hero guy is advocating for OW. OW is one of the worst posters I've seen and has admitted to being a troll/trolling numerous times. There's no point in engaging that guy


The debates on this board are genreally pretty pointless.

Atheist: Look I found something that might be a small loophole in the bible! or Look some books that are recognised by the church as not being part of the bible says your wrong! This is totally going to make you deconvert and make atheists the winning side! Christian: Nu ah. Ahtiest; Ah hah. Christian: Nu ah.

For many, many pages, rinse and repeat. I really don't get the point. It doesn't bring anyone closer to atheism you know. Your not going to cause a Christian to give up their faith because of something you read on a atheist website, even if your the greatest debater in the universe.

Then again, why do you complain about OW not responding to your posts when he does, but LSM bliterly ignored what anyone typed and would just keep going anyway? What does defeating a strawman really achieve anyway?


I don't think I am who you think I am. I'm not the TC.

A couple of atheists have been created due in part to this board.
---
D-Jesus aka Flash aka 3, Christ Bosh aka the Prophet aka Raptor Jesus, King James 3:16 The Miami Heat 2012 and 2013 Champs
#65Wandering__HeroPosted 7/17/2013 3:33:10 PM
gamesrgreat posted...
Wandering__Hero posted...
gamesrgreat posted...
Idk why this Wandering Hero guy is advocating for OW. OW is one of the worst posters I've seen and has admitted to being a troll/trolling numerous times. There's no point in engaging that guy


The debates on this board are genreally pretty pointless.

Atheist: Look I found something that might be a small loophole in the bible! or Look some books that are recognised by the church as not being part of the bible says your wrong! This is totally going to make you deconvert and make atheists the winning side! Christian: Nu ah. Ahtiest; Ah hah. Christian: Nu ah.

For many, many pages, rinse and repeat. I really don't get the point. It doesn't bring anyone closer to atheism you know. Your not going to cause a Christian to give up their faith because of something you read on a atheist website, even if your the greatest debater in the universe.

Then again, why do you complain about OW not responding to your posts when he does, but LSM bliterly ignored what anyone typed and would just keep going anyway? What does defeating a strawman really achieve anyway?


I don't think I am who you think I am. I'm not the TC.

A couple of atheists have been created due in part to this board.


I know your not, and who exactly?

Their was Dark Contractor, but looking at his posts and actions, the way he gloried LSM, I have trouble believing he was ever that deep into Christianity. Almost every single Christian on this board despised LSM, and LSM offered nothing of value except a punching bag, if that was close to his Christianity, its far away from the Christianity of anyone I've ever known on or offline or read about, and certainly the one in bible that Jesus talked about.

I also don't see how the topics here would be that persuasive. I can't imagine anything here that would shake the faith of anyone who had even passingly made an effort to find Jesus(granted, if you just relied on what fundies told you, then your faith wouldn't be especially deep rooted, but then one wonders why you'd bother calling yourself Christian in the first place, beyond social convenience) but I could be wrong. And I'm not saying a Christian would never have their faith shaken, but it should take more than "An atheist website says this bible verse might be wrong, so there!"
---
Click the sites these contain to donate to charity for free http://www.thenonprofits.com/
#66OrangeWizardPosted 7/17/2013 3:54:50 PM
gamesrgreat, I don't recall ever having a discussion with you. How did you come to the conclusion that I was a bad poster?

Have I ever personally hurt you with my posts?
---
Trolling and making valid arguments are not mutually exclusive
#67_Rasl3rX_Posted 7/17/2013 4:29:20 PM
"Unless of course, "the twelve" is not specifically referring to an actual number, but is simply a group name.

Notice he didn't say "The twelve apostles". He just said "the twelve".
In my translation, at least."


But twelve is not a title, it's a number :O Are you in denial?

"No. Could Paul have been retroactively referring to Matthias as a disciple, even though he had not yet been made one?"

No because Matthias was not with them yet. Why is this such a difficult concept to grasp.

"
Anyways,
1. Luke had a different disciple listed.

This is an assumption.

2. There must be a reason
3. We have evidence that it was not Thad's alternate name; we know his alternate name

A) People can only have one alternate name?
B) I'm not convinced that Laddaeus is an alternate name of Thaddeaus. It's most likely an alternate transliteration of the same word. You've simply been asserting that it's an alternate name this whole time."

Allow me to restate 1, I did (unintentionally) build that leadingly, I was just in the mindframe of my conclusion so my mind saw disciple and name interchangeably

1. Luke had a different name listed.
2. There must be a reason.

etc.

A) Okay, but this is your burden to bear, not mine. BTW, since I know you're just winging this without any information, most apologists believe that the name change to Jude was because of Iscariot's betrayal, but the argument is on why: A cover up or to clear Thad's name? http://www.12apostlesofthecatholicchurch.com/jude.html
B. Thaddeaus's etymology is someone who is brave, or strong (Kinda like Jesus' name of Immanuel); other languages would have had different words for that. Even so, is there any local language here (Aramic, Greek, Hebrew, etc.) that we could find a Th-L transliteration, the way we can find a J-H one in Spanish/English?

You're just making up unnecessary contingencies.

"Why, because people would mistake "Jude" for "Judas"? I don't see how you get motivation from that."

You do realize that Jude is shorthand for Judas, right? You do realize that the greek "%u0399%u03BF%u03CD%u03B4%u03B1%u03C2" [that's probably gonna come out wrong on GFaqs but I just c/p'd a Greek word, lol] is used in passages explicitly talking about Iscariot, and in passages where the name 'Jude' is used, right? No you don't, because you're making up all of this as you go along.

"If by "changing the scripts" you mean "Adding his remembered details to the account", then yes."

Luke wasn't even there, lol. I meant changing the Scripts; Luke's Gospel was a version of the Gospel written for a specific community, it's been a bit since I read Luke the Priest so I'm hazy on it, but just for example, Luke changes the prayer in Gesthemane too. Luke edited all over the place and this is no different, this is a miracle that isn't mentioned anywhere in literally any early Christian writing.
---
DarkContractor
#68_Rasl3rX_Posted 7/17/2013 4:29:57 PM
"Oh, okay.

I don't see how "Other people remembered/focused on different aspects" needs explaining."

No sir, literally all we have for the first 30 something years of Christianity is "Jesus was betrayed/handed over to the Romans", then when Mark comes out we suddenly have a big story behind it then we super quickly end up with even more embellished stories of the betrayal that all pass the dissimilarity test that all have zero evidence and word for word have every detail that Mark's passage had as their core. You see how it needs explaining, you just don't want to because of its theological implication, as I predicted (do atheists get bonus points for prophesy)

Proper historical exegesis on the Bible has proven time and time again that Christian scribes were willing to make things up in order to prove a point or make their scripts more appealing, this is no exception.

"n what basis do you say that it's embellishment?

Person A recounts XYZ
Person B recounts WXYZ

How can you say Person B is embellishing? Wouldn't you need to know exactly what the original story was, before accusing someone of exaggerating?"

Luke's source was Mark, this is just flying over your head.

"That still doesn't reconcile with the "I'M SO ANGRY...I want to, be made clean" part."
---
DarkContractor
#69_Rasl3rX_Posted 7/17/2013 4:30:45 PM
Because one of the major points in the OT is that disobedience God brings his anger and wrath, and Mark's theme is all about the persecution, the tormented Jesus. Also, it's not like this is the only example of anger being removed in the synoptic Gospels.

Also, if you can't see why Jesus would still want to relieve someone's sin even though he was angry with their sin you are blind. (You know Jesus, the dude who immediately called Peter "Satan!" when Peter was worried about Jesus dying but he died anyways for your sins? Do you even John 3:16?

Examples of Jesus's anger being removed in the synoptic Gospels:
. Mark 10:14 to Matt. 19:14 to Luke 18:16
Look at Mark 3:5 compared to Luke 6:10

the best part about these last few sentences is that I'm literally just copy pasting arguments I've used against you in the past that you completely ignored without a lick of response. Thank you for helping me establish my own personal collection of arguments to simply grab from like a catalog.

"You keep on using that word, like it's some kind of magic, and just by chanting "dissimilarity" all your dreams come true, and all your arguments are proven correct.

I do not think that word means what you think it means."

Did you even know about the dissimilar criterion before we started debating, lol?

It's pretty simple. It is very doubtful that Mark would have made up "Jesus' disciple chopped a dude's ear off trying to protect him" but because of the negativity of this part I can definitely see why someone would want to alter the passage so that Jesus scolded his disciple and put back on the ear.

"You've been saying "Well, the Gnostic Gospels paint Judas as a hero, so the bible MUST be lying when they say that Judas betrayed Jesus..."

That is not the argument. The argument is that Gnostics, who just as much wanted to win converts as the protoorthodox, would be unlikely to take a villian and make them a hero of the religion. I'm asking an explanation "Why" and all you've done is dance around the question, pretty much admit your bias that you have a priori of trusting the Bible, and toss around 'cherrypicking' as though exegetically breaking down a passage and analyzing it is cherrypicking. And that's because you're a poor mix of absolutism and hard nosed rationalism that has zero clue how these things work so when you get slammed with empirical evidence over empirical evidence all you can do is toss around false tautologies like this one. The question is not "Is the Bible/Gnostic texts historically reliable?" (anyone intellectually honest will say no to both questions) The two questions that need to be asked for every verse is A) Is this detail reliable B) Why is this detail, regardless of reliability, included?

Also, if you're next post doesn't respond to post 50 this debate is over.
---
DarkContractor
#70OrangeWizardPosted 7/19/2013 6:50:08 AM
_Rasl3rX_ posted...

But twelve is not a title, it's a number :O Are you in denial?

If he had said "the twelve apostles", then "twelve" would have been descriptive and much more likely to be an actual count.

But he said "the twelve", which means it's much less likely to be a count, and more of a group name.

Unless you can cancel out this possibility, it remains as a hole. Saying "it's a number" won't help.


No because Matthias was not with them yet. Why is this such a difficult concept to grasp.

With who, the Apostles? "With them" how? He wasn't in close physical proximity with them?

The verse just says "He appeared to ____, then the twelve, and upwards of 500..."

There's no indication that he appeared to the twelve at the same exact time, besides that one locked room incident, but even then it doesn't say exactly who was in there, does it?


1. Luke had a different name listed.
2. There must be a reason.

etc.

A) Okay, but this is your burden to bear, not mine. BTW, since I know you're just winging this without any information, most apologists believe that the name change to Jude was because of Iscariot's betrayal, but the argument is on why: A cover up or to clear Thad's name? http://www.12apostlesofthecatholicchurch.com/jude.html

Okay. It's not really my burden, though. Well, as it is now, it's not really something I see as a big deal.

As long as the possibility remains that Thad and Judas (not Iscariot) are one and the same, it's a hole in your theory, and that's enough for me.

B. Thaddeaus's etymology is someone who is brave, or strong (Kinda like Jesus' name of Immanuel); other languages would have had different words for that. Even so, is there any local language here (Aramic, Greek, Hebrew, etc.) that we could find a Th-L transliteration, the way we can find a J-H one in Spanish/English?


I don't know. It's YOUR bible which lists "Laddeaus". My bible doesn't. I don't even agree that he was called Laddeaus or whatever, so why are you asking me?

And even so, people in that culture had more than one name. He could have been Judas Thaddeaus Laddeaus III or something.


You're just making up unnecessary contingencies.

Yes I am. That doesn't change the validity of what I say.
---
Trolling and making valid arguments are not mutually exclusive