why did the Pharesses need JUDAS?

[Cogitoergosum]

Multiple places in the NT it was stated that the people recognised jesus without being introduced to him, as soon as they saw him. Multiple times jesus was questionned by the pharesses in an attempt to trick him.
So y did the pharessees need JUDAS to deliver JESUS? they knew who jesus was. so what is the role of judas?

[bjs1]

[Replying to bjs1 in post #58]
Bart Ehrman is a self appointed agnostic.

Of course christian apologetes like to name him atheist. For it makes for better propaganda, useful for apologetics.

"Look, even that scholared atheist says this and that!"

Bart Ehrman cant sway from his stance of a historic christ, cause its the foundation for his whole written academic lifes work.

Jesus Never Existed
https://www.jesusneverexisted.com/

could ruin his reputation and career.

Yet he disqualified himself as scholar and history writer when he cooked up his book
Did Jesus Exist
https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/23605

Outright lies, false historic information et cetera

And only answered with arrogance or better not at all when called on it. Or even with new lies.

That brought unto him his new name

Bart Errorman

You might notice that in this quote Ehrman did not argue that Jesus existed. Rather, he stated that virtually all historians hold that Jesus was a historical person.

You claimed that, “in the past one or two decades the historicity of the gospels and the gospel characters got under fire more and more.” Ehman shows that your claim is false.

If you agree with Ehrman about Jesus or not, he is in the scholarly world and knows the experts on ancient history. He has the experience and background to validly say that “99.99 percent of the real experts” reject the claim that Jesus never existed.

You can believe that Jesus never existed, but I have provided clear evidence to support my claim that virtually everyone who has studied the topic disagrees.

Richard Carrier is one of the few (one of two?) people with a doctorate who holds that Jesus did not exist. He did publish books on the topic. Virtually the only positive peer review came from his collaborator, Raphael Lataster.

Nearly all other historians were critical of Carrier’s methodology and conclusions. Both classicists and biblical scholars agree that there is a historical basis for a person called Jesus of Nazareth.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Carrier

So yes, a book was written claiming that Jesus did not exist. And yes, it was peer reviewed. The problem is that, with one exception, all of those reviews were negative.

[benchwarmer]

Richard Carrier is one of the few (one of two?) people with a doctorate who holds that Jesus did not exist. He did publish books on the topic. Virtually the only positive peer review came from his collaborator, Raphael Lataster.

That's a lot of misinformation in 3 sentences.

From watching multiple talks/interviews with Richard, he does not actually "hold that Jesus did not exist". He actually gives a probability not a direct yes/no. I have seen him say that the probability (in his opinion) is about 1 in 3 at best that he existed. i.e. He does not claim with certainty one way or the other, though leans towards non-existence. Look carefully at the title of his peer reviewed book:
On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt (bolding mine)

As for the "one or two" people with a doctorate, Richard actually keeps a (growing) list on his blog of scholars/historians who agree with him: https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/21420#

The current count is 43.

As for the peer review itself, there is no 'positive' or 'negative' like an amazon review. Perhaps you are conflating book reviews with peer review? You either pass peer review or you don't. i.e. the peers provide comments on any errors/omissions and then approve/reject based on that. There are of course different peer review processes (google), but the idea is to determine if your work is supported by research, applies to the topic at hand, etc.

Nearly all other historians were critical of Carrier’s methodology and conclusions. Both classicists and biblical scholars agree that there is a historical basis for a person called Jesus of Nazareth.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Carrier

So yes, a book was written claiming that Jesus did not exist. And yes, it was peer reviewed. The problem is that, with one exception, all of those reviews were negative.

You are correct that most (clearly no longer all) other historians and Bible scholars still agree that Jesus was a historical person. However, it seems the winds are starting to shift and the mythicist view is not as fringe as it once was, though of course it is still not the main stream view.

Even Richard Carrier will agree that some mythicists are "crack pots" and are not using any methodology to come to their conclusions.

I've seen time and time again people who do not actually have a clue what Richard actually wrote about and then go claiming this or that about his work and thus dismissing it. Did he prove Jesus did not exist? No, and anyone who is familiar with his work wouldn't say he did either. However, anyone who actually bothers to learn what he actually wrote about might find at least some interesting information about how we could even determine such a thing as the historicity of a person.

[The Nice Centurion]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #60]
It is interesting.
What do you think was the main reason for christianity to be an antisemitic religion.

Jesus and the apostles and the world they live in clearly are jewish.

Except for the roman military suppressors who only were allowed into the country to prove to all gospel readers how nice a centurion really can be.

And prefects as well as procurators are not so bad either, or even suspectible to be closet christians.
(Pilate, Felix, Faustus . . .)

I bet it has something to do with rivaling christian sects; Jewish christians (that means jews who said that only jews may become christians, who got vanquished early) and greek/roman "gentile" christians.

Pauls letters are not that antisemitic, so the trend to absolute antisemitism must have set in somewhere between Pauls letters and gospel of Mark.

[The Nice Centurion]

[Replying to bjs1 in post #58]
Bart Ehrman is a self appointed agnostic.

Of course christian apologetes like to name him atheist. For it makes for better propaganda, useful for apologetics.

"Look, even that scholared atheist says this and that!"

Bart Ehrman cant sway from his stance of a historic christ, cause its the foundation for his whole written academic lifes work.

Jesus Never Existed
https://www.jesusneverexisted.com/

could ruin his reputation and career.

Yet he disqualified himself as scholar and history writer when he cooked up his book
Did Jesus Exist
https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/23605

Outright lies, false historic information et cetera

And only answered with arrogance or better not at all when called on it. Or even with new lies.

That brought unto him his new name

Bart Errorman

You might notice that in this quote Ehrman did not argue that Jesus existed. Rather, he stated that virtually all historians hold that Jesus was a historical person.

You claimed that, “in the past one or two decades the historicity of the gospels and the gospel characters got under fire more and more.” Ehman shows that your claim is false.

If you agree with Ehrman about Jesus or not, he is in the scholarly world and knows the experts on ancient history. He has the experience and background to validly say that “99.99 percent of the real experts” reject the claim that Jesus never existed.

You can believe that Jesus never existed, but I have provided clear evidence to support my claim that virtually everyone who has studied the topic disagrees.

Richard Carrier is one of the few (one of two?) people with a doctorate who holds that Jesus did not exist. He did publish books on the topic. Virtually the only positive peer review came from his collaborator, Raphael Lataster.

Nearly all other historians were critical of Carrier’s methodology and conclusions. Both classicists and biblical scholars agree that there is a historical basis for a person called Jesus of Nazareth.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Carrier

So yes, a book was written claiming that Jesus did not exist. And yes, it was peer reviewed. The problem is that, with one exception, all of those reviews were negative.

I want to inquire
You yourself, what evidence do you think we have for a historical Jesus

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #60]
It is interesting.
What do you think was the main reason for christianity to be an antisemitic religion.

Jesus and the apostles and the world they live in clearly are jewish.

Except for the roman military suppressors who only were allowed into the country to prove to all gospel readers how nice a centurion really can be.

And prefects as well as procurators are not so bad either, or even suspectible to be closet christians.
(Pilate, Felix, Faustus . . .)

I bet it has something to do with rivaling christian sects; Jewish christians (that means jews who said that only jews may become christians, who got vanquished early) and greek/roman "gentile" christians.

Pauls letters are not that antisemitic, so the trend to absolute antisemitism must have set in somewhere between Pauls letters and gospel of Mark.

I think and argue (and I believe I have done so before) that the rift happened when Jewish Mesianism (the Jesus party and disciples) got shifted to Greek Christianity by Paul, who though Jewish had as much or more synpathy with his Roman fellow -citizens.

Paul's antipathy was to his doctrinal opponents, and it seems mainly Jewish ones.

With a historic enmity between Hellenics and Hebrews, it didn't take much for the Greek (trust me ) gospel writers to turn Paul's doctrinal dislike for Judaism (and Mosaic laws and rituals) into a racial detestation. Which persisted for centuries all through the Roman antecedents and up to today.

[The Nice Centurion]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #65]
There just have to be some books out there about the history of antisemitism.

I wonder how far their authors dare to go to put first fault on Paul and the first christians

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #65]
There just have to be some books out there about the history of antisemitism.

I wonder how far their authors dare to go to put first fault on Paul and the first christians

I would be willing to hear their opinions, but to be honest (and a bit arrogant) I prefer to follow the clues in the Bible rather than the opinions of the Authorities and experts who just don't seem to me to have got the idea at all.

Not on the OT which is just a claim of separate and particular origins of the Jewish people separate from anyone else (which is why doctrinal distinction as a survival mechanism works so well) nor on the idea that the NT is a Greek Christian work mostly of doctrine -based fiction loosely based on real stuff like a Jewish Jesus and Hellenised Roman Jew, Paul. His conversion was for political not magical reasons and his resurrection references (collective noun ) in I Corinthians was spiritual/visionary, not the Sunday afternoon peripatetic corpse. Never mind the division of Jesus into Christian Jesus and zealot Barabbas (only one other vid- maker saw this idea though he didn't take it all the way) I may be dead wrong; I make have come up with a crazy and far fetched theory, but by Nongod it all fits like a black lace glove on a disciplinarian madame and explains pretty much all the questions and problems, which the Experts and Authorities don't ask let alone answer.

So frankly, call me mr Swank (could be worse ) I pay little attention to books by Bible experts, because they don't seem to me to be anywhere near the questions, never mind the answers.

[2ndpillar2]

I'm not sure ether why anyone would need Judas as an inside man, seeing as Jesus was something of a local celebrity, but it sure adds to the drama. The Gospel of Judas seems to shed some light on the whole story from Judas' slant on the whole story.

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/lostg ... fJudas.pdf

Yeshua would have been a "celebrity" to the common people who he healed and fed, but to the "multiple with swords and clubs, from the chief priests", they probably had never had seen him. As for why Judas was chosen and did what he did, that is with respect to the prophecy of Hosea 3, whereas an "adulterous", the Gentile church, would be purchased for the equivalence of 30 shekels of silver, to make "Israel" jealous. The mechanism for the creation of the "adulterous" church would be laid out in Zechariah 11, whereas 3 "shepherds" would be chosen in that effort, and Judas Iscariot (Zechariah 11:12-13) as shown in Matthew 27:9-10. Peter, the "worthless shepherd" of Zech 11:17 was one, and Paul, the "staff" called "Favor", because of his false gospel of grace (Zech 11:10) was the other. As stated in Hosea 3, this would be for "many days", and as stated in Isaiah 22:15-25, those hanging onto Peter, and his heir, the pope, would be "cut off" in "that day", which would be the day of the LORD, which is "behind the door" (Mt 24:33).

[TRANSPONDER]

I'm not sure ether why anyone would need Judas as an inside man, seeing as Jesus was something of a local celebrity, but it sure adds to the drama. The Gospel of Judas seems to shed some light on the whole story from Judas' slant on the whole story.

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/lostg ... fJudas.pdf

Yeshua would have been a "celebrity" to the common people who he healed and fed, but to the "multiple with swords and clubs, from the chief priests", they probably had never had seen him. As for why Judas was chosen and did what he did, that is with respect to the prophecy of Hosea 3, whereas an "adulterous", the Gentile church, would be purchased for the equivalence of 30 shekels of silver, to make "Israel" jealous. The mechanism for the creation of the "adulterous" church would be laid out in Zechariah 11, whereas 3 "shepherds" would be chosen in that effort, and Judas Iscariot (Zechariah 11:12-13) as shown in Matthew 27:9-10. Peter, the "worthless shepherd" of Zech 11:17 was one, and Paul, the "staff" called "Favor", because of his false gospel of grace (Zech 11:10) was the other. As stated in Hosea 3, this would be for "many days", and as stated in Isaiah 22:15-25, those hanging onto Peter, and his heir, the pope, would be "cut off" in "that day", which would be the day of the LORD, which is "behind the door" (Mt 24:33).

As to that, the only comment I'd care to make is that, according to the Bible, the Sanhedrin and their guards had seen Jesus in the temple and debated with him. They knew what he looked like. Jesus even says they'd seen him teaching in the Temple. They did not need Judas to betray Jesus; the Christian writers did.

[2ndpillar2]

I'm not sure ether why anyone would need Judas as an inside man, seeing as Jesus was something of a local celebrity, but it sure adds to the drama. The Gospel of Judas seems to shed some light on the whole story from Judas' slant on the whole story.

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/lostg ... fJudas.pdf

Yeshua would have been a "celebrity" to the common people who he healed and fed, but to the "multiple with swords and clubs, from the chief priests", they probably had never had seen him. As for why Judas was chosen and did what he did, that is with respect to the prophecy of Hosea 3, whereas an "adulterous", the Gentile church, would be purchased for the equivalence of 30 shekels of silver, to make "Israel" jealous. The mechanism for the creation of the "adulterous" church would be laid out in Zechariah 11, whereas 3 "shepherds" would be chosen in that effort, and Judas Iscariot (Zechariah 11:12-13) as shown in Matthew 27:9-10. Peter, the "worthless shepherd" of Zech 11:17 was one, and Paul, the "staff" called "Favor", because of his false gospel of grace (Zech 11:10) was the other. As stated in Hosea 3, this would be for "many days", and as stated in Isaiah 22:15-25, those hanging onto Peter, and his heir, the pope, would be "cut off" in "that day", which would be the day of the LORD, which is "behind the door" (Mt 24:33).

As to that, the only comment I'd care to make is that, according to the Bible, the Sanhedrin and their guards had seen Jesus in the temple and debated with him. They knew what he looked like. Jesus even says they'd seen him teaching in the Temple. They did not need Judas to betray Jesus; the Christian writers did.

The description of the people who came to arrest Yeshua was not the "Sanhedrin and their guards". It was: "And while He was still speaking, behold, Judas, one of the twelve, came accompanied by a large crowd with swords and clubs, who came from the chief priests and elders of the people". (Matthew 26:47) The "crowds" would bring Yeshua to the "chief priests". This was done to fulfill "Scripture" which was (Zechariah 11:12-13) & (Hosea 3), and not a general reference to Jeremiah, as falsely stated in your NT rendition.

Zechariah 11:12 I said to them, “If it is good in your sight, give me my wages; but if not, never mind!” So they weighed out thirty shekels of silver as my wages. 13Then the LORD said to me, “Throw it to the potter, that magnificent price at which I was valued by them.” So I took the thirty shekels of silver and threw them to the potter in the house of the LORD.