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?

[Goat]

No, you are wrong about the 36-37.. because the account from Josphus,the reason John the Baptist was after the marriage of Herod the Tetrarch and Herodias. THis narrows down the age range dratically.

It also elminates your explanation about why Pilate was so symatheitc in the Gospels vs the historical record about Pilate.

Oh. . . Ok I will break this into two sub topics so we can stay on task and still hammer out this little detail.

Discussion here is about 36-37.

Please tell me. What was the date for that wedding? How do you know? Please be as specific as possible since this is what you are using to date John's death.

When did Herod marry Herodias?

Herodias was previously married to Phillip, who died in 34 C.E.. so it had to be after that.

Oh how interesting.

Ok lets examine this for a second.

John is killed because he is against the union of these people. The Gospels tell us that John was arrested because he made it clear that it was unlawful for Herod to marry this woman.

However rules of the OT not only allowed this marriage but in fact demanded it if his brother hadn’t had any children.

So what would make it unlawful? Phillip was still alive.

No, she was his niece, and it was considered 'incestious'.

Additional evidence for this goes back to Josephus.

He divorced her and married Herodias, the wife of his half-brother Herod Philip (not to be confused with yet another brother, the tetrarch Herod Philip) and daughter of his half-brother Aristobulus; for which he and Herodias were condemned by John the Baptist and blamed by Flavius Josephus (Jewish Antiquities, XVIII, v).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herod_Antipas

Again here.

Notice .. HE divorce, and not 'SHe divorced'. You are misrepresnting the evidence.

he wife of Herod Antipas, who was tetrarch (ruler appointed by Rome) of Galilee, in northern Palestine, from 4 BC to AD 39. She conspired to arrange the execution of John the Baptist. Her marriage to Herod Antipas (himself divorced), after her divorce from his half-brother, was censured by John as a transgression of Mosaic Law.

However, if you read jOsphus, he was assumign Phillip was already dead.

Herodias, according to Mark (6:19–20), would have had John killed…
http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-90 ... #6753.hook

If Phillip was dead then they would not have violated Mosaic Law. Yet he was alive.

Herod: (rule 4 BC-39 AD) Herod Antipas, Son of Herod the Great and Tetrarch of Galilee. Jesus and John the Baptist were his subjects and carried out their teachings in his territories. He was condemned by John the Baptist for his marriage and adultery with Herodias, his half brother Philip’s wife as well as his niece. Because of this, Herod had him imprisoned and later executed. In his later life he was accused of crimes against Rome and was deported to Gaul and lost all his lands. Herodias followed him into exile.

Notice adultery was the crime of which Herod was guilty. Adultery did violate Mosaic laws.



THIS IS MY POINT EXACTLY AND IT COMES FROM AN ATHIEST WEBSITE!!

Why was John imprisoned? He openly disapproved of the marriage between Herod Antipas (son of Herod the Great) and Herodias — which is strange since according to Deuteronomy 25, a man has a moral obligation to marry the wife of a deceased brother if that brother left no sons. Thus, it was at least possible that the marriage between Herod and Herodias was not only licit, but in fact required — it all depends on whether Herodias and Philip had children together. We’re not given enough details to be sure.

http://atheism.about.com/od/biblegospel ... ark06c.htm

Even your own experts think that this was strange. However it isn't strange if Phillip wasn't dead yet.

Coincidence? I think not. Hence you have provided a very good reason to believe in the 33 or earlier date, rather than post 34.

From http://members.aol.com/FLJOSEPHUS/JohnTBaptist.htm

The Dating of John According to Josephus
A puzzle for readers is that Josephus' description of John the Baptist occurs several paragraphs after his description of Jesus (18.5.2 116 compared to 18.3.3 63), implying that John came later in time; but it is important in the gospels that John appeared before Jesus so as to announce him. When, exactly, does Josephus state that John arose?
He is not at all clear, as is often the case for events that occurred before his time. Even when Josephus is precise about dates he can frequently shown to be somewhat off (as when he gives the length of the reigns of Roman emperors). So any conclusions about John from this passage must be taken cum grano salis.
Having said that, it does appear that Josephus is giving John's death as occurring in 36 CE, which is at least 6 years later than what is expected from the New Testament, and after the crucifixion of Jesus. This date is seen as follows. Herod's battle with Aretas appears to have broken out soon after Herod's first wife, Aretas's daughter, left him. If so, then John did not have much time between the moment people were aware Herod was remarrying and the start of the battle with Aretas, for John was already dead before the battle. Josephus gives several indications that the battle occurred in 36 CE:

* He states that the quarrel with Aretas sprang up "about the time" (Ant. 18.5.1. 109) that Herod's brother Philip died in 34 CE (Ant. 18.4.6 106).
* During this time Herod's brother Agrippa had gone to Rome "a year before the death of Tiberius" (Ant18.5.3 126), which places Agrippas's departure in 36 CE.
* Soon after the battle, the Syrian commander Vitellius was ordered by Tiberius to attack Aretas, whereupon Vitellius marched through Judea with his army, pausing in Jerusalem to placate the Jews and to sacrifice at a festival (probably Passover). On the fourth day of his stay in Jerusalem he learned of the death of Tiberius, which had occurred on March 16 37 CE (and it could have taken up to a month for Jerusalem to get the news). This puts the battle in the winter of 36/37 CE.
* Vitellius' action against Aretas must have occurred between his action against the Parthians, under Tiberius' orders, and the death of Tiberius. The Parthian war occurred in 35 and 36 CE, as indicated both by Josephus and by the Roman historians Tacitus and Suetonius. (Herod the Tetrarch assisted Vitellius in negotiations between Tiberius and the Parthian king.)

The only question, then, is whether Josephus is misleading when he implies that the battle with Aretas came immediately after Herod separated from Aretas' daughter.
So when did Herod marry Herodias? The only hint Josephus gives is that the pair first met when Herod was on his way to Rome, but unfortunately the only such journey we know about was when Herod visited Augustus to receive his inheritance in 6 CE. This is not very helpful. So the evidence of Josephus is that John the Baptist was executed in 36 CE, well after the time indicated by the gospels - but, it should be noted, still within the governorship of Pontius Pilate.

[achilles12604]

That last post's quotes were a little screwy but I think I got it.

So what do you make of the sections I presented and my analysis? Your post gave a lot of "ifs" and clearly stated that there were not many obvious clues to this dating. Explain to me why my theory isn't plausible.

Also you jumped the gun with the He/She divorced thing huh? You wrote that before reading my next quote which did say he and she. I even pointed this out as further evidence against his death since the writer would have clearly stated his death, not his divorce had he been dead at this point.

Anyway, you presented a section from another source. This quote contained a possible answer based on the little evidence there is. However this source also admitted that this answer was not sure.

In light of this why isn't my solution plausible?

[Goat]

That last post's quotes were a little screwy but I think I got it.

So what do you make of the sections I presented and my analysis? Your post gave a lot of "ifs" and clearly stated that there were not many obvious clues to this dating. Explain to me why my theory isn't plausible.

Also you jumped the gun with the He/She divorced thing huh? You wrote that before reading my next quote which did say he and she. I even pointed this out as further evidence against his death since the writer would have clearly stated his death, not his divorce had he been dead at this point.

Anyway, you presented a section from another source. This quote contained a possible answer based on the little evidence there is. However this source also admitted that this answer was not sure.

In light of this why isn't my solution plausible?

It might be plausbile, but not likely. You have to make too many assumptions and stretch what was written too much. On the other hand, I am not sure how reliable Jospephus is on many things.

Like I said though, Luke does follow JF's time table, IF You assume John the baptist was executed in 36 c.e. .. which JF appears to say. This is in direct
contradiction to Matthew, who has Jesus being born during the reign of Herod.

[achilles12604]

That last post's quotes were a little screwy but I think I got it.

So what do you make of the sections I presented and my analysis? Your post gave a lot of "ifs" and clearly stated that there were not many obvious clues to this dating. Explain to me why my theory isn't plausible.

Also you jumped the gun with the He/She divorced thing huh? You wrote that before reading my next quote which did say he and she. I even pointed this out as further evidence against his death since the writer would have clearly stated his death, not his divorce had he been dead at this point.

Anyway, you presented a section from another source. This quote contained a possible answer based on the little evidence there is. However this source also admitted that this answer was not sure.

In light of this why isn't my solution plausible?

It might be plausbile, but not likely. You have to make too many assumptions and stretch what was written too much. On the other hand, I am not sure how reliable Jospephus is on many things.

Like I said though, Luke does follow JF's time table, IF You assume John the baptist was executed in 36 c.e. .. which JF appears to say. This is in direct
contradiction to Matthew, who has Jesus being born during the reign of Herod.

I think you may have crossed some wires somewhere.

You jumped from the death of John and the dating of the crucifixtion (as well as Pilate about which this whole discussion revolves) . . .

To Jesus birth?

I am confused.

[Goat]

That last post's quotes were a little screwy but I think I got it.

So what do you make of the sections I presented and my analysis? Your post gave a lot of "ifs" and clearly stated that there were not many obvious clues to this dating. Explain to me why my theory isn't plausible.

Also you jumped the gun with the He/She divorced thing huh? You wrote that before reading my next quote which did say he and she. I even pointed this out as further evidence against his death since the writer would have clearly stated his death, not his divorce had he been dead at this point.

Anyway, you presented a section from another source. This quote contained a possible answer based on the little evidence there is. However this source also admitted that this answer was not sure.

In light of this why isn't my solution plausible?

It might be plausbile, but not likely. You have to make too many assumptions and stretch what was written too much. On the other hand, I am not sure how reliable Jospephus is on many things.

Like I said though, Luke does follow JF's time table, IF You assume John the baptist was executed in 36 c.e. .. which JF appears to say. This is in direct
contradiction to Matthew, who has Jesus being born during the reign of Herod.

I think you may have crossed some wires somewhere.

You jumped from the death of John and the dating of the crucifixtion (as well as Pilate about which this whole discussion revolves) . . .

To Jesus birth?

I am confused.

Very simple... Let me type very slowly for you.

There is an incident in Josephus that is mentioned in Luke. This is the census of 6 c.e. Luke associates this census with the birth of Jesus.

Josephus says that John the Baptist was executed about 36 c.e.

Luke says Jesus started his ministry upon hearing of John's death. Luke also says that Jesus was about 30.

This would have Jesus starting his ministry in 36 c.e, after the death of John the Baptist.


In other words, Luke's time line for the birth and ministry of Jesus follows the historical events that are mentioned in Josephus, and does not follow the standard
Christian chronology of John the Baptist being executed in 31 or 32 c.e. and Jesus
being crucified in around 33 c.e.

[trencacloscas]

Hello everybody. Long time no see, no internet. Just sneaking in for a moment like a thief in the night. Yeah, that's me.

Now, about Judas. Anybody familiar with The Illiad? Yes, big Homer and so and so. Check this: after ten years of war between Greeks and Trojans, Hellen goes to the walls with Priamus and gaze towards the armies. Hellen points the king who the brave soldiers were, identified them for him, Menelaus, Agamemnon, Ajax and a huge etc.

So... After ten frigging years!!!!!!!! Didn't Priamus recognize the name and look of their enemies after ten years????

That's literature, a good effect is probably more beautiful than boring life. And the whole NT is nothing else than literature, you know. Pure invention from scratch, just a few colourful remarks and some cultural gimmicks to cherish some good plot. You need a traitor for that, some so-called Judas or Sinon or whoever it is.


So that was it. In and out. Sneak attack. Elvis has left the building. Cheers to all.

[achilles12604]

That last post's quotes were a little screwy but I think I got it.

So what do you make of the sections I presented and my analysis? Your post gave a lot of "ifs" and clearly stated that there were not many obvious clues to this dating. Explain to me why my theory isn't plausible.

Also you jumped the gun with the He/She divorced thing huh? You wrote that before reading my next quote which did say he and she. I even pointed this out as further evidence against his death since the writer would have clearly stated his death, not his divorce had he been dead at this point.

Anyway, you presented a section from another source. This quote contained a possible answer based on the little evidence there is. However this source also admitted that this answer was not sure.

In light of this why isn't my solution plausible?

It might be plausbile, but not likely. You have to make too many assumptions and stretch what was written too much. On the other hand, I am not sure how reliable Jospephus is on many things.

Like I said though, Luke does follow JF's time table, IF You assume John the baptist was executed in 36 c.e. .. which JF appears to say. This is in direct
contradiction to Matthew, who has Jesus being born during the reign of Herod.

I think you may have crossed some wires somewhere.

You jumped from the death of John and the dating of the crucifixtion (as well as Pilate about which this whole discussion revolves) . . .

To Jesus birth?

I am confused.

Very simple... Let me type very slowly for you.

There is an incident in Josephus that is mentioned in Luke. This is the census of 6 c.e. Luke associates this census with the birth of Jesus.

Josephus says that John the Baptist was executed about 36 c.e.

Luke says Jesus started his ministry upon hearing of John's death. Luke also says that Jesus was about 30.

This would have Jesus starting his ministry in 36 c.e, after the death of John the Baptist.


In other words, Luke's time line for the birth and ministry of Jesus follows the historical events that are mentioned in Josephus, and does not follow the standard
Christian chronology of John the Baptist being executed in 31 or 32 c.e. and Jesus
being crucified in around 33 c.e.

So this entire arguement is based on Luke writing that Jesus was 30?

Notice that Luke writes that Jesus was ABOUT 30. Meaning not exactly. Also the fact that 6CE is not an agreed upon date for the birth of Jesus your dating system is weak at best.

You are also CONTINUING to ignore the fact that I have point out that my arguement does not hinge on 33 or 36 or anything like this so I am going to drop this line of arguement entirely.


INSTEAD - I am going to once again point out that you continually change the subject in an effort to avoid the points I put forth indicating that Pilate was trying to avoid a riot or uprising.

[Cathar1950]

I always was interested in Judas. I felt he got a poor shake.
I tend to think it is an invention. It seems the word they use that comes out betrayed is really handed over and originally meant God handed Jesus over to be crucified. Or even he handed himself over. Paul seems to know nothing about Judas but uses the same word “betrayed” or “handed over”. Judas may have just been a brother that got written out of the story as a betrayer as Pauline Christians may have seen Jesus’ family.
Even the kiss is from the Old Testament Greek almost word for word. I will try to find the passage. I just read it. Judas symbolizes the Jews, the Family of Jesus and His disciples against other Jewish Christians. Even his death is from the Greek OT. Read “Secrets of the Gospels” by Tim Callahan. The kiss, the betrayed, the dipped bread and more are all OT.

I think all we know about Pilot and the crucifixion is also fiction.

[Goat]

That last post's quotes were a little screwy but I think I got it.

So what do you make of the sections I presented and my analysis? Your post gave a lot of "ifs" and clearly stated that there were not many obvious clues to this dating. Explain to me why my theory isn't plausible.

Also you jumped the gun with the He/She divorced thing huh? You wrote that before reading my next quote which did say he and she. I even pointed this out as further evidence against his death since the writer would have clearly stated his death, not his divorce had he been dead at this point.

Anyway, you presented a section from another source. This quote contained a possible answer based on the little evidence there is. However this source also admitted that this answer was not sure.

In light of this why isn't my solution plausible?

It might be plausbile, but not likely. You have to make too many assumptions and stretch what was written too much. On the other hand, I am not sure how reliable Jospephus is on many things.

Like I said though, Luke does follow JF's time table, IF You assume John the baptist was executed in 36 c.e. .. which JF appears to say. This is in direct
contradiction to Matthew, who has Jesus being born during the reign of Herod.

I think you may have crossed some wires somewhere.

You jumped from the death of John and the dating of the crucifixtion (as well as Pilate about which this whole discussion revolves) . . .

To Jesus birth?

I am confused.

Very simple... Let me type very slowly for you.

There is an incident in Josephus that is mentioned in Luke. This is the census of 6 c.e. Luke associates this census with the birth of Jesus.

Josephus says that John the Baptist was executed about 36 c.e.

Luke says Jesus started his ministry upon hearing of John's death. Luke also says that Jesus was about 30.

This would have Jesus starting his ministry in 36 c.e, after the death of John the Baptist.


In other words, Luke's time line for the birth and ministry of Jesus follows the historical events that are mentioned in Josephus, and does not follow the standard
Christian chronology of John the Baptist being executed in 31 or 32 c.e. and Jesus
being crucified in around 33 c.e.

So this entire arguement is based on Luke writing that Jesus was 30?

Notice that Luke writes that Jesus was ABOUT 30. Meaning not exactly. Also the fact that 6CE is not an agreed upon date for the birth of Jesus your dating system is weak at best.

You are also CONTINUING to ignore the fact that I have point out that my arguement does not hinge on 33 or 36 or anything like this so I am going to drop this line of arguement entirely.


INSTEAD - I am going to once again point out that you continually change the subject in an effort to avoid the points I put forth indicating that Pilate was trying to avoid a riot or uprising.

No,that is just one very very small piece of the puzzle. It is , however, showing that your arguement about why pilate's attitude in the gospels does not match the attitude in the historical record is not valid.

[achilles12604]

That last post's quotes were a little screwy but I think I got it.

So what do you make of the sections I presented and my analysis? Your post gave a lot of "ifs" and clearly stated that there were not many obvious clues to this dating. Explain to me why my theory isn't plausible.

Also you jumped the gun with the He/She divorced thing huh? You wrote that before reading my next quote which did say he and she. I even pointed this out as further evidence against his death since the writer would have clearly stated his death, not his divorce had he been dead at this point.

Anyway, you presented a section from another source. This quote contained a possible answer based on the little evidence there is. However this source also admitted that this answer was not sure.

In light of this why isn't my solution plausible?

It might be plausbile, but not likely. You have to make too many assumptions and stretch what was written too much. On the other hand, I am not sure how reliable Jospephus is on many things.

Like I said though, Luke does follow JF's time table, IF You assume John the baptist was executed in 36 c.e. .. which JF appears to say. This is in direct
contradiction to Matthew, who has Jesus being born during the reign of Herod.

I think you may have crossed some wires somewhere.

You jumped from the death of John and the dating of the crucifixtion (as well as Pilate about which this whole discussion revolves) . . .

To Jesus birth?

I am confused.

Very simple... Let me type very slowly for you.

There is an incident in Josephus that is mentioned in Luke. This is the census of 6 c.e. Luke associates this census with the birth of Jesus.

Josephus says that John the Baptist was executed about 36 c.e.

Luke says Jesus started his ministry upon hearing of John's death. Luke also says that Jesus was about 30.

This would have Jesus starting his ministry in 36 c.e, after the death of John the Baptist.


In other words, Luke's time line for the birth and ministry of Jesus follows the historical events that are mentioned in Josephus, and does not follow the standard
Christian chronology of John the Baptist being executed in 31 or 32 c.e. and Jesus
being crucified in around 33 c.e.

So this entire arguement is based on Luke writing that Jesus was 30?

Notice that Luke writes that Jesus was ABOUT 30. Meaning not exactly. Also the fact that 6CE is not an agreed upon date for the birth of Jesus your dating system is weak at best.

You are also CONTINUING to ignore the fact that I have point out that my arguement does not hinge on 33 or 36 or anything like this so I am going to drop this line of arguement entirely.


INSTEAD - I am going to once again point out that you continually change the subject in an effort to avoid the points I put forth indicating that Pilate was trying to avoid a riot or uprising.

No,that is just one very very small piece of the puzzle. It is , however, showing that your arguement about why pilate's attitude in the gospels does not match the attitude in the historical record is not valid.

Ok explain to me how 33 and 36 are so drastically different with regards to the points of evidence you have yet to address.