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?

[kman]

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?

It was not so much taht they needed Judas because they could not recognize Him but that it would be easier to have an inside man to tell them where Jesus was at. Plus, since Judas was trusted by the disciples he coiuld get to Jesus easier than a bunch of soldiers could. Also, Jesus was usually in a crowd of people who were all around Him. So if that had been the case when Judas betrayed Jesus, then Judas would have been able to clear a path to Jesus and by the kiss he would have been able to clearly show who He was in case the soldiers could not see in the crowd.
That is what I think anyway. I might be wrong, but that is what I think.

[The Nice Centurion]

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

The "Gospel of Judas" is a 2nd century, redacted Gnostic work, and there is little credible evidence Judas ever wrote it.

There is little credible evidence Judas ever existed.

Same goes for Christ.

But dont worry!

Pilate existed, for we have a stone that he carved or owned or something like that.

[TRANSPONDER]

We are getting some nice new discussions, I see.

Well, the thing with the account of Judas in the gospels is, are we dealing with history or fanfic here? I mean, historians may debate the role of Josephus in the the battle of Jotapa. What were his motives in seeing he got out of the mass suicide and went over to the Romans? On the other hand, let the Fans debate why Gowron or Mardok or some other Klingon acted as they did? Power or the good of the Klingon empire? It is of interest only to fans, but Josephus is of interest to history.

So where I am on this is just my theory, opinion and 2 penny worth.

The gospel story evolved. From a basic character I think, or two, rather. Jesus wasn't entirely made up and Paul - you couldn't make that guy up. Much of Paul's opinion, changed by Greek Christian thought, was used to shape the gospel narrative. A spirit resurrection had to be turned into a solid body one. Jesus turned from a failed messiah into a demi -god. From an observing Jew to a gentile -partial proto - Christian who was as sour towards the Jewish Law and law -givers as the Greek Paulinist Christians themselves.

We can already see how odd comments by Paul are turned into Gospel narrative or teaching. Paul having a chat with James and maybe a few others in Jerusalem becomes a full Senatorial debate in Acts, and even after the Holy Spit hath turned the 12 fishermen into Christian saints, Acts still has them observing Jews who still observe dietary laws.

In short ,the Christian biopic 'Jesus the first Christian' had enough reshoots to make it an incoherent mess.

I argue the Pauline remark that one night, Jesus was 'handed over' to the powers of darkness became re-invented. This was God's plan to make a sacrifice of Jesus to atone for original sin. This is now Christian doctrine. But the thing is now interpreted as 'Betrayed'. Not by God, bless you, no. So the betrayal had to be by one of his own. Dealing with the villains of the piece, the Jews. The motive, money, what else.

So here comes the fanfic. There is no point in debating the deep motivation of Judas for selling his master out as he was just a stock thriller novel traitor for a putrid and stupid reason - a handful of money.

In the past, this wretched plot has been sidelined while Gospel apologists try to invent some more sophisticated motivation. I see no need. Just as the Gospels depict the Pharisees, humiliated with a Christian strawman that would never have worked with real Jewish Rabbis and they skulk away to plot murder, they don't need deep motivations to make Paul's Handing Over' a betrayal by his own for a paltry handful of change. Nor do I need to concern myself with odd (and unconfirmed or contradicted in other gospels) events like Jesus fingering Judas and telling him to go and get on with his God -appointed Job (1) or other gospel details, in trying to make problems Work as though they somehow actually happened, like Fletcher Christian's mutiny. Why? But in some story or film an unconvincing motivation ("He made a promise when I was a 9 year old kid, and he didn't keep it! So now I'm going to destroy the universe!") only Fans need bother to try to work out what was this person's real problem. Not me. I have no motivation to make incoherent stories work when they writers couldn't come up with anything better.

(1) indeed, in an earlier plot I had when I still credited the last chapters of the gospels as half -reliable, Judas looked like Jesus had worked out this 'betrayal' as part of his intended mission. Not just Judas doing God'swill and plan (which is too sophisticated for the Christians then or now to fathom - Judas and the Jews were executing God's plan; Pilate, Peter and indeed Antipas were looking to defeat the plan of salvation by letting Jesus off) but being part of Jesus' own intended plan. It is still possible, and fits the gospel account actually better than the resurrection - claim. But now, I just don't regard the accounts as reliable, but just stuff made up to put plastacine on the bare wire of the Christian religious creation.

[bjs1]

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

The "Gospel of Judas" is a 2nd century, redacted Gnostic work, and there is little credible evidence Judas ever wrote it.

There is little credible evidence Judas ever existed.

Same goes for Christ.

Would you agree that these claims are in opposition to scholarly consensus?

Virtually every historian agrees that there is more than sufficient evidence that Jesus existed. The vast majority of historians agree that Judas was a historical person. It is also nearly universally held that the Gospel of Judas was a second century document which was not written by Judas.

Is there any part of that you disagree with?

[TRANSPONDER]

I'm afraid that Bible - bias may account for a lot of 'Scholarly Consensus'. Who is going to devote scholarship to the Bible but those who believe it? I have seen straw -polls on it, but how many people credit Judas or the twelve as depicted in the gospels (Paul says the 12 were real, which sorta means Jesus was real, too) But the Wise men? Fictitious, I reckon. Pilate, Antipas and Caiaphas, real, Arimathea, Marty Magdalene and Lazarus. Credited by the majority of scholars who are firm believers in whatever the Bible says? It's open to question, no matter what this or that Scholarly Authority might say he believes.

I think more and more of the Bible is going to come under question. The Nativities and the Flood, from the 80's on and dun and dusted apart from faithbased denial. But Exodus and resurrection were always given a pass, until the past decade or so, and truth to tell, they have not been faring well. I think more and more of the Bible and the gospel narrative will come under question and never mind the clamour of those Bible Scholars who believed every word was true.

Perhaps some of the 38 guests who are presently browsing the forum might become the scholars of the future or at least those putting in their doubts and questions.

[The Nice Centurion]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #53]
Do not forget the remarkable fact that alone the name Judas sounds like another antisemitic/antijudaic invention to smear the Jews as Messias Murderers.
(I am sure that works in aramaic too.)

Yes, the gospels did well alright in putting the world against the Jews.

For example: Martin Luthers official writings demanded to burn down their houses and take their holy scriptures from them.

And all that because Judas mother at the last moment decided to rather not name her newborn son Germanicus.

[The Nice Centurion]

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

The "Gospel of Judas" is a 2nd century, redacted Gnostic work, and there is little credible evidence Judas ever wrote it.

There is little credible evidence Judas ever existed.

Same goes for Christ.

Would you agree that these claims are in opposition to scholarly consensus?

Virtually every historian agrees that there is more than sufficient evidence that Jesus existed. The vast majority of historians agree that Judas was a historical person. It is also nearly universally held that the Gospel of Judas was a second century document which was not written by Judas.

Is there any part of that you disagree with?

Well, yes I'm afraid I do.

At last in the past one or two decades the historicity of the gospels and the gospel characters got under fire more and more.

Peer revived academic books were published denying the historicity of Christ.

The american bible universe more and more is recogniced as a fictional universe.

Of course christian apologetes cant stand this. For on what material then would they foundate their apologetics.

Its rather the same with Mohammed and also the origin storys of Islam. Or the very existence of mecca in Mohammeds supposed lifetime (As questionable as Nazareths existence in Jesus lifetime.). The belief in all that got heavy under fire recently.

[bjs1]

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

The "Gospel of Judas" is a 2nd century, redacted Gnostic work, and there is little credible evidence Judas ever wrote it.

There is little credible evidence Judas ever existed.

Same goes for Christ.

Would you agree that these claims are in opposition to scholarly consensus?

Virtually every historian agrees that there is more than sufficient evidence that Jesus existed. The vast majority of historians agree that Judas was a historical person. It is also nearly universally held that the Gospel of Judas was a second century document which was not written by Judas.

Is there any part of that you disagree with?

Well, yes I'm afraid I do.

At last in the past one or two decades the historicity of the gospels and the gospel characters got under fire more and more.

Perhaps, but not by those who have studied the topic in depth.

Bart Ehrman, an atheist and one of the foremost New Testament scholars in the world today, put it this way:

“Few of these mythicists are actually scholars trained in ancient history, religion, biblical studies or any cognate field, let alone in the ancient languages generally thought to matter for those who want to say something with any degree of authority about a Jewish teacher who (allegedly) lived in first-century Palestine. There are a couple of exceptions: of the hundreds — thousands? — of mythicists, two (to my knowledge) actually have Ph.D. credentials in relevant fields of study. But even taking these into account, there is not a single mythicist who teaches New Testament or Early Christianity or even Classics at any accredited institution of higher learning in the Western world. And it is no wonder why. These views are so extreme and so unconvincing to 99.99 percent of the real experts that anyone holding them is as likely to get a teaching job in an established department of religion as a six-day creationist is likely to land on in a bona fide department of biology.”
https://chab123.wordpress.com/2012/03/2 ... nce-jesus/

Peer revived academic books were published denying the historicity of Christ.

Ok, I’ll bite. What books are you referring to? Are they written by acknowledged experts in the field, or are they written by armature historians with a bachelor’s degree whose theories have been almost universally rejected by actual experts?

Of course christian apologetes cant stand this. For on what material then would they foundate their apologetics.

I imagine that anyone who values accuracy would be bothered by your claims.

[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

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #53]
Do not forget the remarkable fact that alone the name Judas sounds like another antisemitic/antijudaic invention to smear the Jews as Messias Murderers.
(I am sure that works in aramaic too.)

Yes, the gospels did well alright in putting the world against the Jews.

For example: Martin Luthers official writings demanded to burn down their houses and take their holy scriptures from them.

And all that because Judas mother at the last moment decided to rather not name her newborn son Germanicus.

Correct. It has been suggested that the early Christians picked Judas the Son of Simon the zealot as the betrayer, while the other Judas (not Iscariot) was ok. I suspect we may have the early splitting of Jesus and some of his followers into the zealot faction and the Christian faction with the Jews opting for Zealot -Jesus (Barrabbas) and rejecting Christian Jesus and paying the price (1) but this is all a pet theory and it will take some time before the Bible experts catch up with this theory, if they ever do. I could of course be quite wrong.

That aside, of course the (Greek/Roman) Christians disliked the Jews from the start and the persecution went on and has not ended even today.

(1) as in Bar Serapeon who asks what did it get the Jews who killed their wise king?