Trevor Morley's Tache
Well-Known Member
Is that 'incredibly unlikely' in the same vein as the Scouser's false positive LFT's or just incredibly unlikely?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Religion
- Thread starter idahoblues
- Start date
The scholarly world is a little like the scientific one. Many of it is peer reviewed, many know each other and the vast majority are constantly looking for good ideas and the truth.Is that 'incredibly unlikely' in the same vein as the Scouser's false positive LFT's or just incredibly unlikely?
There’s only a small minority that push the Jesus the man was a myth argument and they’re not taken seriously.
There’s multiple Christian and non Christian sources talking about his brother and best mate, as well as the man himself.
Of course that doesn’t mean Christianity is true in a divine sense or a supernatural sense, but the man almost certainly did roam about the “holy land” in the first century.
I’m willing to accept that Judas took a bribe, betrayed Jesus, then died because of that betrayal not long after the crucifixion. I’m even willing to accept the money was seen at the time as blood money and the field was tied in with that.Thanks Octavian for your question. There are seeming contradictions but after analysing them one can see there are none at all through good reasoning.
About how Judas died, here is a simple bringing together of the facts: Judas hanged himself in the potter’s field (Matthew 27:5 And throwing down the pieces of silver into the temple, he departed, and he went and hanged himself.), and that is how he died. Then, after his body had begun to decay and bloat, the rope broke, or the branch of the tree he was using broke, and his body fell, bursting open on the land of the potter’s field (Acts 1:18–19.Now this man acquired a field with the reward of his wickedness, and falling headlong he burst open in the middle and all his bowels gushed out. And it became known to all the inhabitants of Jerusalem, so that the field was called in their own language Akeldama, that is field of blood)
Luke does not say that Judas died from the fall, only that his body fell. The Acts passage presumes Judas’s hanging like a man who falls down in a field does not normally result in his body bursting open. Only decomposition and a fall from a height could cause a body to burst open. So Matthew mentions the actual cause of death and Luke concentrates more on the details surrounding it.
About who paid for the field, there are two ways to reconcile the facts: 1) Judas was promised the thirty pieces of silver several days before Jesus’ arrest (Mark 14:11when they heard it, they were glad and promised to give him money. And he sought an opportunity to betray him.). Sometime during the days leading up to his betrayal of Jesus, Judas made arrangements to purchase a field, although no money had yet been transferred. After the deed of betrayal was done, Judas was paid, but he then returned the money to the chief priests. The priests, who considered the silver to be blood money, completed the transaction that Judas had begun and bought the field.
2) When Judas threw the thirty pieces of silver down, the priests took the money and used it to buy the potter’s field (Matthew 27:6-7 But the chief priests, taking the pieces of silver, said, “It is not lawful to put them into the treasury, since it is blood money.” So they took counsel and bought with them the potter’s field as a burial place for strangers. ). Judas may not have purchased the field personally, but he provided the money for the transaction and could then be said to be the buyer.
He does say in Acts though that he fell head first which is a puzzle as his head is much more likely to be the last thing to hit the ground after being hanged.
I think what’s more likely is Matthew and Luke have different sources on this part of the story and the different sources are passing on hearsay from other sources.
The consistency here is that Judas accepted a bribe, then died, there’s silver coins and a field involved that is seen as the field of blood, but the method of death has a big question mark over it. It doesn’t do much for fundamentalism and those of you who believe the Bible is the exact word of God with no mistakes.
Trevor Morley's Tache
Well-Known Member
The chances are that a guy called Jesus probably did roam the 'holy land' in the first century. But given that a vast majority of people could not read or write at the time the evidence boils down to the stories recounted by those who could, told to them by people who may or may not have witnessed it first hand and often years later. It's hardly a particularly credible chain of evidence. There is absolutely nothing to say this guy was anything but 'just a fella'.The scholarly world is a little like the scientific one. Many of it is peer reviewed, many know each other and the vast majority are constantly looking for good ideas and the truth.
There’s only a small minority that push the Jesus the man was a myth argument and they’re not taken seriously.
There’s multiple Christian and non Christian sources talking about his brother and best mate, as well as the man himself.
Of course that doesn’t mean Christianity is true in a divine sense or a supernatural sense, but the man almost certainly did roam about the “holy land” in the first century.
mancity2012_eamo
Well-Known Member
There was around 1million in 1979 they reckon.I th
I was taken there by Mum & Dad I am sure 250000 turned up but it does not look like it from that picture. I thought it was packed but hey ho that is a memory of a 9 year old at the time.
2018? It quotes around 130,000 in the newspaper.
Last edited:
But some could read and write and no doubt someone who caused a stir in this way and got executed for it would have attracted those who could write to investigate. There were probably many sources both oral and written before the gospels were written and the gospels are a copy of these sources.The chances are that a guy called Jesus probably did roam the 'holy land' in the first century. But given that a vast majority of people could not read or write at the time the evidence boils down to the stories recounted by those who could, told to them by people who may or may not have witnessed it first hand and often years later. It's hardly a particularly credible chain of evidence. There is absolutely nothing to say this guy was anything but 'just a fella'.
I think a religious preacher called Jesus, with a following, arrested and executed for blasphemy is almost certain to have happened. The quotes and stories of what happened in between this are up for debate.
Trevor Morley's Tache
Well-Known Member
You don't think the stories could have been made up as a deterrent to others?But some could read and write and no doubt someone who caused a stir in this way and got executed for it would have attracted those who could write to investigate. There were probably many sources both oral and written before the gospels were written and the gospels are a copy of these sources.
I think a religious preacher called Jesus, with a following, arrested and executed for blasphemy is almost certain to have happened. The quotes and stories of what happened in between this are up for debate.
yet not one bit of written evidence by the romans(who wrote everything down) that this ever happenedBut some could read and write and no doubt someone who caused a stir in this way and got executed for it would have attracted those who could write to investigate. There were probably many sources both oral and written before the gospels were written and the gospels are a copy of these sources.
I think a religious preacher called Jesus, with a following, arrested and executed for blasphemy is almost certain to have happened. The quotes and stories of what happened in between this are up for debate.
that in itself is very curious
that doesn't mean a lay preacher named jesus was around but possibly never crucified
as octavian already agrees it is made up , where we differ is to what extentYou don't think the stories could have been made up as a deterrent to others?
Again, very unlikely.You don't think the stories could have been made up as a deterrent to others?
When Christianity took off as a Jewish sect, the Jewish authorities of the first 2 centuries called Jesus a liar and the offspring of an adulterer.
They never said he didn’t exist.
Christianity has been detrimental to Judaism ever since 30AD.
I think he means the story of Jesus the historical man.as octavian already agrees it is made up , where we differ is to what extent
yep i knowI think he means the story of Jesus the historical man.
funny that justus of tiberias the jewish historian of the time has literally nothing to say about him, not one single jotAgain, very unlikely.
When Christianity took off as a Jewish sect, the Jewish authorities of the first 2 centuries called Jesus a liar and the offspring of an adulterer.
They never said he didn’t exist.
Christianity has been detrimental to Judaism ever since 30AD.
and wrote a history of the area from around jesus alleged lifetime and is not mentioned once
alarm bells have to be ringing
and the reason we know this is phiotus makes a disparaging comment about him not mentioning jesus in his work when he should of
and you wonder why his work is missing
Last edited:
We’ve talked about Tacitus. He’s a very reliable source.yet not one bit of written evidence by the romans(who wrote everything down) that this ever happened
that in itself is very curious
that doesn't mean a lay preacher named jesus was around but possibly never crucified
Well he was born after Jesus did but it is surprising how he doesn’t even mention Christians.funny that justus of tiberias the jewish historian of the time has literally nothing to say about him, not one single jot
and wrote a history of the area from around jesus alleged lifetime and is not mentioned once
alarm bells have to be ringing
and the reason we know this is phiotus makes a disparaging comment about him not mentioning jesus in his work when he should of
and you wonder why his work is missing
you are right he is, born nearly 25 years after jesus alleged death though, so could only reliably writing after the first gospel was written. the mere fact he hardly writes anything at all apart from his one remark is strangeWe’ve talked about Tacitus. He’s a very reliable source.
not totally dismissing it but he could and should written more if there was anything to say
same as tacitus but he's reliable but not justus hmmm(you don't say it but certainly intimate it)Well he was born after Jesus did but it is surprising how he doesn’t even mention Christians.
I wouldn’t say Justus is unreliable, Photius heavily criticised him but he lived centuries after him. Justus and Josephus were a similar age, think just two years in it and I would say both are reliable enough although Josephus does get population statistics wrong and they did both accuse each other of lying during the Jewish-Roman War and hated one another. (Fun fact Josephus had a son called Justus tho)same as tacitus but he's reliable but not justus hmmm(you don't say it but certainly intimate it)
Tacitus is more reliable than both, mostly because of his access to so many more documents throughout the Roman Empire and the fact he wasn’t involved in the war, which makes him less emotionally charged… and his reputation is generally as good as it gets for ancient historians.
It’s surprising Justus just ignores Christianity as there were Christians in Jerusalem throughout his adult life. Even if he didn’t believe the story there were still plenty of Christians there and in the Roman Empire, but he did have lost works and he may have omitted them through bias against them. If I was writing about the premier league as a historian I’d pretend the Rags never existed!
Depends on the translation but KJV says daughters of Aaron (you’re right) and NIV says descendants.
Why wouldn’t the Quran say daughters instead of sisters?
The Gospel of James isn’t canon I agree however I think the likelihood is Muhammad didn’t have access to this book and therefore Imran was a convenient replacement name.
The verse talks of her mother and father as well, so in this context it's more appropriate to use 'sister' rather than 'daughter' to refer to lineage/tribe.
My teacher taught that there was a larger typology in play regarding the naming of Imran, but I don't recall the explanations he made to connect him to the father of Moses(as).
God knows best.
That’s true they did mention parents but sister gives a more of a feeling of the present to me.The verse talks of her mother and father as well, so in this context it's more appropriate to use 'sister' rather than 'daughter' to refer to lineage/tribe.
My teacher taught that there was a larger typology in play regarding the naming of Imran, but I don't recall the explanations he made to connect him to the father of Moses(as).
God knows best.
Imran is totally out of place tho as it’s not a Hebrew or Aramaic word and they didn’t speak Arabic in Nazareth in the first century.
Jesus’s family going back generations would have spoken Aramaic.