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.