I picked up on the issues surrounding the utter necessity of Judas' "betrayal" of Jesus very early on. In fact, I voiced my concerns to our Sunday school leader when I must have been 8-9 years old. His reply was that yes, I was basically correct - but regardless of God's plans, what Judas did was still evil, unforgivable and deserving of God's judgment. As you can imagine, this didn't sit well with me.
Judas 'betraying' Jesus, the Jews bringing charges against him... All of that stuff is stuff that Christians will often be angry about. And yet, if it hadn't happened, then none of them could claim the 'salvation' that their religion pretends to. Realistically, they should be THANKFUL to Judas for helping them receive 'salvation' and they should be thankful to the Jews for also helping to bring about their -blood pact- salvation. Next time you speak to such an idiot, ask them "If I gave you a machine gun and sent you back in a time machine to the exact time and place where Jesus was being crucified, would you save him? Knowing that by doing so, you're preventing EVERYONE in the last 2,000 from being forgiven and preventing them from attaining salvation? Or would you instead stand there and watch them kill him, complicit in the act, since you have the power to stop it? Just stand there watching, and just ask for forgiveness later?" You can even be extra snidey by saying "No need to answer, I know exactly what you'd do!"
I too pointed this out in church at age 5, that if Jesus dying on the cross was the plan, then Judas fulfilled his role in the plan, so therefore would be in heaven instead of hell. This got me sat outside for over an hour until my parents could collect me. We stopped going to that church.
As a child growing up, it never occured to me to question what I was being taught by my parents and in church. So many questions arise now that I have a fully developed adult brain. You don't even need contradictions. Who wrote Jeremiah and how do you know what year the book was written? How do you know Jeremiah wrote Jeremiah? If my name is John, what prevents me writing a book named Jeremiah? Why do you think the person who wrote this was inspired by god? How does the author know that it was god that inspired them? If a powerful voice echoes in your head to inspire you to write a book, how do you determine who the voice belongs to? Are demons not capable of deceiving you? What if this entire book was written by people deceived by demons for the purpose of leading us away from the true god, Zeus? It's all so ridiculous. I'm actually ashamed it took me so long to see it. Thank you for all the work you've done. It was work by you and others like you that helped me escape the brainwashing.
All good points. I'd want it to be someone nicer like Poseidon who is the true one though, instead of Zeus. That way, if I'm good, maybe he can arrange it so I can get a mermaid wife in the mermaid kingdom, eating lots of tasty sushi and king crab and lobster. It sounds better to me than the Christian idea of the god needing for me to spend all my time complementing him endlessly after I die, or the Zeus followers' idea of everyone going to Hades.
The scholarly consensus is that a dude named Jeremiah did in fact write *part* of Jeremiah. But they also suspect that everything after about chapter 25 and some degree of the beginning of the book were written by one or more other people. Those are what I call the "fan fiction" section. One interesting result of this model is that Jeremiah wrote the 70 year prophecy in Jeremiah 25, the failed prophecy that the people who forged Daniel as war propaganda used to craft the 70x7 prophecy as an apologetic for the first one failing. "No!... See... you just misunderstood it. Here's the *real* one!" But the strange, strange letter repeating this prophecy in chapter 29 was just fan fiction. Weirdly, christians rarely quote chapter 25 and very often quote chapter 29. Another interesting result of this model is that Jeremiah would have been the one to write Jeremiah 8:8, where he complains of the "lying pen of the scribes" for altering the torah over time.
Somehow it's important to talk about this because at least this means that Judas didn't have free will. A thing that christians constantly claim that man has.
Matt I'm not sure if you read these but I hope you do. The past year or so I've started watching atheist debates and came across you in the atheist experience, the line and talk heathen. I want to thank you. I believe that watching you break apart logical fallacies drastically helped me raise my LSAT score by at least 20 points. Thank you
Judas doesn’t have to “make sense” as a real person. He seems to me to have been simply constructed entirely as a literary villain. When Judas shows up in the story it’s the part where the audience is supposed to boo him. When he questions the wisdom of pouring expensive perfume on Jesus, he isn’t allowed to be even a little bit correct the way human beings who aren’t tropes are. Not only does he get reprimanded by Jesus, we get the added aside that no, actually, Judas was a thief and just wanted to steal the money they could have saved.
The vilification of Judas is strange. But only because we're **supposed** to believe this was planned all along. Once again, the omni- qualities they want to assign to their god get in the way of a story that actually makes sense...
Contradictions helped pull me out of fundamentalism, because I was taught that the Bible was the absolutely perfect innerant word of God. Yet there are plenty of errors and contradictions, as I discovered.
Yes cause you believed it so you read it instead of have the evidence of it being true first just like i did also but that was bad thinking the reality is i didn't need to read it i just needed to learn what logical fallacies were in critical thinking
@@airpower7692Good job, you are correct. It just happens naturally when we remove the fallacies and cognitive biases and apply intellectual honesty. Cognitive dissonance unfortunately is difficult for some to get past. An intellectually honest life is more peaceful 🙏.
I couldn't find any RU-vid clips for it, but there's an AWESOME Red Dwarf episode (Season 10, Episode 3 - Lemons) where Rimmer explains the precepts of the Church of Judas that his parents were part of. The episode is one of the best Red Dwarf episodes yet made (I've heard that they might be making even more, even after the 'recent' movie that was kinda meant as a farewell) and I HIGHLY recommend it to anyone who enjoys British comedies. If you don't know what Red Dwarf is, then you're in for a real treat!! I wish I could erase it from my memory, so that I could go back and watch the entire series from the beginning, all over again, for the first time!!!
Yep, Red Dwarf doesn't tackle religion often, but when it does it's up there with Douglas Adams and Monty Python for mercilessly skewering how ridiculous it all is. For a show that's so British, it's amusing that Red Dwarf was heavily inspired by one of my favourite American films, John Carpenter's "Dark Star" - it's basically "Dark Star UK: The Series" :)
Good information. Ever since discovering you and your peer's works, I have been scrutinizing my own arguments, in an attempt to bridge any gaps that theists may try to insert God into. Now I know to steer clear of this one. While im here, id like to throw out a request, although im not sure if it should even be worth a whole video. I believe you have touched on this subject some when reviewing debates, such as with Matt Slick and Jay Dyer; but I was wodnering if you could speak specifically about their arguments for having a "more coherent worldview than athiests". Their style of argument is very odd. They seem to shift the typical outcome of wanting truth, into simply wanting something that works. If I were to use your example: we find a dead body. They are saying the butler did it, and we are saying we dont know how they died, or if anyone did it. They then would say "well, we have a reason for the butler dying, and you dont, therefore our conclusion is more coherent". It is obvious to us that this is fallacious, but I have encountered more and more internet theists that are taking this approach. When pointing out the flaw, they then ask me to provide a counter justification for any given propostion. This is shifting the burden of proof, but they dont seem to care. It is very very frustrating. Bascially they are saying "well until you give me a more coherent reason, Im going to assume Im right".
I think that's an emotional thing. My first instinct is that it's a deflection of sorts. No one likes admitting they're wrong or conceding their point in a debate. Some, mb even most, find it utterly impossible. The argument is like a social battle to them, and you can't just give up and admit defeat, because that's losing. Ppl like that find it weird if you suddenly concede a point to them. Some might even shift their position to the opposite one and not notice; the debate is a situation where you say one thing and I say the other. And that's what they're concentrating on, not on who's had the better argument, or what is more likely to be the truth. I don't want to disparage them, they just don't see conversations the way I do, and often don't even find them useful. So with such people, it's more important to make sure they remember your points after the conversation is over. They might ponder them, and without the pressure of "it's a social battle to see who wins", they might actually start to shift their thinking.
If you hear someone bring up the excuse that Judas hung himself then his body began to rot and fell down bursting open give them this. The Bible specifically says that he fell headfirst then burst open. If he hung himself first how did he flip 180 on the way down? That aught to give you some fun answers.
"uhm akschually, the tree he hung himself from was on a cliff, so when the rope burst he would have landed on his feet and fallen head first over the edge."
Quite simple. The tree from which he hanged himself was at the edge of the field, and the field was at a lower elevation. When the rope broke the body hit the berm first and (due to rigor mortis) was stiff enough that it lurched over head first (headlong) into the field. I'm an atheist, but this is neither crazy nor implausible from a layman's perspective. In actuality rigor mortis is a temporary condition and if the body was rotten enough to burst then rigor mortis had long since passed.
You are a lot more flexible than I am, Matt. If I'm told a story one way and then told the same story another with different events, I just assume the teller is either lying or the story is fiction and the different events are meant for different audiences. In either case, I'm going to assume the person (or book) telling the story is not being honest. This seems like a reasonable stance to take and has stood me in good stead so far in life - but I'm only 67 years old, so I could learn different as I grow up. :)
Interestingly, the early Christians who first complied the gospels together - and who would’ve had to painstakingly write them out by hand - were very likely aware of these contradictions in the gospel texts, and yet chose to include them when they could’ve presumably just edited them out. This seems to suggest that, at the very least, their view of inspiration perhaps differs somewhat to, say, how a modern Evangelical Protestant might think of notions like inerrancy / infallibility.
@@mil401 I like to muse sometimes, that Jesus was a comic book hero. In fact, he was probably the very first Superhero, if we don't count Gilgamesh (because he wasn't written about in a comic book, he was etched in stone tablets). Someone wrote a compelling comic book story about a Superhero and people LOVED it. Within 2 or 3 years, it was ALL over Judea and the fans there started writing their own fan fiction stories about/ including the Jesus Superhero. The stories were all over the place, they were shared and sold and added to... But everyone knew that they were just make-believe! Eventually, however, all the people who KNEW that these stories were about a fictional Superhero were killed in the Jewish wars against Rome. This left a bunch of gullible idiots who thought that these were true stories of actual events that really happened. And so, Christianity is born!! As I say, these are just musings. I don't believe that this is what really happened, but then again, I don't believe that a Jewish sage really went around healing people, walking on water and coming back from the dead, either. But considering how scattered and how random our biblical (new testament) sources are, it actually seems possible that parts of the 27 books of the new testament likely WERE written as fan-fiction, rather than an account of historical events.
@@Raz.C I mean, that's not far off from what probably happened. In this case the superhero was a jewish angel which was combined with different scriptures to arrive at some sort of savior figure who would free the jews from Roman occupation. This was an important development because all of the people who previously claimed to be this superhero were killed. Then a guy came along (Paul) and took that distinctly jewish superhero and started telling that story to non-jews. All those original guys died off, one way or another, and the need for more elaborate stories about the superhero resulted in Greek superhero stories being superimposed onto the jewish superhero. This is your fanfiction, the gospels. Somewhere in there the need to say that this superhero was always a real person cropped up and some ancient comic book nerds began a forceful and eventually violent reprisal against anyone who said the superhero was just a story. And here we are, nearly two thousand years later with most people thinking that the obviously fictional superhero was real in some capacity.
@@mil401 Good points Milo, but I think they ignore the fact that these stories existed as oral stories/histories first and were well known among believers at the time they were committed to paper. As such, I think the author(s) were compelled to include contradicting events so they didn't lose audience (not that very many people could read/write at the time). With two versions available, either could be used to reach audiences that already "knew" their own version of the story. Then, when the various stories were compiled into a single book, the "inspired" scholars employed had to decide which stories were to be included into the Bible, they were stuck with a problem and included both versions, again perhaps, because most people couldn't read or write and depended on the clergy to interpret the Bible for them. Now we have almost universal literacy and the problem is bigger requiring even more cagey footwork by apologists to explain away contradictions and other logical issues. Just my opinion.
@rainbowkrampus Cheers mate. 🍻 I know it's a bit controversial and that I really should have evidence to support such a notion, but until someone presents evidence showing that any of the tall tales in the new testament are actually true, then I'm going to hijack their excuse and say that we just need to have faith that these stories are Fan-fiction.
As someone who seriously doubts that the Jesus stories are based on an actual person and not just manufactured from the Old Testament stories "whole cloth", the best explanation is that these are just "fan fiction". People hearing the Jesus story asked "So what happened to Judas?" Two different story tellers came up with different fates for Judas. And since the Bible editors were just to lazy to pick one, they decided to included two mutually contradictory stories just like they did for Jesus' origin story,.
More importantly these harmonization stories demonstrate exactly how the Gospel writers could manufacture their stories without realizing they were making them up.
It was written before we had script supervisors, fact checkers, and continuity experts. Also the distinction between fiction and non fiction is relatively new, it's hard to say how much exaggeration was known at the time or even expected. We're so probe to it that 2000 years later we still struggle to real it back
Yeah, it's baffling to me that in 2023, centuries after the Scientific Revolution and the Enlightenment, people are still making these ancient stories into the cornerstone of their lives and letting them influence how they vote and otherwise relate to the other people around them
@@BiffTanner So you deny reality then? The gospel message isn't even the same in the various books of the Bible. Just read Mark and Matthew to see how the message was changed between iterations.
Even if a story has zero contradictions, that has no bearing on whether or not it's true. Christians will tie themselves in knots trying to iron out the inconsistencies in these conflicting stories, but this is a red herring.
I think Matthew 19:28 ist quite remarkable in this context: "Jesus said to them, “Truly I tell you, at the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel." Jesus is clearly talking about his twelve disciples sitting on twelve thrones, which must include Judas. Was Jesus deceiving everyone here or did he actually not know Judas would betray him? Or is Judas supposed to sit on a throne anyway?
I laugh every time I hear an apologist try to rectify the different deaths of Judas. As if Judas was some sort of rube goldberg device. Judas has always seemed like a literary construct to me.
It’s not exactly mental gymnastics to say Judas hung himself and his body/corpse fell and burst open. Same goes for the “problem” of different women at the tomb. Those aren’t mutually exclusive claims like Matt said.
it's funny they're using Zechariah, because Zechariah is so obviously where a lot of the Jesus mythos was directly stolen from. It was written 500 years before Jesus, yet it's a story about an actual historical guy named Jesus, with a father named Joseph, who became the first high priest of the new temple and was taken up to heaven and given a white robe and golden crown by the angels and called the "new branch" of Judaism by God. Wow, how coincidental that this actual historical guy named Jesus who started the temple is so similar to this other guy named Jesus who ended the temple.
I know this isn't the focus of the video, but I actually find judas to be one of the most compelling characters in the bible AND one of the characters whose representation within the bible shows how the stories relating to Jesus were changing over time. He goes from a principled disciple that gives up his friend because of a specific moral failing that he perceives, to a serial thief that only hangs around Jesus to increase personal wealth.
If I am not mistaken there’s a Gospel of Judas where he is the hero of the story because he’s the only apostle who understands what is going on and the one whose actions allow Jesus to accomplish his earthly mission, so to speak. Which imo makes more sense than the canonical gospels.
@@pansepot1490 yes I've heard of it. It's a Gnostic book, written in the 2nd Century. It was considered lost for 1700 years, until a single copy was found, in 1983, tucked into another Gnostic book, discovered in the 1970s.
@@pansepot1490 More sense than in Mark? In mark, Judas betrays Jesus because of the events in bethany (And potentially even a wider pattern of similar behaviours, we only have small snapshots of the life of Jesus), and he just takes a moral stand against Jesus. It is perfectly straightforward in terms of motivation. Moral preacher acts against the standards he preachers others should have so someone in his inner circle ousts him, very basic story.
The contradiction is not so much how Judas died but the fact he was not forgiven and received God's wrath despite Jesus dying for his sin as is supposed to happen according to Christians.
@@BiffTanner Biff, those quotes from Scripture didn't address my actual point i.e. Jesus knew Judas was going to betray him but couldn't/wouldn't stop him. Thus Judus' action was predetermined and not his fault. Either way, he was not forgiven by Jesus (the very basis of Christianity) despite pleading for forgiveness.. Instead he is spending eternity being tortured. No such fate is ready for unbelievers like me because we just don't buy into the religion.
@@BiffTanner OK i’ll give you that Judas didn’t plead forgiveness directly to Jesus but he was full of remorse for the sin he knew he had committed hence his returning the silver “reward”. There is still no answer as to why this all loving and forgiving god chose not to forgive Judas when the very death of Jesus is supposed to pay for the sins of men, like Judas. Come to think of it, if it wasn’t for the actions of Judas then Jesus would not have been martyred and Christianity would not exist. Christians should thank him rather than vilify him. Also, if God predetermines and knows the future, what is the point of mankind or anything? Please spare the fire and brimstone warnings towards someone who believes your religion no more than you believe other religions. I can’t rebel against something in which i don’t believe.
I asked my Christian friend why it says Satan entered Judas if it was part of God's plan. The best thing he could tell me was the devil just didn't want to deal with him so he "sent him back to heaven" 🤦
Is that true, genuine question because I’ve never read it. But I’m genuinely curious about the intended narrative especially given the time and translation.
Another good question is did Jesus tell them one would betray him like it was a prediction or was it an order to Judas in order to carry out the plan? I'm not a Christian but I have friends who are so I think about questions like that.
@@robertbcardoza Matt covered this point towards the end of the video, just using different terms than I did. Basically, if the crucifixion was necessary, then Judas didn't 'betray' Jesus by identifying him to the Romans so that he'd be crucified. A betrayal would have been trying to _prevent_ the crucifixion.
I gotta disagree entirely that Papias's story was in any way an attempt to "reconcile" Matthew and Acts. It's more likely a complete demonstration of absolute unfamiliarity with either story, and just one of the rumors circulating about what had happened to Judas. Mark introduces Judas, but he, John, and the gospel of Luke do not dispose if him. Judas is just no longer part of the main story. He got paid "some money" (Matthew is the only one who mentions 30 pieces of silver, which is already odd as the shekel was the unit of currency) and presumably goes on his merry, evil way. The references to Papias we have (we don't actually have Papias's own works, just references to them) would have Papias writing somewhere around 95-110 CE. That was 20-40 years for Mark to circulate and readers to speculate on Judas's fate. Papias is either fabricating or repeating one of those stories. Papias is a christian and a scholar, so Papias's unfamiliarity with Matthew / Acts in at least 95 CE is quite telling on the timing of those writings, the impact of those writings, or both. Which is especially troubling for those who take Papias's descriptions of gospels written by Mark and Matthew, as his described gospel written by Matthew is not only not even close to our current gospel of "Matthew," but he's obviously unfamiliar with the contents of our gospel of "Matthew." Dr. Dennis R. MacDonald thinks that Papias is quite familiar with Matthew but disagrees with him. I think that's entirely implausible for all the reasons I just mentioned, but even if true, it would mean that Papias felt comfortable in snubbing Matthew's work. It's not an endorsement of Matthew in any case. (Dr. MacDonald also thinks that Matthew had Judas kill himself in some strange act of redemption, so there's that...) There is a growing consensus in academia that Luke / Acts used Josephus's antiquities as a source, so Papias not being familiar with Acts in 95 CE would not be surprising under that model. There is some speculation that moves Acts out to 120 CE, but I'm not personally willing to go that far without better evidence that the word "christian" appearing twice in Acts. For all we know, the author coined the term himself, and that's why we don't see it in other places until after 120 CE. But Matthew being this late would be a bit more surprising, and not align with mainstream consensus. If Papias were the only linchpin for Matthew being this late, then I would assume that Papias is either simply unfamiliar with Matthew, or Dr. MacDonald is correct in that Papias is discounting Matthew. But there is a small but growing idea within scholarship of Matthean posterity, where Matthew was the last synoptic and sourced from Luke, instead of the Farrer hypothesis where Luke sourced from Matthew, or the Q two-source hypothesis, where Matthew and Luke shared material from an unknown source other than Mark. Luke following after Josephus and therefore being after 95 CE is already quite popular; Matthew following Luke would have even more evidence if Matthew is also after 95 CE. There doesn't seem to be any crossover between Matthew and Acts, which is easily explained by Matthew having the gospel of Luke but not the book of Acts. It's not the only explanation that fits the facts, but it's a quite plausible one. As for the stories, they're clearly not the same story. I don't measure reality by whether it's possible for christians to tie themselves into mental knots to harmonize, because that's a skill, and people can harmonize anything with enough practice and effort. I don't rely on it being a contradiction, because it in fact proving to not be contradictory wouldn't imply it was true. What's more important is WHY are these stories different. And Papias actually helps with that; they're contradictory because Mark introduced an "evil" character who never got comeuppance, so people felt free to speculate. Some speculations would have been easier to reconcile than others. Also, completely unrelated note. I'm not sure if it's fair to characterize Judas as being "possessed" by satan, at least in the modern religious sense. Both Luke and John have a place where satan "entered" Judas, and we read that in modern eyes as a form of demon possession. Maybe it was. But it might just be an idiom for satan persuading Judas. Satan is explicitly playing a role in the death of Jesus, but if it didn't involve actual demon possession, then that could simply be god tricking satan into following his plan. There's even scriptural basis for that, in 1 Corinthians 2:8: ----- and which none of the rulers of this age understood, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. -----
I appreciate those comments about how illogical it is for Judas to have to identify Jesus. For years, I've been puzzled by that necessity, but thought I was alone in my questioning.
I don't think it's a biggie tbh? For one, knowing what Jesus looks like and having the lawful right to arrest him are different things. Just like in modern times, it's not enough to know this guy runs the Mafia, you need a warrant, good evidence, a tight case, etc. So maybe this was more of a lawful procedure thing. An eye-witness identified the criminal, now we can take him. For two, it might be a technique used by law enforcement because it makes their life easier in some way. Like having informants, or the "good cop, bad cop" spiel, or like shouting "Stop resisting!" at a non-resisting citizen to justify using violent force. Getting Judas to publicly identify Jesus as Jesus might solve some issues, e.g. like prevent a big angry mob from following the soldiers and Jesus (because it's likely to fracture the crowd: some will be confused, some will want answers from Judas, others will want to follow Jesus...). For three, it helps the Romans keep up the appearance of lawfulness. That way, no one can claim they just grabbed a random dude off the street and crucified him. Also, this is great for disarming support for Jesus, because "an accomplice repented, decided to bring him in and helped the law enforcement apprehend the criminal". After all, the Romans were worried about a Jewish revolt, so taking extra-precautions makes sense. This makes Jesus' movement look real bad: look, why should we join them, they're infighting and betraying each other!. It's a great discreditation tactic used by many governments the world over. It's confusing, it's a bad look for the opposition, and it just makes the on-lookers scratch their heads and decide passivity is the best solution due to lack of clarity.
Matt, You may or may not read this but I was wondering what you thought about the E. Michael Jones vs. Christopher Bjerknes debate on Jesus' existence or the Adam Green vs. Tyler Hamilton debate on his existence. The atheist side in these debates are apparently saying it's propaganda for Gentiles. Despite this, it doesn't rule out Jesus' existence but I just find the whole thing peculiar in light of this information. You should watch these debates if you haven't already.
Hey Matt, what is your opinion on the Gospel of Judas? I think they discovered it not that long ago. The message in there is pretty crazy, as it says that the God of the Bible is an imposter called Yaldabaoth (also known as Nebro) and that the apostles are worshipping the wrong god. This basically turns Christianity on it's head. Just wanted to know your thoughts on this. Thanks.
@@fixpontt I agree. It says that explains why the God of the bible committed genocide, ordered murder, etc. It also said that the real God is unknown, or something to that effect.
Judas' death IS a contradiction. The claim in Matthew is that Judas died when he hung himself; the claim in Acts states that he died when his guts burst forth when he fell "headlong". Combining the two stories into one narrative (hung first, fell later) doesn't resolve this contradiction, for if Judas died by hanging, then Acts is wrong because Judas died by hanging (and then his dead body fell); if Judas died when he fell, the Mathew is wrong because Judas died by bursting, not by hanging, because Judas was very much alive when the rope broke and his guts burst forth.
In this episode the Devil has free will but mysteriously decided to help God to save precisely the beings he wants to get for himself in Hell. And Christians are surprised when somebody loses the faith.
I think this video opens the door to a follow-up exploring Jorge Luis Borges' "Three Versions of Judas" and how it relates to the commonplace view laid upon this Biblical figure.
Matt is right about that because there's a number of reasons it might have contradictions. For example a great deal of it's original texts have been removed and of course interpretation. But the Judas thing is a flat out contradiction. But you rarely hear Christians talk about the disemboweling death and just stick to the suicide narrative.
FWIW I left a comment and suggested that someone needs to do a "Script Meeting" series based on the Bible. "Judas? What's his deal?" "He betrays Jesus." "But he's a disciple, why would he do that?" "So the movie can happen!" "That works."
While I do think that some contradictions can be reconciled, I do think even these contradictions can be problematic. Enough contradictions that pile on top of each other and you realize that these sources were independent to some degree, have different traditions engrained, and aren't from eyewitnesses. Each writer had tradition and other gospels to look at and said "this works but I'll tweak this element to emphasize this point"
Tbh, I think it's more important as an emotional thing. Mb it's me, but I can't imagine someone abandoning faith purely for logical reasons, esp for something so small as a contradiction in a book. "Oh, I was a steadfast Christian, but then I found out that in one account, Jesus was riding a donkey, and in another he was riding a mule! Hahaha, so glad I caught this one early". I think those contradictions are more important as a way to get someone to ponder, to evaluate statements, rather than to accept them without any reflection. It's just confusing rather than enlightening. The possibility of discussion is the first seed for a possibility of dissent or disbelief. It's just a matter of finding an example that appeals to them on a personal level. Idk, for me it was the question of hell: how could a merciful God condemn us for an eternity of punishment? And somehow, it was the eternity that struck me the most. I can get years, even centuries, but an eternity? What does that even achieve? For someone else, it might be the raping and all the sexual weirdness in the Bible. For others it might be slavery, or the conundrums of free will vs God's plan. E.g., I always found it fascinating ancient people were very concerned with the question of "how can Jesus be a God and a human at the same time?", and that sprung a ton of different interpretations that all labeled each other heresies.
If you believe the fairy tale, then Judas' betrayal was necessary, just like the role of the Jews was necessary. This is why the hatred for Jews espoused by the catholic church for centuries never made sense to me.
Either way, you have to add new information not included in the text. There is a theological question, of remorse, and whether Judas could be redeemed?
If the one story says that he died by hanging, and another story says the died because he fell and his guts spilled out, I don't see how these two can be reconciled. Even the "he hanged and then fell" doesn't work because he would have already been dead from the hanging. This supposed reconciliation also has the problem that they create a third story that the Bible doesn't tell. As you say, you'd think that a story inspired by God would be clearer.
Arguing the details is a mistake. It lends a spurious credibility to the overall story. I will never indulge in detail argument; I simply demand evidence that the whole thing actually happened. I never see that.
*_No One Talks Like That_** ;* (when if ever, did they ?) Does anyone know what they call the kind of English used in the Bible ? Because it certainly is not common contemporary English. If it's just old English, why not update it ? Do they translate the Bible into old versions of, French, German, Italian, ect, ect ?
My first question would be was Judas a "real person" or a literary figure introduced to answer the "what happened to the betrayer" question. My second question, would be what about the gospel of Judas and the story in that document is waaaaay more strange than the biblical Canon
I would question the motive behind including that whole story in so much detail it seems like some kind of revenge porn do do religi-boys really get off on telling stories of how their enemies died? While at the same time some of them warn of the eye for an eye types of revenge being harmful.
I always had a bit of a problem with Judas' betrayal. Judas was so convinced that this guy was the real deal that he abandoned his whole life to follow him. While following him he saw him walk on water, raise the dead and saw god part the sky and say "this is my son". It never mad sense that Judas would betray him for money. And not even live-the-rest-of-of-your-life-in-obscene-luxury money. From what i understand of exchange/interest rates it was more like nice second hand car money. But i read a very funny, fictional book a while ago called Lamb by Christopher Moore. In it he explained that Judas was originally a sort of Jewish freedom fighter who assumed that Jesus was going to raise a physical army to fight off the Roman oppressors and establish a physical Jewish kingdom on earth. When he reaised that Jesus was teaching about a spiritual kingdom that was open to Romans, he felt betrayed and betrayed Jesus in turn. Makes much more sense to me than what was written in the bible.
Well, there are folks who agree with your concerns and just shape their faith to accommodate them. E.g., they say that Judas is actually a good guy, not the traitor. He's Christ's best disciple. He understood that he must lead the Romans to Jesus, and he did it despite not wanting to, despite knowing he would bring pain to Jesus and become hated and vilified. In a way, he shared in that pain, and shared a part of the burden - he sacrificed himself too and became "a villain" to the masses. So he was actually with Jesus and followed his example. And the real traitor, those ppl say, is Peter, because he has renounced Christ thrice on that night when asked if he was one of his followers. They claim this explains why Jesus says to Judas "What you are going to do, do quickly". Tbh I always found all the different interpretations, apocrypha and heresies very fascinating. If anything, I really like studying Christianity as a culture.
I use the word contradiction in a more colloquial sense when it comes to the bible. If two accounts cannot be reconciled, apart from by really silly retcon, it's a contradiction. If god had any hand in writing the bible (and I don't accept the claim that he exists), he's a very poor communicator. The expectation is to have no *apparent* contradictions. Yet many exist, even if they can be "saved" by outlandish apologetics. If anything that just makes it worse.
I prefer the term inconsistency to contradiction. The reason is that inconsistencies cover contradictions while contradictions don't necessarily cover inconsistencies.
Matt says to be very careful when claiming there's a contradiction in the Bible since it won't make any impact on believers. But bringing up actual, clear contradictions in the Bible (or other serious problems) don't have any impact on believers. They can't tell the difference so what does he think the harm is?
What is the difference between Newton and Leibniz calculus? Newton's calculus is about functions. Leibniz's calculus is about relations defined by constraints. In Newton's calculus, there is (what would now be called) a limit built into every operation. In Leibniz's calculus, the limit is a separate operation.
The reason I have been told for Judas’ role was Jesus knew he was going to be taken as part of the plan. Jesus asked Judas to turn him over to the troops. He picked Judas because he was one of his closest advisors and he was the one who always handled the money for the group. If it was someone else who gave up Jesus then it would have been more red flags against Jesus being god. Also there is a portion of the scholars who state that the translation from Greek wasn’t betrayed but more of simply given up/to. Again this is how it was explained to me. This version seemed to make more sense to me when I was a devoted believer that Jesus was god.
Great video on various ways to see this happening. Enjoyed the rationale arguments on what most would ask. I've read Judas was basically jealous of the following Jesus had. I still find it difficult to understand how God, all knowing,allowed Judas to kill him aka Jesus. Hard to understand to be honest.
Gday from Adelaide Australia Matt big thanks to you for my conversion from religion was a christian studying to be a pastor achieved a diploma of theology from BCSA here in Adelaide which entertained a evangelical anglican theology similar to baptist not as hyper calvanism as say Paul Washer but more middle church if you can call it that part of my training was apologetics and first saw you in a debate as I was right into Ray Comfort type preaching and i swallowed it hook line and sinker you absolutely destroyed his argument and opened my eyes to what the hell I was trying to present as an argument I was a late convert to christianity past drug addiction and sought help through salvating army etc but as I began to study I began to question why do I believe what I conceive to believe and couldn't justify my position im a huge fan of your good works😂 in freeing people from ths slavery of religion and beginning to understand ways in a more constuct way i watch a lot of your debates on youtube and have just watched your debate with Nadir Ahmed who you made look silly my apologies for jumping on this particular video and expressing my views I hope you find this or someone else reads this and passes it on to you isn't it a bit or irony that a person can study the bible and because of its bullshit someone like yourself calling out that bullshit can result in what has occurred thank you mate your an inspiration to me and now I am totally free
As I replied here already you don't have the Holy Ghost you're not saved. Holy Ghost gives the faith. If you're telling the truth you didn't embrace all that in the first place. Satan is using Matt well although I hope he makes it to eternal life
No discussion of fables surrounding Judas’ demise is truly complete without considering the scene from the film adaptation of “Hannibal” in which Hannibal Lecter hangs and disembowels Inspector Patsy in what everyone’s favorite cannibal considers parallel to “the real life Judas’” demise. Because adaptation of Thomas Harris’ imagination seems at least as valid if not all the more literate than our Bronze Age authors, no? Jokes aside, one of my favorite considerations of this fictional betrayal and subsequent demise comes from playwright Stephen Adly Guirgis’ work, “The Last Days of Judas Iscariot”. It’s an incredible piece of theatre that is both entertaining and thought provoking. It is religion as best this atheist can tolerate-tongue-in-cheek hilarity with humanity in spades for even the greatest villain in history (which, by play’s end, may or may not be Judas). The piece holds up well even as a piece of literature, I highly recommend it as an afternoon read if nothing else. Thank you for your work and perspective, always a pleasure!
I too always think of that Hannibal scene when the particulars of Judas' death are brought up. That and the film Dracula 2000 where in the conclusion to the film, completely out of nowhere it's revealed that Dracula is really Judas Iscariot. That the Vampire archetype was a result of God cursing him. He didn't partake in the last supper, so by forgoing the wine/blood of Christ now he eternally thirsts for blood. He attempted to die for his own sins by hanging himself so he is cursed with immortality. He hung himself just as the sun was setting so he walks only at night. Vampires are allergic to silver because of the 30 pieces of silver😂😂😂
@@guy38853 ha! That’s incredible, I wasn’t aware of that particular vampire origin story nor have I seen the film! I’ll have to check that out, thank you for sharing!
I have a question around why people say they are "Blessed". Funny I queried to see if there was anytime people said the phrase "Not Blessed" and I could not find anything on that. So if you win the lottery you are Blessed but if you get Cancer what are you? In my opinion you would be Not Blessed. They seem to invoke it at any time they consider good or positive but not referrred to in any negatvie way. Just an oberservation from my human behavioral studies. I never would say Blessed but I say lucky, fortunate, etc real words and not invoking something supernatural to explain away real life and not a fantasy world. Thanks folks, love you Matt, been a fan for many years!
I use the death of Judas (and all of the stories - who bought the field and why was it called the "field of blood") to show how ridiculous apologists are in trying to defend biblical inerrancy. It's not an explicit contradiction, but it's contradictory unless you invent and believe crazy stories nobody would believe if they weren't compelled to believe. And I've heard some *crazy* attempts to harmonize the accounts full of impractical/impossible events and silly assumed technicalities.
Helping people learn how to think is more important than telling them what to think and that's my worry with many apologists (and some would-be counter-apologists). I don't think I've ever been successful so thanks for trying Matt. Back on topic: I don't think Papias was the one trying to harmonize Matthew's and Acts' accounts of Judas. It's hard to know because we only have later writers quoting Papias, but it seems it was Apollinarus who used Papias' story to harmonize Matthew and Acts. Personally I suspect Papias didn't have access to the Matthew and Acts we have, but I suppose he might have just preferred fantastical stories. (The following text is the Apollinarus quote on the Wikipedia page for Papias - the page also links to other places to find the text). Judas did not die by hanging, but lived on, having been cut down before he was suffocated. And the acts of the apostles show this, that falling head long he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out. This fact is related more clearly by Papias, the disciple of John, and the fourth book of the Expositions of the Oracles of the Lord as follows: Judas walked about in this world a terrible example of impiety; his flesh swollen to such an extent that, where hay wagon can pass with ease, he was not able to pass, no, not even the mass of his head merely. They say that his eyelids swelled to such an extent that he could not see the light at all, while as for his eyes they were not visible even by a physician looking through an instrument, so far have they sunk from the surface. His genitals appeared entirely disfigured, nauseous and large. When he carried himself about discharge and worms flowed from his entire body through his private areas only, on account of his outrages. After many agonies and punishments, he died in his own place. And on account of this the place is desolate and uninhabited even now. And to this day no one is able to go by that place, except if they block their noses with their hands. Such judgment was spread through his body and upon the earth.
Acts 1:20 verse and Psalms 69:25 verse and Psalms 109 verse people should really read if they want to find out if there is anything that is a contradiction
As far as the Devils part in the story, I dont know of any reason he would know the intent was for Jesus to die. I can see an omniscient god playing the Devil at his own game
People of all kinds please state if your theists, atheists, agnostics or any combination of those and then if willing participate in the test. As well, looking for 5 good moral theist questions for atheists/agnostics. #1 You see a child drowning in a shallow pool and notice a person just watching that is able to save the child with no risk to themselves but is not, is that persons non action moral? #2 If you go to save the child, the man tells you to stop as he was told it was for the greater good, but he does not know what that is, do you continue to save the child or stop? #3 Is it and act of justice to punish innocent people for the crimes of others? #4 If you were able to stop it and knew a person was about to grape a child would you stop it? #5 Would you consider an all knowing parent who put their kids in a room with a poison fruit and told the kids not to eat it but then also put a supernatural con artist in the room with the children knowing the con artist will get the kids to eat the fruit and the parent does nothing to stop it a good parent?
The writer of Acts wrote that apostle Peter said that Judas Iscariot betraying Jesus was foretold and written on by king david and that Judas Iscariot being replaced was based on another writing that king David took and wrote
We've all heard the challenge to come up with something that would convince you to believe in God and Jesus, well I've finally come up with an answer. What would convince me that God is real is a Bible that is actually the word of God. This tome would necessarily need the following properties that would all be within the abilities of an all-powerful, all-knowing, all benevolent being. * The tome would be indestructible. *The tome would be self-replicating and available to any who wanted it. * The tome would be instantly translated into the primary language of the reader. *The tome would be completely understandable to every reader. It would not require supplemental books, theological training or even clergy to interpret (and abuse) the meaning. *The tome would contain actual revealed knowledge, like a cure for cancer or a completely accurate model of particle physics. *The tome would supplant all religions with the knowledge of the true god(s). This is the book that a deity with the traits attributed to the God of Abraham would have produced "in the beginning". Failing that I don't hold out much hope that such a book will ever appear.
You have no understanding of how scriptures are written because you have a carnal mind. The vast majority of so-called Christians are forth century Roman pagans. Rom 8:28 And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose. Rom 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. Rom 8:30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified. Joe 2:32 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the LORD shall be delivered: for in mount Zion and in Jerusalem shall be deliverance, as the LORD hath said, and in the remnant whom the LORD shall call. Rom 11:3 Lord, they have killed thy prophets, and digged down thine altars; and I am left alone, and they seek my life. Rom 11:4 But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal. Rom 11:5 Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace. 1Co 3:1 And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ. 1Co 3:2 I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able. 1Co 3:3 For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men? Mat 13:10 And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables? Mat 13:11 He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given. Mat 13:12 For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath. Mat 13:13 Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand. Isa 28:8 For all tables are full of vomit and filthiness, so that there is no place clean. Isa 28:9 Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts. Isa 28:10 For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little: Isa 28:11 For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people. Isa 28:12 To whom he said, This is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest; and this is the refreshing: yet they would not hear. Isa 28:13 But the word of the LORD was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken.
@@stevenlast2168You have no idea that the Bible is Hebrew fiction written by men speaking for their imaginary god. From a Biblical scholar: "So for example, when we read carefully what Yahweh says in the book of Leviticus, namely that the Aaronids (the sons of Aaron only), are high priests contrary to the Levites, that they alone are Yahweh’s mediators and the Levites are reduced to mere ministers of the Aaronids, that only through sacrifice can one atone for sins and not confession as preached by the Levites, or more precisely the Levite’s Yahweh, etc., *it can be no coincidence that in these laws and commandments,* ***which are placed on the mouth of Yahweh,*** *that Yahweh himself is presented advocating and legitimating the very views and beliefs of the specific priestly guild writing the text, and, contrary to the views and beliefs of their rivals, the Levites and the Levite’s Yahweh!* We will examine this more closely when we get to the contradictions in these books. But in short, this was the function of ancient literature, and we are allowing these ancient texts to speak for themselves. *In this particular case, the Levites and Aaronids wrote specific texts that each advocated their religious beliefs, views, and their position as high priests* ***by writing these sentiments directly into the mouth of their god!*** But just studying the Bible alone, scientifically, affords us the occasion *to see that many of these so-called words of Yahweh are* ***actually the very words of the texts’ authors.*** When we see numerous texts employing this ancient literary technique, and moreover, ***presenting Yahweh as the spokesperson for their own views and agenda,*** *and* ***contrary*** *to Yahweh’s other words in other texts written by other authors employing the same technique,* how can one conclude otherwise. In other words, when in the composite text that we now call the Bible we find: Yahweh declaring that only Aaronids can officiate as his priests and Yahweh declaring that all Levites can officiate as high priest; Yahweh declaring that sin is atoned through confession and Yahweh declaring that sin is only expiated through the sacrificial cult, no exceptions; Yahweh declaring that he gave laws and commandments at Sinai and Yahweh declaring that he only gave the Ten Commandments at Sinai; Yahweh commanding to exterminate all the Canaanites without pity and Yahweh declaring to tolerate them and live in their midst; Yahweh declaring that the wilderness generation were disloyal and rebellious and Yahweh declaring that they were a paradigm of loyalty and faith; Yahweh declaring that he may be offered sacrifices at any altar and Yahweh declaring that there is only one altar where sacrifices are to be offered up; Yahweh declaring that the people saw him at Sinai and Yahweh declaring that they only heard his voice; Yahweh declaring that circumcision is an eternal covenant and keeping the land depends on observing this very commandment and Yahweh declaring the Mosaic laws as the covenant and keeping the land is dependent on keeping these laws; Yahweh declaring that he dwells in the midst of the people and Yahweh declaring that he only resides in heaven; Yahweh commanding Passover to be celebrated by all at Jerusalem and Yahweh commanding it to be celebrated at each person’s home; Yahweh commanding that animals for consumption must be ritually sacrificed and Yahweh commanding that they don’t have to be sacrificed ritually, etc. ***one must conclude that Yahweh is being used by these authors, each with their own contrary views and beliefs as a spokesperson for each of these authors’ agendas.*** These are all the personal, and competing, views, theological beliefs, and religious systems of our biblical authors. And this is only the tip of the iceberg." *"Studying the Bible"* - Dr Steven DiMattei *"Contradictions in the Bible | Identified verse by verse and explained using the most up-to-date scholarly information about the Bible, its texts, and the men who wrote them"* -- by Dr. Steven DiMattei
@@stevenlast2168 So your response to someone who obviously doesn't believe the Bible is what it claims to be is to quote a bunch of Bible passages to them. This is just more evidence that religion makes people stupid.
@@chrisose So you think that you know what a so-called Christian is supposed to believe (NOT). Tell me grand high exalted mistic ruler what I'm supposed to believe give me two or three will do. This is just for you. Your just a man beneath the sky just two ears and just two eyes and all you touch and all you see is all your life will ever be because your just dust in the wind. The memories of a man in his old age are the deeds of a man in his prime you shuffle in gloom of the sick room and talk to yourself as you die. Life is a short, warm moment and death is along cold rest. You get your chance to try in a twinkling of an eye, eighty years, with luck or even less.
Judas Iscariot being replaced with Matthias might not have been prophesied but it doesn't mean that there's no possible way that it could have happened but not as a prophecy if it doesn't mean that it's not a reference referring to Judas Iscariot
In the spirit of your 'tutoring' atheists on what not to say when debating the religious so as to interact with maximum impact, perhaps you could take my suggestion to the same end and curb the manner with which I have WAY too frequently seen YOU interact; namely, losing your temper and really being quite unpleasant when things get heated. I'm saying this as a fellow atheist. Something about 'seeing to the beam in your own eye' springs to mind... 😉
I think Matt's reason for allowable explanations is much more permissible is all. Matt is simply doing what Christian's do best, you can make a square beg fit in a round hole if you just cut away at its edges.
Maybe someone here can help me remember. There’s a phrase Matt has repeatedly used for scapegoating Jesus and how it’s immoral. I can’t think of the specific phrasing and it’s driving me mad. Like surrogacy punishment or something. That’s not it but it’s something like that
"Christians have had the books of Matthew and Acts for 2,000 years, and they have read them carefully for that entire amount of time. Theologians have compared parallel accounts in the Scriptures, and there are even works like the Hexapla that put these parallel accounts side by side. So for 2,000 years, Christians have known that Matthew says the Pharisees purchased the potter’s field, while Acts says that Judas purchased it, but it posed no difficulty for them. So when an atheist tries to be a ‘clever boy’ by bringing up the ‘contradiction’, we can point out that Christians have always known this. But why isn’t it a problem? The answer is in the details of the account that Matthew gives us. Judas threw the money back at the chief priests in Matthew 27:5, but the chief priests noted that it was unlawful to put it in the treasury. So instead, they purchased the field where Judas committed suicide with the money that was still technically Judas’. So the priests were technically the ones purchasing the field-Luke’s version recorded in Acts is correct. But the money was Judas’s-so legally Judas purchased the field and Matthew’s version is correct. A little careful reading can help us out here! What about how Judas died? Did he hang himself, or did he fall headlong and his bowels come out? Once again, if we look back to how people have read these two accounts side by side, we can find an answer. Judas hanged himself, but no one took him down, because they didn’t want to make themselves ceremonially unclean by coming into contact with a dead body. So his body hung until it fell by itself, and when it fell the bowels came out. We can also note that the bowels coming out is a detail that makes more sense if Judas had been dead for a while and decomposition had already started before he fell, because bowels coming out wouldn’t normally happen if a person just happened to fall and die. The explanation in the previous paragraph works well enough for the English translation that we have, but there is an even more intriguing possibility if we look at the Greek. A colleague who saw a draft of my response noted that some skeptics make a big deal of Judas “falling headlong”-a body that drops from hanging can’t really normally be described as “falling headlong”. I suspected that the answer lay in looking more closely at the underlying Greek phrase, which is transliterated “prenes genomenos” the participle genomenos is not normally translated “falling”, but “becoming”, though “falling” is not out of the question; it simply wouldn’t be my first instinct upon encountering ginomai. So what does prenes mean? Most lexicons have the primary meaning as “prostrate” or “headlong”, but several allow the meaning “swollen”. A Pocket Lexicon to the Greek New Testament has it meaning “swollen up, inflamed” as a technical medical term in Greek. This especially makes sense since Luke, a physician, is the author of Acts, and he is known to use medical terminology in other instances. BDAG notes that in this case it would be derived from pimpremi, which would be “linguistically questionable”, and it would be unusual. But it also makes a lot of sense and is worth noting. If there are such easy answers to so-called Bible contradictions, why do atheists persist in bringing them up? First, it’s effective. It gets lots of Christians to ask questions about the Bible’s accuracy. Second, few Christians can present a coherent answer to these sorts of things, and Christians and atheists alike tend to be historically ignorant."
The usefulness of biblical contradictions depends on how literally the Christian takes the text. For some people, even silly things like pi=3 matter. Generally, I wouldn't bother. When rationalizations fail, there's always "dismiss the lying heathen and go away". And never in-person. I don't live in a place where violence is always an option, but one never knows.
Judas sacrificed a lot more than Jesus to make the resurrection happen. Dies alone, the most hated man in history and is condemned to the deepest depths of hell for eternity for enacting God's will.
I like to think (and I may not be totally original) that Judas is the actual savior and sacrificed Jesus. Judas is the priest and Jesus the offering. Judas condemned himself for ours 'sins'.
The whole incident is troubling. It seems the worst that can be said about Judas is that he was acting out a role according to a drama which had already been written. Without him the crucifixion would never have happened and Jesus could not have made his sacrifice to atone for the sins of mankind. He was an indispensable player and hardly deserved his apparent fate.
Both the Judas and Lazarus characters seem to be fleshed out from improvements of dialogue as you go from Mark to John's Gospel. Jesus anointing at Bethany goes from a rough draft of guests complaining about expensive swill poured on Jesus head, to a party at Lazarus after his resurrection where his sister pours swill on his feet. What nonsense!
If the resurrection of jeebus is foundational to christianity, and jewdas' "treachery" required for that, and the jews being at least partially responsible for blabbarous' freedom, then shouldn't jews be praised, not hated, for enabling christianity to even exist in the first place? Or, do they just get blamed for the supposed crucifiction, as if jeebus' death is NOT required for his supposed resurrection, and then hypocritically persecuted and hated for 2,000 years?
I see the whole story from a different perspective, Judas was one of the young men who met at night in the olive tree garden. Today it would be called the Chrusing area. Judas was in love with Jesus, but this love was unrequited because Jesus was involved with John the Younger (see last supper). Judas betrayed Jesus out of jealousy. Is there any doubt about that??? just ask kat kerr..she flies to the haven every week..she can just ask questions to god..he knows everything in his gelatine box Kat Kerr is a person to trust, almost like the whole Bible
According to the story, who was always there with Jesus? Mary M. Non-canononical stories even attest to the fact that she was "the disciple that Jesus loved". The author of John turned her into.a male.
Before pointing contradiction, I doubted, why would Judas be labeled a bad guy! This book God prophesied in OT, SOMEONE “will and has” to betray his Son so that scripture will be fulfilled. So it means SOMEONE was already CHOSEN to be the betrayer by this book God😅Poor Judas😢
It is funny that people can think that Judas was evil even though he was an essential part of God's plan, but God himself is not evil for making that plan to begin with.
The thing that you dismiss early explains the thing you later say makes no sense. Jesus had just ridden into the city on two donkeys to a massive parade. Nobody would have any difficulty identifying him. Judas is meant to represent the Jewish people betraying Jesus, which is why the narrative of his betrayal is in the story. That Judas was a common name at the time isn't disqualifying. It's important to remember that the first gospel wasn't written as a historic record, but rather as a passion drama full of symbolism and allegory. This is particularly obvious around the crucifixion, with not only Judas but also Barabbas and Arimathea. All of the later gospels simply copy the first.
you should know by now there is always a tap dance to get around things you refuse to see. if passage X stats one thing and passage Y stats something different that is a contradiction. can you add or change the meaning of the text to make it work sure. going with it does not say something did not happen does not help because it also does not say it did happen. it is impossible to have a book cover everything that did not happen with out using broadly inclusive statements, but it is posible to cover everything that did happen. aultimitly contradictions only matter if the person you are talking to believes the book is without error.
