Is the story of Judas completely absurd?

[Giraffe107]

Any thoughts on the "Gospel of Judas" as it relates to this story?

 

[Zygar]

You can chant "myth!" until your tonsiles dangle daintily from their gimbles but that won't prove nor magically make it so. You need something more substantial than a catchy slogan. Perhaps a self gratifying godless jingle in a 3/4 tempo?

Main Entry: myth
Pronunciation: \ˈmith\
Function: noun
Etymology: Greek mythos

1 a: a usually traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon b: parable, allegory
2 a: a popular belief or tradition that has grown up around something or someone; especially : one embodying the ideals and institutions of a society or segment of society

Just because I used the word "myth" doesn't mean I think it's not true. I apply it to all religious stories, regardless of my beliefs.

 

[Foster Zygote]

It is. It's rather poetic too.

"Judas, my closest friend, the only one who really understands what I've come to do, I need you to betray me to my enemies so that my plan can be completed. You must do this for me. I'm counting on you."

That's just great storytelling there. So much more interesting that the two dimensional Judas from the more popular interpretations. "He sold him out for money" is pretty basic narrative composition. But "he sold him out because he truly loved him" rises to another level.

I think the concern from the OP is misplaced in regards to the Judas Kiss story. It's really Jesus' reported fame and recognizability that are in question.

And it's not as if Jesus' face would have been on the cover of Time and his entry into Jerusalem shown on CNN. I wonder how many people in Jerusalem would have known Pilate by sight.

 

[Foster Zygote]

You can chant "myth!" until your tonsiles dangle daintily from their gimbles but that won't prove nor magically make it so. You need something more substantial than a catchy slogan. Perhaps a self gratifying godless jingle in a 3/4 tempo?

Or perhaps some sort of list of famous people...

 

[Arthur Denton]

Or perhaps some sort of list of famous people...

Famous and rich, I'd add.

 

[ddt]

But I'm being pedantic. The short answer is that I don't know the answer to your question. But in saying that, I could pose a similar question: Why didn't Custer take the Gatling guns and the additional batallion?

By which I mean that we can offer reasons/reasoning for what is stated to have happened, but that doesn't make them correct (or incorrect for that matter). The concern here is not what they could have done, but what they are stated to have done, and its perceived plausibility.

You make a good point. Post facto, it's easy to reason what's logical or not, but "in the heat of battle", often illogical decisions are taken, or at least decisions that seem illogical afterwards. I'm convinced.

Well, and the entire trial under the Sanhedrin at night while Passover was going on.

I can't say that I find that an inconsistency. How long did Nicolae Ceaucescu's trial last? As to the Passover time: I don't know what the Jewish regulations are concerning Passover, but it wouldn't be the first nor the last time that religious authorities don't abide themselves by the rules they demand of the flock to be followed.

 

[Mashuna]

Actually, enthusiastic conjecturing in relation to such probable alien creatures runs rampant in scientific circles. What such creatures might be able to do might have done or will be capable of doing is a very popular subject among cosmologists. They all glibly and readily admit that those hypothetically possible alien accomplishments might be presently viewed as forever beyond human achievement. Of course that's the prevailing mindset until the being or creature is suggested to be God. Then hysteria sets in, minds are spasmodically closed, previously enthusiastic speculation grinds to a screeching halt, and things suddenly become morosely impossible.

I don't think I've ever seen this type of conjecture. I've seen conjecture about hypothetically possible alien accomplishments, but not ones that are viewed as forever beyond human achievement. Do you have any examples of this?

I ask because there's a big difference between 'further advanced in science and technology' and 'God'.

 

[westprog]

Just because I used the word "myth" doesn't mean I think it's not true. I apply it to all religious stories, regardless of my beliefs.

Myths, Lewis told Tolkien, were "lies and therefore worthless, even though breathed through silver."
"No," Tolkien replied. "They are not lies." Far from being lies they were the best way — sometimes the only way — of conveying truths that would otherwise remain inexpressible. We have come from God, Tolkien argued, and inevitably the myths woven by us, though they contain error, reflect a splintered fragment of the true light, the eternal truth that is with God. Myths may be misguided, but they steer however shakily toward the true harbor, whereas materialistic "progress" leads only to the abyss and the power of evil.

Sometimes a myth, even when true, can have most of its value in its symbolism. The myth of JFK is more important than the tawdry facts of his actual administration and behaviour.

 

[Mashuna]

Falling into the abyss, and being subject to the powers of evil can be overcome. Just ask Gandalf.

 

[RobRoy]

"Judas, my closest friend, the only one who really understands what I've come to do, I need you to betray me to my enemies so that my plan can be completed. You must do this for me. I'm counting on you."

That's just great storytelling there. So much more interesting that the two dimensional Judas from the more popular interpretations. "He sold him out for money" is pretty basic narrative composition. But "he sold him out because he truly loved him" rises to another level.

Also, "And once you do this thing, Judas, you will be reviled. Your name will be spat upon and ground into the dust. Poets and preachers alike will hold you as an example of a betrayer, the ultimate evil and wrong in the world. They will not understand that what you do, you do not do for yourself, but you do for me, and through me, for them."

I mean, day-UM! Thanks for asking me to be part of your posse JC, but I think I'll pass this particular cup. What about Peter? I've never really liked him much. Or one of the twins? There's two of them after all!

And it's not as if Jesus' face would have been on the cover of Time and his entry into Jerusalem shown on CNN. I wonder how many people in Jerusalem would have known Pilate by sight.

Exactly. While almost inconceivable (I hope I don't keep using that word ) to us, in Jesus' time, it was easy to be just another face in the crowd, no matter how well known your name. The movie Spartacus does a very good job of illustrating just this point. In one of the most memorable and seminale scenes from cinematic history, Spartacus tries to give himself up for only to find that while his name is famous, his face is not. All his followers claim to be him, and the Romans are forced to crucify the lot of 'em; just to be certain.

You make a good point. Post facto, it's easy to reason what's logical or not, but "in the heat of battle", often illogical decisions are taken, or at least decisions that seem illogical afterwards. I'm convinced.

Thanks, I appreciate it.

I can't say that I find that an inconsistency. How long did Nicolae Ceaucescu's trial last? As to the Passover time: I don't know what the Jewish regulations are concerning Passover, but it wouldn't be the first nor the last time that religious authorities don't abide themselves by the rules they demand of the flock to be followed.

Two points on this: the Sanhedrin sat in trial at night; they sat in trial during Passover. Both were expressly forbidden.

But I do take your point regarding religious authorities and their applications of the rules as it suited their needs. As well as the point regarding timetables as described.

BTW, I was unaware of any issue regarding the timing of Nicolae Ceaucescu. I thought the trial was a record at two hours? I admit my knowledge is cursory on this subject, so I am curious.

 

[Radrook]

I don't think I've ever seen this type of conjecture. I've seen conjecture about hypothetically possible alien accomplishments, but not ones that are viewed as forever beyond human achievement. Do you have any examples of this?

I can provide possible examples that might crop up:

One thing to take into consideration is the differences in neural hardwiring that might exist between humans and aliens.

Because of this our whole perception of reality, or phenomena, might be diametrically opposed. In fact, that might even make intelligent communication impossible. Yet, we might observe these creatures doing things which are taken as natures from their standpoint but impossible from ours. Such as seemingly fading in and out of existence when in reality living multiple lives in what WE consider separate dimensions. Conversely, our ability to remain dimensionally static would be impossible to them.

Or let's say that we show them a crystal sphere and they perceive it as a cube. Or play flute and they react by tasting the sound. Or show them color and they respond by hearing it? The Science of such intelligent creatures who effectively live in a universe beyond the human senses might very well prove to be forever beyond our accomplishment. We would forever lack the essential perceptual requirements to understand it in order to duplicate it.

I ask because there's a big difference between 'further advanced in science and technology' and 'God'.

Where did I equate further advancement in science and technology with God and in what way?

 

[Mashuna]

Where did I equate further advancement in science and technology with God and in what way?

I inferred it from the post quoted, although it may not be how you meant it. . .

They all glibly and readily admit that those hypothetically possible alien accomplishments might be presently viewed as forever beyond human achievement. Of course that's the prevailing mindset until the being or creature is suggested to be God.

It looked as though you were starting from 'more advanced accomplishments' and heading towards God in an incremental manner.

 

[skeptical]

It WAS impossible. If you had claimed to do that at that time then you would have been lying.
If you said "Maybe one day we will be able to..." then people would not have been able to say it would never happen.

That's the point - we know what is possible now, and we know what was possible in the past, we don't know what might be possible in the future.

That's why we know the stories of Jesus are just stories (well one of the reasons).
Unless of course anyone can demonstrate any of his miracles today...

All true, but there is a more central point. Regardless of what is/is not impossible or what did/did not happen, by any reasonable standard of evidence no rational person would _accept_ that any of the miracles in the NT had occurred unless they had witnessed it with their own eyes even if the miracles had actually occurred. Just as no one in Columbus' day would not, and should not, accept modern air travel as possible without actually witnessing it since it would grossly violate the technology of the day. Even if some time traveler took a plane back with them, a rational person would reject the claims without extraordinarily good evidence. In the event of the time traveler, they would be wrong, but they would be wrong for the right reason.

What is an extraordinary claim depends on the context, and in any given context, raising the dead or changing water to wine is an extraordinary claim. Claiming modern technology hundreds of years before it was possible would have been an extraordinary claim. Both can rightly be rejected without extraordinarily high levels of evidence, and legendary stories repeated in holy books can never rise to the level of extraordinary evidence. In fact, it never makes it above them most mundane level of evidence since such stories are legion across all cultures in all time periods.

None of this really matters anyway. I seriously doubt people convert to religions based upon these sorts of stories, its primarily due to either "religious experiences" or indoctrination and inertia. We cannot know for certain that Jesus did not raise the dead, but it is trivially easy to see that any rational person would dismiss the claim. I mean honestly, Sai Baba claims to fly and raise the dead _right now_, and I don't need to go to India to know its BS. No one does. Just as virtually no one gives any credence to the Olympian stories, no one would give the NT stories any credence were it not so deeply ingrained in our cultural memes.

 

[Kopji]

The Judas story is fiction, but certainly not simple or amateurish fiction. I don't think we should underestimate the complexity of the stories.

A search on the OT name "Ahithophel" yields some interesting reading. Ahithophel is generally regarded as a 'type' of Judas, but is more like the tip of the iceberg.

Mark's strategy for the design story of the crucifixion is laid out in tables fairly well here:
http://sol.sci.uop.edu/~jfalward/David_and_Jesus.htm

 

[skeptical]

BTW

It seems that many here have a wrong concept of what it means to be skeptical. They feel as if being skeptical means being non-religious and automatic rejection of all that even hints of ID. That's not true. In fact, being skeptical simply means that we don't accept things at face-value but demand proof. Now, that proof can either be scientific or logical. I for example might be very skeptical concerning certain popular beliefs because they are essentially illogical. For example, a mere human claiming to know all that existence contains is illogical since no human can claim that with any certainty. If indeed he does, then that person is setting aside his skepticism and reserving it only for areas he deems convenient.

Not quite right. Skepticism simply means apportioning belief to the degree of evidence and the nature of the claim. That's it. Its really quite simple, and in fact it is exactly the way most people reason in everyday life. If someone you trust tells you its supposed to rain, you reason that the person is trustworthy (decent evidence absent other factors) and the claim is usually mundane (it typically rains in most places frequently) and therefore would assign a relatively high level of belief. Conversely, if someone you know is a liar (low level of evidence) tells you the moon is made of green cheese (extraordinary claim since we have been to the moon and we know that cheese is a man-made product), then you assign a extraordinarily low level of belief, possibly to the level of saying you "know" that the claim is wrong.

However, the level of belief is always strictly a matter of degree. Even though in colloquial terms people often say they "know" this or that, data from the empirical world must always fall short of complete and absolute knowledge. Proofs are for mathematics, but we can still have very high levels of belief that are grounded in proper skeptical approaches.

And FWIW, I am not aware of any sane person who has ever claimed to know "all that existence contains", so I have no idea what you're on about unless it is the tired canard that atheism entails saying you "know" no gods exist. I hope that is not what you were saying, because it is trivially false. Atheism simply means accepting that the evidence for all gods that have been put forth is poor, and so correspondingly the belief in any such gods is extremely low, to the point of saying the claim is provisionally false unless much better evidence comes to light.

In common usage people might say "I don't believe any gods exist" or even shorten it to "no gods exist", but that is simply a matter of colloquial speech, it is not an absolute claim to "know", in the strictest sense of the term, that no possible God in fact exists and it is nothing like what you are claiming.

It's exactly the same as saying "Leprechauns don't exist". Do I _know_ in the strictest sense that no Leprechauns exist? Of course not. They _might_ exist somewhere, the stories _might_ be based on real creatures. But it is an extraordinary claim with non-existent evidence because we know the nature of rainbows and how they are produced, no one has ever seen a pot of gold under one and no one has ever actually seen a Leprechaun. So while no one can say with absolute certainty that Leprechauns don't exist, in normal usage of language everyone would say "Leprechauns don't exist" instead of saying "its highly likely that Leprechauns don't exist because the claim is extraordinary and the evidence is very poor".

I am quite sure this has probably been pointed out on these boards before.

This of course goes completely contrary to the tenets of skepticism regardless of how justified the individual feels in using that dubious approach. Unfortunately, among the club of the IRRATIONALS where mutual admiration is pervasive and demanded, that individual might be lauded as the epitome of rational thought. For what it's worth. Which I'm afraid to say, but venture to say anyway with great trepidation, is very little.

Since no one I am aware of holds anything close to the tenets you are espousing, I call straw man.

 

[Radrook]

I did not say there is only one type of atheism, In fact, I didn't even use the term atheism. I was merely responding to what appears to be one type of atheism, that which absolutely doesn't permit any possibility of a God. I thought that should be obvious. Also, I am NOT a mind-reader. So when someone tags belief in God or ID as totally absurd, then its only logical that I take that statement as an all-or-nothing one. So if you don't wish to be perceived that way please refrain from making all-or- nothing statements.


BTW

My continually being forced to explain that I didn't mean what I am accused of meaning eventually becomes intolerably annoying and tiresome. Especially when one begins suspecting purposeful misrepresented for annoyance purposes. The only option then becomes the ignore button. So please, if not sure of what I meant, ask first instead of wasting time writing extended rebuttals in reference to something I didn't say.

 

[Frozenwolf150]

Yes, it does become quite tiresome when people venomously attack positions that aren't really held and have never been stated by the ones they're attacking.

BTW

I take serious offense to whoever it was in this thread that said that Judas was the real messiah, not Jesus, and therefore he betrayed him out of jealousy alone. Who in blazes was that? Grrr, this is the last time I'm going to grant you people the benefit of my finely honed critical-thinking skills and years upon years of biblical expertise, a subject on which I am the ONLY authority in existence! Feel the wrath of my thesaurus insults you imbecilic ignorami! I can't be bothered to waste my time responding to the heckling and jeckling that is sure to come of this, and my beliefs forbid me from interacting with anyone whose opinions are different from mine, so goodbye! I'm putting you on ignore, that way I won't have to give tough questions any serious consideration!

 

[gdnp]

Instead, why not question why the narrative describes Judas as hanging himself from a tree? That is definitely unbelievable as an action by an otherwise (ostensibly) faithful Jew, because death by hanging from a tree is considered unclean and damning to the soul (probably the motive for describing his fate in that manner). If someone is going to question the story of Judas, it's his death that should be questioned as unbelievable (due to its extreme taboo), not his political betrayal (which is common enough throughout history).

Which death are we referring to? The one in Matthew:

3 When Judas, his betrayer, saw that he was condemned, he repented and brought back the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and the elders, 4 saying, "I have sinned in betraying innocent blood." They said, "What is that to us? See to it yourself." 5 And throwing down the pieces of silver in the temple, he departed; and he went and hanged himself. 6 But the chief priests, taking the pieces of silver, said, "It is not lawful to put them into the treasury, since they are blood money." 7 So they took counsel, and bought with them the potter's field, to bury strangers in. 8 Therefore that field has been called the Field of Blood to this day. 9 Then was fulfilled what had been spoken by the prophet Jeremiah, saying, "And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him on whom a price had been set by some of the sons of Israel, 10 and they gave them for the potter's field, as the Lord directed me." RSV Matt 27:3-10

or the one in Acts:

15 In those days Peter stood up among the brethren (the company of persons was in all about a hundred and twenty), and said, 16 "Brethren, the scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit spoke beforehand by the mouth of David, concerning Judas who was guide to those who arrested Jesus. 17 For he was numbered among us, and was allotted his share in this ministry. 18 (Now this man bought a field with the reward of his wickedness; and falling headlong he burst open in the middle and all his bowels gushed out. 19 And it became known to all the inhabitants of Jerusalem, so that the field was called in their language Akel'dama, that is, Field of Blood.) 20 For it is written in the book of Psalms, `Let his habitation become desolate, and let there be no one to live in it'; and `His office let another take.' RSV Acts 1:15-20

Judas' death is just one of the many places the NT writers contradict each other. Not to mention the different explanation of what happened with the 30 pieces of silver, in the same verses.

You can chant "myth!" until your tonsiles dangle daintily from their gimbles but that won't prove nor magically make it so. You need something more substantial than a catchy slogan. Perhaps a self gratifying godless jingle in a 3/4 tempo?

Sorry, I assume all 2000 year old stories involving gods and magic to be myths, and will continue to do so until someone presents me with a reason to believe otherwise. Which you have not done. It is not hte skeptics job to debunk your myth, it is your job to provide evidence that it is truth.

I don't know about turning water into wine, but I know some of his followers have demonstrated the ability to turn discussions into whine.

Nominated for pith

 

[ddt]

Thanks, I appreciate it.

You're welcome. I gladly concede to a better thought-out argument.

Two points on this: the Sanhedrin sat in trial at night; they sat in trial during Passover. Both were expressly forbidden.

OK.

But I do take your point regarding religious authorities and their applications of the rules as it suited their needs. As well as the point regarding timetables as described.

Thanks for that. BTW, the Latin proverb "quod licet Iovi non licet bovi" comes to mind.

BTW, I was unaware of any issue regarding the timing of Nicolae Ceaucescu. I thought the trial was a record at two hours? I admit my knowledge is cursory on this subject, so I am curious.

It was purely meant as an illustration that if you want, a full trial can be held within a couple of hours, so that the Sanhedrin could also have convicted Jesus within the night.

 

[Civilized Worm]

I did not say there is only one type of atheism, In fact, I didn't even use the term atheism. I was merely responding to what appears to be one type of atheism, that which absolutely doesn't permit any possibility of a God.

And who subscribes to that idea?