Was Judas Iscariot a historical figure?

[fallingblood]

Again, that is not how I ruled out the historicity of the Bible. Please read my previous post.
If the majority of the chapters have no basis for historical acceptance then why should the other 20% be assumed to have historical facts.

How do you come up with such statistics? And are you also adjusting for the fact that much of the Bible has nothing to do with history but instead is a theological work? Are you also adjusting to the fact that, like nearly any ancient historical work, there are certain tools that they rely on that are not acceptable to modern historical work?

The problem still is that you are rejecting an entire collection of books based on the flaws of some. That is simply ridiculous. Each book must be judged upon it's own merits. Not on the merits of other books, simply because someone after the fact decided to place them in a collection.

This is as untruthful as it gets, the majority of the Bible has no historical relevance whatsoever. Portions of it could have happened or not but nobody has brought proof of it.

The majority of the Bible has nothing to do with history, and thus should not be criticized on that fact. It is primarily a theological work. As for the historical portions, much of it does have other backings, especially after the time of the monarchy.

There is only 1 mentioning of King David outside of the Bible for example and it is only on a vague tablet.

Yet that is still one mention, which is quite impressive as there is no reason to think that King David was ever that powerful. Sure, certain books in the Bible exaggerate his power, but that is to be expected from people writing about a king and kingdom they love.

The vast majority of the books in the Bible hold no historicity including the Tawrah, Gospels, Revelations, and the minor prophetic ramblings i the end of the Tanakh. Job, Ruth and the book of Daniel are also ruled out.

So, because much of the Bible is theological, the entire Bible should be ruled out? That is silly. The Gospels hold quite a bit of historical truth. The basic background that is showcased has been verified by other sources. Revelations was not meant to be historical. Job is not meant to be historical. The prophets are theological. If you want to criticize the historicity of the Bible, why not focus on those portions that are historical instead of books that are theological?

Just because there are historical figures within the Bible does not make it historic. It is called "faction" of "Fake-Fiction". If you believe the Bible is historical in the details of the events described then you should also believe X-men First class and the conspiracy of the US government to hide Mutants and that the Cuban Missile Crisis was ended thanks to a telepathic bald man.

Or, one can look at the Bible as they would any other historical collection, and see that there are a number of different genres. More so, it is necessary to examine the historical works in the Bible as one would any other historical source from around that time.

You are trying to place modern views of history onto an ancient source. That just doesn't work.

 

[oldbadger]

While the story does not state specifically that it was a storm, that is what is implied. The wind is the reason why Peter became scared, which implies that it was considerable. The fact that it was considered a miracle that the wind died down once Jesus entered the boat also shows that it was not just normal wind.

Hi...Fallingblood
Implied.....wriggling...!
Descending into the water is the reason Peter was scared! He couldn't swim!

The story states clearly that Jesus walked on the water. It states that Peter walked on the water. There is no suggestion that Jesus was swimming. The only thing you can provide is a possible connection that the Aramaic and Hebrew word for walk can mean swim (yet, you haven't shown that to be true. You have shown no evidence of your knowledge of Hebrew or Aramaic here).

The fact that the story states that Jesus reached out and caught Peter also suggests a standing position, thus supporting the reading that Jesus was walking on water.

So tyou never gained your Certificate of Merit at lifesaving then... You'd have needed to reach out for your stooge.... most certainly. Wriggling!!!

Really, you have done nothing to support your position, and are in fact just making things up to fit your ideology. If you want to change a person's view, you need to actually support your position with real information. You have not done that.

Obstinate response!! My answer came directly from the Gospels.

You haven't shown that the story was passed down in Aramaic and Hebrew. First off, Hebrew was not common. It was not the generally spoken language, and most probably couldn't understand it anyways. Aramaic was the common language in Palestine.

You haven't shown that it was not....!!

However, Greek was also common, and was the lingua franca of the empire. There is evidence it was used throughout Palestine, as there have been found public Greek inscriptions throughout. Even at Qumran, there were Greek documents found within the rest of the religious writings. In addition, since Greek was the lingua franca, it was also the language used for commerce. To do business, it would have been necessary to use Greek.

OMG! You're suggesting that the working peasants of Galilee spoke Greek, based upon the fact that Essene AUTHORS at Qumran could. Rubbish detection.

More so, it is clear that the tradition passed on in Greek from an early time. Paul, who began his ministry shortly after the death of Jesus, did so in Greek. In addition, one can see that Paul also relies on older tradition that was passed on to him (as he specifically states). This tradition also appears to have been circulated in Greek. Thus, there is no denying that the tradition circulated in Greek from a very early time.

Paul did not promote Yeshu's message, but his own. What a poor way to argue this point.

Finally, there is no evidence that this story circulated in Aramaic anyway (again, most did not know Hebrew). For your position to work, you have to show why there is a reason to believe that it was first recorded in Aramaic (either in written or oral form). Yet, there is none.

Recorded? RECORDED???!!!b Oral tradition carries hoistory forward by memory....! Oh dear, I need a cup of tea....

 

[fallingblood]

Hi...Fallingblood
Implied.....wriggling...!
Descending into the water is the reason Peter was scared! He couldn't swim!

The story states that the reason Peter became scared was because of the wind. You need to actually rely on the story. It states, that when Peter saw the wind, he became scared. It was only then that he began to sink. His fear was not of drowning, but of the wind.

So tyou never gained your Certificate of Merit at lifesaving then... You'd have needed to reach out for your stooge.... most certainly. Wriggling!!!

Reaching out for a stooge is not the same thing as reaching out and catching someone who is beginning to sink. It's not wriggling, it is actually looking to see what the story has to say.

Obstinate response!! My answer came directly from the Gospels.

It did not. What you have said thus far ignores what the Gospels (in particular Matthew, as Matthew deals with Peter) has to say. More so, you are ignoring the language it was written in (Greek).

You haven't shown that it was not....!!

Just look at the story we have today. It is in Greek. I don't have to prove that it was written in Greek, and recorded in Greek, as all I have to do is point to the Gospel, and see that it is in Greek. One can also examine the language used, and see that it appears to have originated in Greek as well, as it shows no signs of being translated from Aramaic.

More so, you're the one making the claim. You have the burden of proof as you are making the claim that goes against the consensus.

OMG! You're suggesting that the working peasants of Galilee spoke Greek, based upon the fact that Essene AUTHORS at Qumran could. Rubbish detection.

You don't seem to have actually read what I stated. The Essenes were only part of the evidence. The other evidence is that Greek was known to be used throughout Palestine as is evident in inscriptions throughout the are. It was the language of commerce, and thus would have been needed for business and to do work. More so, the fact that the Essenes did use Greek shows how popular Greek was, that they had to also use that language, and considered it fine for scripture.

Paul did not promote Yeshu's message, but his own. What a poor way to argue this point.

Can you show that Paul promoted his own message? The fact that Jesus's disciples approved of Paul, and subsequently his message, and that Paul subjugated himself to the Jerusalem church, implies that Paul's message was close enough to that of Jesus's.

Recorded? RECORDED???!!!b Oral tradition carries hoistory forward by memory....! Oh dear, I need a cup of tea....

And one can record an oral tradition in memory. That is why I stated that it was recorded in both written and oral sources. Recorded does not need to imply that it was physically recorded down.

 

[steeltoes]

Or, based on the actual Greek, betrayed is the best translation. Even delivered up, in the context of Corinthians, implies a betrayal.

The problem with looking up a Greek word, and finding a meaning is that you don't actually understand why it has that meaning. As with nearly any other language, words can have multiple meanings, often dictated by the context in which they are in.

As I already noted, whatever floats your boat.