It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Jesus murdered Judas?

page: 3
9
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 08:54 AM
link   
a reply to: NOTurTypical

Then attack the argument and prove its invalidity. I am not giving credence to the OP's argument here, I'm just pointing out that using a fallacy to debunk the OP is wrong. For the record, I see no reason to believe that Jesus would poison Judas.

Seeing as how the only source we have about this particular event in Jesus' life is the bible, I cannot see the valid basis in the OP's claims (since the bible doesn't paint Jesus in such a light). On the other hand though, we ARE talking about the bible here so I, personally, would allow conjecture like the OP's on what really happened outside of what the bible "claims" to have happened. I already kind of think that if Jesus existed, he was just another small time, charismatic cult leader and possibly a conman with his miracles. So looking at it like that, a cult leader poisoning his disciple because he disobeyed or disagreed with him isn't far-fetched. Though you are right, it is all conjecture.
edit on 9-2-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 11:55 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t




Then attack the argument and prove its invalidity.


That's not how logic works, the person making the claim carries the burden to prove his argument true. And that proof cannot come in the form of arbitrary conjecture. That's how this game works. Damn that Plato.




I'm just pointing out that using a fallacy to debunk the OP is wrong.


This is true. What the member should have done is demanded proof that wasn't based upon an arbitrary conjecture from the get go. Never substantiate someone's argument that is based on a false premise, it's a failed method of debate.




On the other hand though, we ARE talking about the bible here so I, personally, would allow conjecture like the OP's on what really happened outside of what the bible "claims" to have happened.


Then you are no different than the member you are calling out for trying to counter argue with a fallacy. You would be accepting as a valid argument an arbitrary conjecture, arbitrary means "unsupported". (It's wholly subjective)




Though you are right, it is all conjecture


Even worse,.. it's arbitrary conjecture. In logic, that makes the claims completely irrelevant.


edit on 9-2-2015 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 12:23 PM
link   
a reply to: NOTurTypical

or to rest their entire life view on the writings in an old book.

You missed my point--both sides, imho, are wrong if you view them purely based on logic and evidence. But there are certain things on both sides that will never be provable do to how long ago supposed events took place, so it's really a moot argument.



posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 12:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
Damn that Plato.


Plato believed in a pantheon of gods.

Does the fact that you worship a different religion and god make your choice illogical, because it goes against what Plato believed?



posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 12:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
That's not how logic works, the person making the claim carries the burden to prove his argument true. And that proof cannot come in the form of arbitrary conjecture. That's how this game works. Damn that Plato.


Regardless of the unsoundness of the OP's argument, it doesn't give you carte blanche to dismiss the argument with your own fallacy. If it is an easily rebuked argument, then rebuke it.


This is true. What the member should have done is demanded proof that wasn't based upon an arbitrary conjecture from the get go. Never substantiate someone's argument that is based on a false premise, it's a failed method of debate.


Religion in general is a false premise, so the OP really isn't doing anything different than someone arguing that Jesus walked on water.


Then you are no different than the member you are calling out for trying to counter argue with a fallacy. You would be accepting as a valid argument an arbitrary conjecture, arbitrary means "unsupported". (It's wholly subjective)


I just accept it as a possibility and can see the circumstances that would make it true. That is all. As an agnostic, it is just how I look at things. Everything is possible until it can be shown to be impossible (which is in itself impossible, though something can be proven to be exceedingly improbable).


Even worse,.. it's arbitrary conjecture. In logic, that makes the claims completely irrelevant.


I just look at it as a different way to interpret the bible. Seeing as how any interpretation of the bible is pretty much arbitrary conjecture, I say let his argument stand.
edit on 9-2-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 12:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
Damn that Plato.


Plato believed in a pantheon of gods.

Does the fact that you worship a different religion and god make your choice illogical, because it goes against what Plato believed?


I was speaking of logic, not his choice of deity/deities.



posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 12:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t




Regardless of the unsoundness of the OP's argument, it doesn't give you carte blanche to dismiss the argument with your own fallacy. If it is an easily rebuked argument, then rebuke it.


I think you are confusing me with the other member. I wasn't the one you accused of using the ad hom.




Religion in general is a false premise, so the OP really isn't doing anything different than someone arguing that Jesus walked on water.


It's a religious belief, sure, but it's not "arbitrary", the source is the gospel narrative. Now, one can certainly claim they don't believe in the metaphysical aspects of the narratives, but they can't claim those narratives do not exist.




I just look at it as a different way to interpret the bible. Seeing as how any interpretation of the bible is pretty much arbitrary conjecture, I say let his argument stand.


I don't see how anyone could say that, Greek is very precise. Hell, verbs alone must meet 5 different conditions to even be used in a sentence. As stated, one can certainly deny all the metaphysical claims the Bible makes, but nobody can legitimately say there is no MSS source documents. in fact, the Bible has the most manuscript evidence of any book in human history. The authors of the KJV had over 5,500 manuscripts available in the 17th century to draw from.

Nobody can claim the Bible is "arbitrary". That's absurdity.



posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 12:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
It's a religious belief, sure, but it's not "arbitrary", the source is the gospel narrative. Now, one can certainly claim they don't believe in the metaphysical aspects of the narratives, but they can't claim those narratives do not exist.


Well in this case the arbitrary claim IS the bible. Since there is no evidence to back the bible up, it is arbitrary conjecture.


I don't see how anyone could say that, Greek is very precise. Hell, verbs alone must meet 5 different conditions to even be used in a sentence. As stated, one can certainly deny all the metaphysical claims the Bible makes, but nobody can legitimately say there is no MSS source documents. in fact, the Bible has the most manuscript evidence of any book in human history. The authors of the KJV had over 5,500 manuscripts available in the 17th century to draw from.

Nobody can claim the Bible is "arbitrary". That's absurdity.


All that proves is that a LOT of people copied the bible. It doesn't give validity to the claims though. At the end of the day, the bible is a bunch of wild claims with no evidence backing them up. That makes them arbitrary.



posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 01:13 PM
link   
I have had to take baking soda everyday to offset my rta2.

An overdose would give you a heart attack before any other syptoms would kill you.

If any truth in your thoughts it would be something givin to interfer with the yeast in the bread which is really something that can effect our choices.

Bacteria is more than we understand spiritually and different foods we eat influence us. hence "you are what you eat"
Perhaps it was cream of tartar.



posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 01:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut
The Gospels were originally written in Greek.


Nope. Matthew as according to Irenaeus of Lyons c. 180 AD:

Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect... [Against Heresies 3:1:1]

According to www.catholic.com...

We do not know for certain whether any of the Gospels were written in Aramaic. An early Christian writer named Papias wrote (c. A.D. 120) that Matthew wrote the oracles of Christ "in the Hebrew tongue." This is ambiguous because "the Hebrew tongue" could refer to the language known as Hebrew or to Aramaic, which was the tongue commonly spoken by Jews at that time.


The synoptic gospels (Mark, Matthew and Luke) all draw on a common source, often referred to as Gospel Q or Quelle (Fr. Source), these gospels are structured in the same way, contain mostly the same stories and contains quite a bit of "Hebrewfifacions" Hebrew/Aramiaic words that have made it into the Greek versions that surfaced later. There is near full consensus that this Quelle source must have been written in Hebrew/Aramaic/Syriac, and possibly by Matthew, not to be mixed with the book we have today, called Matthew.

tyndalearchive.com...

Bivin and Blizzard relate research by Dr. Robert L. Lindsey as to the history of the synoptic gospels. Within five years after the death of Jesus, a biographer (believed to be Matthew) recorded the story of Jesus in Hebrew. At once, there was a demand in the Greek-speaking churches for a translation of the biography into Greek. A very literal translation was made. A few years later, stories and parts of stories were removed and arranged topically. Shortly after, a Greek author tried to reconstruct the story. Luke used the latter two of these records as his sources. Mark used Luke's work and the topically-arranged Greek as his sources. Matthew used Mark's work and the topically-arranged Greek as his sources. The current gospel may have been written by someone other than the Matthew who is believed to have written the original biography.

Thus, if this is correct, the original writing was composed in Hebrew, not Greek, or even Aramaic. The authors, throughout their book, present evidence to support their position. Statistics are quoted to show that over 90% of the Bible, including Old Testament quotes in the New Testament, was written in Hebrew, with about 1% in Aramaic, and the rest in Greek. If Bivin and Blizzard are right, there needs to be a change in thinking about the origin of the synoptic gospels and the resultant translations. They quote from Eusebius in Ecclesiastical History, giving evidence that it was known in his day that Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew. Eusebius himself had quoted other writers, Papias (Book III, Chapter 39, page 127), Irenæus (Book V, Chapter 8, page 187), Origen (Book VI, Chapter 25, page 245), and Eusebius himself (Book III, Chapter 24, page 108).

The editor of Ecclesiastical History adds the following footnote to the comment of Papias: "The author here, doubtless, means Syro-Chaldaic, which is sometimes in Scripture, and writers, called Hebrew." Papias adds that it had to be translated, which suggests that it was not in the language of the church. Smith agrees with Origin that Matthew wrote to the Jews, but unlike Origen, he does not mention that it was written in Hebrew. The compilers of The Bible Almanac mention that Matthew wrote first in Syriac, Syro-Chaldaic, Aramaic, or Hebrew and that he may have rewritten later in Greek for wider use.


Though there is no physical evidence present of any trace of much anything Christian from before 70 AD, even less evidence is found of any Aramaic/Hebrew writings belonging to said tradition. But we do know from commentaries and second hand sources that the first gospels were circulated in Aramaic. But this is a whole different discussion altogether.



posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 02:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: Utnapisjtim




«the disciple whom Jesus loved»


That was John ^. Mary Magdeline was not one of the 12 disciples.




Now what exactly did Jesus dip his morsel into before giving it to Judas?


Wine.


Take a close look at the picture below and say again that Jesus was gay. As you can clearly see, the person Peter is leaning over against and whom Jesus loved-- is a woman, and both her and Jesus, and even Judas, carry their tunics like Roman elites:

That is a painting done hundreds of years after the last supper. It isnt a photograph of it.


Fair enough, but it's not the only one. The picture I used in the OP was made ca. 1520, by Giovanni Pietro Rizzoli. It is made to resemble Da Vinci's famous mural in the refectory of the Convent of Santa Maria delle Grazie, Milan.

These guys weren't stupid and they were most certainly informed of quite a few things. But this isn't about Mary Magdalen, but Jesus and why he was crucified as a murderer and a threat to Roman superiority.



posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 02:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: Utnapisjtim

You stated in another thread that Jesus was not historical, a fiction.


I did? Please find where I ever said Jesus was a character of fiction. Jesus most certainly lived, but the stories we now own and which the Church is founded on, is mostly fiction. Jesus was the big literary franchise back then. Much like king Arthur and his knights. There is truth in it, I believe Arthur lived, but I don't necessarily believe everything that is written about him.



posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 02:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: DeadSeraph
a reply to: Utnapisjtim

You literally have nothing to say.

Keep it up, champ.


This should be quoted and posted in all of the OP's threads.



posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 02:13 PM
link   
Perhaps it was mentos bread dipped into diet coke.



posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 02:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: Krazysh0t




Speaking of having nothing to say. You made zero effort to debunk the OP's claims here and instead opted to use your rant against the OP's general opinions as some sort of valid debunking. That is an ad hominem fallacy.


Well, let's talk about fallacies then... OP's premise is based on arbitrary conjecture, nothing from the text itself. So if we want to hold people to the fire of rational thought and logic then the OP's argument is irrelevant. In debate arbitrariness it not allowed.



Ah, I see you have learnt a new term. Arbitrary conjecture. What is arbitrary with suggesting Jesus was killed for murder? On the contrary, you and your fellows all rely on doctrine and theology as it came out of the Catholic Heresy. Those books you cherish were written in the blood of saints and prophets. Saints and prophets who were killed and persecuted because of such arbitrary conjecture you refer to. The irony is that your screaming arbitrary conjecture-- is arbitrary conjecture.



posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 02:20 PM
link   
Darkness is darkness if anyone is in it leave them to it, that is %85 of the world, Lets move on.



posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 04:24 PM
link   
Jesus never killed anybody himself. He always had somebody else do it. Like getting Salome to get his cousin John the Baptist's head chopped off. In the case of Judas, I suspect it was Simon.



posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 06:37 PM
link   
Jesus murdered Judas? Damn, thats a game changer! You mean Christ is really the Anti=Christ?



posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 06:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: Blue Shift
Jesus never killed anybody himself. He always had somebody else do it. Like getting Salome to get his cousin John the Baptist's head chopped off. In the case of Judas, I suspect it was Simon.


NICE AVATAR! "Gort Klaatu barada nicto".

On topic: You mean it was all a lie? Religion lie? No, say it isn't so!



posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 06:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: Utnapisjtim

You stated in another thread that Jesus was not historical, a fiction.


I did? Please find where I ever said Jesus was a character of fiction. Jesus most certainly lived, but the stories we now own and which the Church is founded on, is mostly fiction. Jesus was the big literary franchise back then. Much like king Arthur and his knights. There is truth in it, I believe Arthur lived, but I don't necessarily believe everything that is written about him.


I apologize, I was in error.

In the other thread it was Windword who made that statement.

Unfortunately, I cannot delete the erroneous post as it is beyond the four hour limit but I can retract it, as I am now doing in this post.

You did, however state that Jesus (as the general public knows him) was "mostly fictional" in the post I have just quoted above.

So I ask, how can you have confidence that Jesus committed the acts you describe, if the record of those acts is "mostly fictional"?

Can you clearly delineate the fictional from the factual for me, please?




top topics



 
9
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join