Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Mark 14:43-44:

43 Just as he was speaking, Judas, one of the Twelve, appeared. With him was a crowd armed with swords and clubs, sent from the chief priests, the teachers of the law, and the elders.

44 Now the betrayer had arranged a signal with them: “The one I kiss is the man; arrest him and lead him away under guard.”

Why the need of a Judas to recognize Jesus contra factum that all the people knew Jesus ?

Because so there is no doubt that Jesus is really "from the Jews", i.e. he is really the davidic Christ and not the Christ of an alien deity. Not coincidentially just a Judas has to recognize infallibly him.

Nah. Cheesy story telling is a less extravagant and thus more likely bet.

Have you a better explanation ?

It is after all the middle of the night. This could make identification difficult.

Andrew Criddle

andrewcriddle wrote: ↑Sat Jul 07, 2018 12:25 am It is after all the middle of the night. This could make identification difficult.

Andrew Criddle

you are making really the my case: if the identification was so difficult, why should just a Judas have been the one to do it?

So as to prevent a riot.

Thousands of Jesus followers were encamped outside the city wall for Passover.
The Chief Priests needed Jesus to be taken into custody quietly and likely promised him (via Judas) safe passage if he did.
So, they did it at night and used his broker (Judas) to get the guards unmolested through the masses without starting a riot.

Now stop and think, what would happen to Judas if Jesus was not there?

Occman's razor.

Sincerely,

John T

John T wrote: ↑Sat Jul 07, 2018 5:15 am Now stop and think, what would happen to Judas if Jesus was not there?

I think that you are totally unable (!) to grasp why just ''Judas'' had to be the name of the person who, in the middle and obscurity of the night, just in the moment where, most of all, there was the concrete risk that Jesus could be taken for a robber [just as the other Jesus, Jesus Barabbas, aka the marcionite ''Jesus Son of Father''], was the only person, among all, to recognize infallibly Jesus.

Giuseppe wrote: ↑Sat Jul 07, 2018 6:08 am

John T wrote: ↑Sat Jul 07, 2018 5:15 am Now stop and think, what would happen to Judas if Jesus was not there?

I think that you are totally unable (!) to grasp why just ''Judas'' had to be the name of the person who, in the middle and obscurity of the night, just in the moment where, most of all, there was the concrete risk that Jesus could be taken for a robber [just as the other Jesus, Jesus Barabbas, aka the marcionite ''Jesus Son of Father''], was the only person, among all, to recognize infallibly Jesus.

Then help me with my ignorance. Help me grasp what you clearly understand about the meaning of the name Judas.

John T wrote: ↑Sat Jul 07, 2018 6:50 am Then help me with my ignorance. Help me grasp what you clearly understand about the meaning of the name Judas.

the fact that just Judas and only Judas recognized Jesus confirms without shadow of doubt that Jesus is really the son of the god of the Jews and not of an unknown Father (at contrary of the robber "Jesus Barabbas"/"Jesus Son of Father"). Against the Gnostics. Against Marcion.

Giuseppe wrote: ↑Sat Jul 07, 2018 7:53 am

John T wrote: ↑Sat Jul 07, 2018 6:50 am Then help me with my ignorance. Help me grasp what you clearly understand about the meaning of the name Judas.

the fact that just Judas and only Judas recognized Jesus confirms without shadow of doubt that Jesus is really the son of the god of the Jews and not of an unknown Father (at contrary of the robber "Jesus Barabbas"/"Jesus Son of Father"). Against the Gnostics. Against Marcion.

Sadly, I remain in my ignorance.