Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

(2) This assumes that Iscariot is a "title" and not a placename, i.e. an identifier of where he came from. If so, this would explain the lack of care about what the term means. This idea is not universal, but has gained some acceptance. As such, the argument for historicity based on this is shaky.

(3) I doubt this. It is odd that Jesus' betrayal in Paul would make no mention of the betrayer. I am personally inclined to view Judas Iscariot as quite possibly an invented figure (though I think Jesus was historical). It is worth noting the parallel between a group of thirteen men, where one of them is betrayed by a man named Judas (Judah), which oddly parallels that of the tale of Joseph in Genesis.

(4) Agreed, though this does depend how one interprets this. If one wants to play along with Carrier's (completely ad hoc) explanations, this betrayal would have happened in a celestial realm. I think this is unsustainable myself, but one should at least make proper account and rebuttal.

(5) For 2-3 I think there are reasons to find this deductive conclusion problematic.

(4) If Jesus was betrayed by someone, anyone, even Bueller, than Jesus existed.

This is question-begging. To hypothesize that Jesus was betrayed is to begin with the assumption that he existed.

Yeah. There is honestly a lot of stuff wrong with the argumentation. I'm just wholly unconvinced that the Gospels can be used as sources to validate anything specific about Jesus' life, just because of our epistemic limitations in all our methods. While I'm convinced they have history in them, I don't think we can parse through it.

So the whole argument from Judas' betrayal becomes absolutely unsustainable, because we can't validate the narrative.

Chris Hansen wrote: ↑Fri Jun 26, 2020 6:50 am Yeah. There is honestly a lot of stuff wrong with the argumentation.

Take a look starting at the first page of this thread. It began with parody of arguments frequently made. Most aren't serious.

Ooooooh, that explains a lot.

ARGUMENT FROM FAILED SATIRE

1. Newcomers to this Thread often fail to recognize that the "arguments" are satire of real arguments that claim to prove Jesus existed.

2. Newcomers fail to recognize the satire because the satire sounds just like the real arguments.

3. Therefore, Jesus existed.

ARGUMENT FROM TRIPLE NEGATIVE

1) In GMark Chapter 7 "Mark" describes Jesus as giving a lesson about morals and ethics being more important than rituals.

(2) "Mark" adds an editorial comment that Jesus thus declares all foods clean.

(3) "Mark" did not describe his Jesus as saying that he declared all foods clean because the historical Jesus would not have said that.

(4) An author who knew the related historical story would not have said that Jesus said something he did not say. If the author wanted what Jesus said to mean something Jesus didn't mean the author would add the meaning as an editorial comment.

(5) So an unknown author with unknown sources who in general writes a story mostly about the impossible, implausible and unlikely, provides a solid/key piece of evidence that Jesus "almost certainly" (even though the two words don't really go together, like "President" and "Trump") existed by providing an unhistorical meaning to what they knew was a historical story.

(6) The above is then translated into the conclusion = “People who didn’t exist in history don’t say things you’d wish they didn’t say.”

(7) Therefore Jesus existed.

* Assist to Ken Olson

It is impossible to disprove the existence of a non-existent person. Therefore Jesus existed.

Secret Alias wrote: ↑Wed Sep 30, 2020 8:40 pm It is impossible to disprove the existence of a non-existent person. Therefore Jesus existed.

I’m gonna tat this one on my right thigh, just as soon as I make room by scraping off some jejune Nirvana lyrics. Thanks.

Secret Alias wrote: ↑Wed Sep 30, 2020 8:40 pm It is impossible to disprove the existence of a non-existent person. Therefore Jesus existed.

Therein lies the problem indeed. You can't prove you're innocent to a crime that wasn't committed - yet you can be blaimed for it - LOL!

Sessions are getting heavily boosted on academia.edu lately, resulting in the alien circumstances that the bloodgroups mingle. I haven't witnessed the biting off of heads yet, but it can't be long, any time now I fear. Faith versus reason, emotion versus ratio - it can only be bloodshed