Correct. So how do you know Judas lived and was well off?
To your request.
John 13:27 27As soon as Judas took the bread, Satan entered into him. So Jesus told him, "What you are about to do, do quickly."
Regards
DL
John is the newest Gospel and so the least accurate per Judas and Jesus - Mark is the oldest and so most accurate.
Judas is mentioned in Luke - where he does not die - and Matt - where he killed himself (Matt and Luke were written at the same time - so its a wash per Juda's fate (but thinking it is more fair that he hanged himself, and less realistic - that he got his pay and lived a long live afterward (so Luke is prob the more accurate).
I ignore John in all things historical - when we have the Synoptics relating the same events, and which were earlier and so more accurate per events on the ground.
trusting one "gospel" over another is a series of circular arguments which at heart are nothing more than cherry picking whatever version you FEEL most suits your prejudice.
Earlier is not necessarily more accurate.
your right sir, earlier is not always the most accurate (because we do not know the authors' aganda), but statistically "earlier is more accurate", and that all we have to go by, not knowing the intend or character of the authors of the 4 Gospels.
I assume all were good men with honest character - out of goodwill mentality - and so assume the author of Mark had the most accurate story to tell over the other Gospels - witten 20-35 yrs later - assuming all the authors were of good character and wrote down stories they heard.
Greatest I am wrote: ↑Sun May 31, 2020 3:23 pmFTPOV, Jesus was too much of a coward to tell his Temple authorities to bite him when turning himself in.
Nonsense! To be crucified and "resurrected" was the ultimate trick to fool the naive and gullible that how has echoed for 2k years, he only hung there for 6 h when you LEAST hang there for a week if not months!
A woman visited the tomb with healing salves, everything was arranged!
Myths try to cover various themes. Who can say, with all the alterations and plagiarisations just what was originally meant?
I ignore John in all things historical - when we have the Synoptics relating the same events, and which were earlier and so more accurate per events on the ground.
There is no history in a book with talking serpents and donkeys.
Greatest I am wrote: ↑Sat May 16, 2020 2:56 pm
Was Judas a hero and most trusted disciple, or a traitor?
...
Regards
DL
Judas was set up.
God as an omnipotent being could have stopped him.
God as an omniscient being knew what he was doing.
God the eternal made Judas to perform God's plan.
God used Judas to put the hit on his own son.
Judas was a patsy.
Judas was scapegoated.
Greatest I am wrote: ↑Tue Jun 16, 2020 11:05 pmMyths try to cover various themes. Who can say, with all the alterations and plagiarisations just what was originally meant?
Greatest I am wrote: ↑Sun May 31, 2020 3:23 pmFTPOV, Jesus was too much of a coward to tell his Temple authorities to bite him when turning himself in.
Nonsense! To be crucified and "resurrected" was the ultimate trick to fool the naive and gullible that how has echoed for 2k years, he only hung there for 6 h when you LEAST hang there for a week if not months!
A woman visited the tomb with healing salves, everything was arranged!
Myths try to cover various themes. Who can say, with all the alterations and plagiarisations just what was originally meant?
Regards
DL
Yes myths are retold and the intent is based on the moment of the telling. The myth is something selected for a purpose - to tell a story, or offer moral advice. If the myth does not fit, then another is chosen, or one is modified, fit for purpose.
The original intention is lost and irrelevant.
HexHammer wrote: ↑Mon Jun 01, 2020 3:39 am
Nonsense! To be crucified and "resurrected" was the ultimate trick to fool the naive and gullible that how has echoed for 2k years, he only hung there for 6 h when you LEAST hang there for a week if not months!
A woman visited the tomb with healing salves, everything was arranged!
Myths try to cover various themes. Who can say, with all the alterations and plagiarisations just what was originally meant?
Regards
DL
Yes myths are retold and the intent is based on the moment of the telling. The myth is something selected for a purpose - to tell a story, or offer moral advice. If the myth does not fit, then another is chosen, or one is modified, fit for purpose.
The original intention is lost and irrelevant.
yep, and how Leviathan (the serpent) no longer was just that - Taimat - but morphed into Belial.
as well as how the "Snake" (originally Cananite God in El's Pantheon) - morphed into the Same Belial.
- and so Snake became equal to Sea Serpent - though originally different beings, and likewise how both become Satan, the latter did not even exist prior to 587 bc.
Myths try to cover various themes. Who can say, with all the alterations and plagiarisations just what was originally meant?
Regards
DL
Yes myths are retold and the intent is based on the moment of the telling. The myth is something selected for a purpose - to tell a story, or offer moral advice. If the myth does not fit, then another is chosen, or one is modified, fit for purpose.
The original intention is lost and irrelevant.
yep, and how Leviathan (the serpent) no longer was just that - Taimat - but morphed into Belial.
.
Case in point Hobbes referenced Leviathan without any regard for the original conception to tell his own story
HexHammer wrote: ↑Mon Jun 01, 2020 3:39 am
Nonsense! To be crucified and "resurrected" was the ultimate trick to fool the naive and gullible that how has echoed for 2k years, he only hung there for 6 h when you LEAST hang there for a week if not months!
A woman visited the tomb with healing salves, everything was arranged!
Myths try to cover various themes. Who can say, with all the alterations and plagiarisations just what was originally meant?
Regards
DL
Yes myths are retold and the intent is based on the moment of the telling. The myth is something selected for a purpose - to tell a story, or offer moral advice. If the myth does not fit, then another is chosen, or one is modified, fit for purpose.
The original intention is lost and irrelevant.
Lost. Yes.
Irrelevant, not likely, because as you say, they are being told for relevant reasons.
Myths try to cover various themes. Who can say, with all the alterations and plagiarisations just what was originally meant?
Regards
DL
Yes myths are retold and the intent is based on the moment of the telling. The myth is something selected for a purpose - to tell a story, or offer moral advice. If the myth does not fit, then another is chosen, or one is modified, fit for purpose.
The original intention is lost and irrelevant.
Lost. Yes.
Irrelevant, not likely, because as you say, they are being told for relevant reasons.
Regards
DL
They are being RE-told. and that is why the original intention is always irrelevant.
To say other wise is to misunderstand what the meaning of myth is.
Yes myths are retold and the intent is based on the moment of the telling. The myth is something selected for a purpose - to tell a story, or offer moral advice. If the myth does not fit, then another is chosen, or one is modified, fit for purpose.
The original intention is lost and irrelevant.
Lost. Yes.
Irrelevant, not likely, because as you say, they are being told for relevant reasons.
Regards
DL
They are being RE-told. and that is why the original intention is always irrelevant.
To say other wise is to misunderstand what the meaning of myth is.
A myth can be interpreted in a number of ways as shown by Jews seeing Original Virtue for man in Eden, while Christians see Original Sin, the exact opposite.
Irrelevant, not likely, because as you say, they are being told for relevant reasons.
Regards
DL
They are being RE-told. and that is why the original intention is always irrelevant.
To say other wise is to misunderstand what the meaning of myth is.
A myth can be interpreted in a number of ways as shown by Jews seeing Original Virtue for man in Eden, while Christians see Original Sin, the exact opposite.
Regards
DL
The myth is subordinate to its current function.
In the present a point needs to be made. A story teller selects an appropriate myth. He may well embellish it, he may well alter it. But the myth is not important, it is the message the story teller is trying to convey.
If the myth does not fit he will chose another or even make up one for himself.
So, I think you are actually agreeing, the ORIGINAL telling is irrelevant.
They are being RE-told. and that is why the original intention is always irrelevant.
To say other wise is to misunderstand what the meaning of myth is.
A myth can be interpreted in a number of ways as shown by Jews seeing Original Virtue for man in Eden, while Christians see Original Sin, the exact opposite.
Regards
DL
The myth is subordinate to its current function.
In the present a point needs to be made. A story teller selects an appropriate myth. He may well embellish it, he may well alter it. But the myth is not important, it is the message the story teller is trying to convey.
If the myth does not fit he will chose another or even make up one for himself.
So, I think you are actually agreeing, the ORIGINAL telling is irrelevant.
No. I see the original as likely more intelligent than the adulterated renderings that come later.
Like my example, Original Virtue, as the Jews saw it, makes a lot more sense than the Original Sin concept.
The Jews end with a winner of a god while Christians end with both man and god looking like losers.
A myth can be interpreted in a number of ways as shown by Jews seeing Original Virtue for man in Eden, while Christians see Original Sin, the exact opposite.
Regards
DL
The myth is subordinate to its current function.
In the present a point needs to be made. A story teller selects an appropriate myth. He may well embellish it, he may well alter it. But the myth is not important, it is the message the story teller is trying to convey.
If the myth does not fit he will chose another or even make up one for himself.
So, I think you are actually agreeing, the ORIGINAL telling is irrelevant.
No. I see the original as likely more intelligent than the adulterated renderings that come later.
Absurd nonsense.
Myths always improve. Except when they do not.
Like my example, Original Virtue, as the Jews saw it, makes a lot more sense than the Original Sin concept.
One bullshit over another. Just a bigger pile of poo.
The Jews end with a winner of a god while Christians end with both man and god looking like losers.
