What if Judas didn't do it?

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

I find this debate humorous.

I choose to look at it as a critique of Story, similar to, ‘Why didn’t the eagles just fly the Ring to Mordor?’

Boru

[Rev. Rye]

I find this debate humorous.

I choose to look at it as a critique of Story, similar to, ‘Why didn’t the eagles just fly the Ring to Mordor?’

Boru

You mean the Watsonian/Doylist paradigm I tend to look at the Bible from?

[Rev. Rye]

Right, they hired an informant in this situation, but notice that there was already a plot to kill Jesus. My claim is that this would have taken place by any means available, and betrayal wasn't necessary for it to occur.

He may have just been stoned in the street at the hand of the priests. I agree the story seems to require a sacrificial element (the lamb analogy), therefore suicide and senescence seem unlikely options.

It is unlikely in the extreme that the Sanhedrin would have stone Jesus in the street. For one thing, Jesus hadn’t committed any of the offenses under Mosaic Law that would merit death. For another, capital punishment was virtually non-existent for any offense in Jewish society of that period. For still another, it beggars belief to think that a majority of the rabbis would have voted to kill someone they considered mentally deranged.

Boru

For the record, here's the sort of rules of evidence that the Sanhedrin would be under for capital cases:

• There needed to be two witnesses. They had to be men who knew the law and had legitimate professions, free of either speech impediments or hearing disabilities. They had to see each other and both needed to warn the defendant that they were about to commit a capital offense within mere seconds of the defendant doing it. 
  
• The defendant had to explain in those same couple of seconds that they were aware of the punishment and were going to do it anyway. They also had to start to do it.
  
• There had to be at least 23 judges, and they were to interrogate each witness separately. If the witnesses differed on even the smallest point, their testimonies were thrown out. 
  
• Of those 23 judges, a minimum of 13 had to vote guilty. But if all 23 judges voted to convict, the defendant was to be let go, because if nobody could find any room for doubt, there was something wrong with the court.
  

For the record, Jehovah's Witnesses seem to have a watered down version of this procedure. How well does it work? Well, if you want the sort of record for child abuse that makes the Catholic Church seem as proactive as Chris Hansen, it's going swimmingly. 




As you can imagine, a properly sanctioned execution would be only slightly more common than hens' teeth. Vigilante stonings, maybe, but not one sanctioned by the Sanhedrin.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

I choose to look at it as a critique of Story, similar to, ‘Why didn’t the eagles just fly the Ring to Mordor?’

Boru

You mean the Watsonian/Doylist paradigm I tend to look at the Bible from?

I've always objected to that term. 'Doylist' makes no sense, as Doyle was simply Watson's literary agent. A Watsonian interpretation is the only valid one.

*surreptitiously polishes his BSI badge*

Boru

[The Grand Nudger]

Missing the forest I think. The answer to why the eagles didn't just fly the ring to mordor will come down to plot and fiction. The reason Jew betrayed God-Is-Salvation is neither plot nor fiction. It's a literary expression of frustrated theological nationalism going all the way back to the ot. It is always and forever the reason that bad things happen to gods people, as told by gods people. Deicide is just the capstone on a monument to that effect. Race mixing, foreign gods and goods, internal squabbles, and a pronounced lack of fidelity leading to self-betrayal.

I think the super interesting bit is that this story resonated with the romanizing gentiles as much if not more. That they had come to believe themselves to be the people of the book.

[Neo-Scholastic]

You know just because we moderns cannot understand something does not mean that from an objective perspective there is not a good reason why things happened as they did. "I do not know" remains a viable answer without a being a reason for disbelief.

[Objectivist]

Judas is proverbially a bad guy of the NT, so what would have happened if he didn't betray Jesus? Would Jesus' mission be a (bigger) success or would it be a failure?

I've wondered that same exact thing for many years.  We supposedly have free will but certain people have to do certain things at certain times for God's plan to unfold.  Now I'm sure that Christians would have some arbitrary, ad hoc rationalization to solve this blatant contradiction just like when they say that God has a morally sufficient reason to allow the evil of the world but they can't tell you what it is.  They have nowhere to hide.  Either they accept reason and logic or they don't.  It's only by the sheer ignorance of logic on the part of the general public that they get away with this fraud.  Religionists have a vested interest in the dumbing down of society.  It's the only way they survive.  No wonder they are afraid of their kids going to college or surfing the web.  

Exodus 9:12 gives us the biblical answer to your question.

[Foxaèr]

[Objectivist]

You know just because we moderns cannot understand something does not mean that from an objective perspective there is not a good reason why things happened as they did. "I do not know" remains a viable answer without a being a reason for disbelief.

In Christianity's premises, there is no such thing as objectivity.  Christianity explicitly rejects the principle of objectivity.  This is the clearest, textbook example of a stolen concept one will ever see.

[Belacqua]

In Christianity's premises, there is no such thing as objectivity.  Christianity explicitly rejects the principle of objectivity.  This is the clearest, textbook example of a stolen concept one will ever see.

I confess I'm not seeing why this is so.

Google tells me the definition goes this way:

(of a person or their judgement) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

"historians try to be objective and impartial"

If you are critical of certain Christians, you could certainly accuse them of being insufficiently objective in their thinking -- that is, we could assert that they reach their conclusions due to personal feelings or opinions. But is it a "Christian premise" that people must reach conclusions through feelings and opinions? 

What explicitly about Christianity's premises doesn't allow objectivity?