Talk:Judas Iscariot

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Can someone please learn to write? ħumanUser talk:Human 05:32, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

Apparently 'Judas Iscariot'/'Judas' is synonymous with traitor in many languages. There is also the argument that Iscariot=Sicarii (see Wikipedia), and Judas was a more radical member of the Jesus group: so the dynamics of the situation were more complex than is now apparent. 212.85.6.26 (talk) 17:41, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Another version has the 'Siccari' as a slightly later group and 'Iscariot' being a nickname meaning 'Townie' (Or, given that the Gospels were written somewhat after the events there was an element of 'backformation with negative overtones') 82.44.143.26 (talk) 18:17, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Explanation[edit]

Why do people reject the idea that he dies due to hanging himself and the rope snapping and crashing? Why do they insist on saying Matthew and Acts contradict each other when this explantation exists? And for that matter, why do they reject the explanations apologists make, insisting the Bible contains contradictions? — Unsigned, by: 2600:1:F165:7DE3:6163:B73C:6456:3 / talk

Because it's a bullshit explanation. In Mathew, Judas keeps the silver, buys a farm, and falls and guts himself. (often attributed to divine punishment, though this would be reading more into the story than it states.) In Acts, Judas throws the silver back at the Romans, the latter of whom buy the farm wherein Judas travels to commit suicide in guilt over his actions. This is very clear, in one version of the story, Judas does not regret his actions and dies in an accident in the land he owns, while in another version he is grief and guilt stricken and chooses to throw away his blood money and commit suicide. These two versions are distictivally different from each other, and wholly incompatible as a single narrative. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 16:26, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
As for why people reject apologists, many of their excuses are bullshit, made up externally from the actual narrative(s) they are trying to defend. The apologists are literally rewriting the very book they claim is accurate in order to force it to be so. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 16:29, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Hangs himself, rope snaps, he crashes, all his bowls gush out. Is that not plausible? — Unsigned, by: 2600:1:F165:7DE3:6163:B73C:6456:3 / talk
If you wish to ignore what's written in the stories, yes. If you wish to be willfully dishonest, yes. If you wish to be truthful and actually read the stories, no. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise
Ignore what? — Unsigned, by: 2600:1:F165:7DE3:6163:B73C:6456:3 / talk
What's written on the page(s). ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 17:06, 12 July 2019 (UTC)