IamJoseph

This is a fiction. Rome would have killed Jesus and a million Jews and it has nothing to do with any Judas - a Roman invention all Europe accepted eagerly and with no demand for proof.

I don't think so. If it comes from high up, it would be for a bigger purpose than just for Jews. Egypt and Babylon were not taken away just because of a war with the Jews - those nations were also bent on an evil path - there is a message here.

Heard of the Gospels?

This is also a good way of hiding from actual truth. If there is any symbolism, it only refers to the defense put by jews against nazi Rome, and points the finger at those who sided with them and omitted to mention it. The rest is symbolic of Europe's history. That none confront this truth is also symbolic.

IamJoseph

I suspect the one who is not around anymore.

There was no false messiah because it never happened. Nothing in the Isaiah criteria occured. This is the difference between a Christian Messiah and one which will happen when it does. Moses was a Messiah of his time, and he did confront the Pharoahs, and he did change the world as no human ever emulated. Christianity embedded with Rome and targeted the victims instead, neglecting to mention the mass murder of millions and focusing on hapless money changers.

IamJoseph

Not even a co-incidence impacts here. There was never a trial as depicted in the Gospels, and no record of this is seen in Roman archives - which lists numerous trials. The issue of a Messiah emerged later in the Gospels, via layers, then this graduated to ever increasing status, and is not subsequent to this being the Jewish belief, but corrputed by the later Gospels.

A Messiah was never meant to be divine, and not awaited to glorify himself with magical feats - it was to confront oppression, and the Christian Messiah never confronted Rome. The Jews nominated five candidates as a potential Messiah before the Romans, and all those nominated were crucified - with no assistance from any Judas. The issue of the victims being the bad guys and thus deserved what Rome did is grotesque, in allignment with Europe saying it never knew of the Holocaust.

The notion of jews being the bad guys, instead of depraved Rome, is a lost case even theologically: it puts paid on the Gospel's selective notion of salvation and the meek, and again over-turned with the return of Israel - despite an unceasing obsession to stop this occurence. Israel was returned when all nations slammed their dorors shut following the Holocaust [including all christian nations such as UK, US, Canada and Australia], when the fleeing met hordes with swords upon landing in Palestine, and while Europe's chimneys still fumed. These were terrible crimes of Christianity and islam, and they failed the test given them.

J-D

None of this, true or false, has any relevance to what I said. I understood Baalazel to be making a suggestion about why Judas has that name, and nothing you have said negates the possibility that it has no particular significance. It was a common enough name at the time.

IamJoseph

There was no name such as Judas, only Judah.

J-D

I was already aware of the identity of the names, and posted accordingly earlier in this thread. It doesn't affect the point I was making, which still stands.

IamJoseph

What betrayal? - based on which criteria - Judah's or the Gospels? I mean here, I have tried to understand this charge, and it does not make sense from any view, historical or theological. What should have been Judah's first priority and allegience here, and was he expected to forego his own Hebrew beliefs, and what was that belief, that a charge has been made, and attached to belief in God, as such a core doctrine in the Gospels?

Of note, at this time there was no issue other than awaiting a savior in the form of a human, who would advise the Hebrews how to respond to Rome's decree of heresy, a credible agenda and one not only of a belief, but also of defending against an existential threat at the door.

Five such figures were looked on by various groups - all recorded, accept that of Jesus: how come? It seems strange that the Jews would not record of someone trying to help them - even if these views were rejected, as with numerous bad or wrong Hebrew figures listed in Hebrew writings - yet we find nothing here: how come? Nothing in Roman archives - even when writings was commonplace at this time. And not a shred of Hebrew - only a Gospels which datings cannot be verified - and when Jews never write in Latin.

The five nominated had a large following, even incurring battles between these groups. What is different that Judah would have done, which would focus on the Gospels story, rather than his entire nation's predicament before him? Is the Gospels saying Judah should have acknowledged Jesus as divine? Is the Gospels saying Judah knew and rejected a divine message? Is the Gospels saying Judah erred without intenion to do so - then why this demonous libel planted upon this figure, and also to all Jews throughout history?

What would Judah's motives be - if 30 pieces of silver, then he was never a credible person anyway, and should not even be remembered - nothing to do with the Jews as a whole. If his intentions were honorable, what was the source of that intention, for the Gospel beliefs - which never existed as yet, or for his own beliefs? If the latter, please explain where his error was, and what is it that he should have done?

It is not just that there is a total vacuum of historical evidence of a trial inspired by Judah - the story does not have credibility even when allowing it to be historical. Deicide must be the most insane and grotesque thought in all humanity's history - and it comes from what is the world's largest and most advanced belief system. However, my main problem with it is it appears a false historical report.

J-D

In the story, as it is written, the character of Judas is presented as betraying Jesus.

That is the fact which Baalazel was discussing.

IamJoseph

Its also a good metaphor for depraved Rome. A more legitimate view, judging by historical facts against European metaphors.

What duplicity - Judah had only one duty and that was against Rome - how about Europe? The horrible deaths are of 1 million Jews - Europe's first Holocaust, which never merited a mentioned - that makes the Gospels a lie-by-omission, which is seen emulated today. The 've vere not avare' metaphor is a better view - its backed by factual history.

Israel has the right to choose who is a Messiah - a term introduced in the Hebrew bible, not the Christian one. Moses was a Messiah for his time - and that is the applicable criteria - and none can deny this. Its asolutely shameless that Europeans would care if Jews never followed ther own Messiah - ths is quite funny because Jews have no history of foresaking their Messiah and Prophets - they have more than any other religion can count!

Perhaps because there is nothing else but symbolism? - which means its a desired falsehood to hide from one's actions. Obviously, the symbolists are short on proof - which is itself the symbolic exposure here!

Rome's messiah, with a latin name and dressed like a Norwegian, reveling in the destruction of his own nation and peole, speaking in the name of Moses about the writings of Moses - with no Moses present - and no Europeans were bothered about it. Would Christians accept Mohammed talking in Jesus' behalf? Strangely, this Roman Messiah never had beedy eyes and a long nose - and played no part in the war against Nazi Rome. Yippee for Europe.

It appears to stop when reality of history and proof kicks in.
Perhaps the requirement of proof, as seen in the Hebrew bible and every legitimate court, is fullfiled away?

There is only one issue here:what if the Gospels is a total lie? And Knock-knock! Choose not to deal with that issue, but its not hypothetical. Think of the blood libels and the protocols of Zion, also from the backyards of Europe - think that the quetions in a judgement may not be what you like?

IamJoseph

What do you mean by 'facts' here? Which Europeans demanded proof and checked it out? Have you forgotten - there are no facts - only beliefs, symbolism and metahors - not enough to make such a charge. Read the Hebrew bible or any court what applies if in doubt - then talk about Judah.

Lets put it this way. If those are facts, then indeed it was an evil action. But equally, what is the conclusion if these facts are a total falsehood in every sense and in every level, even antithetical? I believe this is not a question which can be side stepped and is obligatory, except where one is in fear of the truth. Who gets the apologies and who gets whacked - if the charge is false?

The truth can set you free - if it is acknowledged. Else it can also whack one who's truth is a lie.