4 ms·

> Just to mention there is no evidence or reason to believe Judas ever existed. Modern historians agree that he probably did exist. Like a lot of subjects from

> Just to mention there is no evidence or reason to believe Judas ever existed. Modern historians agree that he probably did exist. Like a lot of subjects from the bible it's not definitive and there are different theories, but it's definitely very far from "no evidence or reason".

ncmncm 4y ago
Historians' hypothesis that Judas existed is predicated on an assumption that Jesus existed. That stands on extremely thin ice. There are no reports from anyone who claimed to have seen Him, not even the authors of the Gospels.
- rospaya 4y ago
  Not sure where you're getting your facts, but there's a consensus among (Christian and non-Christian) historians that Jesus existed. The rest is murky, but he existed as a person. That's not even remotely controversial. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus
  - ncmncm 4y ago
    Your "consensus" is not based on evidence, but purely on convenience: something did happen associated with Judea (though not, by any plausible evidence, in it) that is most conveniently accounted for by assuming an actual person did specified things there. That, without any actual evidence that any did, but a monumental volume of very obviously and universally acknowledged wholesale-fabricated evidence, clearly penned decades after any participants would necessarily have died. What the assumption utterly fails to account for is the extraordinary volume of such obvious fabrication, of a magnitude that appears nowhere else in the historical record. If any of its subject matter were true, what would motivate the enormous industry of fabrication and insertion of late alterations into contemporaneous texts? The gradient is toward decreasing adherence to the convenient assumption, and more critical scrutiny.
    - rospaya 4y ago
      I'm not a historian, so when most of them say that something happened, I tend to trust them.

ncmncm 4y ago

Historians' hypothesis that Judas existed is predicated on an assumption that Jesus existed. That stands on extremely thin ice. There are no reports from anyone who claimed to have seen Him, not even the authors of the Gospels.

rospaya 4y ago
Not sure where you're getting your facts, but there's a consensus among (Christian and non-Christian) historians that Jesus existed. The rest is murky, but he existed as a person. That's not even remotely controversial. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus
- ncmncm 4y ago
  Your "consensus" is not based on evidence, but purely on convenience: something did happen associated with Judea (though not, by any plausible evidence, in it) that is most conveniently accounted for by assuming an actual person did specified things there. That, without any actual evidence that any did, but a monumental volume of very obviously and universally acknowledged wholesale-fabricated evidence, clearly penned decades after any participants would necessarily have died. What the assumption utterly fails to account for is the extraordinary volume of such obvious fabrication, of a magnitude that appears nowhere else in the historical record. If any of its subject matter were true, what would motivate the enormous industry of fabrication and insertion of late alterations into contemporaneous texts? The gradient is toward decreasing adherence to the convenient assumption, and more critical scrutiny.
  - rospaya 4y ago
    I'm not a historian, so when most of them say that something happened, I tend to trust them.