[jude24]

Couple of points:

: 1. Neither you nor I know floridaobservers academic history or credentials. Further, while some might appreciate this end result, your condemnation of public education would disqualify me, since I have continuously been educated in public institutions from high school through law school.

2. The textual evidence is useful to show that the New Testament is substantively what it was ca. 150 AD. It does not, standing alone, prove authority. Ultimately, it is not sufficient to answer to floridaobserver's allegations that the NT misrepresents Judas's actions.

3. The aforementioned said, you are absolutely right about his misunderstanding of the origins of the word "Iscariot" - that he was a Zealot.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

Couple of points: 1. Neither you nor I know floridaobservers academic history or credentials. Further, while some might appreciate this end result, your condemnation of public education would disqualify me, since I have continuously been educated in public institutions from high school through law school.

I, also, was continuously educated in the Publik Skools; from KinderGarten, through Grammar School, and through High School, until I reached Jerry Falwell's Liberty University*.

*-- (And even there, my family had its own disagreements: despite my 3.4 GPA, I flunked my "required" Baptist Religion courses, because I refused to attend on general principles; and my mother finally quit Liberty U because of certain Falwell financial misconducts which are best not repeated here [after all, when the County Sheriff showed up in the end, the students did get their scholarship money back; so let's let bygones be bygones])

When I condemn the Gubmint Skools, I speak not from Private-School-Elitism, but FROM PERSONAL EXPERIENCE.

2. The textual evidence is useful to show that the New Testament is substantively what it was ca. 150 AD. It does not, standing alone, prove authority. Ultimately, it is not sufficient to answer to floridaobserver's allegations that the NT misrepresents Judas's actions.

The Textual Evidence, however, is sufficiently useful to prove the Authenticity of the Text (I.E., whether one believes its Truth or not, the Majority Text in our possession is an Authentic rendition of the Original). As you say, "The textual evidence is useful to show that the New Testament is substantively what it was ca. 150 AD". Modern Biblical Revisionism -- whether "The Passover Plot", or "The Da Vince Code", or what have you, is largely based upon the claim that the New Testament is somehow "tampered" or "white-washed".

That CLAIM is simply NOT Logically-defensible.

The New Testament IS what it IS, and has a Thousand Times more Proof of its Textual Authenticity than "The Annals of Tacitus" or "Julius Caesar's Gallic Wars" or any other important Document of Ancient History; the only question, then, is whether or not One Chooses to Believe what The New Testament says -- the notion of impugning its Textual Authenticity should be relegated to the scrap-heap of history.

3. The aforementioned said, you are absolutely right about his misunderstanding of the origins of the word "Iscariot" - that he was a Zealot.

And more particularly, a "Sacarii" Zealot Radical, who of course would be thus disillusioned by Jesus Christ's unwillingness to directly confront to Roman Authorities.

I will relent, however, in saying that "floridaobserver" need not continue to be a Fool. He might, of course, find himself inspired to examine real Bible Scholarship (which somewhat exceeds what you'll find on the Discovery Channel).

But that depends on his own Choice.

(As you well know, I am a firm Calvinist believer in Human Free Will -- as a Volitional Mechanism of Making Choices.... however, God Rules All.)

Best, OP