"wesr, what Paul has to do with Judas is that he places Judas alive after the resurrection. Judas didn't die according to the earliest record."
Paul never mentions Judas in any of his letters. The verse you are referring to is Corinthians 15:5 and luke 24:33
4 He was buried, and he was raised from the dead on the third day, just as the Scriptures said. 5 He was seen by Peter[c] and then by the Twelve. 6 After that, he was seen by more than 500 of his followers[d] at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have died.
Now how do we know these are the same occasion? It is an acknowledged fact that Christ made post-resurrection appearances that are not recorded in the Gospel records.
However assuming it is the same event it is more than likely Paul was using the term 12 symbolically to collectively refer to the apostles as a group. Rather than with the mathematical precision you have suggested. Similarly, the expression “twelve apostles” is used symbolically in Revelation 21:14. Imagery is used throughout the bible.
"As for prophesying the obvious - well, that's pretty easy. Like saying that prizes will be awarded after a great tournament, and the crowd will be cheering the winners."
If it were one old testament prophet and one gospel writer than I could understand but that argument holds no weight when the messianic prophecies were written by several prophets hundreds of years before they were fulfilled in the gospels by multiple writers who didn't all know each other and were not written at exactly the same time.
"I never said that it was a conspiracy theory. But if you want contradictory accounts, the gospels contradict each other plenty of times, and Paul contradicts the gospels. Which pretty much rules out a conspiracy theory - dunno why you mentioned it."
I mentioned it because I asked you this in a previous post which you never answered.
what did the gospel writers have to gain from constructing this story as you put it? Or in other words what were there motives?
"Wrong. All the linguistic evidence points to John being written after the temple was destroyed. But as that destruction was irrelevant to the story, why would it be changed? How could the destruction of the temple have anything to do with Jesus' life? Or be relevant to christians?"
Yes possibly John was written after the destruction of the temple, it is thought the Synoptic gospels were written prior to the temples destruction and persecution of the christians by Nero in 64. Although if this is true it is strange he did not mention these two events.
It is relevant because Jesus foretold the temples destruction Matthew 24:1-2.
"Ah, the old "will of god" ploy. I can't tell you how many times I have heard that lie. Either the bible is the word of god, or it is something that can be interpreted to mean whatever is necessary when it fails. Here, Jesus is crystal clear. It would have been so easy for him to add "if that be the will of god"; but he doesn't. You are only too happy to take the bible at face value when it suits you, or add to it if it doesn't."
I strongly disagree with you here. Of course it would have been easy for Jesus to add " If that be the will of God" but then that would contradict the search and you shall find phrase.
It would of also been easy for Jesus to not speak in parables, but why then in His public teaching did He almost always use them". Imo because He wanted to people to reflect and think upon them and search for the true meanings. Is it not true the harder you work for something the more you appreciate it? The more you listen the more you understand.
I also stated in my previous answer to the Luke 11:19 that this is what I THINK it means or my opinion on it as there are plenty of others out there who would be able to give much much better answers.
