"A construct. Two writers felt that it must have happened, as the scriptures had to be fulfilled, so it was included. Three gospels do not mention 30 pieces. Paul doesn't mention Judas at all, except in a roundabout way"
So because it wasn't included in each gospel it couldn't of happened? How is that logical? What has Paul got to do with it he mentioned the crucifixion many times in his letters.
2. Betrayed by a friend.
Do you not see? He was betrayed by a friend!! Judas' betrayal was absolutely essential to the whole thing. Jesus selected him for the job (John 13:26) instructed him to do it, and do it quickly (John 13:27). Without the betrayal there would have been no crucifixion. Jesus mission would not have worked.
Again how is that logical you are merely repeating the prophecy that He was betrayed by a friend. You just further justified the prophecy not rebutted it. Of course the crucifixion had to happen for it was prophesied.
3. The money cas to the potter.
"Again, a construct. Look at the alternative version in Acts 1:18, where Judas uses the money to buy a field, called the Field of Blood, rather than the potter's field."
There are a few factors here one linguistic, the others sociological.
The word used by Matthew for "bought" is agorazo -- a general term meaning, "to go to market." It means to purchase, but also to redeem. It is a verb that refers to the transaction of business. Note how Luke uses it in opposition to another word:
Luke 22:36 Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell (poleo) his garment, and buy (agorazo) one. Poleo can mean "sell" but it's primary meaning has to do with trading and bartering. Therefore the translation of "buy" (and "sell") is made according to context.
How does this mean anything with regard to Judas?
First, note the word Luke uses. It is ktaomai, which means to "get, acquire, obtain, possess, provide, purchase." This word has the connotations of ownership that agorazo does not. Matthew says that the priests transacted business for the obtaining of the field, but they did not thereby have possession of the field. The money they used was Judas' and the field was bought in his name; the field was technically and legally his.
"4. The disciples forsook him.
A perfectly natural reaction!
5. Accused by false witnesses.
Again, why wouldn't that happen? Still happens today, and before Christ.
6. Smitten and spit upon.
Again, just normal for executions, whether crucifixions, hangings, guillotines."
Don't understand what your getting at here, these where prophesied in detail hundreds of years before. Thats what prophets do predict the future.
7. Dumb before his accusers.
Wrong. Have you not read John 18? Where Jesus talks to the chief priests and the pharisees (4,5,7 & 8), the high priest (20,21 & 23) and to Pilate (34, 36 & 37) and John 19:11, again to Pilate?
Pretty sure that didn't mean it literally rather he did not defend the charges, otherwise as you have stated the crucifixion would not have occurred because He was innocent.
9. Fell under the cross.
Now you have made a construct. John specifically, categorically, unequivocally states that Jesus carried his own cross to Golgotha! His knees were not weak from fasting, he had had the last supper the night before.
The answer to this discrepancy is very simple when you look at the context. Jesus had undergone a very physically traumatic few hours. Consider the following verses placed in order of His ordeal and pay attention to the physical trauma he received before He ever arrived at the cross.
Sweat like blood: "And being in agony He was praying very fervently; and His sweat became like drops of blood, falling down upon the ground," (Luke 22:44)
He was struck: "And when He had said this, one of the officers standing by gave Jesus a blow, saying, "Is that the way You answer the high priest?" 23Jesus answered him, "If I have spoken wrongly, bear witness of the wrong; but if rightly, why do you strike Me?" (John 18:22-23).
He was beaten with fists: "And some began to spit at Him, and to blindfold Him, and to beat Him with their fists, and to say to Him, "Prophesy!" And the officers received Him with slaps in the face," (Mark 14:65). He was scourged "Then he released Barabbas for them; but after having Jesus scourged, he delivered Him to be crucified," (Matt. 27:26).
Crown of thorns on head and beaten: "And after weaving a crown of thorns, they put it on His head, and a reed in His right hand; and they kneeled down before Him and mocked Him, saying, "Hail, King of the Jews! 30"And they spat on Him, and took the reed and began to beat Him on the head. 31And after they had mocked Him, they took His robe off and put His garments on Him, and led Him away to crucify Him," (Matt. 27:29-31).
Jesus started to carry it, but simply couldn't bear it very far after all the physical trauma He had just gone through. He collapsed. That is when the Romans drafted Simon of Cyrene to carry the cross the rest of the way.
The rest of your answers have simply stated they are normal for crucifixions or constructed so then what did the gospel writers have to gain from constructing this story as you put it?
If power and influence were sought by the gospel authors, did they attain it? At best, what they have gained by such an elaborate hoax would have been influence in a small group of people who were outcasts in Israel as well as Rome. Remember, to get followers into Christianity meant that you went against not only the Jewish system but also the Roman system, not to mention being able to concoct a story that could stand scrutiny. Obviously the odds are extremely against such a thing.
Did they get what they were after? They were outcasts in their own society. They were beaten, ridiculed, accused of debauchery, jailed, beaten, and executed. If it was all a conspiracy, did they get the influence and power they were after? It doesn't seem so. Instead, it simply makes more sense to believe the New Testament than to say it was all a hoax.
