A Christian response to atheism

[Big Mac]

I just love what she's done with her hair. Makes her even more of a sexy yet guarded Christian girl!

Did I mention the branch used is very very small and nearly touches the ground? If six full grown men, who would be bigger than the people back in biblical times due to better nutrition (including more meat) and still didn't break the branch after repeated use, yet one guy on a branch breaks it. Note it never says how long he stayed there. Did the apostles go and actually watch his bowels burst asunder? Did they merely just watch his rotting corpse lay in a field with all their Christian love? What's the point of even mentioning it in a story about a guy who is very loving? I personally think Judas, if he existed, was merely doing what Christ asked of him: Make him into a martyr!!! Also, I have yet to hear someone's bowels from hanging.

There was a case in the old west where they measured a guy when he was 30 pounds lighter before his hanging. He sat in the jail eating and doing nothing but getting fatter and fatter. They then hung him and his head went clean off and his body slammed into the ground below the gallows, not a single word mentioning his bowels bursting out.

[saukhasi]

"Who the hell told my preacher he could take two completely different narratives"

Who told YOU that they were two completely different narratives?

[Whitney]

Early in the morning, all the chief priests and the elders of the people came to the decision to put Jesus to death. They bound him, led him away and handed him over to Pilate, the governor. When Judas, who had betrayed him, saw that Jesus was condemned, he was seized with remorse and returned the thirty silver coins to the chief priests and the elders. "I have sinned," he said, "for I have betrayed innocent blood." "What is that to us?" they replied. "That's your responsibility." So Judas threw the money into the temple and left. Then he went away and hanged himself.  (Matthew 27:1-5 NIV)

In those days Peter stood up among the believers (a group numbering about a hundred and twenty) and said, "Brothers, the Scripture had to be fulfilled which the Holy Spirit spoke long ago through the mouth of David concerning Judas, who served as guide for those who arrested Jesus--he was one of our number and shared in this ministry."  With the reward he got for his wickedness, Judas bought a field; there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out.  (Acts 1:15-18 NIV)

Read as written these obviously conflict with each other...one says hanging and the other says he fell.

I happened to have found what seems to be the most likely charitable explanation for why these verses were written differently....one of them is metaphorical.

http://sol.sci.uop.edu/~jfalward/JudasDeath.htm

The key to understanding what Luke wanted us to understand is found in the following passage:

“And no one pours new wine into old wineskins. If he does, the new wine will burst the skins, the wine will run out and the wineskins will be ruined.” (Luke 5:37)

Old skins cannot expand to accommodate the gases released from still-fermenting new fine, while new ones are still elastic enough to accommodate the release of gas. Luke was expecting his readers would see that Judas was holding on to the old law, the old way of thinking, and was unable to accommodate the new teachings of Jesus; thus, the Judas with the old ideas burst open just as does an old wineskin filled with new wine. Luke clearly never meant for his readers to take his description of Judas literally.

The only place in the New Testament (NIV) where the words "burst" are used are in the three parallel verses dealing with wineskins, and the one place in the rest of the New Testament where the word is used to describe what happened to Judas. Here are the references:

Matthew 9:17 Neither do men pour new wine into old wineskins. If they do, the skins will burst, the wine will run out and the wineskins will be ruined. No, they pour new wine into new wineskins, and both are preserved."

Mark 2:22 And no one pours new wine into old wineskins. If he does, the wine will burst the skins, and both the wine and the wineskins will be ruined. No, he pours new wine into new wineskins."

Luke 5:37 And no one pours new wine into old wineskins. If he does, the new wine will burst the skins, the wine will run out and the wineskins will be ruined.

Acts 1:18 Acts 1 Acts 1:17-19 (With the reward he got for his wickedness, Judas bought a field; there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out.

This is not a coincidence, I believe; Luke is telling us in Acts that just as old wineskins burst when new wine is poured into them, so did the one with old ideas and beliefs (Judas) "burst" when new teachings (from Jesus) tried to enter him.

That's just the charitable explanation...

Now, note that in one account Judas throws the coins in the temple and with that money the potters field is purchased: hence being named the field of blood since it was purchased by someone other than Judas with blood money which was not clean to go into the treasury.

In the other account Judas himself purchases the field and somehow his guts burst there, so his spilt blood causes the potters field to be call the field of blood.

Considering that both sets of passages seem to be meaning to give a straightforward account of how Judas died (the metaphorical explanation seems to go out the window as plausible when we take into account that Luke was also describing what Judas did with the money he got from betraying Jesus.....why give a literal account then suddenly start using metaphors?) we can go with a more likely explanation of why they contradict; because the Bible was placed together by a committee who was apparently not concerned with making sure the text didn't have any contradictions...they were just combining the texts most commonly used by contemporary churches of the day.

btw, saukhasi, I suggest that if you want to stay around here much longer that you put some thought into your responses.  If someone disagrees with what you have to say that means you should find a new approach to getting your point across OR seriously rethink your own position.  I've read over a few of the other threads you've started on other forums and you post the same thing over and over again despite numerous reasons why what you have said may not be the best explanation.....If I was you, that would tell me that I need to re-evaluate my position in order to make it more internally compatible and find a way to better represent my views to others.

[Court]

"Who the hell told my preacher he could take two completely different narratives"

Who told YOU that they were two completely different narratives?

Have you READ them? They don't even tell the same story, except that Mary has a baby. That's nearly the only defining characteristic.

[saukhasi]

lae: good to see your reply. Now allow me make a few comments:

"Read as written these obviously"

- not really. When Judas went out to hang himself, read as written it only presents an action. It does not say how he died. So presumably he went out to hang himself and did, the priests followed and they purchased the land he hanged himself on (which we can assume is a useless piece of land given that no one stopped the suicidal trespasser) while he was still alive (hence it literally was his land), and somehow he fell from where he was hung onto (probably very rocky ground?) (or that he was already rotting and therefore was prone to sliding and bursting) and ended up as acts described. Peter, when he was talking, would refer to the horrible death part to make his point and not the hanging part which was most likely known by those who would care to listen to him. So why the Bible records these two accounts separately and incompletly is to show part I and part II of the death without any overlap (since Peter was preaching, not narrating).

"If I was you, that would tell me that I need to re-evaluate my position in order to make it more internally compatible and find a way to better represent my views to others."

When people make remarks on my intelligence instead of presenting valid counter arguments like you have done, that tells me something else.

[Whitney]

I really don't see how it; one verse can say he threw the coins at the temple then left...then the other says that HE bought the land; can in any way be interpreted to mean that the church elders bought the land but Luke decides to say Judas bought it since it was his money originally.  

Also, if he was hanging himself on some plot of land than we can assume was vacant of tall buildings since it was available for purchase....we can be safe to assume he was hanging himself from a tree.  It doesn't seem that people tend to climb very high just to hang themselves because just getting up higher than you are tall is sufficient.  So, if whatever rope he used happend to break when he first hung himself it would be rather unlikely that an impact from a fall would be strong enough to cause his guts to burst open.  He would have had to do something stupid (or purposely) like hang himself over a very sharp stake or something else pointy and sharp.  Btw, how can a person who hung themselves in any was that would cause death allow the body to fall headlong...doesn't head long mean head first?  edit:  I looked up the meaning:  http://www.answers.com/topic/headlong  head first is one of the meanings, uncontrollable speed, and rashly...archaic is steep/sheer.  Considering that the immediate context of the word in acts seems to make more sense if we read it as saying he was being rash and feel bursting his guts open; then it especially doesn't fit with the hanging story.  Maybe whatever Greek word was translated to headlong means something else...but that would open a whole other can of worms (ie do we have to learn Greek to understand what the Bible intended to say?)

So, it's pretty safe to assume that the actual hanging killed him and any possible bursting of bowels was just an after death thing (personally I still find the explaination involving metaphors to make much more sense).  I'm really not sure why they would have left him hanging there for long enough for his body to reach a state at which falling would burst him right open....after all, if the church elders knew enough about the hanging to purchase land then I think they'd remove the body after he died.

Maybe most of the issue here is that acts was written by Luke who was trying to remember what Peter said....ever played telephone; a game where the teacher tells a student a short story that is pretty easy to remember then that story is retold to the next student and so on down a line of students...by the time it gets to the last student the story hardly resembles what the teacher first said.  In fact, usually the story gets changed when the student who got the story from the teacher tries to repeat it to the next student.

[McQ]

lae: good to see your reply. Now allow me make a few comments:

"Read as written these obviously"

- not really. When Judas went out to hang himself, read as written it only presents an action. It does not say how he died. So presumably he went out to hang himself and did, the priests followed and they purchased the land he hanged himself on (which we can assume is a useless piece of land given that no one stopped the suicidal trespasser) while he was still alive (hence it literally was his land), and somehow he fell from where he was hung onto (probably very rocky ground?) (or that he was already rotting and therefore was prone to sliding and bursting) and ended up as acts described. Peter, when he was talking, would refer to the horrible death part to make his point and not the hanging part which was most likely known by those who would care to listen to him. So why the Bible records these two accounts separately and incompletly is to show part I and part II of the death without any overlap (since Peter was preaching, not narrating).

"If I was you, that would tell me that I need to re-evaluate my position in order to make it more internally compatible and find a way to better represent my views to others."

When people make remarks on my intelligence instead of presenting valid counter arguments like you have done, that tells me something else.

Where is your evidence for this pathetic interpretation? EVIDENCE!

 :bs:

Oh man, when I said I liked this because you were falling apart, I didn't think you'd come completley unglued. "Somehow he fell"...."or that he was already rotting"...... HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

You amuse me, saukhasi. You really do.

When are you going to get around to those old posts anyway? Or are you still trying to ignore me? Troll.

[Big Mac]

Saukhasi do you do yoga? Because, honey, you are really pulling a stretch on this.

[saukhasi]

lae:

"I really don't see how it; one verse can say he threw the coins at the temple then left...then the other says that HE bought the land; can in any way be interpreted to mean that the church elders bought the land but Luke decides to say Judas bought it since it was his money originally."

are the ;'s cutting things off? I don't understand this, but let me remind you again Peter was preaching - Peter could be making the point that Judas got for his reward a graveyard of a horrid death.

"headlong"

I find this a rather good point; he fell fast. He doesn't need to be high up. Can he not burst due to two other possbilities? By the way church leaders do not have the time to unhang people they don't care about (i'm sure they viewed it as unclean) - they did that for Jesus because it was a passover, and I don't think Judas died on a special occasion (and I think they told the army guys to do it for them with Jesus and his companions).

it is hardly possible for the two stories to be changed to another - and I believe the apostles kept in touch for a while - if there obvious errors like that it would have been corrected long before their deaths.  Let me tell you why I think my interpretation is less absurd:

1. Rocky land would fit with how judas can trespass the land.
2. Judas hanging himself on that land would fit with how church leaders would want to get rid of the blood money (as opposed to letting it just lay there in their holy place)- most likely they would follow Judas, and given that he is going ot hang himself the land he was on was the most obvious thing to get for him.
3. Peter's speech would have been heard and corrected (if needed) by Matthew since the apostles were all together in the beginning of acts I believe.
4. The way the second account is focused fits with the fact that Peter was preaching.

Are these all coincidences? I don't have any evidence - I don't NEED any evidence. But given your interpretation and mine I don't see how i need to forgo more reason and logic to keep mine interpretation.

[Big Mac]

OK, sack.

But Jesus told the disciples that what goes into the mouth of a man does not make him unclean. Also he told one of the apostles (the name escapes me but being a GOOOOOD christian that you are, I'm sure you know which story I'm talking about) he tells them never to say anything HE made to be unclean.

Also, what about that love thy neighbor crap he preached? Guess it doesn't apply to true sinners and such. Makes me sooo want to buy into the Christian myth.

[mrwitch]

WOW saukhasi!  I finally got to see what you look like.  

It's not fair to the other boards which you've posted this thread on, that you don't show yourself off.

[Whitney]

If I was an apologist I'd still prefer the metaphor explanation of why the verses give differing accounts because it requires fewer assumptions.  IMO, someone screwing up the story seems more likely though.

I found a description and time frame for a rotting body.  It's not a very pretty read but death really isn't either:

By a week after death, gases produced by bacterial and chemical processes begin to cause bloating of bodies. Internally, the bacteria that all humans live with every day, such as those found in the digestive tract, continue working on. But instead of the friendly bacteria's food source being what humans eat for food, it is now the dead human body itself
which is consumed. Internal organs begin to liquefy. Within two weeks from onset of death, there is a bloody purge of putrefying liquid from the mouth, nose, anus, or any other opening. The stench from the rotting corpse is overwhelmingly powerful, if within an enclosed space. Soon, within weeks, the body bursts open under pressure, spilling its contents.

http://adipocere.homestead.com/chemistry.html

They would have had to leave him hanging for a week or two before the body would reach a state where guts would be falling out.  That's a very long time to leave a body just hanging there... I also don't see how anything aside from a fairly long fall onto a very rocky surface would cause the body to rip in a manner which caused guts to spill before this stage of decay.

I remember reading somewhere that the holy men were required to remove a dead body before nightfall or something similar to that.  They would have considered the body of a sinner to be unclean but there are rituals they can perform afterwards if touching it is necessary for removal.

The church elders he threw the money at were the same ones responsible for sentencing Jesus to death...so I don't think they'd actually view him as a sinner until after he hung himself (what sin would he really have in their view?)  Which leads to this:  What I really don't understand about your explanation is that it requires these church elders to follow a man who they know is going to commit suicide....and they didn't try to stop him.

[saukhasi]

"so I don't think they'd actually view him as a sinner until after he hung himself "

i don't suppose anything at at all - judging by their nonchalant response to Judas they simply did not care about anything but getting rid of blood money from their holy temple. So whether or not he is a sinner to them wouldn't really matter. I really don't remember reading anything about unhanging people - they did that for people they respected (like saul, though he wasn't really hanged) or on special occasions (perhaps your nightfall concept comes from this? on special days like passover these things are not to be left around), in other cases, I don't think anyone at that time would simply go take someone down. would you?

'Which leads to this: What I really don't understand about your explanation is that it requires these church elders to follow a man who they know is going to commit suicide....and they didn't try to stop him."

1. It does not say that they didn't. Secondly, I don't know where you get the idea that religious leaders back actively opposed suicide. Is it because chuches now are against suicide? Remember that the churches now were not in the temple at that time but were scattered and afraid.

[Big Mac]

Wow.....what a shitty response. Great job kid, another worthless attempt to dodge a serious conversation.

[mrwitch]

Wow.....what a shitty response. Great job kid, another worthless attempt to dodge a serious conversation.

That's putting it... mildly.