Bible Error: How Did Judas Die?

by JosephAlward 39 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • JosephAlward
    JosephAlward

    Larsguy writes,

    "The Bible is meant for Christ and his followers SPECIFICALLY and not for outsiders...Didn't you read in scripture when the disciples asked Jesus why he spoke in parables that he told them that these secrets were for THEM and so that the outsiders, looking in vain, would not understand?"

    Alward: I agree that some of the gospel writers have Jesus indicate that he wants outsiders not to receive the word of God as it relates to salvation--even though other gospel writings contradict this, but how in the world could keeping from the world the story of how Judas burst open have anything to do with God's word or his message of salvation, if there is a god? If Larsguy knows why this information should be kept from us, or why he thinks God wanted us to guess what happened to Judas, I hope he will enlighten the rest of us.

    Joseph F. Alward
    "Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"
    http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html

  • Bang
    Bang

    He hung himself - climbed up a tree and plumeted down out of it, I suppose. He might have ripped his abdomen on one of the branches or he might have swelled up in the heat and burst, I'd guess his tree would have been a dead one, without shade. Anyway I haven't been told.

    But, maybe.

    Bang

  • Bang
    Bang

    To Larsguy

    << .. put people on notice that God is about to bring about drastic changes in the world. But advanced understanding is put out for the other anointed ones >>

    I'll have to say you missed the point with the virgins and the oil. How can I say this? Well, what I will do is challenge you on something that I know many children are aware of. You'll know whether the truth is revealed when you hear it.
    What is the parable of the unjust judge in Luke 18 all about? And secondly, what is meant by Moses' instruction on leprosy?
    Now, for the answer to the second, a Christian understanding to the first needs to be revealed. Remember it's a parable, a teaching for loving children.

    Bang

  • Francois
    Francois

    I agree that Judas attempted to hang himself, but due to the fact that being a cheapskate, he bought poor quality rope and on toppa that, his hands were shaking on account of he just recognized that he was Judas, so he tied a poor knot.

    So, leaping over the edge of the famous pit where the garbage what thrown, he came to the end of is rope, so to speak, and the bad knot in the cheap rope came all undone and he fell down to the sharp rocks below. And, having Hannibel Lecter pass by just in time to say, "bowels in or bowels out" and decide on bowels out, his bowels were strewn over half the kindgom.

    But, even more than how did he die, is the question, WILL HE BE RESURECTED? What is this week's teaching from the Borg? Is he in or is he out? Now, if death is the wages of sin, then Judas has paid the price. That is, he's even with the Lord. He's paid. They're flush. Y'know?

    So whaddya think? Resurrection or no?

    FT

  • Larsguy
    Larsguy

    >>>If Larsguy knows why this information should be kept from us, or why he thinks God wanted us to guess what happened to Judas, I hope he will enlighten the rest of us.

    Hi Joseph, how are you?

    Just to keep you on track and in context here. My original argument was regarding the gospel STYLE of writing and Jewish sacred writings in general. These writings, probably to be self-protective, often make indirect statements that sometimes seem to contradict themselves, but in reality in the background of context knowledge reveals additional information not that noticeable to the casual reader. Then you seemed to make the point about the gospels being rather straightforward and there being no evidence that such complexity was employed, at which time I pointed out to you that Jesus directly stated to his followers the reason he spoke in parables, in incidentally, was to keep knowledge from the non-believers and have understanding for his followers.

    So now you want to bring it back SPECIFICALLY to why Jesus would want to keep Judas' manner of death a secret just for his followers and that's not my point was. The way Judas' death is related in scriptures has to do with the separate point of how the Jewish writing style in general seemed to use separate, specific pieces of information which when combined revealed additional information. They didn't tend to spell out the whole story to you in detail repeatede over five times like we're used to.

    In this case, one scripture could have simply said: "Judas went out and hanged himself by tying a rope on a tree branch overhanging a cliff where lots of people hang themselves and upon throwing himself headlong over the cliff, the rope snapped him back against some jagged rocks in such a violent manner as to burst his guts open."

    And that would have been the end of that.

    Then...when we'd read in one place about a "hanging" we'd say, oh; and then in another place about his throwing himself over a cliff and his guts bursting out, we'd say, oh yeah.

    So the point is, when you often find statements that seem to contradict each other or not quite harmonize in a simple way, you have to use your mind to extrapolate the added detail when both staements, both true, are combined.

    So in this case, it would just be the common style of Jewish writing and the gospels in particular that might have confused persons regarding the Judas hanging. But in other cases, a more direct effort to exclude ousiders from sacred truth was employed which simply contradicts the notion that the gospels are not complex but simply erroneous.

    L.G.

  • Larsguy
    Larsguy

    Hi Joseph,

    >>>>Larsguy speaks of being anointed and of communicating with other "anointed" ones. What do JW's think "anointed" means, and how does one determine if one is anointed, or not?

    Jehovah's witnesses have within their organization basically those who place themselves into two categories; one called the "anointed" or "heavenly class" and the other called the "other sheep" or the "earthly class." Now this needs correcting but this simply deals with JWs and your question.

    The nature of the two groups are obvious, one is supposed to have a heavenly hope and the other an earthly hope in paradise. The "anointed" group are the ones they associate with the 144,000 referenced in revelation. So "anointed" is the loose organizational term they apply to those who feel they are part of the heavenly group. But it is sort of official since I think on their Publisher's Record Card (cards which keep track of their baptism, membership, etc.) one is supposed to check which group they are in and it is referred to as "anointed" or "other sheep".

    Now as far as knowing if one is of the anointed or not, the simply say that a degree of "holy spirit" communicates to them in a subtle way that they are of the "anointed" and that's it. They know who they are. The other sheep group don't get a feeling they are of the other sheep, they just have the absence of a heavenly calling.

    But in the witness subculture some of the comparisons talked about that seems to be generally true is that for one, the Bible reads differently for the anointed once he becomes anointed. It seems to light up and verses seem to be more directly pointed to them. So that is a specific difference. So the Bible becomes more of a communication device for the anointed if I'm not overstating. Other than that things are about the same.

    When one of the anointed dies, though, usually they indicate at the funeral this person died faithfully and is now "in heaven" (which ain't true, but...), whereas if an other sheep dies, they say they will be resurrected later in the new order during the millennium (which also isn't precisely true, but..).

    The critical significance in this group and this setting, though, is that the anointed are supposed to have more advanced understanding of scripture and be involved with their eventual positions as king-priests who rule during the millennium. So a lot of things pertain to them.

    Furthermore, the "evil slave" comes out of the "anointed" group, those who make up God's temple, so there is a spiritual battle more focussed among the faithful and unfaithful anointed ones in the organization.

    It's hard to perhaps explain, but for instance if I went to the Governing Body and gave them some Biblical correction, it would make a difference if I told them if I were of the anointed or not. I won't take that any further, but they would understand the difference. An "anointed" one can be more of a "prophet" or representative of the heavenly organization than someone who did not feel they were "anointed".

    Now this might be something to amuse and entertain outsiders, but it is a reality to this organization, and in this JW-based discussion group that's what most will understand when you say "I'm anointed", whether they believe or not.

    One more thing, is that if you're "anointed" the stakes are higher for you to be honest and truthful as far as the Bible is concerned and it is assumed the Bible and spiritual advancement is your primary goal so it's more critical if an anointed one is ignoring counsel than perhaps one of the "other sheep" class since they should know better and their position in heaven as a king-priest hangs in the balance.

    Finally, ultimately, those of the "anointed" are as staetd expected to be kings and priests and be part of the Bride Class of 144,000 and so it is a higher spiritual rank than non 144K members; but at the same time, there is more spiritual responsibility as well. God expects more of the anointed than of others.

    That's the basics. I wouldn't feel a need to elaborate beyond this, especially since it's such a subjective issue for the individual.

    Of course, Joseph, if you had to ask that, you must have never been a witness. In which case I should warn you that witnesses have a built-in insulation to most of your arguments. The WTS has been very good at counteracting most of these challenges, many of which are baseless or exaggerations based upon bent interpretations.

    L.G.

  • JosephAlward
    JosephAlward

    Larsguy argues that "The way Judas' death is related in scriptures has to do with the separate point of how the Jewish writing style in general seemed to use separate, specific pieces of information which when combined revealed additional information."

    First of all, there is *no* such "Jewish writing style."

    The style Larsguy speaks of exists only in the imagination of apologists who wish to explain why there are so many "apparent" contradictions in the Bible. The only "evidence" of such a style is found in the Bible, as in the example of the conflicting accounts of Judas' death.

    If Larsguy will point to *any* other Jewish writings beside extrabiblical or non-canonical religious texts which have the style Larsguy believes was common, then he will have earned the right to claim that such a style was deliberatly employed by the Bible writers.

    If such evidence it's not forthcoming, objective readers on this forum will have the right to believe that such evidence doesn't exist and that the *real* reason there are "apparent" contradictions in the Bible is that in some cases they *really* are contradictions.

    Now, the central question I've asked seems to have gone unanswered.

    On a matter unrelated to salvation, or other special "secrets" Larsguy believes are in the Bible that only he and certain others know, why would God force not only unbelievers like me, but also "anointed" ones such as Larsguy, to GUESS what happened to Judas? Did God want his Bible to be a game to be played, and then won only by the "chosen ones," even in matters having nothing to do with salvation? Does that make sense, even to Larsguy?

    On another matter, why does Larsguy think that Luke in Acts was not merely constructing a metaphor of Judas' death (by hanging)by comparing Judas to the wineskin Luke mention earlier in his gospel? Just as the old wineskin bursts when it is filled with new wine, then so did Judas "burst"--in a figurative sense only--when he was filled with Jesus' new teachings? Why does Larsguy ignore this seemingly quite reasonable interpretation in favor of pure speculation? Why does the account of Judas' "bursting" *have* to be literally true for Larsguy? Would the Bible be any less valuable if it turned out that the "bursting" were only a metaphor?

    Joseph F. Alward
    "Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"
    http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html

  • JosephAlward
    JosephAlward

    Larsguy writes,

    "It's hard to perhaps explain, but for instance if I went to the Governing Body and gave them some Biblical correction, it would make a difference if I told them if I were of the anointed or not. I won't take that any further, but they would understand the difference."

    Alward responds:

    If they take scriptural advice seriously from any JW who decides that he's favored by God, it's no wonder the Governing Body has made so many false prophesies over the years. If getting a special "feeling" that the Bible--or God--is speaking to one in a special way were sufficient evidence that one is destined for special treatment by
    God, then half the paranoid schizophrenics on the planet will eventually be sitting at the right hand of God.

    How do you know that you're not just imagining this relationship you have with God, a relationship which is so special it places you in a position of privilege above billions of other inhabitants of this planet? If you say that "Jehovah told me," then how do you--and we--know you're not just imagining that? How would the Governing Body know?

    Joseph F. Alward
    "Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"
    http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html

  • Larsguy
    Larsguy

    Hi Joseph,
    First of all, on the matter of proving whether or not there is a special "gospel style" in presenting certain details or not and having to prove that based upon other writings, I don't have to do any such thing. I'm TELLING YOU DIRECTLY this is the gospel style, which could be unique, and since you can't disprove that matter, it's just an issue of my view versus your view. The fact that you're incapable of accepting this view is moot. The only issue of note, therefore, is that you recognize that that view allows me to dismiss hundreds of your so-called "errors". So my word to you is that "it works for me and my acceptance of the gospel" so that's the end of it. You can find as many errors as you want.

    But, in fact, I can prove that the Jews in particular did this sort of thing in their writings, one of them being Josephus. But I'm not even going to bother giving you the examples since I'm sure you will then say: "Well show us someone besides Josephus and any others who did this, then I'll believe." In other words, I don't need to meet your CRITERIA to prove what is evident. I only need one example of this parallel detail in Jewish writings which is the gospels, so that's that. You can either accept it or not. It matters not to me. But just because you find in one gospel where Jesus said one thing to a "Mary Magdalene" and you find in another place he said something else, it's your own folly to presume a scribal error without considering these might be two different women and two different incidences. So you can't prove the error.

    Now on the point of why God wouldn't want the outsiders to understand the nature of Judas' death or the significance of that point, I don't need to comment on it beyond the fact that tripping up people like you who want to find error with God's works is very much his nature. He likes to trip up the "wise in their own cunning" and to show the foolishness of worldly wisdom.

    So he trips you up with these parallel accounts and having the gospels speak of similar accounts but separately so that you think there is an error. A lot of things can be true or false based upon perception.

    For instance, if you're walking in a straight line around the earth that intersects with a certain city, say Jerusalem, do you realize that someone might say you're walking AWAY from Jerusalem and someone might say you're walking TOWARD Jerusalem, depending upon their disposition. You can always fly to New York via Hawaii, Hong Kong and Spain, you know. You'll eventually get there, right?

    Or if you asked me my age and I told you: "I'm going on 90" that would be true whether I'm 89 or 3. Because everybody under 90 is "going on 90", technically. So while it may be DECEPTIVE and purposely so, it's still not a LIE. Only if I were 90 or over would it be an UN-TRUE statement.

    So you have to realize that the Jews, for most of their late history, were under the control of pagan powers and even though they had their own writing and language, they had to find ways to communicate secrets and information without it being privy to their captors. People event these kinds of "tongue-in-cheek" ways of conveying information all the time, like masters of a house talking in a way so that the servants don't understand what is going on, etc.

    So a literary style that provides some private information in plain sight of others is not uncommon. Why you have a problem of giving the gospels this benefit of the doubt, therefore, is simply bias on your part. You're trying to apply simplistic concepts to an extremely complex work and so your are finding problems with it. But the problem is you simply don't understand what you're doing.

    But please don't STOP! This is amusing and fun to the anointed Biblicalists.

    But I tell you one thing; you make me glad I'm an informed "insider". Knowing scripture is truly a wonderful joy.

    Have a nice day.

    L.G.

  • JosephAlward
    JosephAlward

    If Larsguy really were anointed, then he would have special God-given powers which allowed him to find at least one example of the special "Jewish writing style" he invokes to explain "apparent" contradictions in the Bible. Larsguy presents not a single example, and instead pretends that by shouting, "I'm TELLING YOU DIRECTLY," and declaring "that's the end of it," wins the argument for him. What a joke.

    Larsguy has refused my invitation for him to explain why he rejects the obvious explanation of Luke's account in Acts of Judas "bursting" open. I've noted that Luke never meant for readers to believe that Judas actually "burst" open, but simply wanted us to compare Judas metaphorically to the old wineskin that Luke spoke of earlier in his gospel. Just as an old wineskin cannot hold new wine, and thus bursts, so did Judas "burst"--in a figurative sense only--when he could not hold the new teachings of Jesus.

    Why does he hold to his belief that the Bible writers wanted us to guess how Judas first hanged himself and then ended up with his guts spilled. Why does he think this makes more sense than the wineskin metaphor? Why?

    Finally, Larsguy has also refused to respond to the question I asked in a previous post. I'll repeat it here:

    "How do you know that you're not just imagining this relationship you have with God, a relationship which is so special it places you in a position of privilege above billions of other inhabitants of this planet? If you say that 'Jehovah told me,' then how do you--and we--know you're not just imagining that? How would the Governing Body know?"

    Joseph F. Alward
    "Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"
    http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit