Posts by JosephAlward

39

Bible Error: How Did Judas Die?

by JosephAlward in

matthew says that judas hanged himself, while the writer in acts says that he fell and his guts spilled out.

both of these accounts cannot be true.

either one is, or neither is, and this means that the bible is not error-free.

JosephAlward

Larsguy wrote,

"The way he did that was he tied a rope around a tree near the edge of a high cliff and then then around his neck and jumped over the cliff hopine he'd die. But apparently the jerk-back was so violent when the rope snapped that he was catapulted against the edges of the cliff and som jagged rocks apparently cause his guts to burst out.

"Now is that so hard to understand?

"Now please realize you are reading things to scripture that is not there, "

Alward responds:

Larsguy is accusing me of doing what he's just done. Nowhere does the Bible say that Judas tied a rope around his neck, as he claimed, or that Judas tied the rope around a tree, that a tree was at the edge of a cliff, nothing about a rope snapping, catapulting, or jagged rocks. All of these things are in Larsguy's imagination. He's "reading things into scripture" which are just not there.

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

39

Bible Error: How Did Judas Die?

by JosephAlward in

matthew says that judas hanged himself, while the writer in acts says that he fell and his guts spilled out.

both of these accounts cannot be true.

either one is, or neither is, and this means that the bible is not error-free.

JosephAlward

In a pair of earlier posts I explained why I thought that the Acts story of Judas bursting open was merely a parable, a story never intended to be taken seriously. I have one thing to add to my argument that Luke wanted his readers to compare the Judas with the old ideas to the old wineskin that burst when new wine was poured inside it.

The only place in the New Testament 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. Doesn't this make much more sense than believing that Judas first hanged himself from a tree, and then, without a single gospel writer telling us so, Judas somehow fell off a cliff onto rocks and burst open? Of course it does, so why do apologists resist the obvious? The Bible won't be any less worthy, will it, if it turns out that the Acts story is a parable?

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

39

Bible Error: How Did Judas Die?

by JosephAlward in

matthew says that judas hanged himself, while the writer in acts says that he fell and his guts spilled out.

both of these accounts cannot be true.

either one is, or neither is, and this means that the bible is not error-free.

JosephAlward

Lin states,"I would like to point out that you, who apparently has no faith where the bible is concerned, would be the least likely person to show me what the writers of the bible clearly meant for their readers."

Lin uses the word faith as if it were a desirable thing to have, and I'm sure that's what Lin intended; however, I see it as a hindrance, rather than a help, in finding the truth.

"Faith" is defined by the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition, (c) 2000, Houghton Mifflin Company, as "belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence."

There are so many different beliefs not resting on logical proof or material evidence, and the adherents to each faith swear that theirs is the one true faith, but at most only one of them can be correct. This tells us that the methodology used by the faithful just doesn't work; if it did, a great many of the existing religions would be simultaneously true, which is impossible. Thus, we see we cannot in general trust the conclusions of the ones who believe just because they want to believe. The one more to be trusted in matters of religion--on any matter, really--is the one who has nothing to gain, nothing to lose, and who can interpret the evidence dispassionately and without bias.

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

39

Bible Error: How Did Judas Die?

by JosephAlward in

matthew says that judas hanged himself, while the writer in acts says that he fell and his guts spilled out.

both of these accounts cannot be true.

either one is, or neither is, and this means that the bible is not error-free.

JosephAlward

Larsguy asks, "Why don't you talk about something like that, instead of these word games with the details of how Judas hanged himself, with the interjection of false details such as Judas actually being buried in his own field or hanging himself in his own field? It was called the 'field of blood' because it was purchased with blood money, not because Judas died in that field."

Alward responds: Whether the field belonged to Judas, or not, is irrelevant to my argument, and so is the reason for the name of the field. I've never based my argument on either of these "disputed" facts.

My argument is that one author says that Judas hanged himself without telling us--according to Larsguy--that he expected his readers to wait until they've read through several more books of the Bible to find out that Judas fell and burst open after hanging himself. What possible reason could the first author have for making us wait so long to hear about the bursting open? Furthermore, we *still* don't know how Judas burst open after hanging himself, if that's what happened. It doesn't make sense that God would have his Bible writers lead his readers to believe in the book of Luke that Judas died by hanging, and then lead them to believe in Acts that Judas died from a fall, and *then* force the readers to speculate about how Judas burst open.

Luke tells us in his gospel about the old wineskins which will burst when new wine is poured into it; when Luke later tells us in the book of Acts that Judas "burst" open, he was constructing a parable, a story which wasn't literally true, to explain the reason for the fate suffered by Judas, his suicide. The readers were supposed to see that Judas, with his old ideas, was unable to accommodate the new teachings of Jesus, so he "burst" in a figurative sense. Everyone at that time knew exactly what Luke was saying; no one believed that Judas fell off the tree limb onto rocks and burst open.

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

17

Did the Son of Man Come?

by JosephAlward in

if the author of the book of matthew can be believed, jesus left no doubt about when the apocalypse would occur.

it would be before all of jesus' disciples died, even before his disciples would be able to spread the good word to all of the cities of israel.

since all of the disciples are dead and the apocalypse hasn't occurred, we must conclude that matthew was wrong and that the bible is in error.

JosephAlward

I've seen no rebuttal of my argument that Matthew wanted his readers to know the apocalypse was coming within the lifetime of his disciples. Matthew tells us that Jesus said that his disciples wouldn't even have enough time to visit all of the cities of Israel.

"...Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the son of Man be come." (Matthew 10:5-6, Matthew 10:23)

It is perfectly evident that Matthew wanted his readers to believe that this was a comparatively short time; it is obvious that he didn't think it would take two thousand years or more to visit the cities of Israel. If not, why not?

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

39

Bible Error: How Did Judas Die?

by JosephAlward in

matthew says that judas hanged himself, while the writer in acts says that he fell and his guts spilled out.

both of these accounts cannot be true.

either one is, or neither is, and this means that the bible is not error-free.

JosephAlward

Larsguy believes that discrepancies between gospel stories may be attributed to what he believes is a Jewish tradition of leaving out details in order that the reader will be left to figure out something on his own. However, there is no such tradition, except in the imagination of apologists.

According to Larsguy--and many professional apologists--the Bible is like a jigsaw puzzle with many pieces missing, such as the missing piece which either (take your pick) shows Judas being thrown by the priests into his grave and bursting open, or falling from the breaking tree branch onto jagged rocks. It's up to man to guess what the missing piece looks like.

Does this make sense? If it's true that the Bible is the only record we have of what God thought was important for us to hear, then why on earth would he make a game out of what is alleged to be the text containing the instructions humans must follow to achieve eternal salvation? Why make us guess about something as important as that?

Doesn't it make more sense that different people had different traditions about their god, and about Jesus, and that when the editors of the Bible chose which texts to include, they decided to put *all* of the traditions down in order not to disrespect any of the people who held those traditions?

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

39

Bible Error: How Did Judas Die?

by JosephAlward in

matthew says that judas hanged himself, while the writer in acts says that he fell and his guts spilled out.

both of these accounts cannot be true.

either one is, or neither is, and this means that the bible is not error-free.

JosephAlward

Lin writes, “If they cut him off his noose and threw him into the grave, his bowels may very well burst open and spilled out”

Welcome to the forum, Lin.

“falling headlong” is ginomai (to become) prenes (headlong). The word prenes is used in only one place in the Bible, and it’s translated as “headlong.” Thus, literally it’s “to become headlong,” i.e., “to become head first” as diving toward the earth, headfirst. I don’t see any precedent for “laid prone.”

I also must disagree with your suggestion that throwing a body--living, or dead--from a height of perhaps two feet above the ground into a hole perhaps six feet would cause the abdomen to burst open. Perhaps you’ve seen the horrific photographs and film showing the tens of thousands of naked concentration-camp victims who had been thrown down into the pits? None of the bodies showed signs of having suffered a rupture for any reason, let alone from striking the ground.

This is too fanciful a scenario to be taken seriously, Lin, not only because of what I just mentioned, but because if the Acts writer (Luke) had believed that Judas had first been hanged, he certainly would have told us about it; otherwise, he would know that he would be confusing readers for the next two thousand years. Furthermore, the Luke knew that bodies just don’t burst open when they’re dropped eight feet; he would have known that the readers would wonder what the heck happened to cause Judas to burst open like that, so Luke would have explained what had happened, if it really happened.

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.

Apologists who are trapped within the framework of a belief that the Bible is literally true will never accept this simple explanation, however. For them, it’s better to propose any possible explanation, no matter how far fetched, than to agree that a story about one of the principals in the Bible is not really true. They think they are in the daylight, and the rest of us are in darkness.

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

39

Bible Error: How Did Judas Die?

by JosephAlward in

matthew says that judas hanged himself, while the writer in acts says that he fell and his guts spilled out.

both of these accounts cannot be true.

either one is, or neither is, and this means that the bible is not error-free.

JosephAlward

Matthew says that Judas hanged himself, while the writer in Acts says that he fell and his guts spilled out. Both of these accounts cannot be true. Either one is, or neither is, and this means that the Bible is not error-free. Here are the relevant verses:

The writer in Matthew wrote,

"When Judas...saw that Jesus was condemned, he was seized with remorse...Then he went away and hanged himself."(Matthew 27:1-5 NIV)

However, the writer in Acts thinks Judas died when he fell in his field, his guts burst open and his intestines spilled out:

"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)

Now, imaginative and extremely hopeful fundamentalists will try to argue that Judas threw a rope around the limb of a tree that happened to be on a rocky cliff bordering his field, and when he hanged himself the tree limb snapped. He fell, striking jagged rocks, and broke apart. Of course, that's so preposterously far-fetched that even the apologists don't really believe it, but, that's the best argument they have, so they stick to it.

Those who aren't die-rather-than-admit-Bible-error apologists accept that these two accounts of Judas' death are contradictory and just one more example of the many errors or contradictions in the Bible.

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

17

Did the Son of Man Come?

by JosephAlward in

if the author of the book of matthew can be believed, jesus left no doubt about when the apocalypse would occur.

it would be before all of jesus' disciples died, even before his disciples would be able to spread the good word to all of the cities of israel.

since all of the disciples are dead and the apocalypse hasn't occurred, we must conclude that matthew was wrong and that the bible is in error.

JosephAlward

When Matthew had Jesus say to the men with him that not all of them would die before the apocalypse came, how were they supposed to know that Jesus *really* meant that the apocalypse wouldn't come for about two thousand years or more? What clue was there to be found in the words Matthew gave Jesus which would alert the listeners to this fact? None. If Matthew was inspired by God to write these words, then that God would have known that the listeners, as well as generations of readers, would not be hearing or reading the "true" message from God; since the god of the Bible is perfect, and all-powerful, and all-knowing, it would have known how to guide Matthew to write a far more accurate description of the time of the apocalypse. The fact that the god didn't do this is evidence that Matthew wasn't inspired at all when he wrote that passage; no wonder his prediction about the end time didn't come true.

As further evidence that Matthew wanted his readers to know the apocalypse was coming within the lifetime of his disciples, Matthew tells us that Jesus said that his disciples wouldn't even have enough time to visit all of the cities of Israel. It is perfectly evident that Matthew wanted his readers to believe that this was a comparatively short time; it is obvious that he didn't think it would take two thousand years or more to visit the cities of Israel. The time it would take for the disciples to travel to these cities and spread the good news wouldn't be more than a few months, at most a few years. The message, once again, is crystal clear: the end was coming soon. If Matthew was inspired by God, God would have known that the words Matthew used told *everybody* that the end was coming very soon; if that wasn't true, God wouldn't have let Matthew use those words. The fact that Matthew *did* use those words is strong evidence that Matthew wasn't inspired, and that's why he was in error.

Furthermore, the author of 1 Peter reiterated to Christians what Jesus said about the imminence of Jesus' return: "But the end of all things is at hand; be ye therefore sober, and watch unto prayer.
(1 Peter 4:7)

If this author didn't think the end was "at hand," then he should have used different words; the fact that he didn't shows that he, too, thought the end was to come very soon, that it was close, close enough to reach with one's hand, figuratively speaking. Who in the world can believe that this writer thought that "at hand" meant two thousand years? If he thought the end was two thousand years or more away, why didn't he give his readers the slightest hint that that is what he believed? The fact that he gave no such clue is strong evidence that he actually thought the end was near.

In summary, the evidence is overwhelming that some of the Bible writers believed that Jesus would return with the apocalypse in a few years, perhaps less. It didn't happen, which means these writers were, at best, mistaken; at worst, they were no better than those who constantly preach the end is near to scare money out of the faithful.

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

17

Did the Son of Man Come?

by JosephAlward in

if the author of the book of matthew can be believed, jesus left no doubt about when the apocalypse would occur.

it would be before all of jesus' disciples died, even before his disciples would be able to spread the good word to all of the cities of israel.

since all of the disciples are dead and the apocalypse hasn't occurred, we must conclude that matthew was wrong and that the bible is in error.

JosephAlward

Accuracy writes, "However, we should remember that those early believers in a supposedly "phantom" Jesus were willing to do all and risk all for their belief. While many may be content to spin fabulous stories, not many are willing to die for those fables. Christianity has been from the beginning a religion that people were willing to make great sacrifices for, and to practice altruism and philanthropy for."

Alward responds:

Willingness to die for one's faith cannot be taken as evidence of the "truth" of that belief. If that were true, than the faith of the followers of David Koresh, who were convinced that he was Jesus Christ and allowed themselves to be shot or burned alive at Waco, Texas, would be validated. The same would be true about the faith of the hundreds of thousands of Moslems over the centuries who have sacrificed their lives for Allah, believing that they would go to heaven if they martyred themselves in his name.

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