The Lie of Judas' Death

*AN EXAMPLE OF CHRISTIANITY STUPIDITY*

THE LIE OF JUDAS' DEATH!

In the book of Acts we are told that Judas died as a result of a fall and his guts fell out. Christians, while desperately trying to defend these stories of Jesus and his merry men, think nothing of twisting and manipulating the so called "Holy Scripture"!

They, the Christians, would tell you, and have you believe, that some unspoken, invisible, rope, broke and Judas fell to the ground causing his guts to spill out! Of course they are desperately trying to hide the fact that the story of Judas' death in the Book of Acts and the Book of Matthew are complete contradictions.

While it is true that the Book of Matthew tells us that Judas hung himself, the Book of Acts tells a very different story!

It was simply....Judas fell **HEADLONG** and his guts fell out. The Christians would have you believe that Judas, in the story in Acts was hanging from a tree. However, there is no mention of a tree, a rope, or a hanging, in the Book of Acts.

This is nothing more then Christians, up to their old tricks of lying and twisting their so called "Holy Scripture"! Someone has to lie and manipulate this so called "Holy Scripture" to hide the fact that the stories of this Jesus of Nazareth are nothing more then stories of a fool, (Jesus) and his merry band of men.

The Book of Acts says clearly that Judas fell **HEADLONG**! Any fool should be able to visualize this. Now....If Judas was hanging by his neck from an imaginary rope tied to an imaginary tree and the imaginary rope broke, he certainly would not have fallen **HEADLONG**!

My response is in Green:

There is no way I can "prove" my theory but I hope you will at least agree that it is plausible.

First lets start in Matthew; Judas, after Jesus was condemned tried to take the money back to the chief priest and the elders, but they did not want it back.

So Judas threw the money into the temple and left. Then he went away and hanged himself.

The chief priests picked up the coins and said, "It is against the law to put this into the treasury, since it is blood money." So they decided to use the money to buy the potter's field as a burial place for foreigners. That is why it has been called the Field of Blood to this day. Matthew 27:5-8

If you are with me so far they bought a potter's field with the money Judas threw at them, which he had gotten for betraying Jesus.

Now lets go to Acts; Peter is speaking here, I believe that he is not describing how Judas died (which I believe was by hanging himself) but rather how and where he ended up after his death.

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. Everyone in Jerusalem heard about this, so they called that field in their language Akeldama, that is, Field of Blood. Acts 1:18-19

This is what I believe happened; Judas hung himself, the chief priests bought the potter's field. No one wanted Judas' body because he was a traitor and evil. Even those who hated Jesus did not like the kind of person Judas was. I believe that after he was cut down from where he was hanging they took his body and unceremoniously threw it head first into the potter's field for burial. After hanging in the sun for a day or so I can believe his intestines spilled out. Remember I was a Deputy Sheriff in South Carolina for 6 years, believe me I know what happens to a body in the heat in a very short time.

I think again that the two verses are talking about just slightly different events. I know that I have no way of proving this but I hope you can see that this is possible. After all if you read Peter's account your way; that it is about Judas' death then how did Judas buy the field since he threw the coins at the chief priests?

I know from what you have on your page and what you have sent me that you find fault with the Scriptures because they don't always say things exactly the same way. I believe that over all they tell the same stories and the main point of the story is the same. I still contend that even though God inspired the words He allowed the writers to write it in their own perspective. If every book of the Bible was written exactly the same would you not say that it is a fake because it was contrived? To me this story is an example of that. You can take it that they are totally different versions of the same thing, or as I do that they are slightly different. Let's face it, Peter would have no love for Judas, do you think? So I feel that it was emotion on Peter's part that caused him to talk about the dead body of Judas falling headlong into the potter's field and the intestines spilling.

I have thought this out for myself (and though you don't believe it does any good, I prayed about it). I have not seen anyone else give this account of what might be the difference in the two passages. I have seen them say that; well the branch broke, or Judas fell after being cut down. I don't think those stand up so I looked for some other explanation. I wanted to tell you that so you know that I am not just retyping something someone else said, I am researching and thinking for myself.

Judas threw the money on the floor in the temple, so how could he have brought the field? Wouldn't the people who hated Jesus see Judas as having done them a favor?

I still stand by what I said about in a way Judas did buy the field even though he did not physically give the money to anyone. I believe that you have to look at how and what was said. This is where I really believe common sense comes in. (Forgive me if it sounds like I am accusing you of not having common sense, I don't mean it that way.)

I just don't see a problem with saying someone bought something if their money was used for it like Judas' was. For a modern day example, you have two teens drag racing and the prize is $1000. The kid that wins loses control and kills himself. He has no family and so they use his prize winnings to buy a cemetery plot. It would not be uncommon for someone to say, "He bought his own cemetery plot." This is because his death also had something to do with the money. I see the same thing with Judas' death and his money that was used to buy the field. I say he did buy it, even though he did not personally give the money to the seller.

I wouldn't expect the Gospels to be exactly the same, word for word. But ... I would expect that men that were inspired and guided by the "Holy Spirit" to at least be very close to the facts even if they told those facts from a slightly different perspective.

I do believe that the Scriptures are inspired by the Holy Spirit. But I don't believe that He wrote them, although I believe He could have if He wanted to. Anyway, part of my point is let's say that the Bible is not inspired by the Holy Spirit, but instead men just made them up. Would you not think that these men would have read each others writings and made sure that they agreed in every instance?

The Words are inspired by God and these men are writing in their style and perspective, but the message is the same. If these men were just writing for their own sake to fool us, every word, nuances, and writing style would be identical. I believe the only "discrepancies" people find in the Bible is the fact that these men are writing from their own experiences and what they see through their eyes, not a third person.

Just like this story, I do believe that Peter was talking about how Judas was dumped in the potters field that was bought by him (Judas). Now I don't believe that Judas actually paid the money to anyone, but I believe that the high priest took Judas' money and bought the field. I don't see it as uncommon for it to be referred to as if he bought it himself, it was his money.

You said you thought I was stretching with the part about how I believe that Judas was dumped in the field after being cut down from the tree where he hung himself. I don't understand how you can say that. Let's get rid of Acts for the moment. If all we had was Matthew's account, then what do you think happened to the body of Judas. If you will agree for the moment with Matthew's account then you see that the high priest did buy a field with the money that Judas threw into the temple. Right? They even called it the 'field of blood' (because it was blood money? Maybe) Now you end up with a body, so might it not stand to reason that you would bury it in the potter's field you just bought with the dead man's money? Am I stretching? I don't think so, forget that this is suppose to be inspired by a God you don't believe in. I still believe it makes sense.

They may very well believed that Judas did them a favor but that does not mean that they liked or respected him. Even thieves, murderers and rapist have a code of conduct and one thing you don't do is turn on a "friend". I don't believe the high priest, no matter how much they hated Jesus, believed Judas was a hero, or for that matter an honorable man.

Okay now lets go back to Peter. Just for the sake of argument, let's say Judas did hang himself like Matthew says. Now Peter was very close to Jesus, and loved him very much. Again for the sake of argument let's say that after the body was cut down they did dump it into the potters field and that the abdomen split open and the intestines fell out. Would it be that far fetched for Peter who must have hated Judas at this point, while talking to others that loved Jesus and must have hated Judas, to described the incident as it is described in Acts?

I said right from the start that we would probably not agree on this one. However, I believe that it makes sense from a purely human point of view.

I really do understand that we come at this from two totally different points of view, I don't believe that the Bible can be wrong and you don't believe it can be right. So I guess we have to try to both look at it on face value. But you have to be fair too. You keep saying if this is inspired by God then why does it not say the same things in every book, well I believe that humans wrote the Scriptures because the Holy Spirit told them to write them. But most of the New Testament is history of what they saw with their own eyes. So why would they not all see things slightly differently?

If you don't believe that Bible is the inspired word of God then what is it? A hoax? Like I said earlier if it were a hoax why would they not have made sure that everything agreed? Next what about the disciples? Do you believe they were just mistaken in their beliefs or do you believe that they were liars? If they were mistaken they must have been fools. If they were liars, they must still have been fools, since they all died as a direct result of their own lies (all but John, that is).

I know you have never said this (at least to me) but I hear from a lot of people that Jesus was a great man, a great teacher, but not God. Well that is bull!! Jesus was one of two things; He was either God in human form or He was a fool and a liar!! There can be no middle road. I guess you could just say there was no Jesus at all that all the stories are just made up, but even without the Bible there is a lot of evidence that He lived.

I will admit that neither one of us proved anything, yet I do believe in all honesty that I gave a plausible explanation. Remember I am just an ex-cop, I have no background in theology. I look at things from a cops point of view.

A second possible explanation for this seeming contradiction.

We need to remember that some words meant different things in biblical times than they do now. In Matthew it says that Judas hung himself, yet in Acts it says that he fell headlong and his guts spilled out. Would it be that the meaning of "hung himself" has changed? Let's take a look and see.

If you go back to the book of Esther you will see something that I think might shed light on this whole problem. (Esther 7:8-10 NIV) [8] Just as the king returned from the palace garden to the banquet hall, Haman was falling on the couch where Esther was reclining.
The king exclaimed, "Will he even molest the queen while she is with me in the house?"
As soon as the word left the king's mouth, they covered Haman's face. [9] Then Harbona, one of the eunuchs attending the king, said, "A gallows seventy-five feet high stands by Haman's house. He had it made for Mordecai, who spoke up to help the king."
The king said, "Hang him on it!" [10] So they hanged Haman on the gallows he had prepared for Mordecai. Then the king's fury subsided.

Now we know from history that they did not hang people with ropes at that time. They impaled people but called it hanging, they even called the devise used to impale the person a gallows. So if Judas had gone out and found a stake or other object and impaled himself on it, it would have been natural for them to say that he hung himself. The act of impaling yourself would require falling headlong and would most likely cause your intestines to fall out.

As you can see, either of these explanation may or may not be what happened, yet they are both possible. They both make the seeming contradiction disappear. People don't want to believe the Bible so they come up with these things which they claim are irreconcilable contradictions, yet if you just look at them logically the contradiction is easily explained.

Home

E-Mail Ralph (whose comments are in green)

MENU
911 - God's Help Line Articles Apologetics Book Reviews
Contemplating Suicide? Discipleship Eternal Security How to know Jesus
Help for the Cutter In Memory Marine Bloodstripes Police Humor
Police Memorial SiteMap Statement of Faith Testimonies
Thoughts to Ponder True Life Stories Vet's Memorial Why I Have a Page
Home
eXTReMe Tracker