These are not two different causes of death. Judas hanged himself and as with all many such cases the body was simply left to hang there an rot. Over a period of a few days the body would began to swell with putrification. The only way he could have fallen would have been if his head later separated from his body or whatever he used to hang himself with broke or perhaps the limb of the tree broke and he fell and as he fell his body burst from a combination of decay and the build of of internal gasses and as a result, his internal organs burst out.
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
I don't follow your meaning. I do consider it plausible that Judas hanged himself. What I think is implausible is the notion that once hung he fell from the tree and burst open, spilling his intestines upon the ground. This joining brings together two distinctly different accounts of his death. Why does neither account make mention of the other occurrence? In addition this solution does not resolve the discrepancy of the land purchase, which is the other part of the story.
K
If anyone is really interested, this is as good as it gets I think.
Judas' Death
Judas' Death
Hallo fellow countryman (woman), Did you see that Jesus said HE KEPT all his disciples in God's holy Truth accept for the son of perdition. Judas had three years to be sanctified and also become HOLY. But he never did. He even stole from the purse of the Lord and the disciples when he was put in care of the purse. Judas Iscariot was NEVER one of the ones that will be made HOLY. Never SELECT but he was called!
I have no doubt that the EVIL in judas was his God, like the evil in ANY person. And the HOLINESS in the other eleven, that they received on penticost was GOD FINALISING THEIR HOLINESS and GODLINESS. From the day God FILLED them with His Holy Spirit, JESUS WAS RESURRECTED IN THEM.... Judas was the son of perdition, not GLORIFICATION. God GLORIFIED every man HE SELECTS to be HOLY AS HE IS HOLY. Judas was NOT going to be holy EVER!
Look what Jesus says here.....While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled.
See JESUS KEPT THEM IN GOD'S NAME but NOT JUDAS...
I have no doubt that the EVIL in judas was his God, like the evil in ANY person. And the HOLINESS in the other eleven, that they received on penticost was GOD FINALISING THEIR HOLINESS and GODLINESS. From the day God FILLED them with His Holy Spirit, JESUS WAS RESURRECTED IN THEM.... Judas was the son of perdition, not GLORIFICATION. God GLORIFIED every man HE SELECTS to be HOLY AS HE IS HOLY. Judas was NOT going to be holy EVER!
Look what Jesus says here.....While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled.
See JESUS KEPT THEM IN GOD'S NAME but NOT JUDAS...
LOL Not to worry. 
I'm guessing you do know ancient Greek, etc.?
I didn't start learning French till I reached high school. I studied it four years then packed it in after coming to the conclusion it would only serve to pull my marks down. A friend of mine tried teaching himself ancient Greek but he didn't have much success. I did study Latin for one year though -- the last year it was offered in my high school. A couple of years back I picked up a book that was recommended on-line for learning ancient Greek, but so far I've only used it for reference. I'm just not cut out for learning modern foreign languages, let alone dead ones.
You are essentially taking divergent accounts from two separate books by different authors and blending them into a single story in order that you might get rid of obvious discrepancies. I am pretty sure you can appreciate how a non-believer is going to view that manoeuver. I am also guessing that you wouldn’t do that for a secular account, for example, of the death of a non-biblical historical figure. You would likely argue that only one account could be true, not both of them.
No, I would say there are contradictions. When you openly blend accounts from different authors you are pretty much acknowledging that the individual accounts do not stack up. This tactic is meant to shore up the difficulties that arise when the individual books are not in agreement with one another.
I'm guessing you do know ancient Greek, etc.?
I didn't start learning French till I reached high school. I studied it four years then packed it in after coming to the conclusion it would only serve to pull my marks down.
A friend of mine tried teaching himself ancient Greek but he didn't have much success. I did study Latin for one year though -- the last year it was offered in my high school. A couple of years back I picked up a book that was recommended on-line for learning ancient Greek, but so far I've only used it for reference. I'm just not cut out for learning modern foreign languages, let alone dead ones. You are essentially taking divergent accounts from two separate books by different authors and blending them into a single story in order that you might get rid of obvious discrepancies. I am pretty sure you can appreciate how a non-believer is going to view that manoeuver. I am also guessing that you wouldn’t do that for a secular account, for example, of the death of a non-biblical historical figure. You would likely argue that only one account could be true, not both of them.
No, I would say there are contradictions. When you openly blend accounts from different authors you are pretty much acknowledging that the individual accounts do not stack up. This tactic is meant to shore up the difficulties that arise when the individual books are not in agreement with one another.
I could accept this conclusion if Acts stated he hung, but it doesn't. By Jewish law the body must be taken down and dealt with before it achieves such a state, yes? I don't know how Jewish law treats suicides, but I am thinking it likely his body would have been taken down shortly after it was discovered. Though your explanation in itself sounds reasonable it is still not what either account says by itself. In short, you are creating your own story to get rid of the discrepancy that exists between the accounts in Matthew and Acts. This action does not remove the discrepancy it only helps you ignore it.
LOL Not to worry.
I'm guessing you do know ancient Greek, etc.?
I didn't start learning French till I reached high school. I studied it four years then packed it in after coming to the conclusion it would only serve to pull my marks down. A friend of mine tried teaching himself ancient Greek but he didn't have much success. I did study Latin for one year though -- the last year it was offered in my high school. A couple of years back I picked up a book that was recommended on-line for learning ancient Greek, but so far I've only used it for reference. I'm just not cut out for learning modern foreign languages, let alone dead ones.
You are essentially taking divergent accounts from two separate books by different authors and blending them into a single story in order that you might get rid of obvious discrepancies. I am pretty sure you can appreciate how a non-believer is going to view that manoeuver. I am also guessing that you wouldn’t do that for a secular account, for example, of the death of a non-biblical historical figure. You would likely argue that only one account could be true, not both of them.
No, I would say there are contradictions. When you openly blend accounts from different authors you are pretty much acknowledging that the individual accounts do not stack up. This tactic is meant to shore up the difficulties that arise when the individual books are not in agreement with one another.
I'm guessing you do know ancient Greek, etc.?
I didn't start learning French till I reached high school. I studied it four years then packed it in after coming to the conclusion it would only serve to pull my marks down.
A friend of mine tried teaching himself ancient Greek but he didn't have much success. I did study Latin for one year though -- the last year it was offered in my high school. A couple of years back I picked up a book that was recommended on-line for learning ancient Greek, but so far I've only used it for reference. I'm just not cut out for learning modern foreign languages, let alone dead ones. You are essentially taking divergent accounts from two separate books by different authors and blending them into a single story in order that you might get rid of obvious discrepancies. I am pretty sure you can appreciate how a non-believer is going to view that manoeuver. I am also guessing that you wouldn’t do that for a secular account, for example, of the death of a non-biblical historical figure. You would likely argue that only one account could be true, not both of them.
No, I would say there are contradictions. When you openly blend accounts from different authors you are pretty much acknowledging that the individual accounts do not stack up. This tactic is meant to shore up the difficulties that arise when the individual books are not in agreement with one another.
Having said that...since you believe the bible to be in error, contain error and contradictions I suggest you find other books to study...like books on philosophy, cats or maybe read a few biographies on men who were atheists.
I will not waste the precious time God has given me on someone who is not open to learning and instruction...Maybe that is why you could not grasp French or Greek....because in your ignorance of those two languages you could see nothing but discrepancies...NO DISREPECT MEANT.
N
LOL Not to worry.
I'm guessing you do know ancient Greek, etc.?
I didn't start learning French till I reached high school. I studied it four years then packed it in after coming to the conclusion it would only serve to pull my marks down. A friend of mine tried teaching himself ancient Greek but he didn't have much success. I did study Latin for one year though -- the last year it was offered in my high school. A couple of years back I picked up a book that was recommended on-line for learning ancient Greek, but so far I've only used it for reference. I'm just not cut out for learning modern foreign languages, let alone dead ones.
You are essentially taking divergent accounts from two separate books by different authors and blending them into a single story in order that you might get rid of obvious discrepancies. I am pretty sure you can appreciate how a non-believer is going to view that manoeuver. I am also guessing that you wouldn’t do that for a secular account, for example, of the death of a non-biblical historical figure. You would likely argue that only one account could be true, not both of them.
No, I would say there are contradictions. When you openly blend accounts from different authors you are pretty much acknowledging that the individual accounts do not stack up. This tactic is meant to shore up the difficulties that arise when the individual books are not in agreement with one another.
I'm guessing you do know ancient Greek, etc.?
I didn't start learning French till I reached high school. I studied it four years then packed it in after coming to the conclusion it would only serve to pull my marks down.
A friend of mine tried teaching himself ancient Greek but he didn't have much success. I did study Latin for one year though -- the last year it was offered in my high school. A couple of years back I picked up a book that was recommended on-line for learning ancient Greek, but so far I've only used it for reference. I'm just not cut out for learning modern foreign languages, let alone dead ones. You are essentially taking divergent accounts from two separate books by different authors and blending them into a single story in order that you might get rid of obvious discrepancies. I am pretty sure you can appreciate how a non-believer is going to view that manoeuver. I am also guessing that you wouldn’t do that for a secular account, for example, of the death of a non-biblical historical figure. You would likely argue that only one account could be true, not both of them.
No, I would say there are contradictions. When you openly blend accounts from different authors you are pretty much acknowledging that the individual accounts do not stack up. This tactic is meant to shore up the difficulties that arise when the individual books are not in agreement with one another.
It depends of if the non-believers are antiquated with ancient historical texts and how historians read and use them, and particularly Greco-Roman bioi (which genre the gospel are as research scholarship has placed them in). To use your point, I do actually see different accounts of events in historical accounts, take the two accounts of Alexander's campaigns, there are discrepancies in these events, an example being exactly how Alexander entered Babylon prior to his death and what the Chaldean astrologers told him and why, they vary in different accounts which is due to sources they used, and authorial style or interest etc. Sometimes historians will suggest harmonisation schemes that attempt to give an plausible account of the different sources (which can be due to their own styles, and editing, and the selection or eyewitness sources they used), of course this is always an interpretation. But as with Alexander's death, even if it is judged that parts of two different sources do disagree significantly, unless they outright contradict each other on the central claim (like I said previously, if one claimed Judas lived and joined the Twelve again, next to one that said he committed suicide) it doesn't mean nothing, far from it, historians take it that something very much did happen (and given the close - within that generation - multiple attestation of Judas' suicide) we can reasonable take that Judas did commit suicide during the first Easter week (with actually more reliability due to the gospel's closeness to events compared with Arian, Diodorus or Appian to Alexander's death for example). In fact it actually indicates different sources or oral traditions, or at least addition ones, were being used by the different authors that both agree on the central point.
So we would have to judge if judged as Greco-Roman bioi could we we show a plausible harmonisation, and but even if it is consider doubtful, the underlying agreement would incline to accepting the basic point that something did happen, namely Judas committed suicide around the first Easter week.
Last edited by a moderator:
The Bible is correct
From the original post
the answer is
both are correct.
Simple
always take the verses and see how they CAN be resolved
that is the correct anser
dont look for how they conflict, that is not the right answer
piece together a story that fits all the Bible verses
then you have the truth
From the original post
the answer is
both are correct.
Simple
always take the verses and see how they CAN be resolved
that is the correct anser
dont look for how they conflict, that is not the right answer
piece together a story that fits all the Bible verses
then you have the truth
R
Bad translations to English. Both accounts say in different ways that he was so distraught over what he had done that he "puked his guts out."
We don't hear from him again or know when or how he actually died.
But explaining the greek text in further detail is usually fruitless, because Judas haters will still prefer the idea of God blasting him to smithereens, or the idea of him somehow "unforgivably" committing suicide, over a deeper study of the word.
It's a seal of the condition of the reader's heart that cannot change unless the heart also changes.
You must not hate Judas, or seek for God to hate him.
Oldhermit's explanation is the next best thing you can use to reconcile the "contradiction", and the one that I believed for a very long time.
You don't need to believe the one I gave, unless you first know why you need to.
Have you ever been so distraught that you spontanesously and literally rent your clothes?
Probably not, but it's with this same extreme condition of the heart that Judas's stomach and throat responded biologically causing him to throw up.
From heartbreaking remorse.
If you betrayed Jesus knowing what you know about Him, wouldn't you also? Or... you might in fact commit suicide.
If the explanation doesn't seem satisfactory, and you need something to throw at Judas, then you could take pleasure in knowing that it would have been much more torturous for him to continue alive with this guilt than it would if he had committed suicide.
But I personally wouldn't take pleasure in it.
We don't hear from him again or know when or how he actually died.
But explaining the greek text in further detail is usually fruitless, because Judas haters will still prefer the idea of God blasting him to smithereens, or the idea of him somehow "unforgivably" committing suicide, over a deeper study of the word.
It's a seal of the condition of the reader's heart that cannot change unless the heart also changes.
You must not hate Judas, or seek for God to hate him.
Oldhermit's explanation is the next best thing you can use to reconcile the "contradiction", and the one that I believed for a very long time.
You don't need to believe the one I gave, unless you first know why you need to.
Have you ever been so distraught that you spontanesously and literally rent your clothes?
Probably not, but it's with this same extreme condition of the heart that Judas's stomach and throat responded biologically causing him to throw up.
From heartbreaking remorse.
If you betrayed Jesus knowing what you know about Him, wouldn't you also? Or... you might in fact commit suicide.
If the explanation doesn't seem satisfactory, and you need something to throw at Judas, then you could take pleasure in knowing that it would have been much more torturous for him to continue alive with this guilt than it would if he had committed suicide.
But I personally wouldn't take pleasure in it.
You know, if you would just stop for a second and ask yourself: What exactly did Judas purchase and what was his usery?
He purchased death with his life daaaaaaaaaaaa. You know Mr Spock if you take away everything in the two accounts that are impossible to join together, what is left? Only what is possible, and, what is possible is what God had them write. Both hanging and his bowels gushing out happened because God said they happened, are you going to believe or not? You don't have all the details of either account so according to you either account contradicts itself. And that is just silly thinking.
He purchased death with his life daaaaaaaaaaaa. You know Mr Spock if you take away everything in the two accounts that are impossible to join together, what is left? Only what is possible, and, what is possible is what God had them write. Both hanging and his bowels gushing out happened because God said they happened, are you going to believe or not? You don't have all the details of either account so according to you either account contradicts itself. And that is just silly thinking.
I could accept this conclusion if Acts stated he hung, but it doesn't. By Jewish law the body must be taken down and dealt with before it achieves such a state, yes? I don't know how Jewish law treats suicides, but I am thinking it likely his body would have been taken down shortly after it was discovered. Though your explanation in itself sounds reasonable it is still not what either account says by itself. In short, you are creating your own story to get rid of the discrepancy that exists between the accounts in Matthew and Acts. This action does not remove the discrepancy it only helps you ignore it.
T
Inspired by God or man's intellectual understanding and thus interpreted by 2 different people - Very basic but true example.1 Person says that the Taliban attacked NYC and crashed the plains into the Twin Towers, while others claim that it was a government conspiracy. In the end the Towers did Collapse and People were killed... but interpretation as to HOW and for what reason varies...
T
Hello Cobus ( fellow countryman ) good to see another South African here. Now that leads me to a new question.... "Die Verkiesingsleer" - Or in English - Chosenness - Does God not select those meant for perdition who will never enter the kingdom of heaven and those who will before hand? Judas never stood a chance, without Judas there would not have been a sell out, without a sell out things would have turned out differently. God has known and chosen HIS children even before the creation.... So how do we know we are one of the Chosen and not just aimlessly hoping in vain? THIS MAY NEED TO BE A THREAD ALL ON ITS OWN... SO MAYBE I'LL POST IT AS A NEW THREAD.
The Pharisees purchased the field - How did they purchase the field? with the blood money Judas received by betraying Christ. Judas received the money - threw it back to the Pharisees - they purchased the field with Judas' money - so figuratively speaking - Judas purchased the field because it was purchased with money he received (HIS money) for betraying Christ. No contradiction. . . .
The problem here is that Luke (the writer of Acts) never says that his body busting open was the cause of death. It's merely something that happened. Sort of like how one might think that Queen Jezebel died from being eaten by dogs, if they just heard someone say that the end of Jezebel was getting eaten by dogs. A fall killed her, then the dogs devoured her.