Judas Iscariot

[Richard Amiel McGough]

And there's yet another problem based of the order of events implied in Matthew. The text says that Judas repented, threw the money to the priests, and then "departed and hung himself." It is only then, after Judas hung himself, that the priests bought the field. So now we have to invent yet another weird scenario in which the priests go and purchase the field where Judas is hanging. But they couldn't do that, because the priests could not by land that was defiled with a dead body hanging from a tree! But even if they did purchase the defiled field, the order of events in Matthew and Acts are incompatible.

I'll admit that the timing of the purchase SEEMS to present a dilema. But we don't know if the leaders were perhaps eyeing up this field for some months....and now they had the funds to purchase it. But the rest of your assertions of not being able to buy a field with a body hanging above it would be unfounded. They purchased the field with money that originated with the price of the blood of a man hung from a tree. This according to your perspective of Jewish law would also be unlawful.
It would actually be fitting that Judas hung himself and died there AND fitting that the Pharisees were the ones to by the field for him.

Yes, I admit that they could have bought the "defiled" field, and indeed that could have been the rational for using it as a cemetery. So I withdraw that point.

And yes it would be "fitting" for Judas to die in the field that was purchased with his money. But isn't the order you suggest wrong? The field wasn't purchased until after Judas hung himself. So he didn't actually "die in the field purchased with his money."

We read a testimony of things that occurred 2000 yrs ago and which testimony was written to people who had lived in the surrounding region and within 30 yrs of their occurrences. It is difficult or impossible to reconstruct the events from these records alone and while using our literalistic, codified, and sometimes judgmental reading rather then historical, conversational contextual readings.

Reading the acts account as if it required the field to be physically purchased by Judas should be easy to be reconsidered by you Ram, since you oppose the literal, codified readings and interpretations of prophecies. This is a similar instance in which the intentions and context of the words and paragraphs are not a historical account of Judas, but are in the context of needing to replace him and the process of that replacement.

You are correct, I know we have to go beyond the "literal, codified readings" as we would when interpreting any other text. But in this case, the only reason we feel a need to diverge from the rather plain and obvious reading (which also strongly coheres with Luke's style of instant death by the hand of God) is because of the assumption that the two accounts of the death of Judas must be historically true and therefore "harmonious" with each other. I don't see any justification for that assumption, and so Occam's Razor makes a quick cut that solves all the confusion in a most satisfactory way.

It would not be an impossibility that they used the money the very next morning to buy the field. And Judas, wandering around, and despondent, hung himself above the very field that they would have bought, unknowing to him, a few hours earlier.... or even a few hours later. MUCH, MUCH, more supernatural occurrences happened even of Christ dying at the exact same time of the passover lamb of the 'old' covenant'. Events are pre-ordained for his children to walk in; so also especially since this was a fulfillment of prophecy of Jeremiah, it would not at all be incongruous for the Pharisees to buy the very field in which Judas would die for the betrayal which resulted in the blood of Christ. In fact it would be rather confirming of the events.

That's all good, except for the fact that our very eloquent writer Luke failed to write an adequate account even under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. The only solution then is to assume that God desired to make it look like Matthew and Acts are contradictory. Perhaps to confound the skeptics? But that seems extremely strange, because it is not only the skeptics that are confounded, but anyone who reads the text with a desire for truth. Are we supposed to believe that God is deliberately deceiving us in the Bible?

I don't think we can "prove" a contradiction in the strict logical sense, because folks can weave whatever tale is needed to "harmonize" Matthew with Acts. So it merely comes down to the question of how much "weaving" a person is willing to accept in order to save the doctrine that there are no historical errors in the Bible.

30 pieces was still the reward of iniquity. Once a person makes an act, even though they repent of the act or decision, the ramifications and effects of that act or decision can often not be reversed.

That seems to contradict the basic doctrine of the Gospel which says that we have all sinned and are therefore subject to eternal death. If that "consequence" could be reversed, why not all others? And besides, God reverse the consequences of Davids sin. He wasn't killed for his acts of adultery and murder. That seems pretty strange. God did not apply justice to David.

Judas caused the fore-known and fore-planned events through his betrayal. But it was yet the Priests who physically bought the field. Judas himself proclaimed that he had born false testimony which in his mind resulted in the condemnation of an innocent man. His testimony, betrayal and assistance was bought with Silver. From recollection, they had told Judas that they only wished to question him and inquire about his teachings. After seeing Jesus condemned, he repented of having any part in it. But it's unknown if he repented of any disbelief in Christ being God incarnate and the power and ability to forgive.

Very interesting. Yes, Judas both repented and confessed his sin in Matthew's account, but to the priests. We don't know if he confessed to God or not. But we do know that he was still so remorseful that he went and hanged himself. It's a very different picture in Acts where Luke seems to think that Judas was struck down by God as an act of divine judgment when he was walking on the field he bought with the blood money. It is very interesting that both Matthew and Luke agreed about the name of the "field of blood" but didn't agree about anything else in the story.

In Matt 5, judas is first singled out as a betrayer. In that passage, Jesus tells his disciples who were seeing him and believing in him that He would raise them up on the last day. We've been taught to think of this as the 'last day' of the earth or an age into a physical resurrection. But what 'last day' was Jesus referring to? And what 'raising up' was he referring to? I think he was referring to his disciples being raised up and vindicated for their faith in him after the resurrection. It was the 'last day' of the law of sin/death and of disbelief and of the oppressive power and administration of the law of Moses. Both powers were dissolved. The disciples had been believing in Him against the teachings of the High Priests. Now, after he was crucified, they surely couldn't' return to their teachings, nor would they want to. I can imagine the 'lostness' and fear of the Priests who would surely be coming after them in time. In the same context, Judas is referred to as an adversary. He, Judas, did not hang around Jerusalem in blind faith and hope or uncertainty and disillusionment as the other disciples. Judas did not participate in the raising up of their spirits and the confirmation and vindication of their hope and faith.

That all "makes sense" but it again makes God out to be some sort of "deceiver" who is playing with words all the time. What would those words have meant to the folks who heard them? What have they meant to most Christians who have read them during the last two thousand years? If God is play word games like that, it seems like we could never know for sure what he really meant.

I don't see much here to make a HUGE case for contradiction in the bible, but rather for supernatural foreknowledge and fore ordination of the acts of those involved. If we reject the supernatural pre-arrangement and control of these times, then yes, there is room for questioning and accusations of contradictions.

This isn't a big problem with me at all, but it seems to be a big issue for those seeking to find contradictions and untruths.

Like I said, I don't think anyone could prove it is a "contradiction" in a strict logical sense, but I do think that the preponderance of evidence supports that conclusion. Especially when we read Acts and see that he has other stories of direct divine retribution on sinners like Ananias, Sapphira, and Herod. The "explanations" seem like the weaving of words to save the doctrine of inerrancy that is already known to be false through other lines of evidence.

But you have done a masterful job in presenting your case. Thanks!



Great chatting!

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Oh yes, I have absolutely no confusion on this issue at all.

The word "righteous" in the Bible means "doing things that are morally correct or right."

The term "righteousness" then describes the state or condition of someone who acts righteously.

Do you disagree with these definitions?

I am referring to the noun, righteousness.......not the verb, acting righteously.

What does the noun, righteousness, mean?

Joel

I defined the noun in my previous post. See above, in bold. The noun is defined as the state of someone who acts righteously.

Here's how Webster's defines it:

RIGHTEOUSNESS
1: acting in accord with divine or moral law : free from guilt or sin
2 a : morally right or justifiable <a righteous decision>

Here's how Strong's defines it:

1343 dikaiosune {dik-ah-yos-oo'-nay}
Meaning: 1) in a broad sense: state of him who is as he ought to be, righteousness, the condition acceptable to God 1a) the doctrine concerning the way in which man may attain a state approved of God 1b) integrity, virtue, purity of life, rightness, correctness of thinking feeling, and acting 2) in a narrower sense, justice or the virtue which gives each his due


Again, how do we know what "righteousness" is supposed to mean if everyone is always wicked in everything they do? What then does "wicked" mean? These words are supposed to be opposites, but you are saying there is no opposite of wickedness in human experience! Where then do we get words like "integrity" and "virtue" and "purity" and all the words relating to goodness and righteousness? This is why your comments make no sense to me. It's like you are saying that "None are gifledorf!" God alone is gifledorf!" But you never defined "gifledorf!"

This is the trick of the confused Christian doctrine. They imported the normal meaning of righteousness which everyone knows into their theology, and then denied the meaning of the word by saying that not one thing anyone has ever done is "righteous." Well, if that's true, then they shouldn't have taken that word which has been applied to humans since it was first coined before Christianity even existed.

[joel]

(Strong's #).....1343 dikaiosune {dik-ah-yos-oo'-nay}
Meaning: 1) in a broad sense: state of him who is as he ought to be, righteousness, the condition acceptable to God 1a) the doctrine concerning the way in which man may attain a state approved of God 1b) integrity, virtue, purity of life, rightness, correctness of thinking feeling, and acting 2) in a narrower sense, justice or the virtue which gives each his due

Richard,......you have provided Strong's definition which is divided into different applications....the first of which is;

1.) the broad sense......a state.....i.e.......a status.....the condition acceptable to God. (this is Dr. Strong's primary meaning of the word).

I would propose to illustrate this first part of the definition according to a simple diagram;

[dikaiosune]......illustrating that all within the confines of the box is "righteous"

to be....."in righteousness"......is to be.........in the box [dikaiosune].

My question is.......how does a person get in the box?

This assumes that......everyone is outside of the box......and if anyone seeks to be transferred from being outside the box.....to......being within the box........
there must be a "cause", and an "effect".

Joel

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Richard,......you have provided Strong's definition which is divided into different applications....the first of which is;

1.) the broad sense......a state.....i.e.......a status.....the condition acceptable to God. (this is Dr. Strong's primary meaning of the word).

I would propose to illustrate this first part of the definition according to a simple diagram;

[dikaiosune]......illustrating that all within the confines of the box is "righteous"

to be....."in righteousness"......is to be.........in the box [dikaiosune].

My question is.......how does a person get in the box?

This assumes that......everyone is outside of the box......and if anyone seeks to be transferred from being outside the box.....to......being within the box........
there must be a "cause", and an "effect".

Joel

Well, Strong's definition is not really a definition of the Greek word per se, but rather it is his theological interpretation of the meaning of that Greek work in the Biblical context. He may be right, he may be wrong, but we can't determine that until we understand the meaning of "righteousness" itself as it was used in the Greek language at the time that the Biblical authors used it in their writings.

I get the impression that you are doing everything possible to avoid the plain and simple fact that "righteousness" means "the state of being righteous" and "righteous" means "acting in the way that is morally right or correct." If you can not admit these plain and simple meanings of these words, how will we be able to discuss any of the more abstruse concepts that arise from how it is used in the Bible?

So do you understand the meaning of the concept of "righteousness" (including all the associated concepts like virtue, goodness, integrity, etc.) that are found in every human culture on the planet? If you do not understand the basic meaning of morality apart from Christianity, then it would appear that you don't understand one of the most fundamental aspects of what it means to be human. No offense intended! I'm just trying to get our feet on the ground of reality. Maybe then we can fruitfully discuss the meaning of righteousness in the rarefied atmosphere of Christian theology.

All the very best.

[2by''s]

Jesus asserts the importance of righteousness by saying in Matthew 5:20

Mat 5:20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed [the righteousness] of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

these are Jesus words therefore RIGHTEOUSNESS IS POSSIBLE.
plus if one does not have this fact - they dont get in.

yet prior Jesus advent this was the situation.

All of us have become like one who is unclean,
and all our righteous acts are like filthy rags;
we all shrivel up like a leaf,
and like the wind our sins sweep us away. – Isaiah 64:6

uncleaness is the carnal mind of man which is death - Jesus came to abolish death-thinking in those He called and Chose.

because Judas did as he chose he died because his thinking had remained in the carnal realm of man.

sins sweep men into their graves.
any sickness DOES NOT kill theM- their SINS DID.

THERE IS AN alternative that says opening up a new and living way for the new creation....

Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect. – Matthew 5:48

righteousness and perfection must be possible, in a transformed person.
Judas had the teacher and the lessons but failed to PUT THEM TOGETHER.
JUDAS REMAINED UNRGENERATED.
HIS GENES had not been returned to normal but had remained abnormal deformed by sin.

re- means to return back too
gene - the DNA
re-gene-ed.

reprogrammed back to a normal. Judas was not RE-GENE-D.
very few are.

[2by''s]

Yet now has [Christ, the Messiah] reconciled [you to God] in the body of His flesh through death, in order to present you holy and faultless and irreproachable in His [the Father’s] presence. – Col 1:22-23

* we have been reconciled
* presented as holy and faultless

wearing the robes of righteousness - by the finished work of messiah - so who can accuse the righteous?

[NumberX]

Those opposed to the Bible like to point out how Judas died twice! That isn't true, of course, but Matt27:5 does say that "Judas went out and hanged himself", and in Acts 1:18 it's written that Judas "purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out".. We agree the two statements are seemingly conflicting, but can you not imagine a scenario which fits both?

He goes out to his field and finds a tree and hangs himself. Nobody cuts down the body and it continues to swing and sway and be bloated with gas until the day it falls headlong to the earth and explodes. Sooo, both sentences are reconciled, but the atheists and agnostics don't want to hear it.

There are those who think it was a mistake to replace Judas with Matthias, but I don't find fault with the Great Author, and have decided any "mistakes" are probably caused by my own thinking.

I think you are funny!

It is however a view at a situation that can be looked at with several points of view. Looking only at the physical plane, only this or only is that possible. But hey, as you say, this is in The Bible, not in a normal book, these words explain how things are in essence, seen from above, seen from the heaven, that's seen from SHaMayim, ayim means double, SHaM means place, so it's from a double place. (SHeM means also Name).

And looking only as if the story is at the physical plane, not both, THAT means dividing, splitting. And THIS is the Jehudah-Judas point of view, Jehudah "Ish Kerioth", "man of the split, tear", and "burst asunder in the midst" is also like splitting, tearing apart. This goes on in a person, is a personal view. Judas hanged himself, has no contact with the earth anymore with his feet, has no way to go on earth anymore, that's what "hanged" means in Biblical term.

After the Judas view and his kiss, follow the group of people with sticks. This means that then comes the "we will attack" inner mentality. We will attack Christians, for example. Groups of people want this and do this on forums. Personally I do not want and do this.

Without the split-mentality this does not come to one's mind. But on the other hand however, everyone who praises The Lord, meets Jehudah/Judas, because Jehudah means praise and the word Lord is locked into the word Jehudah. The question is how you deal with it. The dignity of Jehudah is that he continues the generations as a wholeness.

[joel]

Well, Strong's definition is not really a definition of the Greek word per se, but rather it is his theological interpretation of the meaning of that Greek work in the Biblical context. He may be right, he may be wrong, but we can't determine that until we understand the meaning of "righteousness" itself as it was used in the Greek language at the time that the Biblical authors used it in their writings.

I get the impression that you are doing everything possible to avoid the plain and simple fact that "righteousness" means "the state of being righteous" and "righteous" means "acting in the way that is morally right or correct." If you can not admit these plain and simple meanings of these words, how will we be able to discuss any of the more abstruse concepts that arise from how it is used in the Bible?

So do you understand the meaning of the concept of "righteousness" (including all the associated concepts like virtue, goodness, integrity, etc.) that are found in every human culture on the planet? If you do not understand the basic meaning of morality apart from Christianity, then it would appear that you don't understand one of the most fundamental aspects of what it means to be human. No offense intended! I'm just trying to get our feet on the ground of reality. Maybe then we can fruitfully discuss the meaning of righteousness in the rarefied atmosphere of Christian theology.

All the very best.

The underlying characteristic of righteousness is justice. To act justly, and be just according to man's standards are one thing. To be just according to God's perspective is yet another.

My main inquiry was to learn if you saw such a difference, and, if in seeing, you either knew how God confers justice to man, or, if not knowing, were seeking to understand.

At present, I am still unclear as to your standing on the matter.

Joel

[Richard Amiel McGough]

The underlying characteristic of righteousness is justice. To act justly, and be just according to man's standards are one thing. To be just according to God's perspective is yet another.

So you are saying that there are two meanings to the word "justice?" One is called "God's definition of Justice" and the other is called "Man's definition of Justice?" Please define the difference between those two kinds of "justice." Do they have anything in common, or are they entirely separate concepts?

My main inquiry was to learn if you saw such a difference, and, if in seeing, you either knew how God confers justice to man, or, if not knowing, were seeking to understand.

At present, I am still unclear as to your standing on the matter.

Joel

There are not two kinds of "justice" - the word means what it means, and that meaning is known to everyone all over the world ... except Christians who have lost sight of the meaning of all the fundamental moral terms that are known to every child. I'm talking about all the connected words like good, right, moral, ethical, virtuous, integrity, truth, purity, righteousness, justice. How is it possible that Christians, the supposed Torchbearers of Righteousness, appear to be utterly ignorant of the meaning of these elementary terms apart from their convoluted, abstract, and esoteric theology?

If the word "righteousness" means nothing outside of Christian theology, then it means nothing within it!

[joel]

RAM,......I recall that you once said......(God)..."He alone is, was, and ever will be righteous".

Do you still say this?

Joel