HOW DID JUDAS DIE? IF, INDEED, HE DID???

Didn't you see Dracula 2000?

Hi Finn,
Nice to meet you. I'm not sure that A low budget vampire flick is relevant to this thread, but we each apply our own wisdom to such matters. Thank you for venturing forth where others fear to tread.
Have a splendid day, sir/madam.
Mark...

If i remember right, there are two versions, i think one says that he was feeling bad about what he had done and god was going to punish him and he was checking out all the land he had acquired from what he had done and was contemplating his bad choices when his guts burst open and he died right there on the spot. Then there is another version where he was so remorseful and regretful with what he had done, that he hung himself from a tree.

I personally like the apologetic answer to why there are two versions. They actually combine the two versions and say that after he hung himself that is when his guts exploded. I find this incredibly funny because why would you even add that to a story if it was an after effect. Just sounds absurd. Clearly the events probably never happened, and the reason there are two versions was because there was no consensus on what actually became of him. Maybe they thought the story would be better if he felt remorse and killed himself. This would account for why there are two versions.

But from my perspective Judas is a completely two dimensional character and not one that i believe is realistic or even possible. But people are quick to pick up on his betrayal and they reason it out as plausible because people do messed up things even to their own family members, so why would it be so hard to believe he wouldn't do what he did?

Here is one point as to why I think it was complete BS. The whole reason he got involved in the first place is telling. He didn't believe Jesus was who he claimed to be, so initially he didn't see any harm in selling him out. Which for the most part is reasonable. However; he was still good friends with Jesus and had a close bond with him but if he was going to sell him out to the roman authorities why didn't he deceive them too? What do I mean?

Well he knew that the Romans didn't know where to find Jesus or even knew what he looked like. Judas knew this and could have used anyone or made someone else take the fall and kept the money. So what I mean is, he was willing to sell Jesus out and at the same time came up with a plan to get them to recognize who Jesus was. So why didn't he just pick some random person, or better yet someone he didn't like to take the fall? This would have been far more believable because then he didn't actually sell out his friend. But of course the story can't go like that because Judas HAS to send the sheep to the chopping block.

So what it comes down to is that he was willing to not only sell out his friend but he was willing to even send him friend to death. I simply don't buy that at all. Not even the most wicked person on the planet would sell out their friend and get them killed for it. Because if they are wicked, they would actually have someone else take the fall, someone completely innocent take the place. The Romans never would have known or even figured it out and Jesus would have been spared had he done that, plus he could have kept all the money. That is truly what a wicked person would have done.

The other part that doesn't make any sense is that God punishes Judas for selling out Jesus? WHAT? That is incredibly stupid. Jesus is going to the chopping block for humanity, it was god's plan a long and the only way to make it work was to have Judas sell him out. The Romans never would have been able to catch up to Jesus had Judas not. So his role in the whole thing was necessary for the fulfillment. So why would god punish Judas for playing his part in it? It's so absurd and stupid to punish him. He should have been praised for playing the part and making the destiny come to be.

That is what I don't get about the whole thing. Christians blame the crucifiers yet had they not done it there wouldn't be any Christianity. They should be thanking them for doing it. But no they do the same stupid thing by blaming the messenger and sentencing them to death for creating the hero. This is what makes the story flat and less than literature. I mean sixth graders could write better material than this.

Or The Librarian: The Curse of the Judas Chalice.

Hi Krumple,
Great story, by the way.
Jesus knew what the O.T expected of the coming Messiah, He grew up as a jew and was as indoctrinated as the rest, every event undertaken was undertaken with the knowledge of what must prevail, without exception. I see it as a self-fulfilling event, purposely undertaken by Jesus for the purpose of leading the people to a purer path, and from the iniquitous hands of a greedy and unforgiving, vindictive mindset. Whether he was driven by psychotic delusions or not, is another matter.

Judas was a favourite of Jesus (according to scripture) And the word "Betray" (from the original GK) is defined in it's 1st as "SURRENDER". The definition "Betray" being added later to firmly lay blame on the jews for the slaughter of Jesus (fulfilling yet another prophecy). The original suggests, as in accordance to (gospel of Judas) and other self-contradicting N.T passages, that Judas was asked by Jesus to be the one to turn Him in. Mark 14:20: Jesus replies to the twelve (TO THE TWELVE) one by one, after being asked as to who will be the surrenderer - "He who dippeth with me in the dish" - Mathew 26:23. In reply to each (EACH) of the apostles - "He that dippeth his hand with me, in the dish, the same shall surrender (betray) me. The fact that they were forewarned of the dipping implies that it was either a voluntary action of Judas or the fulfillment of a request, either way (betrayal) is no longer an option.

This though is about the death of Judas. He, according to his gospel, was quite annoyed to hear of the circumstances surrounding his death, when he heard of them, whilst residing at Qumran with the Essenes.

Mark...

Hi Guys,
I'd like to add this for you to ponder over.

Some scholars[42] have embraced the alternative notion that Judas was merely the negotiator in a prearranged prisoner exchange (following the money-changer riot in the Temple) that gave Jesus to the Roman authorities by mutual agreement, and that Judas's later portrayal as "traitor" was a historical distortion.

In his book The Passover Plot the British theologian Hugh J. Schonfield argued that the crucifixion of Christ was a conscious re-enactment of Biblical prophecy and Judas acted with Jesus' full knowledge and consent in "betraying" his master to the authorities.

Theologian Aaron Saari contends in his work The Many Deaths of Judas Iscariot that Judas Iscariot was the literary invention of the Markan community. As Judas does not appear in the Epistles of Paul, nor in the Q Gospel, Saari argues that the language indicates a split between Pauline Christians, who saw no reason for the establishment of an organized Church, and the followers of Peter. Saari contends that the denigration of Judas in Matthew and Luke-Acts has a direct correlation to the elevation of Peter.[43]

Mark 16:14 and Luke 24:33 state that following his resurrection Jesus appeared to "the eleven." Who was missing? After all that had transpired one would just naturally think it was Judas. Apparently not, because in John 20:24 we learn that the one missing was Thomas. Therefore the eleven had to include Judas. To further confuse things, Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15:5 that following his resurrection Jesus was seen by “the twelve.” This had to include Judas because it wasn't until after the ascension, some forty days after the resurrection (Acts 1:3), that another person, Matthias, was voted in to replace Judas (Acts 1:26). So, apparently Judas neither committed suicide nor died by accident. In Acts 1:25 we are told that Judas "turned aside to go to his own place."

Another clue confirming the absence of the Judas story in the earliest Christian documents occurs in Matthew 19:28 and Luke 22:28-30. Here Jesus tells his disciples that they will “sit on the twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.” No exception is made for Judas even though Jesus was aware of his impending act of betrayal. The answer may lie in the fact that the source of these verses could be the hypothetical Q document (QS 62). Q is thought to predate the gospels and would be one of the earliest Christian documents. Given that possibility, the betrayal story could have been invented by the writer of Mark.[44][45][46]

The book The Sins of the Scripture, by John Shelby Spong, investigates the possibility that early Christians compiled the Judas story from three Old Testament Jewish betrayal stories. He writes, "...the act of betrayal by a member of the twelve disciples is not found in the earliest Christian writings. Judas is first placed into the Christian story by Gospel of Mark (3:19), who wrote in the early years of the eighth decade of the Common Era". He points out that some of Gospels, after the Crucifixion, refer to the number of Disciples as "Twelve", as if Judas were still among them. He compares the three conflicting descriptions of Judas's death - hanging, leaping into a pit, and disemboweling, with three Old Testament betrayals followed by similar suicides.

Spong's conclusion is that early Bible authors, after the First Jewish-Roman War, sought to distance themselves from Rome's enemies. They augmented the Gospels with a story of a disciple, personified in Judas as the Jewish state, who either betrayed or handed-over Jesus to his Roman crucifiers. Spong identifies this augmentation with the origin of modern Anti-Semitism.

Jewish scholar Hyam Maccoby, espousing a purely mythological view of Jesus, suggests that in the New Testament, the name "Judas" was constructed as an attack on the Judaeans or on the Judaean religious establishment held responsible for executing Christ.[47] The English word "Jew" is derived from the Latin Iudaeus, which, like the Greek Ιουδαίος (Ioudaios), could also mean "Judaean".

"Judas The Beloved Disciple Remembered" by William E. McClintic portrays Judas in a positive light. McClintic not only presents Judas as the "beloved disciple", but also as a scribe and author of the "Q" document, the "Apostles Creed" and true writer of the "John Gospel". McClintic presents Judas as the source of most of the stories about Jesus in the Gospels from the birth of Jesus, his education, his teachings and ministry to the trial, Crucifixion and Resurrection.

Mark...

Hi mark,

Why wouldn't a low budget flick be relevant to this thread?

Have you established a hurdle of relevancy? If so, what is it?

Did you ever see the low budget vampire flick?

Certainly the title of this thread actually suggests the possibility that Judas did not die...Dracula 2000

The base of your question is historical and I suppose there are any number of uncertain arguments made on how Judas died. Interesting, I suppose, if there was any reason to believe that the common belief was in error, but you deliberately included "IF INDEED, HE DID???"

If you ever saw Dracula 2000, you would know that it asserts that he didn't die (or at least was resurrected) and became the creature we know as Dracula.
Fanciful to be sure, but any less so that "IF INDEED, HE DID???"

I'm quite happy that you "philosophy" dudes have joined our forum but based on the two threads of yours in which I've participated (The other being the mental masturbation entitled Wink) you're either going to have dial the smugness back or I need to pass your posts by.

Have an everloving splendiferous ******* day.

Hi Finn,
I couldn't fit in "AS WAS WRITTEN". The thread would have read "IF, INDEED HE DID, AS WAS WRITTEN" if the title box was bigger (It might be too, I'll try going beyond the margins at a later date).
I did see the film, many years ago, it was "Dracula 2001" over here though - Chris plummer as van helsing, if I recall. Forgive me for not noticing the connection, but I have seen way to many vampire flicks since.
I think it is reasonable to assume that Judas died within a century of his birth. I didn't mean to suggest he was still alive now, though. I am sorry if I led you to believe otherwise.
I do know that Dracula is a fictional character from a novel by Bram stoker, and is in no way based on the immortal embodiment of Judas Iscariot (of Kerioth).

Again - the smug factor arises. Maybe you guys hold philosophy in high esteem, and simply impose the smug-factor thereon, I don't know? All I can say is, Everyone is a philosopher, because it is built upon the shoulders of normal people from normal walks of life.
If you feel the need to display your profanity in my (and everyone else's faces) (there are women and children present), I would rather you passed by on my posts, Finn. It doesn't affect me - I work in a male orientated environment, after all. But, then again, you are concealed by your username - so I guess you can act as immature as you feel the need to.
Best wishes, Finn.
Mark...

Well that cinches it.

I think I'll just pass you by and we'll both be happy.

When you are cutting and pasting, it is standard practice to provide the reference.



(the reference indicators in the post I'm responding to give it away)

Hi Ehbeth,
I can't do that, or capture links, or upload photos, or, or....
Can you teach me how, please?
Did you find it interesting, though.

It is from wikipedia, by the way - sorry the link is missing, but I'm not a veteran PC user.

Thank you Ehbeth.
Have a great day.
Mark...

i know this might be off the topic of Judas, but it helps clarify my point of view of the whole thing. I have brought up this point in other threads before so kill me if this is a rehash of something i have annoyed you with.

Thomas is also another character, in my opinion that is incredibly flat that it is obviously a fictitious person. I know it is one thing to make that kind of claim, but I have a way to showing you what I mean.

Can we safely assume that Thomas witnessed Jesus do maybe one or two of these miracles? Now, perhaps he witnessed all of them, but let's just be safe and say he saw one or two. You can pick any one or two miracles, it does not matter. Now these miracles are things that no one has ever seen before, so jesus would definately hold a high position for them. At least I would assume he would. I mean if i saw someone walk on water or turn water into wine without the use of some kind of trick, i would definitely have a different perspective on the person. If someone were to come up to me later and ask me if i believed jesus did something after already witnessing two other things, i wouldn't be skeptical. Because experience gives credit where credit finds reasonable. Now it could be a lie, but still I would be more inclined to believe based on my previous experience. That being said, after Jesus resurrection we see Thomas doubting it as if he can not believe it. This does not make any sense unless Thomas was a complete moron. I mean if I were Thomas all I would have needed to see was two miracles and anything else Jesus had done, I wouldn't have questioned. (yes i am an easy sell) But yet we see Thomas refusing to accept that Jesus returned to life, in fact he couldn't believe it that he actually requested to poke his fingers into the wounds for evidence. This to me is a red flag. There is no way that he would be that skeptical unless the author is trying to tell the reader something, something in which would not normally happen realistically. That red flag is actually screaming at you that the story is made up and not actual events, but rather trying to get across a message. Yet people skip over the message and believe the story and events are true.

That being said, I can see the story of Judas following suit, not as actual events or a person, since he is also just as flat as Thomas is. But instead the author wants to fill the reader up with a message instead, and that is why the story is so shallow.

I don't know. I wasn't there. This is tabloid, not worthy of philosophy

What, seriously? Pretty much everything questioned in philosophy falls into the category of not being there. Most of cosmology falls not the realm of not being around, not to mention aspects of biology and psychology or anthropology. So much archeology as well and let's toss in plate tectonics and how about the formation of galaxies, planets, solar systems ect? You are closing the door on so many things just because you are not around, doesn't mean you can't find answers and if you just close up shop because you weren't around then i think you are giving up simply because you don't want to bother or take the time to investigate.

HI Krumple,
I discuss these issues with my real-life christian friend on a near daily basis. I completely agree with you, by the way. Jesus's own siblings doubt openly that He was, indeed, the Messiah - The apostles did too. This is quite clear in the N.T. I, like you, would need one proven miraculous event to gain my attention, 2 to seal it. God does not give in to testing - So why would he reveal Himself by using miracles - Faith is about not knowing, once proven - Who needs faith - Faith becomes redundant forthwith.
Anyway - there are a few high ranking christians pondering these questions (one at a time) They have this - The Judas quandry to occupy their minds for now. My friend Mark will not even preach about the death of Judas until there is a resolve on this issue.

But you are discussing religion. People not only have differing opinions based on which Bible their religion teaches from, but the Bible is, I think, a fabrication in part. I searched the net for the Gnostic Gospel of Judas, which I have read, and found really hidious descriptions of how Judas was in actuality a demon (daimon).

Does not one of the 4 New Testament Gospels tell us the he... "Went and hung himself...!"

Hi Costa!

Yes. And another tells us he died at the potters field, and another that he lived. His own gospel tells us of his shock at finding out about his many deaths.

Kind regards!
Mark...

This could prove to be interesting reading

http://www.gnosticjudas.com/forum/general-forums/judasiscariot/did-judas-really-commit-suicide