James Brown

Well, as one of Jesus' Chosen Twelve, he certainly must have had some importance. He certainly received more "on-stage" time than any other disciple with the exception of perhaps Peter. He was important enough to be possessed by Satan himself. He was important enough that the Pharisee's had to debate amongst themselves how to cover up their crime after Mark's Judas hung himself. He might possibly be the only Biblical character for whom a plot of land was named in his memory. I can't think of any other New Testament character other than Jesus whose death was described in two different books. Judas' name and actions were predicted at the Last Supper (or they were ordered, if the Gospel of Judas has anything to say to us). He's the only disciple who was given an actual administrative assignment (Treasurer) unlike all the others who basically followed Jesus around and expressed befuddlement. That the Treasurer was then offered money to undergo the difficult task of identifying a known public figure speaks highly of his skills at handling cash.

But I suppose if conflicting reports about Judas' post-disciple life arose it would be easy to wave him away as just a minor inconsequential figure. It also falls into the traditional "There are zero contradictions in the Bible and all the contradictions that are in the Bible are insignificant and hardly worth discussing" conundrum.

sschlichter

None of that makes it important to know more details about what part of his body hit the ground first when he died. Scarcity of information and contradiction are 2 different things.

~Steve

aa5874

You mean Saul, but Saul did not stone Stephen according to Acts.

James Brown

I'm not sure you're understanding my point. Actually, I'm quite sure you're not understanding it, but I'm not sure why. End of story.

In Matthew, Judas displays enormous guilt for betraying Jesus. He throws the silver back into the temple and immediately leaves to hang himself. End of story.

In Acts, Judas doesn't display any guilt at all. He uses the silver to buy himself a nice piece of land. Later, he accidentally falls and disembowels himself.

There is no indication in Mark that Judas became a wealthy landowner. There is no indication in Acts that Judas felt remorse and committed suicide. As I said earlier, the contradiction is not in how Judas died but in how he lived.

And as others have already mentioned, stating that Judas fell to his death without mentioning that he was swinging from a noose at the time is leaving out a key detail, a detail far more important that figuring out "what part of his body hit the ground first."

gregor

And unstated. Into the same category of irrelevancies, I would also place your apologetics.

sschlichter

I do not really care about that personal stuff.

You made a statement about inerrancy and it being a product of the 1700's. Ironically, you made the statement while claiming to protect this thread from fallacies. So, please help those of us that are un-credentialled and reconcile your statement with that of St. Augustine or retract it.

~Steve

sschlichter

You are confusing guilt with repentance. There is nothing heroic about Judas' driving himself to suicide due to guilt. There is nothing relevant that would make Acts mention the land purchased with the silver pieces in his name. No mention of what he ate before betraying Jesus, no mention of his net worth. no mention of his marital status.

These may be key details in a book about Judas - none of the books in question happen to be on that subject. You could pick any periphery character in any book and point out a lack of definition. Silence is not contradiction.

3 sentences on the death of Abraham Lincoln may appear to be similar. One would say he died because he was shot in a theater (which is true). Another would say he died in a bed after being in a coma for six hours. If you wait 2000 years and then approach those 3 sentences like they are a technical manual, they will appear odd to you.

~Steve

sschlichter

great, I supplied enough information so you knew what incident I was referring to.

gregor

Steve,

I summarized, in brief, an opinion from a scholar on the subject of inerrancy that logically explains why inerrancy became a cause to champion and that contradicts aXian's "just-so story" that people of the time didn't consider it an error, why should you.

If you are having trouble understanding that, it's not my fault.

jab

well put