/lit/ - Literature

Between the two accounts the only facts they are agreed upon are that:

A) Judas dies.

The accounts differ in explaining the manner in which Judas dies. This is a central event at the beginning of the action in Acts though. It happens more or less immediately after Jesus is “resurrected” and then tells the apostles that they will soon be given the power of the Holy Ghost, which they will then use to conquer...er… “bear witness” to the entire world in the name of Jesus. The first order of business for the apostles after the resurrection scene, is appointing a new apostle to take the place of Judas (who is described as having a “bishopric” – being himself an apostle I guess…). Judas’ death in Acts happens in the following manner:

>Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.
>And it was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem; insomuch as that field is called in their proper tongue, Aceldama, that is to say, The field of blood.
Tradcath anons will probably be quick to point out that this is the cringe and bluepilled KJV translation! This is significant because Matthew describes Judas’ death like this:

>And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself.

And the Douay-Rheims edition renders Acts 1:18-9 as follows:

>And he indeed hath possessed a field of the reward of iniquity, and being hanged, burst asunder in the midst: and all his bowels gushed out.
>And it became known to all the inhabitants of Jerusalem: so that the same field was called in their tongue, Haceldama, that is to say, The field of blood.

At this point you’re probably asking yourself, “why does this translation of Acts mention Judas being hanged, but the other one doesn’t?” Go consult the original Greek for yourself if you must be satisfied on this point, but the answer is that (in this case) the DR translation is putting words into the text that do not exist in the original, and the KJV is more or less faithfully translating what we find in the Greek. Why is the Catholic Church trying to LIE to the entire world about the contents of Acts 1:18-9? It doesn’t really matter at this point, since all of Christendom is basically in agreement that they’d RATHER Acts 1:18-9 reads the way it does in the DR. The most common explanation for the discrepancies between the two accounts of Judas’ death basically says that they merely describe different aspects of the same event. One highlights Judas’ hanging himself. The other emphasizes that, after being left hanging, Judas’ body “decomposed” and when it fell off the tree, landed on a rock, after which point his intestines spilled out everywhere.

That might even be a plausible enough reading to basically work. Unfortunately, the manner in which Judas’ death is described is not the only discrepancy between the two accounts. (2/8)

B) A field (called “the field of blood”) was purchased with the money Judas was given in exchange for betraying Jesus.

Both versions of events say a “field of blood” was purchased with Judas’ money from betraying Jesus. However, each has its own version of exactly how, when, and by whom the field was purchased. Matthew says the Pharisees bought the field after Judas returned the money they gave him to betray Jesus and killed himself, since it would have been illegal for them to put blood money into the treasury. In this version of the account, the field is put to use to bury strangers as a kind of public graveyard. It is not exactly clear why the field gets this nickname in Matthew’s version of events.

Acts, on the other hand, says that Judas bought the field himself, and also died in that same location. After word spreads around Jerusalem about Judas’ death, the field then becomes known as the “field of blood.”

Why the two different accounts here? Why the differing details about Judas’ death? Why the completely different accounts of how the “field of blood” came to be named and purchased? Why does DR add language that doesn’t exist in the original text to make you think that both accounts are agreed that Judas died by hanging? (3/8)

2) Some odd patterns in the “miracles” depicted in Acts

Readers of the New Testament will be, of course, familiar with the fact that Jesus was not the only person in the Early Church who is said to have been able to perform miracles. Indeed, many of Paul’s letters describe miracles as being a commonplace occurrence for those with the power of the Holy Ghost. Personally, I’m the kind of person that considers the existence of miracles to be a kind of “big if true” thing. So then, a few strange details about some of the “miracles” that happen in the wake of the Acts of the apostles caught my attention.

Throughout the gospels, Jesus is pretty much the only person who can seriously do any miracles (unless you include Satan). However, in Acts, we discover that this changed very soon (though not immediately) after Christ’s resurrection. By the way, the burial of Christ’s body was handled by a Pharisee who was a known Christian at the time. Why were there Christian Pharisees? Why am I mentioning this? Who knows. The exact time of Judas’ death, when his body was discovered, and other such details, as far as I know, do not appear in any of the accounts.

The very last thing that happens in the first chapter of Acts is that Matthias is appointed to fill Judas’ now vacated position (“from which Judas by transgression fell” Acts 1:25) within the Church as an organization. The very first thing that happens in the second chapter of Acts is that the apostles “receive the Holy Ghost,” which is appealed to as the explanation for every miracle that happens in Acts from this point out. This is an odd scene (odder than you are likely imagining) so I’ll just provide it here really quickly for context:

>And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place.
>And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting.
>And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them.
>And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance. (Acts 2:1-4) (4/8)

Things get weirder from this point. Miracles become a commonplace occurrence in Acts. There are a few common types of miracles we see in the Acts of the apostles. The first miracle they perform is an example of one of the more common types, making a cripple walk, solely through the power of the “holy spirit.” I did not keep count, but there happened to be a lot of cripples miraculously healed by the apostles in front of crowds of people, which thereby boosted their clout. This kind of “faith healing” is still common today, and it’s notable that many of the so-called “miracles” we see apostles like Peter (or later, Paul) performing are these kinds of stunts. That’s maybe anodyne enough. Then there’s also another kind of miracles, which basically involve the apostles getting busted out of jail by “angels.” I say this is an entire category of miracles, because this happens on at least three separate occasions. I have in mind the jailbreaks in Acts 5, 12, and 16 – though I might even be forgetting one or two, given how frequent the apostles run ins with the authorities are. When you see all of the incendiary shit the apostles claim they were running around and saying about how the Jews “killed God” and how they were talking about basically any and all secular or especially religious authorities at the time, then you can see why. All the more “miraculous” then that the apostles manage to keep getting jail-broken by “angels,” and that Peter is effectively allowed to operate this socially agitating, subversive sect from within Jerusalem with total impunity, even as Paul is going around persecuting Christians as vigorously as possible (until he leaves Jerusalem and then has an “encounter” with the “Holy Ghost” on the way to Damascus, that is…). All of the miracles, being miracles, are obviously odd, but some of them are odd in less suspicious (or, at least, obviously suspicious) ways.

Now it’s time to talk about something else from Acts which is less subtly suspicious... (5/8)

3) The OTHER THREE MURDERS

If we include Judas, there may be up to four murders in Acts (if we assume, that is, that there are no “miracles” in the bible and that the “Holy Ghost” isn’t the actual culprit). The second and third murders occur in Acts 5, as Peter is consolidating power, and attempting to bring in a larger congregation. The faithful are encouraged to hand over all their wealth and worldly belongings to Peter and his church (a tactic Jim Jones and many other cult leaders throughout history would be fond of). In exchange for this, the church would take care of the members of its “flock” from the collective wealth it had amassed:

>And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common.
>And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all.
>Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold,
>And laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need. (Acts 4:32-5)
Which brings us to the story of Ananias and his wife Sapphira:
>But a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession,
>And kept back part of the price, his wife also being privy to it, and brought a certain part, and laid it at the apostles' feet.
>But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land?
>Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God.
>And Ananias hearing these words fell down, and gave up the ghost: and great fear came on all them that heard these things. (Acts 5:1-5)
(6/8)

So then, Ananias, presumably a believing Christian, sells some land, and only gives PART of the money to the apostles. Not surrendering all of your assets to the Church is described by Peter as an instance of Satanic deception of the Holy Ghost. Merely HEARING THESE WORDS is enough for Ananias to “give up the ghost.” Acts 5 also reports that “great fear came on all them” that heard Ananias was effectively killed by the “Holy Ghost” for failing to surrender 100% of his assets to Peter. No shit? Continuing onward, Ananias’ wife, Sapphira “not knowing what was done” (Acts 5:7) goes to investigate the whereabouts of her husband when he fails to return home. The whole scene is actually worth reproducing:
>And Ananias hearing these words fell down, and gave up the ghost: and great fear came on all them that heard these things.
>And the young men arose, wound him up, and carried him out, and buried him.
>And it was about the space of three hours after, when his wife, not knowing what was done, came in.
>And Peter answered unto her, Tell me whether ye sold the land for so much? And she said, Yea, for so much.
>Then Peter said unto her, How is it that ye have agreed together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord? behold, the feet of them which have buried thy husband are at the door, and shall carry thee out.
>Then fell she down straightway at his feet, and yielded up the ghost: and the young men came in, and found her dead, and, carrying her forth, buried her by her husband.
>And great fear came upon all the church, and upon as many as heard these things.
>And by the hands of the apostles were many signs and wonders wrought among the people; (and they were all with one accord in Solomon's porch.) (Acts 5:5-12)
This, to say the least, is a very odd miracle. The only really “miraculous” part of this miracle is that Ananias and Sapphira both spontaneously die, immediately upon being admonished by Peter. My favorite part is the gang of young men who almost seem to know the drill as soon as someone dies in Peter’s presence. Just to emphasize, these young men in this scene bury not only one, but two bodies, no questions asked. I’m willing to wager that these are odd details even if you’re inclined to believe miracles exist. A final point that bears repeating here is that it is mentioned that both of these deaths caused great fear not only upon the church, but also upon “as many as heard these things.” Do I really need to spell this one out any more than this? (7/8)

This is not the last murder that happens in the book of Acts (although, oddly enough, there are additional cases of St. Peter shouting at certain people telling them to die over extremely minor transgressions [see, Acts 8:20]). At bare minimum, it is another “miraculous” death brought upon an enemy of the church, but a few details surrounding the account of the death of King Herod are suspicious. For all you casual Bible fans out there, yes, I am talking about the same King Herod who had John the Baptist beheaded in order to impress a whore. The early church spends a lot of time being persecuted. After Paul is converted, the main persecutor of the Christians in Judea is Herod. Shortly after one of Peter’s escapes from jail, King Herod dies of “worms” (Acts 12). Supposedly, the “worms” referred to intestinal worms from all of the un-kosher pork that Herod was eating. Herod was well known for being a Hellenizing Jew, so it makes sense that this kind of story about how he died (from eating pork) would resonate with a Jewish audience. “Maybe he really did eat too much under-cooked pork though?” You might be asking yourself at this point – but that’s only because I’m not done explaining everything that makes this case strange. The first details we get after Herod’s death scene are the following:
>Now there were in the church that was at Antioch certain prophets and teachers; as Barnabas, and Simeon that was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen, which had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul. (Acts 13:1)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manahen

Manahen, Herod’s supposed “foster brother” makes no appearance anywhere else in Acts (he is apparently mentioned in the gospel of Luke [Luke is also the author of Acts]). He is only mentioned immediately after Herod’s death scene to establish that he was in Antioch at the time. Nowhere near the scene of the crime...er… “miracle.” So of course he didn’t have anything to do with it! This is an odd detail though. Why did Herod have a Christian foster brother? According to the wikipedia article:

>He may have become a disciple of Jesus with "Joanna, the wife of Chusa, Herod's steward" (Luke 8:3).

So, not only was Herod’s foster brother a Christian, but his foster brother was converted to Christianity by his own steward, Joanna. So Herod’s steward and foster brother belonged to the same Messianic agitation cult group that he was in the process of persecuting when he died from a totally unrelated miracle that allegedly happened because someone complemented one of his speeches for being “godlike” and he did not admonish them. Perhaps. Perhaps it was all really just a coincidence and he really did die from eating too much non-kosher food…

(7.5/8)

This is of course only suggestive, but I’d recommend taking a look at the specific symptoms to which Herod succumbed, and compare them with the symptoms of one of the most popular poisons during ancient Roman times, the “belladonna,” or “deadly nightshade”:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herod_the_Great#Death
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atropa_belladonna

I have to admit, at this point, the speculation about the exact method of murder for Herod here is hypothetical. It seems clear though that the Christians had both opportunity, and motive here; that they had killed before (at least Ananias and Sapphira) and so it wasn’t beneath them; the only question is, did they do it? Or was their greatest enemy in Judea “miraculously” taken out of the picture purely by the grace of God?

So then, in the context of everything else we know purely from the Acts of the apostles alone, ask yourself the following question one more time: did Judas really kill himself? Was Judas so stricken by remorse for what he had just done that (presumably before even hearing news of the resurrection) he hanged himself and returned his “blood money” all right before Peter and the rest of the apostles were primed to go on a miracle riddled crime spree/agitation campaign throughout Judea? Ask yourself another question, if everything else I’ve said here about the activities of the apostles and the early church is even half true (and I’m just going off of Luke’s own account of these events here) then would it be more convenient for Peter and the gang to have Judas out of the way and replaced with a loyal stooge, or would it have been less convenient to have a disloyal defector apostle at large in the world to challenge them? The obvious answer is that whether or not Judas was murdered it seems that the apostles only stood to benefit from having him out of the way. Good thing they were all just praying together with the Virgin Mary the whole time after Jesus was crucified so that they all had their alibi’s straight when Judas “killed himself” …

QED (8/8)

Lmao I'm not gonna read your shit thread. Cope Atheist.

>>17715954

I only see one of us coping here lol

>>17715659
corrigendum:

Joanna was the wife of Herod's steward (Chuza), and not directly his steward herself. This still puts her (a known Christian who traveled with the apostles and Christ) in more or less the same proximity to Herod's inner circle and the goings on of the business of the house steward

You already got BTFO out in one thread. Why come back for more?

>>17717207

BTFO by non arguments and anons saying they didn't even read the post? Not a chance.

Hit me with your best shot. If you can really disprove my theory, then I'll gladly take the L and stop bringing it up.

>>17715629
Bowel wall hemorrhage is common in deaths by hanging. Judas hung himself and then his body busted open.
>>17715635
Of course judas "bought it himself" because the money never went into the treasury.
>>17715640
Christian pharasees exist because anyone in any profession can be saved. Apostles were given more power with miracles because they were meant to be spectacles unto the world and get the church built up. No one else has the authority to be an apostle other than the twelve plus barnabas and paul.
>>17715651
The death of ananias and sapphira echoes the warning in joshua 7. Don't steal god's tithes.
>>17715659
Worms eat dead bodies. Its common knowledge

>>17717270

>Bowel wall hemorrhage is common in deaths by hanging.

I already admitted this was possible. What I'm suggesting is that, given a lot of the other things we see about the apostles, other explanations present themselves as at least equally plausible.

>Of course judas "bought it himself" because the money never went into the treasury

Why wouldn't it read that way in both of the stories though? It doesn't, and they both give totally different explanations of why it was called "the field of blood"

>Christian pharasees exist because anyone in any profession can be saved

Usually anyone can be recruited into a cult. Especially an official the leaders want corrupted...

>The death of ananias and sapphira echoes the warning in joshua 7.

So you're saying the story is allegorical? Or that God killed these people in order to do a callback to a story in the torah? Not sure how to take this in any way that isn't extremely odd.

>Worms eat dead bodies. Its common knowledge

See Josephus' account of Herod's death. I think he explicitly mentions the story about the stomach worms there.

>>17715624
Imagine getting this mad over christianity. All you gotta do is believe in jesus bro. Simple as. No need for excessive prayer or flogging yourself. Just a belief. Easiest ticket to heaven ever

>>17717342
>I already admitted this was possible. What I'm suggesting is that, given a lot of the other things we see about the apostles, other explanations present themselves as at least equally plausible.
The kjv bible is pretty straightforward. I don't see good evidence to not see him busting open afterwards.
>Why wouldn't it read that way in both of the stories though? It doesn't, and they both give totally different explanations of why it was called "the field of blood"
It does read that way in both though, judas had some money, the pharasees bought the potters field, judas died and splattered all over that field
>So you're saying the story is allegorical? Or that God killed these people in order to do a callback to a story in the torah?
I think the story is literal, and a callback. The kjv has a lot of fractal stories that reference and prophecy other stories. "nothing new under the sun"
>See Josephus' account of Herod's death. I think he explicitly mentions the story about the stomach worms there.
I've seen it. Either way, herod was a prideful person who ended up dead as a doorknob like everyone else. And im sure worms had a nice meal on him since he's better as compost than a person

>>17717431

You can have as much fun as you want choosing not to believe my theory in favor of a more comfortable alternative, but none of this addresses why my interpretation of it doesn't work. I automatically have to revert to any other view than this one if it's merely possible? That doesn't seem right.

>>17717216
St Aquinas already addressed this matter thoroughly many hundreds of years ago including your specific objections to the orthodox view in Catena Aurea. I suggest that you read and study all four volumes in toto for the sake of context before you post here again.

>>17717832
I don't think it's a "comfortable" alternative. It's more like the logical alternative. If these apostles were as bloodthirsty as you believe, then why did they stop at only 4 murders? Why allow themselves to be martyred? If they had such miracle work then surely they could have easily challenged anyone who dared try and kill them?

>>17715624
>>17715635
>>17715640
>>17715643
>>17715649
>>17715651
>>17715659
Very cool anon

Why would they canonize their own heinous murders though?

>>17717893

The logical alternative is there were miracles? Ha.

>why did they stop at only 4 murders?

These are just the ones that I noticed mentioned in Acts. Who knows how many more hypothetically wouldn't have rated a mention? The Christians did a lot of book burning when they took over too, so who knows what's been eliminated from the historical record.

>Why allow themselves to be martyred?

I have theories about this, but it requires a bit more going into than purely what I've laid out above. I promise to go into it in the next post, but before I do I want to ask, why do you think they might? Can you really not think of any reason?

>>17717857

Thanks for the recommendation anon. I'll read this later.

Would you care giving a real argument instead now? Maybe just a tl;dr of how Aquinas totally addresses the argument I'm putting out here? Some recommendations of some relevant passages to look at?

>>17717923

My guess is bragging / intimidation. A common cult tactic is also making members complicit in crimes committed by the organization so that they feel blackmailed into protecting its reputation. Lmk if you want me to elaborate on that or w/e

>>17717950
If you have time to write an 8 post essay you expect us to read on an image board you have time to research what actual biblical commentators have had to say on the relevant passages yourself.

>>17717941
>The logical alternative is there were miracles?
Yes. We're talking about supernatural stories, and the logical narrative is that the kjv laid out events plainly since it's theme is meant to be simple for all to understand.
>why do you think they might? Can you really not think of any reason?
If you're trying to say they willingly committed themselves to torturous death just to plant a seed then i just can't agree with you on that. It's absurd to think they'd willingly submit to rome's heinous torture sports just to appeal to a simple minority. Their followers weren't even battle trained. They were literal sheep. Theres no reward in dying for sheep unless you get a reward from the shepherd.

I think it’s pretty plausible Judas did hang himself for giving up Jesus to the authorities. Betrayers committing suicide is not a new or novel phenomenon, and Judas happened to betray someone in whose name he had been performing miracles, and traveling with, for three years. They knew each other deeper than friendship. Judas was one of only 12 men who considered themselves the disciple of a man claiming to be the Messiah. Suicide just makes more sense in the case of the murder.
The other two cases are purely conjectural, so there isn’t anything to “disprove.” Especially since you flatly do not believe in miracles. but within the scope of the Bible, it’s not at all unusual for people to just die for sins or for whatever reason the Lord pleases; you might even call it deus ex machina
Your interpretation owes more to a post-structuralist hermeneutic than to a proper, impartial scholarly analysis, but I can’t really fault you for that. Unfortunately that is the culture in which we are steeped. But reading Acts as a chronicle of cynical cultists desperately trying to subvert the Roman Empire from the inside requires faith, just as reading it as a sincere if hagiographical history of the early church, as was intended by the author, requires faith. Neither are necessarily supported by concrete “evidence.” We just weren’t there. Whether you are conscious of it or not, you have chosen to have faith in a modern, anarchistic hermeneutic that says all power and influence is initially established by violence. There’s just no evidence for your position, which one might say, conjecturally yet convincingly, is the result of a hermeneutic designed to reduce all non liberal ethical systems to rubble and thereby expand free trade between groups with different belief systems. One might say you are a cleric for the future global joint stock corporation: the neoliberal kingdom of heaven. I digress

>>17718067
Wise tonto

>>17718018

You caught me. I'm not reading a four volume work in a single night after making an 8 post thread. You obviously have nothing to say of substance for yourself here. I won't bother with this kind of fly swatting for now. Say something substantive if you want another (you)

>>17718030

>We're talking about supernatural stories, and the logical narrative is that the kjv laid out events plainly since it's theme is meant to be simple for all to understand.

Fiction is fun, but I'm trying to think about what would have actually gone down here. I'm fully aware of what the surface level narrative is. Unfortunately, that's besides the point of whether or not there might be anything else going on here underneath the surface, which gives us a more consistent way to explain some of the discrepancies between the accounts about Judas' death (among other things). It's important to remember also that the content of the doctrine of the early church was not just stories about miracles. The political aspect of the messianic teachings is still fully in play here.

>It's absurd to think they'd willingly submit to rome's heinous torture sports

Here you're naturally just talking about the apostles and not any other random sap who happened to get sucked into the Christian orbit and started drinking the koolaid. Nothing I have said up here necessarily contradicts that some or all of the apostles may have actually had some conviction in their theological doctrines. On the other hand, Jim Jones knew he was lying to everyone and still drank the kool-aid anyways. The way Acts portrays Paul getting sent to Rome to be judged makes it almost sound like a miscalculation on Paul's part. If I wanted to be totally cynical, I might hypothesize that they became victims of their own success and then by the time they were captured and martyred they were already later on in their years anyhow.

However, what needs to be considered here in thinking about this is the political aspect of Hebrew messianic theology. One of the reasons so many Jews rejected Christ as the messiah is that he did not drive out the Romans and conquer the world or anything like that, but instead wound up being executed by them. You can see throughout Paul's letters that the political aspect of the messiah is still totally in operation for Christians who believed Jesus to be this messiah. Being part of the church involved withdrawing from society and being "dead to the world" in order to be alive to Christ. The Christians are described as being "outside the law" and are always hyping up how much they are being persecuted. Many of the rules in Christianity exist specifically to violate Roman laws as a provocation. It's not difficult to imagine they may have become radicalized to the point where they were willing to be executed as part of a public spectacle. Public executions of Christians were a major propaganda hit at the time.

>>17715624
Look up the term "act of God" and what it means in a legal context.
>>17718067
exceptional post

>>17718184
You can't honestly compare jim jones to the apostles. He had a nice afternoon sip whilst peter was crucified upside down. I wouldn't mind death if it came in cherry flavor either. Not to mention, most apostles and christians were continually beaten within inches of their life on a regular basis. What cult does that? Not any i know of. And the point of contention with the jews was because of their reasoning that the messiah would come to earth and immediately smite Israel's enemies. The OT book isiah specifically states that the messiah was to be a sacrifice before he became a king. The cornerstone of Christianity became thier stumbling block because they couldn't even understand their own prophet's words.
>You can see throughout Paul's letters that the political aspect of the messiah is still totally in operation for Christians who believed Jesus to be this messiah. Being part of the church involved withdrawing from society and being "dead to the world" in order to be alive to Christ.
In no way are christians supposed to withdraw from society. You're "dead to the world" because you don't partake in sinful acts as others do, but Christians must still partake in society in order to shine enlightenment upon others with their good works and testimony of the gospel.
>The Christians are described as being "outside the law" and are always hyping up how much they are being persecuted. Many of the rules in Christianity exist specifically to violate Roman laws as a provocation
Untrue as well. Jesus and the apostles specifically ordered christians to follow governmental laws. Read Romans for a summary. It's stated both in the OT and the NT that the powers and principalities these nations ruled with are to be respected and obeyed. They didn't have to hype up any persecution because christians were being blame for burning down entire cities (which the emperor ordered)

>>17718067

This is a thoughtful response. I'll try to go point by point.

> it’s pretty plausible Judas did hang himself for giving up Jesus to the authorities

I don't disagree with this. However, plausibility is a much lower threshold than probability. What I'm trying to do here is to show how another account is in play that also has explanatory powers throughout the rest of the text (as a historical or doxological document). Maybe suicide does make sense. That does not necessarily entail that murder does NOT make sense. At that point it becomes a question of weighing which alternatives provide the most persuasive account of actual events, or whether to just give up and assume everything in here was totally invented out of whole cloth (which I assume is a move Christians are not interested in making).

>you might even call it deus ex machina

Quite right. Very convenient too once the authorities start coming around trying to ask annoying questions about any "miracles" that may or may not have transpired in your "outside the law" weirdo commune cult compounds. These are just things that are difficult not to suspect though. The information we're dealing with here (at least in the context of this discussion) is admittedly very limited. I think I've been open about the fact that I'm putting forward an interpretation. What I want is to see if anyone can poke any holes in it or shut it down.
So far, I'm not seeing a lot in the way of that.

Your next point, I think, was still serious nonetheless.

>Your interpretation owes more to a post-structuralist hermeneutic than to a proper, impartial scholarly analysis, but I can’t really fault you for that. Unfortunately that is the culture in which we are steeped.

Once again, quite right (I'm not sure how what I'm doing here is post-structuralist per se, but I also can't claim to be allergic to most of that stuff either). Hopefully I come across as more competent than most of the crowd running around talking like a bunch of freshmen who just read Nietzsche for the first time like a bunch of kids at a party who found dad's gun under the bed on accident and decided to start playing cops and robbers (I'm choosing to take "cleric for the future global joint stock corporation" as a compliment - backhanded compliments still count!).

>Neither are necessarily supported by concrete “evidence.” We just weren’t there.

That's right. However, it's all a question of how we interpret the evidence at hand. I wouldn't exactly describe this as "faith" in the same way you would, but Kant probably would so fuck it. I don't disagree with that general point. It's at the end of the day a matter of alternative stories we can reconstruct from the rubble of history. I don't think this is really as much of a stretch as you make it out to be. Does it require some imagination? A bit. A lot less than the version of events littered with all these extremely convenient "miracles" in my view.

(1/2)

>>17718067

>Your interpretation owes more to a post-structuralist hermeneutic than to a proper, impartial scholarly analysis, but I can’t really fault you for that. Unfortunately that is the culture in which we are steeped.

Fair enough. Hopefully I come across as more competent than the usual "just read Nietzsche for the first time" dolts you see all the time acting like a bunch of kids who found dad's gun at a party and decided to start playing cops and robbers.

>reading Acts as a chronicle of cynical cultists desperately trying to subvert the Roman Empire from the inside requires faith, just as reading it as a sincere if hagiographical history of the early church, as was intended by the author, requires faith. Neither are necessarily supported by concrete “evidence.”

You're right maybe about this kind of interpretation being unable to be settled definitively one way or the other by "evidence." I'm developing this theory because I haven't really seen it articulated, and I was worrying that as I was reading the text I wasn't meeting with as much friction running with it as I would expect if I was really forcing a reading into the damn thing. The main impetus for this thread (other than to throw down the gauntlet on this) was to see if others could provide that friction. You're the closest anyone's come to giving me a proper argument. Unfortunately, your discussions of this "hermeneutic" I'm using are not germane to my argument or purpose here. First of all, hermeneutics don't disintegrate cultures to make was for free trade - it's the other way around if anything. Setting that aside, you won't see me going to the mat for neoliberalism. You won't see me going to the mat for this culture destroying middle eastern revolutionary mass suicide cult either though. If you think it's a bad thing that if Christianity is out of the way liberalism will remain ascendant then it's your job to give me some reasons for not deciding this explanation should be considered or adopted as a lens for viewing the church. Christianity is already a ruin, so the idea of making it official doesn't particularly bother me. It should either exert itself to justify its continued transmission or just drop off already. I could make an equal and opposed argument that Christianity does 10x more work to support the neoliberal kingdom of heaven than anything I'm doing here. Ball's in your court though.

(2/2)

>>17718294

>In no way are christians supposed to withdraw from society.

In the letters Paul is pretty clear that the Christians are literally living by themselves separated from Pagan society.

>Jesus and the apostles specifically ordered christians to follow governmental laws. Read Romans for a summary.

This is true. Unfortunately, there is a problem with that, which is that they are supposed to disobey the laws when it comes to having tribute for Roman gods and such things. This was obviously illegal when they came up with the rule. If you're just going with the "pious" narrative here, then that's just how it was because God said so oopsie woopsie! Under this version of things though you can see that rule as having the explicit purpose of mobilizing the church in messianic political antagonism.

>>17718543

>>17718367
CORRELATION DOES NOT EQUAL CAUSATION

CORRELATION DOES NOT EQUAL CAUSATION

CORRELATION DOES NOT EQUAL CAUSATION!!!

>>17718184
>Fiction is fun, but I'm trying to think about what would have actually gone down here

Open the church father's read what they say about Judas. no need for essays of this BS speculation.

>>17718570
>in the letters Paul is pretty clear that the Christians are literally living by themselves separated from Pagan society.
Im going to have to stop right here. It's been a time and a half debating you, but now i realize that you've not read any of Paul's epistles, or, if you have, you have poor reading comprehension. O don't mean that as an insult, and i hope you take it as a critique about how you need to read more about the subjects you choose to argue about. Good day to you, anon, and i pray you read the bible

>>17718570
>In the letters Paul is pretty clear that the Christians are literally living by themselves separated from Pagan society.
>Christian pharasees exist because anyone in any profession can be saved

Usually anyone can be recruited into a cult. Especially an official the leaders want corrupted...
The christians blended themselves into society. And before you say "the pharasees weren't pagan" they still weren't christian. And there were centurions who became christians as well

>>17718626
>>17718626

>Bear not the yoke with unbelievers. For what participation hath justice with injustice? Or what fellowship hath light with darkness? [15] And what concord hath Christ with Belial? Or what part hath the faithful with the unbeliever?

>[16] And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? For you are the temple of the living God; as God saith: I will dwell in them, and walk among them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. [17] Wherefore, Go out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing: [18] And I will receive you; and I will be a Father to you; and you shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.

This is from Corinthians 6. I might be misremembering a few other passages, but they're definitely not supposed to be interacting with pagans other than the bare minimum necessary to try and rope them into getting Christianized. They're depicted as living together in Jerusalem in Acts as well. If there is an error in here on my part then it's not one large enough to warrant this kind of flippant response since the point that the church was encouraging social isolation from pagan society is still valid (even if only some Christians lived in common). 'Tis sadly cope. Go ahead and wriggle away from the argument though if that helps...

>>17718678

Yeah right exactly. They were separate from society except in as much as they could "blend in" and then use their subterfuge to claim more power/converts. The church goes viral pretty early on. None of that meant it started losing its cultlike structure though. You could also see it as evidence that the cult structure was working. Centurions converting wasn't that strange as monotheism was already popular among the military because of Sol Invictus.

>>17718265
>>17718067
This is super-cope. Like if you read Harry Potter certainly everything is cohesive if you take J.K. Rowling at her word (but why would you do that?) or if you take these random murderers as being somehow able to not only psyop people without any concept of “cult behavior”, but also by using fear-based programming of any kind— did none of you here ever learn from Jim Jones or NXIUM? These people threatened others with either their gang killing them or with the idea that somehow not participating in the gang is evil. That’s so fucking stupid. Imagine sitting here defending the Crips or Bloods 1500 years from now like it’s some serious type of spiritual choice. Being incredulous rubes who believe in anyone’s shoddy account of miracles merely because you were indoctrinated into it, or remain a tenant to the abusive landlord merely because it’s easier than trying to find truth just makes you lazy idiots, you’re not somehow being “faithful”, that’s turbo-cope for being unable to critique the material.

You’re literally Harry Potter worshippers, and 2000 years from now when people unironically will be worshipping dumb shit and liars from OUR age it’ll be equally as stupid then and you useful morons will line up equally to defend whatever trash you were indoctrinated into.

I have not met anyone who was religious and did not have parents who shared the same religion. That’s a major red flag and your argument reeks of this. It’s also just a fucking mishmash of horrible shit trying to be a parasite on other REAL religions. Why do they use the Germanic name of “Wodan” in place of “Yahweh” which is the real Hebrew pantheon? Why are there DOCUMENTED cases of the god Yahweh being one of many in the Canaanite Pantheon? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Canaanite_religion

Why are there references to the “wife of god” being “Asherah” who is ALSO in the Canaanite pantheon? You’re fucking cope-fiends. The most obvious logic is that the ancients didn’t have all this information in one place and with it, this little desert horseshit is not believable. It’s intended to deceive and it does that but little else.

All the tropes are stolen. Your religion thrives on thievery, deception, and threats against you unless you’re paying into it.

Grade:
These refutations are trash. Do better; apply yourself. 23/100 F-

>>17718588
>>17718581
>I’m going to post a reaction because I don’t have anything to say

It’s just like watching my gf post on Facebook.

>>17718841
Psychology didnt exist then. Stfu.

>>17718877
That’s exactly the point based retard. Psychology didn’t exist then so these tricks worked better. You can’t accuse people of running a gaslighting operation if you don’t have the words for it yet. If the ONLY thing I’m going to see in this thread is
>didn’t read OP I am small brain
>cringe fedora I was born Christian
>the Bible is true if the Bible is true
>you’re gonna burn in hell but IM not gonna burn in YOUR hell!
>ok Yahweh isn’t part of the Canaanite pantheon except he is but that’s a different Yahweh obviously
>ok yeah Judas didn’t kill himself that’s just the interpretation of gods word
>ok Yahweh’s wife being in the Bible as gods word is that time a coincidence

Which is it you retards? Is the Bible the word of Yahweh the desert demon, or is it INTENTIONALLY ridden with inconsistencies and bullshit?

>>17718877
Literally half the Bible is them trying to go around and revise Asherah out of existence because it really undermines the whole “muh supreme Yahweh” shit. How come Jews get BTFO all the time if there’s a supreme being at work? Mate you’re just too fucking stupid if you’re gonna cope yourself to death on this.

Jesus, if I read the word "cope" one more time in this thread, I'm going to go hang myself, fall headlong, and split open my intestines in a field of blood which I purchased by proxy.

>>17716054
Is it you?