/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.17709066]

So I finally figured it was time to get around to reading the entire New Testament (do I really need an excuse?).

Full disclosure, I don't believe in this shit, and I wasn't going into it really with either the intention of refuting it (why bother) or of shopping around for a religion to convert to (why bother).

Nonetheless, I've noticed a few disturbing details that, to put it as mildly as possible, I have some questions about.
Now, that being said, once you start pulling on some of these threads, as with anything else, they lead to further questions. This makes the whole situation in general rather complicated and unruly, as it concerns not just the "message" of the texts in the New Testament, but the origins and structure of Christianity as a religion as such. I won't be able to give a totally exhaustive explanation of exactly what all of this seems to mean about Christianity in the OP, but most of the problem really comes into play during only one particular book in the NT: the Acts of the Apostles. Don't let yourself be lulled into complacency that what I'm going to be bringing up here is only going to be relevant to a one off book. If there's anything to the theory I'm about to lay out here, then there are arguably additional "clues" in most of Paul's letters and at least Matthew (which was written around the same time as Acts) that point towards the way I'm reading some of this bullshit.

Basically, what I'm going to be arguing here is that there is strong enough evidence within the text of the New Testament itself to suggest that Judas did not actually kill himself, as is reported in Matthew (27:3-10).

>Do you have a single fact to back that up?

1) There are two accounts of Judas’ death in the New Testament. One of them occurs in Matthew 27:3-10. The other in Acts 1:18-9 (acts was written by Luke icydk). There are commonplace arguments in Christian apologetics for how these two accounts don’t actually contradict each other. Here’s why that’s cope.

[Anonymous No.17709072]

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.

[Anonymous No.17709075]

>>17709066
>>17709072
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?

[Anonymous No.17709082]

>>17709066
>>17709072
>>17709075

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)

[Anonymous No.17709092]

>>17709066
>>17709072
>>17709075
>>17709082

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 four separate occasions. 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...

[Anonymous No.17709100]

>>17709066
>>17709072
>>17709075
>>17709082
>>17709092

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)

[Anonymous No.17709111]

>>17709066
>>17709072
>>17709075
>>17709082
>>17709092
>>17709100

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?

[Anonymous No.17709120]

>>17709066
>>17709072
>>17709075
>>17709082
>>17709092
>>17709100
>>17709111
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…

[Anonymous No.17709124]

>>17709066
>>17709072
>>17709075
>>17709082
>>17709092
>>17709100
>>17709111
>>17709120

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” – NOT!

QED

[Anonymous No.17709146]

This has to be some of the most schizo pedantry I've ever seen on this board.

[Anonymous No.17709192]

I ain't reading all that shit. Jesus bought some land and hanged himself on it. He either had a bad rope or misjudged the length of the noose or the fall and the rope snapped and he burst open when he hit the ground or his head got ripped off like what happened with Saddam Hussein. Saying he fell and busted open in no way contradicts him hanging himself. Those two frequently go together. Ain't nobody got time to read the rest of that.

[Anonymous No.17709205]

>>17709146
This has to be one of the biggest cope posts of all time. I’m making a screenshot.

[Anonymous No.17709221]

>>17709066
what a crazy picture

[Anonymous No.17709234]

>>17709192
*Judas I mean. Good old autocorrect. Also it doesn't matter if Judas bought the field or the Jewish court bought it with the blood money because they couldn't keep it in the treasury. Judas still bought it either way.

[Anonymous No.17709259]

>>17709192
>I ain’t reading all that shit
>on the literary board
>about reading

Lol, why even post you retard?

[Anonymous No.17709265]

>>17709146
I don't care, I like it. If you don't notice weird inconsistencies when you read the Bible, then I got a bridge I want to sell you.

[Anonymous No.17709267]

>>17709066
>Basically, what I'm going to be arguing here is that there is strong enough evidence within the text of the New Testament itself to suggest that Judas did not actually kill himself, as is reported in Matthew (27:3-10).
There could be an equally strong argument made that Judas wasn't a traitor per se, he was acting on the will of Jesus. It explains why he was so wounded when he was told that he would be the one to betray Jesus. It could be argued further that his suicide is what made him a pariah, given the graphic account of his hanging and resultant disembowelment.

IF Judas had returned and been forgiven it would have been the greatest redemption story in the New Testament. Instead he killed himself out of shame and the agony of having to betray someone he recognised as his God in the Flesh.

[Anonymous No.17709271]

>>17709259
Not that guy but I'm also not reading all of that. Did you enjoy reading the bible though?

[Anonymous No.17709276]

>>17709271
>I can’t read very well or fast
>/lit/ is a big brain board

Choose one you fags lmao.

[Anonymous No.17709280]

>>17709111
discredited your argument

[Anonymous No.17709287]

>>17709265
name one

[Anonymous No.17709292]

>>17709265
I like that you went to a lot of effort to make this thread.

[Anonymous No.17709336]

>>17709292

But anon, he's not OP

[Anonymous No.17709367]

>>17709336
then who are you?

[Anonymous No.17709380]

>>17709367

OP :^)

[Anonymous No.17709395]

>>17709380
nonce

[Anonymous No.17709405]

>>17709395
No u

[Anonymous No.17709406]

>>17709405
This is why I come here

[Anonymous No.17709407]

>>17709066
Reading the New Testament is a cultural touchstone that shows up in many other genres and themes. It’s worth it to furthering your understanding of narratives especially ones involving redemption.