Jesus murdered Judas?

I am confused a bit by comments you have made in other threads that kinda claim you like satan and he is the good guy but now you seem to state he is the bad guy and he is jesus.

What is your view? who is the good guy and who is the bad guy?

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim

originally posted by: chr0naut
The Gospels were originally written in Greek.

Nope. Matthew as according to Irenaeus of Lyons c. 180 AD:

Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect... [Against Heresies 3:1:1]

According to www.catholic.com...

We do not know for certain whether any of the Gospels were written in Aramaic. An early Christian writer named Papias wrote (c. A.D. 120) that Matthew wrote the oracles of Christ "in the Hebrew tongue." This is ambiguous because "the Hebrew tongue" could refer to the language known as Hebrew or to Aramaic, which was the tongue commonly spoken by Jews at that time.

The synoptic gospels (Mark, Matthew and Luke) all draw on a common source, often referred to as Gospel Q or Quelle (Fr. Source), these gospels are structured in the same way, contain mostly the same stories and contains quite a bit of "Hebrewfifacions" Hebrew/Aramiaic words that have made it into the Greek versions that surfaced later. There is near full consensus that this Quelle source must have been written in Hebrew/Aramaic/Syriac, and possibly by Matthew, not to be mixed with the book we have today, called Matthew.

tyndalearchive.com...

Bivin and Blizzard relate research by Dr. Robert L. Lindsey as to the history of the synoptic gospels. Within five years after the death of Jesus, a biographer (believed to be Matthew) recorded the story of Jesus in Hebrew. At once, there was a demand in the Greek-speaking churches for a translation of the biography into Greek. A very literal translation was made. A few years later, stories and parts of stories were removed and arranged topically. Shortly after, a Greek author tried to reconstruct the story. Luke used the latter two of these records as his sources. Mark used Luke's work and the topically-arranged Greek as his sources. Matthew used Mark's work and the topically-arranged Greek as his sources. The current gospel may have been written by someone other than the Matthew who is believed to have written the original biography.

Thus, if this is correct, the original writing was composed in Hebrew, not Greek, or even Aramaic. The authors, throughout their book, present evidence to support their position. Statistics are quoted to show that over 90% of the Bible, including Old Testament quotes in the New Testament, was written in Hebrew, with about 1% in Aramaic, and the rest in Greek. If Bivin and Blizzard are right, there needs to be a change in thinking about the origin of the synoptic gospels and the resultant translations. They quote from Eusebius in Ecclesiastical History, giving evidence that it was known in his day that Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew. Eusebius himself had quoted other writers, Papias (Book III, Chapter 39, page 127), Irenæus (Book V, Chapter 8, page 187), Origen (Book VI, Chapter 25, page 245), and Eusebius himself (Book III, Chapter 24, page 108).

The editor of Ecclesiastical History adds the following footnote to the comment of Papias: "The author here, doubtless, means Syro-Chaldaic, which is sometimes in Scripture, and writers, called Hebrew." Papias adds that it had to be translated, which suggests that it was not in the language of the church. Smith agrees with Origin that Matthew wrote to the Jews, but unlike Origen, he does not mention that it was written in Hebrew. The compilers of The Bible Almanac mention that Matthew wrote first in Syriac, Syro-Chaldaic, Aramaic, or Hebrew and that he may have rewritten later in Greek for wider use.

Though there is no physical evidence present of any trace of much anything Christian from before 70 AD, even less evidence is found of any Aramaic/Hebrew writings belonging to said tradition. But we do know from commentaries and second hand sources that the first gospels were circulated in Aramaic. But this is a whole different discussion altogether.

I didn't know that Irenaeus said that.

I did know about the belief that there was a 'Q' document. I am undecided about its existence at present, pending some actual proof. The proposed sequence of textual attributions you describe is also entirely theoretical and is not the only one.

It occurs to me that early fabricated stories of Jesus would have suffered from the fact that there were many (not just disciples) alive who were first hand witnesses and could point out the errors. There are references in the letters that the disciples said, essentially, 'remember what you saw'.

Every other evidential document that we have (and there is a substantial volume) is either Greek or has hallmarks in the text suggesting that it was translated from the Greek.

Thank you for that information, though.

There is also the time frame issue.

Who died first Judas or Jesus?

I really should just opt out of this discussion. It has to be one of the dumbest ideas ever.
The claim that something like baking soda was used to kill Judas for his betrayal after the last supper seems odd to me.
One would think that if Judas was set to explode, then it would have happened long before he got to the temple to collect his coin. If he did not die by then, then perhaps it would have happened sometime prior to showing up at the garden to give Christ the Kiss? If not by then sometime before he tried to give the money back... and if not by then sometime before he bought the potters field.

That amount of time does not seem to jive with the mentos experiment does it?

originally posted by: Utnapisjtimoriginally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: chr0naut

Utnapsijtim: The last supper was the last time Jesus and Judas saw each other before the arrest. A fermenting sourdough or leaven or for that matter, it can last for days. Normal yeast has a grow factor of ca 1, meaning it potentially doubles in size. May I remind you that when the yeast is introduced into the belly and intestines, it will spread and just about everything in your tummy would start to grow. Fats and liqueur will typically retard the fermenting process, but if the yeast has is already entered the system, luck and miracle may be your only friends.

How did the rest of the Apostles escape this confusion "OH that has yet to BE baked bread, ITS STILL DOUGH", suspiciously thinking "what is it doing here and not in the oven"; and that other THING, bread was generally unleavened in that time period (NO YEAST added) and was a fried/grilled tasty flat bread.

originally posted by: deadeyedick
There is also the time frame issue.

Who died first Judas or Jesus?

Judas, he was poisoned by unleavened flat bread soaked with an olive oil baking soda mix which caused him to have a break with reality (hung himself). I thought Judas and Jesus were friends and had an agreement before incarnation: this is what is to happen (handshake agreement).

SMOKE ANOTHER ONE
a reply to: Utnapisjtim

a reply to: guitarplayer

don't mind if I do.

a reply to: chr0naut

the hypothetical Q document, while possible, does nothing to prove the OP's assertions (which are literally baseless and ridiculous).

Further, the OP (in his reply to you) claims there are no NT documents which date earlier than 70AD. I expected you to call him out on that, as that simply isn't true either, and paul's earliest gospels can safely be dated to around 50 AD.

I really wish people would quit attempting to rewrite history simply because they dislike a certain figure in it.

originally posted by: HUMBLEONE
Jesus murdered Judas? Damn, thats a game changer! You mean Christ is really the Anti=Christ?

The Antichrist is a killer? Last time I checked the Antichrist was more like Santa, isn't that just about how your (Anti) Christ is?

originally posted by: chr0naut

I apologize, I was in error [...] Unfortunately, I cannot delete the erroneous post

No problem

You did, however state that Jesus (as the general public knows him) was "mostly fictional" in the post I have just quoted above.

So I ask, how can you have confidence that Jesus committed the acts you describe, if the record of those acts is "mostly fictional"?

A good question. For all we know it's all bollocks, but the text as it is opens for quite a bit of controversy, whether Jesus lived or not, or was real or not. The text is real, not necessarily the people in it, get it? If I was to analyse Crime and Punishment by Fyodor Dostoyevsky, I would treat Raskolnikow as if he was real, though the book is mostly fiction.

Can you clearly delineate the fictional from the factual for me, please?

The text is real, not necessarily the people in it.

originally posted by: deadeyedick
I am confused a bit by comments you have made in other threads that kinda claim you like satan and he is the good guy but now you seem to state he is the bad guy and he is jesus.

What is your view? who is the good guy and who is the bad guy?

In another thread I said Satan is Zeus. Zeus isn't exactly a good guy, those are your words. Then in another thread I noted how Paulus calls Jesus Satan. Again, this has nothing to do with how I see whether Jesus nor Satan. So to help you out here, I know it's difficult to sort your apples and oranges:

==> Satan is Zeus
==> Saul Paulus calls "Son of Jesus" - "Son of the Devil"
==> Jesus might have been trialled and executed for the murder of one of his friends

a reply to: chr0naut

Fair enough. We know that Arius the presbyter of Alexandria and source of the Arian controversy produced vast amounts of correspondence and other writings. But he became an enemy of the Roman church and not a shred of anything he ever wrote has survived. They were experts in "damnatio memorae". They don't even find traces of any of his churches or anything relating to him other than a few references to his name and role in the tumults surrounding Nicea.

As for reconstruction of lost texts, aye, this lies in the landscape of theory and hypothesis, but think of it this way: We can see that monkeys and humans are related, and we know there at some point in time existed inter mediate species, but no real evidence can be found, since these intermediate species are long dead. But through reconstructive genetic linguistics we can actually reconstruct the theoretical corpus of genes that must have been present in the intermediate specie that eventually turned out to be the starting-point of humanity. And we can even load those genes into a computer and make a phantom sketch of what this intermediate specie might have looked like. Aye?

originally posted by: deadeyedick
There is also the time frame issue.

Who died first Judas or Jesus?

Below is the timeframe and course of events I base my assumptions upon:

Year of Adam 3797 (AD 37, Source):
Sunday 11 Nisan
==> I think Jesus poisoned Judas with something that made the content of his intestines to swell.
Monday 12 Nisan
==> Judas tries to cure himself, but is unable
Tuesday 13 Nisan
==> Judas summons the police and has Jesus arrested
Wednesday 14 Nisan
==> Erev Pesach
==> Jesus is lashed by the Sanhedrin, during which one of Jesus' lungs collapse
==> Judas returns his 30 coins of silver
==> Judas hangs himself (his remains later «burst open in the middle and all his bowels gushed out»)
==> Jesus is trialled and nailed to the cross
==> Jesus faints unable to breathe, Longinus pierces Jesus' thorax, healing starts
==> Jesus is brought to the tomb, Essene healers are summoned
Thursday 15 Nisan
==> Pesach I Sabbath
==> Jesus is treated by white-clad Essene healers inside Arimathea's tomb
Sunday 18 Nisan
==> 3.5 days after the crucifixion Jesus is on his feet again

a reply to: NOTurTypical

Right--but if Plato employed logic to such a degree in life that you feel a need to cite him 2300 years later, don't you think that he would do the same in his religion?

My point being, either he's right about religion and logic, or you are, but you can't reconcile the difference in religion, at the least.

Here's the thing--you come across in this thread as being the end-all to any discussion about logic and arbitrary conjecture and the like. I fully understand logic, and being in a "Jesus Freak Cult," as you put it, is illogical based on both the source of the information (a single collection of books put together nearly 2000 years ago and translated many times since) and the supernatural aspects of it which are unproveable.

It's fine to be a Christian--both my immediate and extended families are--but it's not okay to pretend as if your religion is based on absolute sound logic and reasoning, because you can't back that up empirically. It's all hearsay, and that's not even good enough evidence for our modern court systems.

But, we're derailing off the topic of the OP. I'll just agree to disagree with you on the logic of your religion, and you can disagree with my decision to leave your religion after over half of my life being a part of it.

Best Regards.

originally posted by: HUMBLEONE
On topic: You mean it was all a lie? Religion lie? No, say it isn't so!

I would say that it's a misinterpretation that a lot of people accepted simply because they didn't know how to read, and therefore had to rely on other people telling them stories. The basics are there in the Gospels -- Jesus and his move from private life into public life, the subtle moves he made to build a following, they way things spun out of control when he convinced himself he was more powerful than the folks in charge. All that stuff. The Gospel of Thomas helps clarify some of the earlier machinations, but the Gospel of Mark is pretty clear in its depiction of a man trying to claim the throne of Solomon without having the political wherewithal to accomplish it.

a reply to: Utnapisjtim

I should probably add that Jesus was about 42 when he gave up his spirit at Golatha and the angel aimed the spear.

11 Nisan may also be Jesus' birthday....

a reply to: Blue Shift

If you ask me, what happened during passover 37AD is the story of a man whose rise to fame finally got to him. Like an actor falling into psychosis, acting the king parading through Jerusalem on a stolen donkey, then later with his pack of twelve, force themselves into a house and occupy it, having a party where Jesus (probably dead drunk and with something on his head) probably with the same irony as earlier, serves himself in pieces and hand out and spills out his blood like water. I mean, the irony is one thing, but try to imagine what he is trying to say. The last supper was his rock bottom.

End to the story is the subject of this thread, when after they have eaten most of the food Jesus dips a piece of bread into an undisclosed substance and give it to Judas Iscariot. Two days later Judas has hanged himself before he bursts open and his intestines come out.

Back on Monday, Jesus must have had an epic hangover, realising what he'd done. The remaining members of his pack have a meeting and then they bail to hide out in Getsemane, all paranoid, they even brought a weapon and Jesus is frightened to the bone and lets it out on the few still by his side when one of them falls asleep during his watch. When Judas shows up with the police, he is arrested after some resistance.

Rock bottom, sad story.

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim
a reply to: Blue Shift

Utapisjtim: If you ask me, what happened during passover 37AD is the story of a man whose rise to fame finally got to him. Like an actor falling into psychosis, acting the king parading through Jerusalem on a stolen donkey, then later with his pack of twelve, force themselves into a house and occupy it, having a party where Jesus (probably dead drunk and with something on his head) probably with the same irony as earlier, serves himself in pieces and hand out and spills out his blood like water. I mean, the irony is one thing, but try to imagine what he is trying to say. The last supper was his rock bottom.

You forgot to include the paparazzi with their primitive camera devices, the tabloid press with papyrus and pen at hand that contributed to smear him; he being known then as two people the 'Magus' (Magdalene /Jesus) magician. What type of lead actor (with this troupe) was this, probably not Shakespearian. Just a bunch of romping idle liars swindling the masses by attempting to impart a universal truth: "The Kingdom of Heaven Resides Within You" (or the path of enlightenment is within you to find). Not sure the Last Supper actually happened (would like to see those party hats you describe). You see the pack of twelve Apostles as a 'swat team' storming a house, armed with what; "the good news"?

Utnapisjitim: End to the story is the subject of this thread, when after they have eaten most of the food Jesus dips a piece of bread into an undisclosed substance and give it to Judas Iscariot. Two days later Judas has hanged himself before he bursts open and his intestines come out.

I said it before; Jesus and Judas had a handshake agreement, "you (Jesus) do not murder me and I (Judas) will not snitch on you". Seems there was a communication failure here.

Utapisjitim: Back on Monday, Jesus must have had an epic hangover, realising what he'd done. The remaining members of his pack have a meeting and then they bail to hide out in Getsemane, all paranoid, they even brought a weapon and Jesus is frightened to the bone and lets it out on the few still by his side when one of them falls asleep during his watch. When Judas shows up with the police, he is arrested after some resistance.

Rock bottom, sad story.

You know how the tabloids exaggerate; I'm not sure I believe this at all. It is obvious someone within this organization (probably a servant) was paid off. Some of those first era "yellow journalists" were probably disguised as Roman "policemen". The 'pack' could have disarmed the 'acting' Roman Guard (if they had prior intelligence the 'policemen' had armed themselves with papyrus swords stolen from their prop tent located at the rear of the garden).

a reply to: NOTurTypical

Because Judas committed suicide (Thursday morning). He would not have been cut down on either of the two sabbaths, and when the holiday feast was over (Sunday morning) he would have been bloated, cutting him down caused him to "burst open".

That is a good thought but wouldn't that have been unlawful to Jewish custom? Not sure if that covers all of the dead or simply those who die upon a tree. I assume that some have died a natural death on Sabbath but don't know the procedure in that case.

If a man climbs up on a high place, and ties a rope about his neck it is possible as he jumps off or falls that the jolt could decapitate him or it could also disembowel him through the rectum. I have never actually seen that but have read this in past accounts. At times in normal death there is often a release of bowel. It seems as though in this account of Judas that both hanging and disemboweling are related as one action.