matthew1618 Posted January 30, 2007 Posted January 30, 2007 Matthew 27: 3- 5 3 Then Judas, his betrayer, seeing that Jesus had been condemned, deeply regretted what he had done. He returned the thirty pieces of silver 3 to the chief priests and elders, 4 saying, "I have sinned in betraying innocent blood." They said, "What is that to us? Look to it yourself." 5 Flinging the money into the temple, he departed and went off and [b]hanged[/b] himself. Acts 1:16- 17 16 "My brothers, the scripture had to be fulfilled which the holy Spirit spoke beforehand through the mouth of David, concerning Judas, who was the guide for those who arrested Jesus. 17 He was numbered among us and was allotted a share in this ministry. 18 He bought a parcel of land with the wages of his iniquity, and [b]falling headlong, he burst open in the middle, and all his insides spilled out.[/b] WHich one is true. Can someone help me out with this one it's really confusing.
cmotherofpirl Posted January 30, 2007 Posted January 30, 2007 [quote name='matthew1618' post='1179798' date='Jan 29 2007, 09:26 PM'] Matthew 27: 3- 5 3 Then Judas, his betrayer, seeing that Jesus had been condemned, deeply regretted what he had done. He returned the thirty pieces of silver 3 to the chief priests and elders, 4 saying, "I have sinned in betraying innocent blood." They said, "What is that to us? Look to it yourself." 5 Flinging the money into the temple, he departed and went off and [b]hanged[/b] himself. Acts 1:16- 17 16 "My brothers, the scripture had to be fulfilled which the holy Spirit spoke beforehand through the mouth of David, concerning Judas, who was the guide for those who arrested Jesus. 17 He was numbered among us and was allotted a share in this ministry. 18 He bought a parcel of land with the wages of his iniquity, and [b]falling headlong, he burst open in the middle, and all his insides spilled out.[/b] WHich one is true. Can someone help me out with this one it's really confusing. [/quote] He hung himself, then split open.
Thy Geekdom Come Posted January 30, 2007 Posted January 30, 2007 [quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1179814' date='Jan 29 2007, 09:41 PM'] He hung himself, then split open. [/quote] That would be consistent with tying a rope to a tree limb and jumping off, especially if he cut himself in the stomach first to quicken the death. I wonder what official Catholic commentaries, other than the NAB, would say.
matthew1618 Posted January 30, 2007 Author Posted January 30, 2007 [quote name='Raphael' post='1179821' date='Jan 29 2007, 09:47 PM'] That would be consistent with tying a rope to a tree limb and jumping off, especially if he cut himself in the stomach first to quicken the death. I wonder what official Catholic commentaries, other than the NAB, would say. [/quote] O. Sweet. I didn't think about that. Or know that someone could do that.
Catholictothecore Posted January 30, 2007 Posted January 30, 2007 (edited) does it really matter? Edited January 30, 2007 by Catholictothecore
Thy Geekdom Come Posted January 30, 2007 Posted January 30, 2007 [quote name='matthew1618' post='1179829' date='Jan 29 2007, 09:51 PM'] Or know that someone could do that. [/quote] I don't know that they can. I was just speculating.
Resurrexi Posted January 30, 2007 Posted January 30, 2007 Haydock Commentary for Acts Ch. 1 Vs. 18 Ver. 18. Possessed a field. Judas is here said to have done, what was done by others, with the thirty pieces of money, the reward of his iniquity. And being hanged, that is, as St. Matthew says, (chap. xxvii. 5.) having hanged himself, he burst asunder. The Greek has it, falling headlong,[3] as perhaps he did, by his judgment of God, from the place or tree where he hanged himself. (Witham) --- Judas did not possess the potter's field, but he furnished the price to buy it, giving back the thirty pieces of silver. (Menochius) --- We often say in common, that we have done what happens in consequence of any action of ours, though it was not in our first intention. (Calmet)
brendan1104 Posted January 30, 2007 Posted January 30, 2007 I thought judas gave (threw?) the money back to the jews who then bought the Potter's Field or whatever.
Groo the Wanderer Posted January 30, 2007 Posted January 30, 2007 It doesn't matter. The Bible was not written to be a history book, a science text, nor a play by play biopic...it contains all the Truths necessary for our salvation. Hanged, fell, whatever. The point is that Judas was so overcome with grief and remorse over what he had done, he was driven mad and took his own life. The manner of the taking is tertiary at best. Always remember that the Gospels were not written from firsthand accounts (except maybe John), but from oral tradition. Sometimes the details may differ because of the background of the writer, the audience, or the intent of the writer. What never changes is the Truth inherent in the holy inspired Word of God. Concentrate on the Truth contained therein, not the literal words. Sidenote: Good thing for fundys that the phrase 'it was raining cats and dogs' was not used by Paul...it would give 'em fits fitting THAT into Sola Scriptura
Paddington Posted January 30, 2007 Posted January 30, 2007 [quote name='Groo the Wanderer' post='1180090' date='Jan 30 2007, 04:18 AM'] Sidenote: Good thing for fundys that the phrase 'it was raining cats and dogs' was not used by Paul...it would give 'em fits fitting THAT into Sola Scriptura [/quote] I'm sorry, but not even close.
cmotherofpirl Posted January 30, 2007 Posted January 30, 2007 Hang a dead body in the hot sun long enough, with all the bacteria inside, nasty things happen to it. Do ya REALLY want to think about this stuff???
SJRod55 Posted January 30, 2007 Posted January 30, 2007 It was common when hanging people for them to be decapitated due to the 'fall' - even recently Sadam Husseins half brother suffered the same fate. And likewise look at a dead animal and it swells until it 'breaks open' due to the natural decomposition. Not a pleasant thought but as said before 'does it really matter?'
Didacus Posted January 31, 2007 Posted January 31, 2007 I can imagine Head-Long being symbolic in the sense that he willingly flung himself to his death - does any know the original text in latin and can verify translation? Its the potter's field thing that confuses me a little. I can imagine he bougt (or forwarded the fund for the purchase of) the potter's field, then repented (in a matter of speaking) and returned 30 'different' pieces of silver to the temple. Finally, the spirit behind the word is the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, but the words themselves are written by human in their imperfections.
Socrates Posted January 31, 2007 Posted January 31, 2007 [quote name='Groo the Wanderer' post='1180090' date='Jan 30 2007, 01:48 AM'] It doesn't matter. The Bible was not written to be a history book, a science text, nor a play by play biopic...it contains all the Truths necessary for our salvation. Hanged, fell, whatever. The point is that Judas was so overcome with grief and remorse over what he had done, he was driven mad and took his own life. The manner of the taking is tertiary at best. Always remember that the Gospels were not written from firsthand accounts (except maybe John), but from oral tradition. Sometimes the details may differ because of the background of the writer, the audience, or the intent of the writer. What never changes is the Truth inherent in the holy inspired Word of God. Concentrate on the Truth contained therein, not the literal words. Sidenote: Good thing for fundys that the phrase 'it was raining cats and dogs' was not used by Paul...it would give 'em fits fitting THAT into Sola Scriptura [/quote] While I know your intentions here are good, parts of this post unfortunately seem to be flirting with some modernistic ideas about the Gospels. While it is true that one should not become overly worried about ervery individual word, as the God used the human authors to tell the story each in their own way, we musn't assume that the events recounted in the Gospels were not in fact historically literally true. While it's not totally clear what your trying to say here, the idea that what is literally stated in the Gospels is not important, but rather the spiritual truth they convey, can lead to a watering down of Gospel truth commonly found in Modernist interpretations. The Gospels all too often become seen as mere fables or poetic metaphors for some supposed "spiritual" truth (often vague), which is often divorced from historical reality. ("It doesn't really matter if Christ really literally rose from the dead or not - what matters is that life has meaning which transcends physical death," or similar statements. This kind of thinking is actually quite common in "liberal Christian" circles.) And the idea that the Gospels were written down much later from oral tradition, while it has become Modernist "orthodoxy," has no solid backing, and is contradicted by both the tradition of the Church and by recent archaelogical evidence (findings of fragments of the Gospels of Matthew and Mark dated well within the first century). Matthew was a disciple of Christ and eye-witness, as was John (the "beloved disciple") who wrote the last Gospel in his old age (as testified in the Gospel itself). Mark was a disciple of Paul, who met likely Peter and other eye-witness Apostles of Christ. His Gospel likely used Matthew's as a source (contrary to modernist theory which claims the opposite). Luke also was likely in contact with eyewitnesses (which there is reason to beleive, as tradition teaches, included the Blessed Virgin). Here's a good article on the subject: [url="http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1994/9403fea1.asp"][i]THE EVOLUTION OF THE GOSPELS[/i], By BERNARD ORCHARD, O.S.B. [/url]
Recommended Posts