Monday, June 28, 2021

Inerrant Lie #42

Judas Iscariot does not enjoy the same sort of unconditional positive regard from the 'scholars' as the rest of the Dirty Dozen does. Every one loves to hate on Judas-- to the point that he is rather regarded in an unconditionally negative light. Perhaps it is due to this bias that the lie about Judas' demise stands completely unchallenged to date.

Judas is a somewhat enigmatic character in the gospels. Not much is written of Judas. Everyone knows their preacher says Judas is the only one who betrayed Jesus of Nazareth-- though this interpretation of events itself runs contrary to the narrative of the gospels. Three of the four gospels include the word "also" before "betrayed," as in, "Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him [Matthew 10:4b & c (et. al.)]."

"Also," (as used here) like Judas himself, is a somewhat enigmatic term. It's usage could indicate that-- besides being a chosen disciple-- he also betrayed him who called him into the ministry. It could also indicate that Judas wasn't the only disciple who betrayed Jesus, but that he also did-- in collusion with a larger conspiracy to do so. If the latter is the case, Judas is the 'scapegoat,' or 'fall guy,' for the nefarious political maneuvering of certain others in Jesus' inner circle.

In fact, what little we do read of Judas presents more questions than answers. For instance, when "Satan entered into [Judas (John 13:27a)]": did he first 'jump out' of Peter? It was, after all, Pete to whom Jesus had last said, "Get thee behind me, Satan [Matthew 16:23c & d]." Also, the indignation John attributes to "one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot [John 12:4 & 5]," concerning the ointment of spikenard which Mary poured on Jesus as he and his disciples dined with her and her family in Bethany, Matthew attributes to "his disciples [Matthew 26:8]," while Mark records it was an amalgamative "some [Mark 14:4]."

Why do the things written of Judas-- like the false accusations lodged against Jesus-- so often not agree one with another? It is, at any rate, understandable that the disciples might be offended by the one disciple of whom it is written that he did repent. After all, if any of the other disciples felt a need of repentance, it's not recorded that they discerned this; much less that they actually repented of anything, though their general unbelief is recorded in all the gospels.

Of the morning of the day of Jesus' crucifixion, the same disciple who records "Repent [Matthew 4:17]," as Jesus' first word, when he began to preach, says, "Then Judas, which had betrayed [Jesus], when he saw that [Jesus] was condemned, repented himself.... [Matthew 27:3a - d]." He goes on to say of Judas, "And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself [Matthew 27:5]."

After Jesus' assumption, preparatory to which he had led the disciples out of Jerusalem "a Sabbath day's journey [Acts 1:12b]," the disciples returned-- like dogs to vomit-- to Jerusalem; having been warned (prior to his crucifixion) by him to whom they referred as "Lord, Lord," to flee Judaea at his crucifixion, and likewise commanded by the same Jesus to go before him into Galilee in expectation of his resurrection: to reconnoiter with him there.

Upon their return to the city of desolate abominations, Peter commenced a pow- wow on the disposition of Judas' 'bishoprick', citing a Psalm of David-- not the word of the Lord who, having been received up into heaven, had never left them-- as the authority and inspiration for this renovation.

.

The fact that Jesus had Saul of Tarsus pigeonholed to fulfill Judas' ministry is beside the point-- except inasmuch as the disciples' choice of Matthias highlights their divergence from Jesus' will: which is endemic to the disciples' lack of repentance. In this board meeting, Peter says, presumably of Judas (who Matthew- - see above-- says threw the silver on the floor of the temple, repented, and hung himself): "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 [Acts 1:18]."

This is a wildly disparate description of Judas' demise than the one offered by Matthew, and the two cannot be resolved as one. A man who hangs himself is discovered heads- up or headless, not headlong; and neck- stretching does not induce bowel- gushing. The two are not one.

Either Pete or Matthew (or both) are lying. The question is: who's lying and why? and what light does the 'brilliance' of lies cast on the darkness inside the liar? Is the only disciple who did die 'with' Jesus the only one of the twelve with him today? It was, after all, to a thief like Judas, who died 'with' him, that the same Jesus said, "To day shalt thou be with me in paradise [Luke 23:43c]," and that because of the thief's repentance.

Thursday, June 24, 2021

Inerrant Lie #41

Three books of scripture are attributed to the Big Solomy, the son of David, whose practical 'wisdom' compelled the violent overthrow of the Davidic kingdom by ten of the twelve tribes of Israel. Some of the psalms are likewise attributed to the Big Solomy.

Some say the only thing amiss about Solomon was his penchant for the flesh of 'strange women'. The Big Solomy's sexual perversion is, however, more the symptom of disease than the disease itself [Ecclesiastes 3:18]. Ecclesiastes 1:2 makes it clear that the Big Solomy entertained deeper frustrations than strange flesh alone.

In Ecclesiastes 1:2, Solomon writes, "Vanity of vanities, saith the Preacher, vanity of vanities; all is vanity." This is an obvious lie, and one retold by the 'sweet' psalmist's preacher- son four more times in the twelve chapters of Ecclesiastes; the final instance appearing in the eighth verse of the final chapter.

Is God vanity? Is his creation? what about his children? what about his Christ? Certainly all is not vanity. This requires no great documentation to prove, but it does beg the question: what 'God' did the Big Solomy preach about? If not Satan, what 'God' is all vanity all the time?

Mind you: I'm not saying the Big Solomy disdained the words and work of God in calling them vanity. His 'God' doesn't think that way. It is precisely because Satan perceives God as vain that he envys him and all he says and does. Fools get Gold Fever for fools' gold.

As such, this lie that "all is vanity" is true to the one who wrote it and to the fools who love and praise him as 'the greatest king ever.' The lie is the implication that Solomon's 'God' is the same as Jesus' Father. These are not equal, and Solomon's own words aptly describe the difference between them.

"There is [God and his children] that scattereth, and yet increaseth; and there is [the Big Solomy and his 'God'] that withholdeth more than is meet, but it tendeth to poverty [Proverbs 11:24]." The latter half of this selection from Proverbs, is the most apropos epitaph of Solomon and his 'God' I know of. For them all is vanity.