Judas Blood Atoned By Peter?

[Zakuska]

There's also the tradition that Judas hung him self on a spear, eastern style (Think Vlad the Impaler) and not with a western rope and noose.  Thus as his body was skewered by the spear his guts gushed out as his body slid down the spear and he hung there.

 

Hanging is the suspension of a person by a noose or ligature around the neck.^[1] The Oxford English Dictionary states that hanging in this sense is "specifically to put to death by suspension by the neck", though it formerly also referred to crucifixion and death by impalement in which the body would remain "hanging". Hanging has been a common method of capital punishment since medieval times, and is the official execution method in numerous countries and regions. In this specialised meaning of the common word hang, the past and past participle are usually taken to behanged instead of hung

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

 

Remember Christ is said to have been "hung on a tree" by Paul. (In Acts IIRC)

 

This makes more sense to me.  

Edited August 3, 2015 by Zakuska

[JLHPROF]

If it was murder it would call into question the rest of the scriptural narrative where Judas is a shameful of the act and attempts to give the money back.  

 

Only if the rumored "blood atonement" wasn't willing on his part.  It is entirely possible that he came to Peter as head apostle seeking blood atonement for his sin.  Given the scriptural description of Judas' death, he may well have had assistance.

The one and only instance of blood atonement in the days of Brigham Young by a member who'd sinned (that I know of) involved his willingly allowing himself to be executed.

[Kaleb Webb]

 

As Brigham Young said about the creation account of Adam and Eve, sometimes there are reasons to doubt the literalness of scripture.

 

A story that talks about two immortal people living in a garden and being cast out after eating fruit is a little different than Judas killing himself out of shame for what he'd done.....

[Stone holm]

It may ring true to other people even if it doesn't to you.  Murder is not the word I would use to describe it.  I would never describe Nephi as a murderer.  Nor would I describe Samuel as a murderer when he personally killed the king of a Canaanite tribe when the children of Israel didn't do it and should have, etc.  And it is no more surprising that Peter would have done this than Nephi.

 

To me, it makes absolutely no sense that Judas' guts spilled out on their own after he hung himself.  That only makes sense if he was disemboweled, and sounds a lot like a something similar to seppuku/hara-kiri ("hairy carey").

We may not like to think of Nephi as committing murder, but technically it was, although in modern jurisprudence if he persuasively argued that God told him to do it and convinced the judge and jury he really believed that he would be acquitted on the basis of insanity. For Abraham the same would apply, although in my opinion the story of Abraham was not actually about obedience, but about God making it irrevocably clear that human sacrifice was no longer to be practiced by the descendants of Abraham. We have put the other spin on it because e don't like to think that they had been committing human sacrifice before that. IMO the names of the various sacrifices suggest they had been doing so previously.

[The Nehor]

We may not like to think of Nephi as committing murder, but technically it was, although in modern jurisprudence if he persuasively argued that God told him to do it and convinced the judge and jury he really believed that he would be acquitted on the basis of insanity. For Abraham the same would apply, although in my opinion the story of Abraham was not actually about obedience, but about God making it irrevocably clear that human sacrifice was no longer to be practiced by the descendants of Abraham. We have put the other spin on it because e don't like to think that they had been committing human sacrifice before that. IMO the names of the various sacrifices suggest they had been doing so previously.

That is not how the insanity defense usually works.

Edited August 4, 2015 by The Nehor

[Stone holm]

 

That is not how the insanity defense usually works.

 

In what way?

[carbon dioxide]

My comment was in regards to former President Kimball's teaching about Peter being commanded by

Jesus to deny Him to protect him. If false, he [Kimball] led people astray.

 

As far as Peter is concerned, the New Testament (when read as a whole) does not regard Peter

as the Lord's chief representative on earth. In fact, Paul put himself on par (Galatians 2:8, Romans

11:13).  When Paul spoke of the apostles who are honored as the pillars of the faith, he listed

James first, then Peter and John (Galatians 2:9), and places himself among them (2 Corinthians

11:5), comparing himself to Peter.  The New Testament Church did not have a First Presidency

but I understand the LDS Church does.

 

Regards,

Jim

I personally think there was a First Presidency.  I view Peter as the President of the Twelve and James being the President of the Church.  The fact that Paul places himself among them does not mean the Paul has the same rank as James or Peter. 

Edited August 5, 2015 by carbon dioxide

[JLHPROF]

I personally think there was a First Presidency.  I view Peter as the President of the Twelve and James being the President of the Church. 

 

What do you base that on?

I always assumed the first presidency was Peter, James, and John with Peter being the president of the Church and the Senior Apostle (they had 12, not 15).

[theplains]

Are you LDS? I can't remember for sure, but thought you weren't given your other posts. Is that why you used the "we" here? If not, why did you use it?

 

Hi. No I'm not LDS. I used 'we' in the general sense.

 

Thanks,

JIm