Matthew 27:3-8

3 Then Judas, which had betrayed him, when he saw that he was condemned, repented himself, and brought again the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders,

4 Saying, I have sinned in that I have betrayed the innocent blood. And they said, What is that to us? see thou to that.

5 And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself.

6 And the chief priests took the silver pieces, and said, It is not lawful for to put them into the treasury, because it is the price of blood.

7 And they took counsel, and bought with them the potter’s field, to bury strangers in.

8 Wherefore that field was called, The field of blood, unto this day.

Acts 1:16-19

16 Men and brethren, this scripture must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake before concerning Judas, which was guide to them that took Jesus.

17 For he was numbered with us, and had obtained part of this ministry.

18 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.

19 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.

In both Matthew 27 and the Acts 1, Judas is associated with the Field of Blood. However, their reasons for this association are completely different. Does Judas hang himself, or does he fall and have his intestines spill open? Did he buy the orchard, or did the priests? Is the Field of Blood so named because of the blood money used to purchase it, or was it because Judas spilled his guts there? Maybe they’re both wrong and Judas purchased the orchard with the blood money fully intending to hang himself there, but before he got to do it, he tripped over the rope and split his guts open? Maybe while on the way to hang himself, Judas was abducted by unicorns and forced to knit socks out of parsley until his fingers bled?

Some have suggested that the account in Acts 1 is allegorical, that his fall was a fall from grace, and that his guts spilling out where his losing his mercy and kindness. This interpretation fails because none of the rest of the chapter is allegorical. The entire chapter is written as a story. Additionally, Luke the Evangelist give Judas’ guts spilling out as the reason for the name of the Field of Blood and does not mention that it might be so named because of the blood money. This passage in Acts suggests that the literal gore produced by this scene is the cause of the name of the field, which points to a literal, not allegorical, interpretation.

Others have suggested that Judas hung himself, then rotted on the rope before falling and bursting open, that the field was purchased by his money by the priest, and that he also happened to hang himself in that field by coincidence. The problems with this interpretation is simple. Judas wouldn’t have fallen headlong from hanging, but rather feet first.

Additionally, no one mentions him being dead and rotting long enough for his guts to be able to burst out on impact. Also, his hanging is the cause of his death in this interpretation, but the verse never mentions hanging and actually makes it seem as if the fall killed him. While it is true that you do fall when hanged, your guts do not spill out. In a worst-case scenario, your neck breaks.

Furthermore, some have suggested that he hanged himself over an embankment, or a cliff. After rotting on the rope for a while, the rope would break, and he would fall a far enough distance to turn in mid-air so that he’s falling head-first. Being slightly decomposed, he would indeed burst open upon impact. While this is the most plausible interpretation, this one also fails. In this passage, it does not mention a cliff, Judas hanging, or his body rotting, all of which one would assume would be important enough to mention.

If we can apologize it away by saying that the King James Bible doesn’t say it happened that way, that implies that we can insert whatever we want into the story and that it’s entirely possible that the story did indeed include unicorns and socks knit from parsley. The King James Bible doesn’t say it didn’t happen that way. As in the previous interpretation, the contradiction about who purchased the field and the naming of the field are still preserved.

The fact of the matter is that in trying to determine how Judas died, you have to do quite a bit of mental acrobatics. You have to twist the story until it all fits. In the end, you’ve got something that doesn’t resemble the story presented in either passage. The only logical conclusion is that someone was wrong. As one of the most influential characters in the life and death of Jesus, one would assume that Judas could keep his story straight. Apparently, that is just not the case. What should be more distressing to Christians is the proximity of this glaring mistake so close to the story of the death of Jesus, their savior. If this piece of the story is false, how much else is false?

John 12:47

47 And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.

John 9:39

39 And Jesus said, For judgment I am come into this world, that they which see not might see; and that they which see might be made blind.

To get the full picture of both tales, you must read a bit more into it. In John 12, we find that Jesus is speaking to the Pharisees. Some of them do not believe in him, while some believe him but will not say so because they fear getting kicked out of the synagogue. He makes the statement that he did not come to judge the world while God is the one doing the judging.

Jesus says in one verse prior that if we’ve seen him, we’ve seen the one who sent him, implying that they are one and the same. In this instance, either he is God and he’s lying, or is he isn’t God and he could be telling the truth in this instance.

Upon reading John 9:35-41, we find that Jesus is speaking of spiritual blindness while referring to those who do not know the truth, and those who know the truth but deny it. He specifically states that he came into this world for judgment. He doesn’t specifically use the words judge the world, but the word judge is still used in such an open-ended fashion that it can be understood as the judgment of all.

Some may argue that these passages are referring to two completely different kinds of judgement. However, evaluation of the original Greek reveals the words used for judgment are both from the root krina or krima, which referred to judgments or accusations associated with criminal activity.

The hilarity of this contradiction is further compounded by the fact that they are from the same book and author. Apparently, either John the Apostle couldn’t get his story straight or Jesus couldn’t get his own story straight. The conclusion you’re left with is that either a major author of the New Testament was fallible or Jesus was fallible. Either way, this brings the King James Bible and Christianity as a whole into question.

Genesis 17:9-14

9 And God said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep my covenant therefore, thou, and thy seed after thee in their generations.

10 This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised.

11 And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you.

12 And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed.

13 He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant.

14 And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.

Acts 15:24

24 Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment:

The first passage shows the word of God as spoken to Abraham in Genesis 17. However, it is also clearly suggested in the Acts 15 that there was no such mandate, according to Luke the Evangelist. Perhaps Luke was simply unaware of this, but one would think that an author of the New Testament would be knowledgeable of the Old Testament.

Galatians 5:1-4

1 Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.

2 Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing.

3 For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.

4 Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.

Here, Paul the Apostle speaks out against circumcision in Galatians 5. In fact, he suggests that if you get circumcised, you are obligated to obey all of the laws of Moses and that Christ will be of no value to you.

If you read the entire chapter, you find that Paul suggests that one can reach salvation through faith and good deeds alone. This is contradictory to the words of Jesus himself, who said that he did not come to abolish any of the old law.

Furthermore, he suggests that we have all fallen from grace and that the law is essentially of no consequence. Once again, this is not only against other Christian teachings, this is against any semblance of morality. How can any morality exist when everything is permissible? There are simply too many contradictions here to hunt them all down.