The Empty Tomb

[HansMustermann]

I dunno about you, but...

1) Jesus appears… this in itself is a miracle because no one steps off of a Roman cross or tree. Let alone walking out of a grave, if he is in the flesh or spirit he still bears the scars.

... while I can see how seeing a dead guy might have counted as a miracle back then, nowadays we have a name for it: hallucination.

I mean, I know someone who saw her dead father's ghost several times, although always apparently when waking up suddenly at night. Attempting to tell her about night terrors just got a steadfast "I wasn't dreaming and I'm not crazy!!!" answer. And trying to explain that, no, see, it doesn't mean you're crazy, just made that topic disappear from discussion ever since.

I suppose 2000 years ago that might have been enough to start a new religion. In fact, I don't even have to suppose, since we have Paul as an example of a guy who went and seeded new churches all over the place because he was talking to a ghostly Jesus.

 

[SlackerBabbath]

That's an interesting idea.
The messianic message, resurrection, Lamb of God sacrifice and laying down his life to redeem our sins was just a con, then?

Possibly.

Let's consider the miracles of Jesus for a moment.
Jesus was said to have been taken to Egypt as a baby to escape Herod. The oldest known instances of people performing staged magic is in Egypt, where the art of street magic has been a tradition for thousands of years. Stage magicians today cite Egypt as the birthplace of their craft. Infact, the 'oldest trick in the book' which is actualy the 'cup and balls' trick, is considered to have originated in ancient Egypt well over 2000 years ago.

Now, consider Simon Magus, the Samaritan 'sorcerer' of Biblical fame.
The early Church Father Eusebius describe Simon Magus as, like Jesus, a follower of John the Baptist. According to Eusebius, Simon was apparently due to become the leader of John's group but he mentions that because Simon happened to be in Egypt at the time of the death of John the Baptist, another Samaritan named Dositheus was elected as leader instead.
Clementine literature depicts Simon returning from Egypt, quarreling with Dositheus, and Simon’s authority eventualy being proven by 'miracles', thus Dositheus ceded his position as head of the sect and became Simon’s pupil.

So, we have Simon and Jesus, both followers of John the Baptist, both had visited Egypt, where they happened to have traditional street magicians and both are said to have displayed 'supernatural powers' in public in Judea.

It may be possible that the miracles were the result of sleight of hand and subterfuge, and if that's a possibility, then I suppose there's also a possibility that the miracle of Jesus' surviving the crucifixion might also be the result of subterfuge.

TimCallahan asked many things:


Ok all I can tell you is that I see it like this:
1) Jesus appears… this in itself is a miracle because no one steps off of a Roman cross or tree. Let alone walking out of a grave, if he is in the flesh or spirit he still bears the scars. The kill scar is there too, an open wound that leads into his chest. I like the fact that in John’s account Thomas puts his hand in it, which turns the skeptic into an all-out believer. So whatever kind of body he has it isn’t affected by the great loss of blood or the insertion of a hand into the rib cage let alone a spear where the liver and heart are exposed and wounded. The bottom line is with all those wounds, and in a grave for three days, it is amazing in it's self; because that would have killed anyone else easily.
NKJV:

Nobody steps off of a Roman cross? What about the devotional crucifixions in the Philippines? People are regularly crucified as a devotional practice, some even outlasting the time that Jesus was said to be on the cross, yet very few of them die. In San Pedro Cutud, a devotee called Ruben Enaje has been crucified 21 times.

2) I’ll go with Mark and Matthew.

But Mark 16:9–20, which describes the disciples' encounters with the resurrected Jesus, is considered by Biblical scholars to be a later addition to the gospel, and most scholars believe that the Gospel of Mark was the first to be written and that Matthew (and Luke) was based upon Mark but written at a later date. Couldn't that plausably mean that the whole episode of Jesus appearing to his disciples 3 days after his apparent death, regardless of which Gospel it appears in, could actualy be a work of fiction?

 

[Craig B]

Nobody steps off of a Roman cross? What about the devotional crucifixions in the Philippines? People are regularly crucified as a devotional practice, some even outlasting the time that Jesus was said to be on the cross, yet very few of them die. In San Pedro Cutud, a devotee called Ruben Enaje has been crucified 21 times.

OK. But it might be objected: these were not Roman crosses, and these devotees don't intend to be put to death. But there is a Roman cross example. Josephus, Life, 75.

... as I [Josephus] came back, I saw many captives crucified; and remembered three of them as my former acquaintance. I was very sorry at this in my mind, and went with tears in my eyes to [Roman general, later Emperor] Titus, and told him of them; so he immediately commanded them to be taken down, and to have the greatest care taken of them, in order to their recovery; yet two of them died under the physician’s hands, while the third recovered.

And we are told of Jesus that the soldiers didn't kill him on the cross at the approach of Passover, by breaking his legs, because (to their great surprise, and that of Pilate) they found him already dead. Mistaken diagnosis of death by medically-untrained soldiers is not impossible by any means.

 

[Oystein]

...
The Sabbath may explain why they came after two days instead of next day, but really leaves the rest of it the same big wth.

Maybe I am missing something simple and stupid here, but didn't Jesus allegedly die on friday afternoon, and doesn't Sabbath begin with the sunset that ends a friday afternoon? That might have put Joe in a Catch-22: Too little time to finish a proper burial - perhaps he had less than an hour between the time the Romans would let him have the body and the time the sun dropped behind the horizon, and so all he could manage was to drop the body in a tomb and close it before Sabbath forced him to stop working? And so he'd decide on a compromise? Surely, hiding a body in a closed tomb is more dignified than letting it rot and dry out in the open and perhaps be mutilated?

 

[SlackerBabbath]

OK. But it might be objected: these were not Roman crosses, and these devotees don't intend to be put to death. But there is a Roman cross example. Josephus, Life, 75.

Never seen that before, but it's certainly interesting. Cheers.

And we are told of Jesus that the soldiers didn't kill him on the cross at the approach of Passover, by breaking his legs, because (to their great surprise, and that of Pilate) they found him already dead. Mistaken diagnosis of death by medically-untrained soldiers is not impossible by any means.

It's also worth mentioning that the Bible states that Nicodemus and Joseph of Aramathea arrived at the tomb (which Joseph of Aramathea owned, who was apparently not only a member of the Jewish Sanhedrin, but also follower of Jesus.) with copious amounts of a mixture of myrrh and aloes weighing about a hundred pounds. Although these were used to prepare a body for burial, aloes were also, and still are commonly used to heal the skin, and myrrh has been used for millennia for pain relief. It's not unreasonable to consider that Jesus could possibly have still been alive when he was lifted down from the cross and that he could possibly have been nursed back to health in the privacy of the tomb.

As you mentioned, John 19:31-33 states;
"Now it was the day of Preparation, and the next day was to be a special Sabbath. Because the Jewish leaders did not want the bodies left on the crosses during the Sabbath, they asked Pilate to have the legs broken and the bodies taken down. The soldiers therefore came and broke the legs of the first man who had been crucified with Jesus, and then those of the other. But when they came to Jesus and found that he was already dead, they did not break his legs."

So, we can consider that if he was still alive, he escaped the further trauma of having his legs broken. Fair enough, it was reported that he was pierced in the side with a spear, but we have no way of knowing just how serious or life threatening a wound this was, the text just doesn't go into the detail required to tell. It could have gone right through him causing massive damage to his internal organs but it could also just as easily have been a very minor surface wound, all the text says is that Jesus' side was 'pierced' and that it involved a 'flow of blood and water'. It doesn't say if there was a 'little bit' or a 'lot' of blood and water, it doesn't say if the spear stabbed him deeply or was little more than a knick in his skin.
It's also interesting to note that the centurian who is traditionaly regarded as being the person who pierced Jesus, known as Longinus, is venerated, generally as a martyr, in the Roman Catholic Church and considered as a saint. Could it be possible that he too, like Joseph of Aramathea, was actualy a secret follower of Jesus? And if it is possible, could his survival be in part down to the actions of Longinus?

This is of course all just speculation, but it seems plausable to me that Jesus may somehow have survived the crucifixion, infact there are several hypothesis for how he could have survived, but it also seems plausable to me that he may infact have actualy died during the crucifixion and that his resurrection was a work of fiction, and when you have several ways in which you can plausably explain how something that seems to be miraculous can happen, then, in my own opinion, it makes more sense to go with any of those explanations rather than a supernatural one.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

What I can tell you is there is something there that is good on that other side, also something there that’s very evil.

No, you can't. You can only hope there is. And if the Earth is an example of your God's handiwork then maybe you should hope there isn't.

 

[SlackerBabbath]

No, you can't. You can only hope there is. And if the Earth is an example of your God's handiwork then maybe you should hope there isn't.

To my mind, even if God exists, the thing about Jesus bringing about a 'New Covenant' is contradictory to a God who is apparently perfect.

If he's perfect, why would there be a need for a New Covenant? Why would a perfect God make an Old Covenant that was apparently so 'faulty' that it needed replacing? And doesn't the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) state several times that God doesn't change his mind?

 

[Craig B]

Never seen that before, but it's certainly interesting. Cheers.

You're welcome.

So, we can consider that if he was still alive, he escaped the further trauma of having his legs broken. Fair enough, it was reported that he was pierced in the side with a spear, but we have no way of knowing just how serious or life threatening a wound this was, the text just doesn't go into the detail required to tell.

Unlike the Johannine spear thrust, the leg breaking wasn't just "further trauma". It killed the victim almost immediately. To permit his chest to expand, the crucifixee had to push down on his feet whenever he inhaled (the nails in his ankles causing great pain with every breath) but the leg breaking prevented this, and he would suffocate at once. It was standard procedure when the death of the victim was urgently required.

When you have several ways in which you can plausably explain how something that seems to be miraculous can happen, then, in my own opinion, it makes more sense to go with any of those explanations rather than a supernatural one.

Yes.

When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.

http://quotationsbook.com/quote/39809/#sthash.u13CZbKa.dpuf Of course I don't believe Jesus ever got up from the grave at all; but if I was somehow persuaded that he did, I would assume, like you, that he had not been dead when he was entombed.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

To my mind, even if God exists, the thing about Jesus bringing about a 'New Covenant' is contradictory to a God who is apparently perfect.

If he's perfect, why would there be a need for a New Covenant? Why would a perfect God make an Old Covenant that was apparently so 'faulty' that it needed replacing? And doesn't the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) state several times that God doesn't change his mind?

It's an admission of failure, a reboot. "Puny God."

 

[SlackerBabbath]

Unlike the Johannine spear thrust, the leg breaking wasn't just "further trauma". It killed the victim almost immediately. To permit his chest to expand, the crucifixee had to push down on his feet whenever he inhaled (the nails in his ankles causing great pain with every breath) but the leg breaking prevented this, and he would suffocate at once. It was standard procedure when the death of the victim was urgently required.

Now that's something that I have heard before, but I've just never understood it. Why would hanging by the hands (or wrists) prevent someone from breathing? I must have hung by the hands in playgrounds hundreds of times, (including in positions very similar to a classic crucifixion) when I was a kid, and although it may have hurt my arms and shoulders after a while I don't recall it ever impeding my breathing.

 

[dafydd]

Ok all I can tell you is that I see it like this:
1) Jesus appears… this in itself is a miracle because no one steps off of a Roman cross or tree. Let alone walking out of a grave, if he is in the flesh or spirit he still bears the scars. The kill scar is there too, an open wound that leads into his chest. I like the fact that in John’s account Thomas puts his hand in it, which turns the skeptic into an all-out believer. So whatever kind of body he has it isn’t affected by the great loss of blood or the insertion of a hand into the rib cage let alone a spear where the liver and heart are exposed and wounded. The bottom line is with all those wounds, and in a grave for three days, it is amazing in it's self; because that would have killed anyone else easily.

Fiction.

 

[pakeha]

...It seems to me that Judas is still around; he had to do his part. I think he was even forgiven and it’s possible his death was contrived for his own protection. ...

edge, have I understood you to write Judas' death was staged?
By whom and to what end?

Possibly.

Let's consider the miracles of Jesus for a moment.
Jesus was said to have been taken to Egypt as a baby to escape Herod. The oldest known instances of people performing staged magic is in Egypt, where the art of street magic has been a tradition for thousands of years. Stage magicians today cite Egypt as the birthplace of their craft. Infact, the 'oldest trick in the book' which is actualy the 'cup and balls' trick, is considered to have originated in ancient Egypt well over 2000 years ago. ...

Good point.
We're getting a portrait of an illusionist and 'faith healer', then?

 

[edge]

Jesus’ death have been presented in medical literature many times, including
1) Pulmonary embolism from the beating, shock
2) Cardiac rupture
3) Suspension trauma
4) Asphyxiation
5) Fatal stab wound
6) Shock.
This was not like hanging off a jungle gym when you were a child. It didn’t kill you because you let go of it, plus you had no trauma.

In a state of anxiety, he would be sweating profusely through the night. Second, he was deprived of fluids. Third, there would have been blood loss from Jesus' crown of thorns, his multiple beatings, and pre-execution scourging. Fourth, a pleural effusion could have caused a fluid shift.
A spear entering the chest might first tap a pleural effusion, giving the appearance of water. Next, it could pierce the right upper chamber of the heart, causing blood to appear. Cardiac rupture would be the immediate cause of death. Inflicting this type of chest stab wound was a matter of protocol, asserts Dr Bergeron, to ensure no crucifixion victim escaped death, particularly if the body were going to be released.
However, the Roman centurion supervising the crucifixion, would have credible expertise in pronouncing death of crucifixion victims, points out Dr Bergeron. According to the Bible, Jesus was determined to be dead, prior to receiving the chest stab wound.

They update their article about this once a year.http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/dr-raj-persaud/easter-how-did-jesus-christ-die_b_2970917.html
From there:

Asphyxiation as the mechanism of Jesus' death has also been proposed after observing torture of prisoners suspended by the wrists with the feet unsupported. Such victims had difficulty breathing within minutes, struggling to pull up with their arms to facilitate expiration. Similar torture was observed at the Dachau Concentration Camp in World War II. Death by this mechanism was rapid, occurring in about three hours.

I thought you guys were logical.

SlackerBabbath states:

Nobody steps off of a Roman cross? What about the devotional crucifixions in the Philippines? People are regularly crucified as a devotional practice, some even outlasting the time that Jesus was said to be on the cross, yet very few of them die. In San Pedro Cutud, a devotee called Ruben Enaje has been crucified 21 times.

This guy has done more to hurt it than to prove it.
What he does isn’t even close to what has been recorded.
Look close at this picture below.
This is more like a parody; especially the spearing part. I would like to see him actually just survive the scourging with the whips the Romans used.
The nails he uses are more like needles, not even close and he has full support with the platform under his feet.
Pictures from here: http://www.google.com/search?q=rube...QSe04HQBA&sqi=2&ved=0CDUQsAQ&biw=1015&bih=563
He might as well be on a jungle gym. Notice where the nails are in his big toe webbing

 

[edge]

edge, have I understood you to write Judas' death was staged?
By whom and to what end?



Snip...

If he did kill himself, he did it after the ascension. He obviously was there for the whole event and might have been the unnamed one that entered the tomb with Peter. The question is was he being protected, In John he seems to be and forgiven even though peter still seems to be angry about the whole ordeal Jesus sets them stright.

 

[Craig B]

... If he's perfect, why would there be a need for a New Covenant? Why would a perfect God make an Old Covenant that was apparently so 'faulty' that it needed replacing? And doesn't the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) state several times that God doesn't change his mind?

He changes his mind all the same. He repented of having created humanity and sent the Flood. He repented of having made Saul king, and let him get whacked.

 

[TimCallahan]

As to the Roman soldiers breaking the legs of the others crucified with Jesus, but lancing Jesus in the side, it's well to remember that this episode is a fiction concocted by the author of the Gospel of John. Here's the episode of the leg-breaking (Jn. 19:32 - 37 emphasis added):

So the soldiers came and broke the legs of the first, and of the other who had been crucified with him; but when they came to Jesus and saw that he was already dead, they did not break his legs. But one of the soldiers pierced his side with a spear, and at once there came out blood and water. He who saw it has borne witness - his testimony is true, and he knows that he tells the truth - that you also may believe. For these things took place that the scripture might be fulfilled, "Not a bone of him shall be broken." And again, another scripture says, "They shall look on him whom they have pierced."

Concerning the material in italics, John was the latest of the four gospels to be written. If the paleographic dating of the Rylands Fragment is correct, then that gospel may date from as early as CE 125. However, as was pointed out to me on another thread, paleographic dating isn't that accurate. Irenaeus, writing ca. 180, alludes to the Gospel of John. So, the author of the gospel protests a bit too much that he was a witness and the account is true - even though none of the other gospels mentions this incident.

Concerning the material in boldface, we see the reason for John's invention of Jesus' legs not being broken and his being speared in the side: to fulfill prophecy. The gospel writers ransacked the Jewish scriptures for prophecies to be fulfilled by Jesus, often using material, such as psalms, not meant to be prophetic. This is the case with, "Not a bone of him shall be broken." It actually refers to the preparation and eating ofthe Passover lamb (Ex. 12:46, emphasis added):

In one house shall it be eaten; you shall not carry forth any of the flesh outside the house; and you shall not break a bone of it.

Of course, since John refers to Jesus as the "Lamb of God" and sees him as the ritual sacrifice for atonement, it is symbolically apt that he rever back to the Paschal lamb of Exodus.

John also quotes the other prophecy out of context, having one of the Roman soldiers pierce the side of Jesus with a spear, so John can say:

And again, another scripture says, "They shall look on him whom they have pierced."

The scripture in question is from Zechariah (Zech. 12:10, emphasis added):

And I will pour out one the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of compassion and supplication, so that when they look on him whom they have pierced, they shall mourn for him, as one mourns for an only child, and weep bitterly over him, as one weeps over a first-born.

Prior to Zech 12:10, there is a prophecy about God humbling the enemies who have attacked Jerusalem. They seem to have been the ones who pierced the victim over whom the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem are mourning. Certainly, the Roman soldiers looking on "him whom they have pierced" weren't mourning him.

I believe it was in The Passover Plot that the author proposed that Jesus had originally been given a drug to make it look as though he had died, so he could be revived later. However, the Roman soldier inadvertently and unintentionally foiled the plot by skewering Jesus with a spear. Since this is based solely on the episode in John, invented by the author to fulfill prophecy, this explanation and other "swoon theory" explanations of the supposed resurrection are questionable to say the least.

They are, in any case, unnecessary for the explanation of the post-resurrection appearances of Jesus. Such appearances are hardly unique to the Passion narrative. Not only do we have the Nero redivivus legend, but, in our own day, the many Elvis sightings.

 

[HansMustermann]

Maybe I am missing something simple and stupid here, but didn't Jesus allegedly die on friday afternoon, and doesn't Sabbath begin with the sunset that ends a friday afternoon? That might have put Joe in a Catch-22: Too little time to finish a proper burial - perhaps he had less than an hour between the time the Romans would let him have the body and the time the sun dropped behind the horizon, and so all he could manage was to drop the body in a tomb and close it before Sabbath forced him to stop working? And so he'd decide on a compromise? Surely, hiding a body in a closed tomb is more dignified than letting it rot and dry out in the open and perhaps be mutilated?

Yet there's plenty of time to go to Pilate, for him to summon the centurion and confirm that the dude is dead, wrap the body in linen (and presumably buy that linen first), haul the body around, etc. Why not do some quick anointing on the spot, if they have time to wrap it? I mean, surely a rich guy like Joe would have some slave to send to buy or prepare the oils while he goes to talk to Pilate.

Sounds to me more like the plot device Mark needed to have someone go afterwards and find the tomb empty.

But the whole thing is a WTH on several levels right there anyway.

Why does Pilate have to personally confirm that a prisoner is dead? Don't they have a standard coup de grace? You know, that breaking the legs. Aren't the troops trained and instructed to apply it?

And what's with the NT obsession with centurions? Considering the legion size, these are like army majors these days. WTH are they doing standing guard at a crucifixion, or personally running around to inquire whether some no-name has been given the coup de grace yet.

And why does Pilate give a body to a stranger anyway, especially one who would not even admit being pals with the deceased (John 19:38). As I was saying, Romans routinely denied the body of executed criminals even to their own families, and even for Roman citizens. It was pretty much part of the punishment and humiliation. But ok, we do have accounts where bodies are given back to their families as a gesture of good will. But there was no custom to release bodies to perfect strangers, especially since stealing bodies was a capital crime in Rome. The whole point is that they didn't want strangers hauling bodies around for whatever deranged reasons they might want that body for.

And that's not even getting into details that come before that, like the seamless ceremonial robe that Jesus was wearing for some reason, or the 3 hour darkness, or that if we believe the sequence of events in Matthew they carried Jesus's body into a cemetery crawling with undead... and somehow didn't notice it, and so on.

And so on. Basically the whole account is fictionalized to hell and back. I don't really feel any need to hang onto the few details that aren't completely impossible.

 

[SlackerBabbath]

This guy has done more to hurt it than to prove it.
What he does isn’t even close to what has been recorded.
Look close at this picture below.
This is more like a parody; especially the spearing part. I would like to see him actually just survive the scourging with the whips the Romans used.
The nails he uses are more like needles, not even close and he has full support with the platform under his feet.
Pictures from here: http://www.google.com/search?q=rube...QSe04HQBA&sqi=2&ved=0CDUQsAQ&biw=1015&bih=563
He might as well be on a jungle gym. Notice where the nails are in his big toe webbing

Well of course devotional crucifixion is a much milder version compared to an actual Roman scurging and crucifixion, but then again, you've only cited just one person among many that have survived crucifixions. I'd also point out that the Romans did apparently use a 'hypopodium' (foot support) in crucifixions, in order to prolong a victim's suffering.
But, putting the devotional crucifixions aside for a moment, the Romans were apparently very good at keeping a crucifixion victim alive for quite a long time, probably in order to get the maximum of suffering out of them. It would often take up to a few days for them to die, yet Jesus is said to have 'died' relatively shortly after being nailed to the cross.
His legs were not broken because he was apparently already considered to be dead by people who may either have been mistaken or could possibly even have been followers of Jesus themselves and were attempting to save him. The piercing of his side is reported only in the Gospel of John and not in any of the Synoptic Gospels, and it's also worth pointing out that the Gospel of John is considered to be the last of the four biblical Gospels to be written, often contradicts the three Synoptic Gospels, is generaly dated to around 100 AD and the majority of New Testament scholars do not believe that John or one of the Apostles actualy wrote it, so the piercing of Jesus side could very easily be completely ficticious, but that said, even if it did happen, all that the Gospel of John says about it is;

"One of the soldiers pierced his side with a lance, and immediately there came out blood and water."
—John 19:34

...which obviously tells us very little about the seriousness of this wound, if it even happened.

Then of course we have the evidence from Josephus (kindly provided by Craig B earlier in the conversation) which says;

"as I [Josephus] came back, I saw many captives crucified; and remembered three of them as my former acquaintance. I was very sorry at this in my mind, and went with tears in my eyes to [Roman general, later Emperor] Titus, and told him of them; so he immediately commanded them to be taken down, and to have the greatest care taken of them, in order to their recovery; yet two of them died under the physician’s hands, while the third recovered."

Wouldn't you agree that this is a period historical record of a person 'surviving' a Roman crucifixion?
If you do agree, doesn't that make it a possibility that Jesus also survived being crucified?
If it does make that a possibility, doesn't it make more rational sense to consider that he possibly survived his crucifixion rather than believing that he died and miraculously came back to life three days later?

 

[Craig B]

... "One of the soldiers pierced his side with a lance, and immediately there came out blood and water."—John 19:34...which obviously tells us very little about the seriousness of this wound, if it even happened.

It didn't happen. It's a fabrication by John alone, intended to show that Jesus is "prophesied" in Zecheriah 12:10

And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn.

I agree strongly with what you write here too.

doesn't it make more rational sense to consider that he possibly survived his crucifixion rather than believing that he died and miraculously came back to life three days later?

People do survive capital punishment if it is wrongly believed that they are dead. Even in modern times people can be wrongly diagnosed as dead. How much more likely when the diagnosis is being made by soldiers. No pulse. No breath to fog a sword blade. No evident movement. Dead. Though I don't believe in the post tomb activities, so it's not a problem for me, because people never survive being correctly diagnosed as dead.

 

[pakeha]

Replying to a question of mine about Judas Iscariot's death

If he did kill himself, he did it after the ascension. He obviously was there for the whole event and might have been the unnamed one that entered the tomb with Peter. The question is was he being protected, In John he seems to be and forgiven even though peter still seems to be angry about the whole ordeal Jesus sets them stright.

Thanks for the answer, edge.
This idea is new to me and yes, I'd like to learn more about it.
Could you post up the specific verses you feel point to these possibilities, please?