Zacharias was killed. The Zacharias that was slain was the son of
Baruch.
But we must not expect the "inspired" to be accurate.
Matthew says that at the time of the crucifixion--"the graves were
opened and that many bodies of the saints which slept arose and came out
of their graves _after_ his resurrection, and went into the holy city
and appeared unto many."
According to this the graves were opened at the time of the crucifixion,
but the dead did not arise and come out until after the resurrection of
Christ.
They were polite enough to sit in their open graves and wait for Christ
to rise first.
To whom did these saints appear? What became of them? Did they slip back
into their graves and commit suicide?
Is it not wonderful that Mark, Luke and John never heard of these
saints?
What kind of saints were they? Certainly they were not Christian saints.
So, the inspired writers do not agree in regard to Judas.
Certainly the inspired writers ought to have known what happened to
Judas, the betrayer. Matthew being duly "inspired" says that when Judas
saw that Jesus had been condemned, he repented and took back the money
to the chief priests and elders, saying that he had sinned in betraying
the innocent blood. They said to him: "What is that to us? See thou to
that." Then Judas threw down the pieces of silver and went and hanged
himself.
The chief priests then took the pieces of silver and bought the potter's
field to bury strangers in, and it is called the field of blood.
We are told in Acts of the apostles that Peter stood up in the midst of
the disciples and said: "Now this man, (Judas) purchased a field with
the reward of iniquity--and falling headlong he burst asunder and all
his bowels gushed out--that field is called the field of blood."
Matthew says Judas repented and gave back the money.
Peter says that he bought a field with the money.
Matthew says that Judas hanged himself. Peter says that he fell down and
burst asunder. Which of these accounts is true?
Besides, it is hard to see why Christians hate, loathe and despise
Judas. According to their scheme of salvation, it was absolutely
necessary that Christ should be killed--necessary that he should be
betrayed, and had it not been for Judas, all the world, including
Christ's mother, and the part of Christ that was human, would have gone
to hell.
Yet, according to the New Testament, Christ did not know that one of his
disciples was to betray him.
Jesus, when on his way to Jerusalem, for the last time, said, speaking
to the twelve disciples, Judas being present, that they, the disciples
should thereafter sit on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of
Israel.
Yet, more than a year before this journey, John says that Christ said,
speaking to the twelve disciples: "Have not I chosen you twelve, and one
of you is a devil." And John adds: "He spake of Judas Iscariot, for it
was he that should betray him."
Why did Christ a year afterward, tell Judas that he should sit on a
throne and judge one of the tribes of Israel?
There is still another trouble.
Paul says that Jesus after his resurrection appeared to the twelve
disciples. According to Paul, Jesus appeared to Judas with the rest.
Certainly Paul had not heard the story of the betrayal.
Why did Christ select Judas as one of his disciples, knowing that he
would betray him? Did he desire to be betrayed? Was it his intention to
be put to death?
Why did he fail to defend himself before Pilate?
According to the accounts, Pilate wanted to save him. Did Christ wish to
be convicted?
The Christians are compelled to say that Christ intended to be
sacrificed--that he selected Judas with that end in view, and that he
refused to defend himself because he desired to be crucified. All this
is in accordance with the horrible idea that without the shedding of
blood there is no remission of sin.