Pray tell how the claim that Jesus was in India is more creditable then what you are arguing against. One would think someone who has issues with contradictions in and the accuracy of the Bible would have even less faith in far less verifible claims that Jesus went to India.
Grasping at straws, are we? “…and possibly to India.”
Not grasping at straws, just wondering about your comfort in using two different sets of criteria in determining what you think is valid. I find it rather odd that there are no accounts of Jesus going on a long travel east, or coming back from one, or charges Jesus was teaching pagan beliefs, etc. One would think that individuals who wanted him dead enough to fabricate charges against him didn’t bother use his visit to pagan lands against him; or try to discredit his followers as pagans or claim Jesus fled back east.
Did you even read what I wrote? First, you are doing exactly what I said. You are creating a third account neither Matthew or Luke had heard about. Why would Luke neglect to mention that Judas hanged himself if, in fact, that was what happened? Just because you can create some sort of “explanation” to make it appear (to your mind) that the accounts do not contradict one and other, you have no actual evidence that this explanation is true. It is a synthetic account without any evidence from history. Furthermore:
Which two standards would I be using? Curiosity and curiosity? Spme of the accounts have been stated, Your refusal to look at them is not my double. standard. And I never claimed them to be Gospel truth, those being highly interpretive and referent to other ideas themselves. Bt one, at least this one, wonders how those stories came to be, as they are remarkable in thier iteration. And if you don’t want to read them, that’s fine, but how is that grounds for impuning my sense of wonder? You havew your faith as you accept it, and that’s fine. I have my questions about where He was for so many years and read/view material concerning that. How is miine therefore a double standard?
a) Matthew 27:3-8 tells us specifically how Judas died, by hanging. Roman practice in Judas’ lifetime was that it was common for condemned criminals to be left hanging hanging, as a warning to others. His organs would of swelled and eventually his abdomen burst (Acts 1:18) and he either fell or it is also possible that prēnēs which was translated as ‘falling headlong’ was mistranslated because it now believed that translates as ‘swollen up.’ So instead of falling headlong after he hanged himself, Judas hang for so long that his organs burst.
I do not think Papias’ accounts come from eyewitness testimony. He may have been elaborating because a horrible death was associated with offense against God or crime against God.
This is well said. In addition to all that, I have to ask why there is such contentious study of the Bible when there is very little study of the instrument, the mind, which is doing the contentious study? If one does not have a clue as to the shenanigans of the mind, both through critical thinking and deep self inquiry resulting in transcendence, what’s the point of arguing? Other than superficialities, there is, without those, very little or no expereintial referent in any of it for the words to apply to!
My dear friend in Christ.
The Bible is true BUt not always factual.No it is not mere semantics. In your interpretation of Acts, Judas has already been dead for days when his body bursts open, because he hanged himself several days prior. If this were the case we would expect language like in Matthew 28:51-52
Well, Judas couldn’t very well have bought the field with with the blood money, if he refused to accept it and threw it away!
In order for both explanations to be correct, Judas would have had to hang himself in the field he bought " with payment he received for his wickedness" (Acts 1:18). The problem is that Judas in Matthew’s account DID NOT BUY ANYTHING WITH THE PAYMENT. He threw the money away, became suicidal and hanged himself. The pharisees later bought a field with the money Judas had thrown away, that is how it got its name. So you cannot have it both ways. Either Judas died in a field he bought for the blood money while alive, or he threw the money away and did not buy anything, but rather despaired and hanged himself. Furthermore, the idea that people independently came up with the same name for the field for wildly different reasons is unlikely in and of itself.
Yes, and acts says he died by his guts bursting open. You want to make it as if Acts doesn’t mention Judas dying, only what happened to his corpse several days after he actually died, but you’d never come up with such a strained reading of the text if you didn’t try force it into not contradicting Matthew.
Judas was not a condemned criminal… But presumably, nobody would have cut Judas down if he hanged himself in his own field. The problem, of course, is that Judas did not buy any field in Matthew’s account. Rather he threw the money away and hanged himself. The pharisees later bought the field.
This is wisful thinking.The greek here means “fell headlong”. It is his falling headlong that caused him to burst open. It is not a mistranslation. That is how it is universally translated in scores of different biblical translations. If you are going to claim that the vast majority of biblical translations in the world are wrong, you’ll need some very powerful evidence to demonstrate this… But I understand why it is problematic. There is no way his body fell headlong if the rope broke, and realizing this you desperately want the text to say something it does not say
Please note that JUDAS THROWS THE MONEY AWAY IN MATTHEW’S ACCOUNT. Therefore HE COULD NOT HAVE BOUGHT IT WITH THAT MONEY LIKE ACTS SAYS HE DID (ACTS 1:18). So this nonsense of physical vs. legal ownership completely misses the point: Acts says Judas bought the field with the money that Matthew says he trew into the temple, and by which the pharisees subsequently bought the field. That is a contradiction, plain and simmple.
None of the accounts are from eyewitness testimony. The point is that there were several traditions on how Judas died. They are contradictory. And two of them found their way into the bible.
Gotta go with Veeder on this one. Egoic investment in a work that is clearly contradictory on even when Jesus was born, something nearly impossible to not know by people who knew Him for even three years, how you count notwithstanding, is a dangerous business. Fortunately, many have lived through worse admissions.No it is not mere semantics. In your interpretation of Acts, Judas has already been dead for days when his body bursts open, because he hanged himself several days prior. If this were the case we would expect language like in Matthew 28:51-52
“At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook, the rocks split and the tombs broke open. The bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life.”
So Acts should read something like “Judas dead body fell headlong”, or “the body of Judas (who had died from hanging) fell headlong”. But of course, the author of Acts knows nothing about Matthews account of Judas death, and recounts another tradition.
Well, Judas couldn’t very well have bought the field with with the blood money, if he refused to accept it and threw it away!
In order for both explanations to be correct, Judas would have had to hang himself in the field he bought " with payment he received for his wickedness" (Acts 1:18). The problem is that Judas in Matthew’s account DID NOT BUY ANYTHING WITH THE PAYMENT. He threw the money away, became suicidal and hanged himself. The pharisees later bought a field with the money Judas had thrown away, that is how it got its name. So you cannot have it both ways. Either Judas died in a field he bought for the blood money while alive, or he threw the money away and did not buy anything, but rather despaired and hanged himself. Furthermore, the idea that people independently came up with the same name for the field for wildly different reasons is unlikely in and of itself.
Yes, and acts says he died by his guts bursting open. You want to make it as if Acts doesn’t mention Judas dying, only what happened to his corpse several days after he actually died, but you’d never come up with such a strained reading of the text if you didn’t try force it into not contradicting Matthew.
Judas was not a condemned criminal… But presumably, nobody would have cut Judas down if he hanged himself in his own field. The problem, of course, is that Judas did not buy any field in Matthew’s account. Rather he threw the money away and hanged himself. The pharisees later bought the field.
This is wisful thinking.The greek here means “fell headlong”. It is his falling headlong that caused him to burst open. It is not a mistranslation. That is how it is universally translated in scores of different biblical translations. If you are going to claim that the vast majority of biblical translations in the world are wrong, you’ll need some very powerful evidence to demonstrate this… But I understand why it is problematic. There is no way his body fell headlong if the rope broke, and realizing this you desperately want the text to say something it does not say
Please note that JUDAS THROWS THE MONEY AWAY IN MATTHEW’S ACCOUNT. Therefore HE COULD NOT HAVE BOUGHT IT WITH THAT MONEY LIKE ACTS SAYS HE DID (ACTS 1:18). So this nonsense of physical vs. legal ownership completely misses the point: Acts says Judas bought the field with the money that Matthew says he trew into the temple, and by which the pharisees subsequently bought the field. That is a contradiction, plain and simmple.
And what the heck is physical ownership of a field anyway, as opposed to legal ownership?Please provide me with examples from first century Israel by means of recognized scholarly sources.
None of the accounts are from eyewitness testimony. The point is that there were several traditions on how Judas died. They are contradictory. And two of them found their way into the bible.
BUT…
It doesn’t matter what I write. You will never admit a contradiction here. Your whole worldview rests on this idea of inspiration, and it will cause you immense doubt and pain if you realize that the bible is not inerrant. “If the New Testament is wrong here, what else is wrong?” So you cling to a false idea, so that you’ll continue to feel safe and secure. But it is all an illusion, and you are smart enough to see through it.
Thanks for the discussion.
This and the rest of the catholic posters who argue that the Bible is rubbish seems to be more logical than those trying to jump through hoops to solve all these contridictions.
But Matthew was not the only author commenting on Judas death, we have Luke writing in Acts who writes from another perspective so we have additional information.
Matthew 27:7 and Acts 1:18:
Acts does not contradict Matthew. Acts follows Matthew. And it makes logical sense as I have already said, because in that time Judas would of been left and his organs would of eventually swelled up and burst. Acts following Matthew makes medical sense.
It is not wishful thinking. Why I would lie about the meaning of Greek which can be linguistically checked.This is wisful thinking.The greek here means “fell headlong”. It is his falling headlong that caused him to burst open. It is not a mistranslation. That is how it is universally translated in scores of different biblical translations. If you are going to claim that the vast majority of biblical translations in the world are wrong, you’ll need some very powerful evidence to demonstrate this… But I understand why it is problematic. There is no way his body fell headlong if the rope broke, and realizing this you desperately want the text to say something it does not say
tomorrowsworld.org/commentary/judas-death-and-biblical-inerrancy
I do not have the time to go and check what happened in first century Israel with land ownership or posession. Why don’t you do it yourself. The Greek language differences (Matthew using ajgoravzw which means legal ownership, and ktaomai which means physical possession) are used for a reason.
I do not know how to understand Papias’ statements because the statement on Judas could of been an elaboration to show Judas’ bad death as a punishment from God.
Then provide me with a biblical translation that translates it that way. Not som random guy who claims to know greek and wants to save the bible from contradicting itself.
You made a positive claim and have the burden of proof. But as I pointed out, the claim meaningless. According to Matthew Judas did not accept the payment and threw it away. According to acts, he kept it and bought the field.
It fits perfectly. You have switched between different contradictory explanations through your responses. First you said Judas indirectly bought the field by means of the pharisees. Then you changed the response to something silly about Judas buying it legally and the pharisees posessing it physically. Then you have changed your explanation back to Judas buying it by means of the pharisees as one could give money to a friend and have him/her buy something. The problem is, of course, that Judas did not give the money to the pharisees to buy something with. Rather he rejected the money because he felt remorse, according to Matthew. So Judas did not buy the field either directly or indirectly according to Matthew.
A contradiction.Yep, yours truly included
Read ‘A Manual Greek Lexicon of the New Testament’ by G. Abbott-Smith. For many years prēnēs was thought to translate to ‘falling headlong,’ but investigations in the 20th century of papyri revealed that the word has another meaning, ‘swelling up.’
When Judas threw the money, the Priests could not accept the money because it was blood money so they used that money to buy potter’s field, but that money still belonged to Judas. The priests bought the field on Judas’ behalf. You could say Judas indirectly bought the field because it was his money being used, but the field also belonged to the priests because they had used that money to buy the field.
- What happened to the money? Judas kept or rejected? A contradiction
- Who bought the field? Judas with the money he got for his betrayal, or the Pharisees with the same money after Judas refused to keep it? A contradiction.
- Where did Judas die? In the field be bought? Or in some random place where he went after throwing away the money? A contradiction.
- How did Judas die? By hanging or by falling headlong, bursting open and litterally spilling his guts?
- How did the field get its name? Because Judas died in a bloody manner in the field, or because the pharisees bought it with blood money after Judas had hung himself some other place.
I have answered these questions already, you just do not seem to like or agree with the answers, but that does not make the answers untrue.
And my friend have you ever asked JUST WHY we Catholics do that?
Why Else are their many thousands of “personal understanding and communions” in the protestant community.I shal resist the promptings of my ego to continue discussing this contradiction further. I knew even before providing you with it, that you would in all likelyhood never accept it. And so I have wasted my time and yours. Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.
[bibledrb]Matthew 27:1-10 [/bibledrb]
