Yet Another Biblical Contradiction

[OzmO]

No.  How did you get all that from me asking OzmO that question?   

OzmO first said that it was impossible, then he admitted to the possibility of it happening if Judas body was decomposing.

Re-read it again loco. 

I said it was impossible based on the scenario of a dead body falling form a tree, then based on McVay's assertion that the dead body may have been bloated from hanging there for a period of weeks or days then it might be possible.

Please read carefully before you make assumptions

[loco]

Re-read it again loco. 

I said it was impossible based on the scenario of a dead body falling form a tree, then based on McVay's assertion that the dead body may have been bloated from hanging there for a period of weeks or days then it might be possible.

Please read carefully before you make assumptions

Isn't that what I said?  Aren't we saying the same thing?

[OzmO]

Isn't that what I said?  Aren't we saying the same thing?

Yep, becuase i wasn't reading you last post carefully 

[Necrosis]

So would you agree that faith entails the suspension of reason?

obviously it does, it is irrational. but all anyone really has in matters of origin is faith.

however, its much more likely to suggest that natrual mechanisms explain it as they have explained everything so far, i dont see the need to abandon logic at the begginning and add a super omnipotent being.

if your making a positive statement about origins it is based on faith, withholding your position is the most logical choice.

[MCWAY]

Oh yes it does.  It releives him of the responsibility of how the money is spent.  He did not make the decision.   You can say the priest didn't accept the money all you want.  It's not relevant whether or not they accepted because they DECIDED how to spend it.  They made the decison to buy the field, hence they bought the field not Judas.   They also could have left the money sitting right there.  that was an option,  however they chose to take the money!   By doing that they took possession of it.

Judas did make the decision, by casting the money down, after the priests clearly told him that they couldn't take it and would not be held responsible for it. Once again, it's blood money, a supremely serious offense in ancient Israel, one that Judas didn't shed, simply by tossing the silver. That money is ritually and legally unclean and it (and anything purchased with it) still belonged to Judas.

It's very black and white.  Cut and dry.

If i give you $20 and hang myself and you take the $20 and decide how to spend it  you take ownership of it whether you want to admit  it or not and you ar the one who spent it and bought somethign with it.  NO ONE ELSE.

It is a contradiction

It is an error

The bible is in error. 

The bible is NOT the 100% word of God.

Plain and simple.

That's not blood money, now is it? Nor, do we have such a scenario like that in ancient Israel. Yet again, you ignore the seriousness of that issue to make your gripes about this being a contradiction. Based on how it was procured and the legal and ritualistic ramifications therein, the money (and anything subsequently purchased with it) still belonged to Judas.

[MCWAY]

So is that a yes or a no?

Your explanation is not found in the book. It is from Christian apologetics. There are lots of Christian apologetics site on the web that propose just these answers that you can copy and paste in response to heathens like your humble servant

That is an view of evangelical Christianity that smashes all 4 four Gospels (and Acts sometimes) into one big gospel, so that they all make one big storyline. Earlier I called that the "bulldozer" approach. That way, you can explain away any discrepancy between the books. Problem with that is you lose the distinct 'flavor' of each book and each evangelist. Other protestants, Catholics, Orthodox etc may approach these questions differently.

That's hardly smashing or bulldozing. One minute you complain that certain accounts in Scripture come from just one account. Yet, when multiple accounts are used, you switch your complaints, because the sources don't say the exact same thing. Please make up your mind here.

Your claim of contradictions, no doubt, comes from skeptic websites. As I’ve often said, this claim isn’t new and neither is the rebuttal to it. But, the issue isn’t the use of websites (skeptic, apologetic, or otherwise).

Again, using both accounts from Luke and Matthew gives us the insight on what happened to Judas.

Therefore, your “which is it?” question has long been answered. There’s no “either/or” to it. The short answer would be: Judas hanged himself as described in Matthew; his corpse rotted, eventually fell, and splattered as described in Acts.

Put another way:

”Neither of these statements excludes the other. Matthew does not deny that Judas, after hanging himself, fell and burst asunder; Luke does not assert that Judas did not hang himself prior to his fall.”- J.W. Haley, author of the book, [Alleged Discrepancies in the Bible

What’s so unreasonable about that? The Biblical texts supports such a scenario (or at least, it doesn’t refute it, as stated above). Plus, if I’m not mistaken, Judas killed himself during the Passover and before the Sabbath. Exactly who was going to take his dead body down during that time? Plus, as the saying went, “Cursed is everyone who hangs from a tree!”

Given that and Judas’ treachery, leaving his body to simply rot (eventually falling and splattering) is hardly out of the realm of logic and reason, unless one has the old proverbial axe to grind with Scripture.

As for "infected mind," the expression originates in the field of "memetics," (I won't go into that here, but google it if you're interested), for example this quotation:

The patient typically finds himself impelled by some deep, inner conviction that something is true, or right, or virtuous: a conviction that doesn't seem to owe anything to evidence or reason, but which, nevertheless, he feels as totally compelling and convincing. We doctors refer to such a belief as 'faith'. ~ Richard Dawkins

Dawkins is way off the mark, here. It's not that conviction doesn't "owe anything to evidence or reason". Dawkins, like far too many non-believers, falsely think use of logic and reason will automatically lead to rejection of faith. When the opposite happens, Dawkins and crew don't want to play the "evidence and reason" game, anymore (Apparently, he forgets that there are Christians, who were once atheists, that became believers by examining some of the very issues being discussed on this forum).

"The meme for blind faith secures its own perpetuation by the simple unconscious expedient of discouraging rational inquiry."
Richard Dawkins

"The fool hath said in his heart, 'There is no God'". - David, king of Israel

[OzmO]

Judas did make the decision, by casting the money down,

That is NOT making a decision to buy a field.

after the priests clearly told him that they couldn't take it and would not be held responsible for it.

What they "told" him makes no difference, what does make a difference is their "actions"  and by their actions they took responsibility for it.

Don't you see how silly that sounds?  You throw money at me and then go hang your self and I decide how that money is spent but yet i don't by that very action take responsibility for it?  Today and 2000 years ago that would be viewed as taking responsibility for it.  If what you say was correct it doesn't show in the intention of the writer.  It shows a contradiction.

Once again, it's blood money, a supremely serious offense in ancient Israel, one that Judas didn't shed, simply by tossing the silver. That money is ritually and legally unclean and it (and anything purchased with it) still belonged to Judas.

No it doesn't, even if Judas was still alive when they purchased it.  He released ownership of the money when he threw it and the priests assumed ownership whether they wanted to or not when they used it to buy a field.  Blood money has nothing to do with it becuase it's blood money is simply a point of view as followers of jesus would see it as blood money, the present establishment wouldn't and even if they did, it doesn't matter.

That's not blood money, now is it? Nor, do we have such a scenario like that in ancient Israel. Yet again, you ignore the seriousness of that issue to make your gripes about this being a contradiction. Based on how it was procured and the legal and ritualistic ramifications therein, the money (and anything subsequently purchased with it) still belonged to Judas.

Seriousness of the issue?  Any seriousness is implied by the person trying to interpret it to make it mean what they want it to mean.  I'm simply taking the text it self, the plain meaning of both sentences.  And these sentences clearly outline that the actually story has changed whether by accident or by just hearing to different stories and writing them down. 

In any case it clearly shows that fact that the NT is not the 100% word of God but based partly on hear say.

[MCWAY]

That is NOT making a decision to buy a field.

It is when you do so, knowing that you will still be held responsible for whatever happens with your blood money.

What they "told" him makes no difference, what does make a difference is their "actions"  and by their actions they took responsibility for it.

Their actions were due to the fact that (by law and ritual) they HAD TO get rid of it. They couldn’t keep it; nor could they keep anything purchased with it. And, few (if any) would take it, knowing how it was procured.

Don't you see how silly that sounds?  You throw money at me and then go hang your self and I decide how that money is spent but yet i don't by that very action take responsibility for it?  Today and 2000 years ago that would be viewed as taking responsibility for it.  If what you say was correct it doesn't show in the intention of the writer.  It shows a contradiction.

Once again, you ignore the ancient context and the issue, regarding blood money and the ritualistic stigma attached with it. We don't have this in our society. So, your attempts to make scenarios and compare it with that of Judas don’t work. Just because the concept of Judas' being held responsible for his blood money sounds "silly" to you doesn't mean that such was invalid, with regards to ancient Israel. The priests thought it anything but "silly". Otherwise, I’m sure they could think of a lot of things to do with that money besides buying a plot for dead people.

No it doesn't, even if Judas was still alive when they purchased it.  He released ownership of the money when he threw it and the priests assumed ownership whether they wanted to or not when they used it to buy a field.  Blood money has nothing to do with it becuase it's blood money is simply a point of view as followers of jesus would see it as blood money, the present establishment wouldn't and even if they did, it doesn't matter.

Blood money has everything to do with it, in that context (BTW, the priests were NOT followers of Jesus and they referred to it as blood money). Again, why would a field, used for burying dead people, be purchased, if the priests could accept the money? And, of all the fields, why is it that the one purchased just happened to be where the splattered corpse of the man, responsible for all of this, lied?

They had no choice but to get rid of it.

Seriousness of the issue?  Any seriousness is implied by the person trying to interpret it to make it mean what they want it to mean.  I'm simply taking the text it self, the plain meaning of both sentences.  And these sentences clearly outline that the actually story has changed whether by accident or by just hearing to different stories and writing them down.  

In any case it clearly shows that fact that the NT is not the 100% word of God but based partly on hear say.

No, the seriousness is defined by the context of the scenario and time period involved. Your not thinking it was serious has no bearing on the situation at that time.

The story hasn't changed one bit. Neither the account in Matthew nor the account in Acts conflicts with one another. That is why both can be used to give a more thorough account of what happened. Why skeptics have a problem with that is beyond me.

 Judas tried to return the money; but, the priests didn’t take it (Matthew). In despair, he throws the money to the ground, runs off, and hangs himself (Matthew). Since it was during Passover and before the Sabbath (Matthew, Luke), nobody was going to touch him to take him down. His rotting corpse falls and splatters, with his bowels spilling over a field (Acts), which would become known as the “Field of Blood” (Matthew, Acts).

The priests had to get rid of the money, by law; but, they couldn’t keep it or anything bought with it. So, they meet and decide to get that field where Judas’ body is (Matthew). This is why Luke’s account states that Judas purchased that field (Acts). His treachery earned the “wages of iniquity”, used to get that field in his name.

There would be no “Field of Blood” had Judas not betrayed Jesus. So, crediting him with buying that field hardly constitutes a contradiction, especially in light of how the Israelites viewed money earned by shedding innocent blood, which Judas admits doing.

[OzmO]

It is when you do so, knowing that you will still be held responsible for whatever happens with your blood money.

If i throw money at a temple it lands on the floor and i leave then a priest picks it up buys gun with it and shoots some one.    Will the record show i bought the gun or will it show the priest bought the gun?

(BTW, the priests were NOT followers of Jesus and they referred to it as blood money).

No, correction, the writers of the account wrote it that way.  We do not have an actual account from the priests themselves.

They had no choice but to get rid of it.

That doesn't matter what they had to do with it, the fact is they did do something with it.  Key word:  they (priests, not Judas)

No, the seriousness is defined by the context of the scenario and time period involved. Your not thinking it was serious has no bearing on the situation at that time.

You are thinking in the context of a Jesus supporter and how you view it.  The people in general were not as they supported crucifying Jesus over that murderer.  So in reality, the money is more like reward money.  Not blood money. 

Even then in all you say, and in all you argue, what was written in the 2 verses is an incorrect way to say it and is very very very ambiguous to the meaning you say it has and lends far more to the face value of the words use themselves instead of the implied meaning based on personal interpretation.

[Necrosis]

Judas did make the decision, by casting the money down, after the priests clearly told him that they couldn't take it and would not be held responsible for it. Once again, it's blood money, a supremely serious offense in ancient Israel, one that Judas didn't shed, simply by tossing the silver. That money is ritually and legally unclean and it (and anything purchased with it) still belonged to Judas.

That's not blood money, now is it? Nor, do we have such a scenario like that in ancient Israel. Yet again, you ignore the seriousness of that issue to make your gripes about this being a contradiction. Based on how it was procured and the legal and ritualistic ramifications therein, the money (and anything subsequently purchased with it) still belonged to Judas.

dude your not even making rational arguments, for example, if i through money at a hooker to buy food, and then blew my head off, but she used that money to buy a gun to assasinate the president, am i guilty of the assasination, if you think so then i would hope your not in the field of law. honestly, do you think this i correct? its not even rational. if youve ever given money to charity, and they used it to rape children did you willing pay to rape the children? obviously not, this isnt even debatable, your immune to reason.


what is with your christians, you hold on to the most irrational beleifs ive ever seen.

from this  money tomfoolery to people exploding after fallin from trees

[OzmO]

they have no choice.  they have to be irrational.  TO admit to anything even super small takes away their exclusivity to the truth of salvation.

[Butterbean]

dude your not even making rational arguments, for example, if i through money at a hooker to buy food, and then blew my head off, but she used that money to buy a gun to assasinate the president, am i guilty of the assasination, if you think so then i would hope your not in the field of law. honestly, do you think this i correct? its not even rational.

usmoke, I think you took your analogy one step too far here re: the assasination part.



We gave money to a charity for one purpose and the Pastor and his wife used it for a trip to Israel instead and admitted it to us!  Do we feel we paid for their trip to Israel?  Damn right we do.

[Butterbean]

OzmO, do you have any problem when people talk about "the sun setting?"

[OzmO]

OzmO, do you have any problem when people talk about "the sun setting?"

Stella I've been very clear about my contentions with the Bible and those who think it is the 100% WOG.

You yourself, interpret it to your likely as you and i  talked about women wearing mens clothing and you said God was speaking to the Jews and not others so it doesn't apply to you.

[OzmO]

usmoke, I think you took your analogy one step too far here re: the assasination part.



We gave money to a charity for one purpose and the Pastor and his wife used it for a trip to Israel instead and admitted it to us!  Do we feel we paid for their trip to Israel?  Damn right we do.

It was paid with your money, but who bought it?  Who executed the action of buying it?

[Butterbean]

It was paid with your money, but who bought it?  Who executed the action of buying it?

They physically enacted the exchange of (our) money for it.  But we bought it.



I don't think I understand your answer to this question:

OzmO, do you have any problem when people talk about "the sun setting?"

Do you have a problem w/it or not?

[Necrosis]

usmoke, I think you took your analogy one step too far here re: the assasination part.



We gave money to a charity for one purpose and the Pastor and his wife used it for a trip to Israel instead and admitted it to us!  Do we feel we paid for their trip to Israel?  Damn right we do.

no its a bit hyperbolic but still correct. ok so i give money to a charity and they use it to buy weapons, would you say "i" bought the weapons? i think not.

intention has a huge part in this, you didnt pay for a trip, you intended to give money to charity, what they do with it does not reflect your initial purpose, hence you didnt pay for a trip. sure they can use the money for anything they want, so if they used it to buy chains to imprison people would you feel your part of a scheme to enslave people like you feel you paid for a trip? if not why? you cant have it both ways.

it doesnt even make sense what some of you guys are proposing, stella look at the verses, hanging versus bursting. its like saying died by stabbing or burning.

they mcway would come on and say "did it ever occur to you that people fall down when they burn? and could of fell on a sharp rock? this makes sense, yup, praise to jesus.

[OzmO]

They physically enacted the exchange of (our) money for it.  But we bought it.

No you didn't because without their action it wouldn't have been bought.

Hence they bought it with your money.

Do you have a problem w/it or not?

no.

[Butterbean]

no its a bit hyperbolic but still correct. ok so i give money to a charity and they use it to buy weapons, would you say "i" bought the weapons? i think not.

See, I can see your side as having merit but why can't you see my side as having merit? 

Yes, I would still think "I" bought the weapons. 

Let's say you gave to a charity that distributed bibles in different languages to people in their native lands.  Were you able to help bless those people?  Or did your assistance stop when you gave to the charity that distributes the bibles?

intention has a huge part in this, you didnt pay for a trip, you intended to give money to charity, what they do with it does not reflect your initial purpose, hence you didnt pay for a trip. sure they can use the money for anything they want, so if they used it to buy chains to imprison people would you feel your part of a scheme to enslave people like you feel you paid for a trip? if not why? you cant have it both ways.

Yes, I would feel that I bought the chains and that I assisted in them enslaving people

When you pay your taxes do you feel that you are helping to pay to have roads repaired etc?

it doesnt even make sense what some of you guys are proposing, stella look at the verses, hanging versus bursting. its like saying died by stabbing or burning.

But can you agree that hanging and bursting are not mutually exclusive?  And neither states that was the cause of death.


Can you not stab and burn someone simultaneously?

they mcway would come on and say "did it ever occur to you that people fall down when they burn? and could of fell on a sharp rock? this makes sense, yup, praise to jesus.

lol!  But it is possible no?   YES!

[Butterbean]

No you didn't because without their action it wouldn't have been bought.

And without our action (giving them the money) it wouldn't have been bought.

no.

OK thanks OzmO.  Why don't you have a problem w/people using the phrase "the sun setting?"

[OzmO]

And without our action (giving them the money) it wouldn't have been bought.

yep

OK thanks OzmO.  Why don't you have a problem w/people using the phrase "the sun setting?"

You typically don't put words in people's mouths and use debate tactics.  So I'd appreciate if you just got to the point of your questions and i'd more than happy to amiably discuss it with you.

Oh and to answer your question:  Because the sun does set.

[Butterbean]

yep

You typically don't put words in people's mouths and use debate tactics.  So I'd appreciate if you just got to the point of your questions and i'd more than happy to amiably discuss it with you.

Oh and to answer your question:  Because the sun does set.

OK my point is that the sun does not set.  The earth moves.  So by saying "the sun sets" is that a contradiction or is that just a way of speaking?   I think everyone knows what it means and it's not a contradiction really unless you dissect it in ways that are not intended.

In my opinion it seems that the writers in Matthew and Acts are saying the same thing but in different ways.  That's all.
.....and I don't see why you guys can't see our side of it as being a possibility.  I think we can understand why you present your side as a possibility. 

[OzmO]

OK my point is that the sun does not set.  The earth moves.  So by saying "the sun sets" is that a contradiction or is that just a way of speaking?   I think everyone knows what it means and it's not a contradiction really unless you dissect it in ways that are not intended.

In my opinion it seems that the writers in Matthew and Acts are saying the same thing but in different ways.  That's all.

Very good point.   But the sun does set on the horizon as it passes it. It's a figure of speech that doesn't change the action.   A third party deciding the course of an object does change the action.

[OzmO]

OK my point is that the sun does not set.  The earth moves.  So by saying "the sun sets" is that a contradiction or is that just a way of speaking?   I think everyone knows what it means and it's not a contradiction really unless you dissect it in ways that are not intended.

In my opinion it seems that the writers in Matthew and Acts are saying the same thing but in different ways.  That's all.
.....and I don't see why you guys can't see our side of it as being a possibility.  I think we can understand why you present your side as a possibility. 

Besides all of that Stella, we are talking about the WOG not the word of man which is what you describe.

[loco]

Besides all of that Stella, we are talking about the WOG not the word of man which is what you describe.

The word of God has figures of speech in it.  Why wouldn't it?