Yet Another Biblical Contradiction

[OzmO]

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

Because like in this instance, the meaning can become  contradictory.

[columbusdude82]

Here is what Papias, an early Christian writer, said about the death of Judas:

"Judas was a terrible, walking example of ungodliness in this world, his flesh was bloated. For his eyelids:were so swollen that he could not see the light at all, and his eyes could not be seen:so far had they sunk below the outer surface. When he relieved himself there passed through it pus and worms from every part of his body, much to his shame. After much agony and punishment:he finally died in his own place. And because of the stench the area is deserted and uninhabitable even now; in fact, to this day no one can pass that place unless they hold their nose, so great was the discharge from his body and so far did it spread over the ground."

He seems to echo Acts 1:18, with a bit of exaggeration.

[OzmO]

Here is what Papias, an early Christian writer, said about the death of Judas:

"Judas was a terrible, walking example of ungodliness in this world, his flesh was bloated. For his eyelids:were so swollen that he could not see the light at all, and his eyes could not be seen:so far had they sunk below the outer surface. When he relieved himself there passed through it pus and worms from every part of his body, much to his shame. After much agony and punishment:he finally died in his own place. And because of the stench the area is deserted and uninhabitable even now; in fact, to this day no one can pass that place unless they hold their nose, so great was the discharge from his body and so far did it spread over the ground."

He seems to echo Acts 1:18, with a bit of exaggeration.

So here we have an account of Judas "walking" with his flesh bloated and not dead and decomposing.

[MCWAY]

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?

Why you insist on ignoring the aspect of ritual uncleanness, regarding this blood money issue, I'd love to know. Doing so, however, doesn't change the fact that such was a serious matter.

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

So, you're ok with Judas throwing down the money; but now, you have a problem with the priests (who weren't followers of Jesus) calling it blood money? I see why Loco claims you pick and choose your spots on what you believe.

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 one's denying what the priests did. What you fail (or refuse) to grasp is that, by law and ritual, they could not keep the money or anything bought with it. Again, why else would they use the money on a field with the traitor's body on it? Because it was blood money, the perpetrator (Judas) was still liable for it. That's why Luke's statement that Judas bought the field is accurate.

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. 

No, I am thinking in the context of how the ancient Jews dealt with ritual uncleanness and blood money. That mob of people was not fully representative of all the Israelites. Furthermore, you forget the minor fact that Judas CONFESSED to betraying innocent blood. Thus, as Luke describes it, that money was the wages of iniquity. And, the priests told him that they wouldn't accept his loot, when he tried to give it to them. If Judas didn't already know beforehand that he'd still be responsible for it, the priests inform him of that.

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.

Incorrect, based on what? We know the ancient context in which it was written, which you refuse to take into account, Judas is still liable for that blood money or anything bought with it. Throwing the money away doesn't shed that stigma. So, Luke's stating that Judas bought the field is not a contradiction with Matthew's account. Again, Judas' treachery produced Judas' blood money, used to buy a field on his behalf by priests (who, by law, could not assume legal possession of the money or property bought with such), in which his dead body lay.





[/quote]

[OzmO]

Why you insist on ignoring the aspect of ritual uncleanness, regarding this blood money issue, I'd love to know. Doing so, however, doesn't change the fact that such was a serious matter.

It was serious matter to those who believed Jesus was the son of God.  But the vast majority didn't.   

So, you're ok with Judas throwing down the money; but now, you have a problem with the priests (who weren't followers of Jesus) calling it blood money? I see why Loco claims you pick and choose your spots on what you believe.

No, i'm using logic and common sense.   That's what loco and now you call picking and choosing.  Use your head McWay, we don;t have the priests account, what we do have is a follower's account.   Why is it a logical distinction such as that is always labeled as something with tainted intentions by you guys?   Use your heads.

 

No one's denying what the priests did. What you fail (or refuse) to grasp is that, by law and ritual, they could not keep the money or anything bought with it. Again, why else would they use the money on a field with the traitor's body on it? Because it was blood money, the perpetrator (Judas) was still liable for it. That's why Luke's statement that Judas bought the field is accurate.

They did not keep the field and they did not keep the money.   I agree and get that.  do i need to say it another 10 times so that you get i get it?

But they DID buy the field and not Judas.

No, I am thinking in the context of how the ancient Jews dealt with ritual uncleanness and blood money. That mob of people was not fully representative of all the Israelites. Furthermore, you forget the minor fact that Judas CONFESSED to betraying innocent blood. Thus, as Luke describes it, that money was the wages of iniquity. And, the priests told him that they wouldn't accept his loot, when he tried to give it to them. If Judas didn't already know beforehand that he'd still be responsible for it, the priests inform him of that.

All of which still doesn't matter, as Judas still did not decide to buy the field, the priest did.  And the mob of people was representative of the ratio of followers to those who did not recognize Jesus as the son fo God and therefore Judas's actions viewed by the writers of the gophels of course would insinuate blood money, but as you know we don't any accounts outside of it that would have surely seen it quite differently and even with all of that it still as i said does not matter.   You can call it blood money all you want.  Judas did not decide to buy the field.   The priest did.  Hence the priest bought the field.

Incorrect, based on what? We know the ancient context in which it was written, which you refuse to take into account, Judas is still liable for that blood money or anything bought with it. Throwing the money away doesn't shed that stigma. So, Luke's stating that Judas bought the field is not a contradiction with Matthew's account. Again, Judas' treachery produced Judas' blood money, used to buy a field on his behalf by priests (who, by law, could not assume legal possession of the money or property bought with such), in which his dead body lay.

You got it switched around and have added to it.  The money was used to by a field by the priests in Judas's name.