Apologetic follies

CrowCross

Well-known member
Nope...
We do not have here one story that can be reconciled and made into a mega-narrative, the way conservative Christians have always tried to do. Instead, we have two stories that simply are at odds because both of them contain legendary elements.
I'm glad you decided to jump in and play. Problem is you too should have done your homework.
  • In Matthew’s account, the priests buy the field; in Acts it is Judas himself who buys it.
It would have been so simple for you to check out my previous link, Your question was answered there.

Concerning who paid for the field, here are two possible ways to reconcile the facts: 1) Judas was promised the thirty pieces of silver several days before Jesus’ arrest (Mark 14:11). Sometime during the days leading up to his betrayal of Jesus, Judas made arrangements to purchase a field, although no money had yet been transferred. After the deed was done, Judas was paid, but he then returned the money to the chief priests. The priests, who considered the silver to be blood money, completed the transaction that Judas had begun and bought the field. 2) When Judas threw the thirty pieces of silver down, the priests took the money and used it to buy the potter’s field (Matthew 27:7). Judas may not have purchased the field personally, but he provided the money for the transaction and could then be said to be the purchaser.

  • In Matthew’s account, Judas hangs himself; in Acts he falls headlong, bursts open, and spills his intestines on the field.

Post 175
  • In Matthew’s account, it is a clear suicide; in Acts there is no reference to a suicide.
So what?

  • In Matthew’s account, the place is called the Field of Blood because it was purchased with blood money. In Acts, it is called the Field of Blood because Judas spilled his blood on it.
Acts does not say the field of blood is called the field of blood because Judas spilled his blood on it. Under your theory they should have called it the field of intestines.
 

CrowCross

Well-known member
If a man is hung by the neck, he can't fall headlong.

Even so, this "reconciliation" of different events is speculation on your part. You can't know the differing accounts are just telling parts of the same story. The simplest explanation is that the story had changed upon reaching the two authors.
What???? And you're not speculating???
 

CrowCross

Well-known member
No. I'm not speculating that you can't fall headlong from being hung. You will fall feet fist.

So, if I'm speculating and you're speculating the truth of the story is unknown then, right?
The truth of the story is known by examining what Matthew had to say and what Doctor Luke had to say.

When you put it all together it sounds like Judas hug himself. He hung from the rope for several days and his dead body began to bloat. The rope broke or the limb broke...or perhaps he was cut down. Who knows?
When he fell he fell head first and his rotting bloating body broke open when it hit the ground and his intestines came out.

Personaly I think the rope was cut. I think someone may have had a hold of his feet or perhaps legs with the intention of lowering Judas down gently. When the rope was cut the upper part of the body leaned over as the feet/legs were held in place by the person supporting Judas...which resulted in Judas falling head first. Am I speculating? Yup.
 

SteveB

Well-known member
Actually?
Yep.

You've never been able to "actualize anything you write as worth believing. You adhere to an ancient supernatural dogma that has no relevance no matter how much of it you quote.
That is your belief. You however haven't been able to know because you have no idea who I am.

It forces you to live in ignorance of the truth of reality and rely on scriptural bromides to form a sense of substance for you that lacks any real credibility or substance.
It's sad really how you have wasted your mind in this way.

This could carry some weight if you actually had evidence that you know me.

Since you don't, dismissing your statements is really easy.
 

Whatsisface

Well-known member
The truth of the story is known by examining what Matthew had to say and what Doctor Luke had to say.

When you put it all together it sounds like Judas hug himself. He hung from the rope for several days and his dead body began to bloat. The rope broke or the limb broke...or perhaps he was cut down. Who knows?
When he fell he fell head first and his rotting bloating body broke open when it hit the ground and his intestines came out.
If he's hanging by a rope, he can only fall feet first.
Personaly I think the rope was cut. I think someone may have had a hold of his feet or perhaps legs with the intention of lowering Judas down gently. When the rope was cut the upper part of the body leaned over as the feet/legs were held in place by the person supporting Judas...which resulted in Judas falling head first. Am I speculating? Yup.
Yes you're speculating, so you don't really know. If the truth of the story is known as you say by examining Matthew and Luke, then why your speculation?
 

CrowCross

Well-known member
If he's hanging by a rope, he can only fall feet first.

Yes you're speculating, so you don't really know. If the truth of the story is known as you say by examining Matthew and Luke, then why your speculation?
The bible said he fell head first. That's what happened. There are many scenarios that can cause a head first fall. I already presented one possibility.
 

Whatsisface

Well-known member
The bible said he fell head first. That's what happened. There are many scenarios that can cause a head first fall. I already presented one possibility.
Not when you hang yourself. The Bible also says he hung himself. That you are presenting possibilities means you don't know what happened.
 

CrowCross

Well-known member
Not when you hang yourself. The Bible also says he hung himself. That you are presenting possibilities means you don't know what happened.
Let me put it this way....you don't know enough to claim there are contradictions.

Every scenario you and the other bible haters here have presented have been answered. Time to try another.
 

Whatsisface

Well-known member
Let me put it this way....you don't know enough to claim there are contradictions.
Matthew... "So Judas threw the money into the temple and left. Then he went away and hanged himself. The chief priests picked up the coins and said, ‘It is against the law to put this into the treasury, since it is blood money.’ So they decided to use the money to buy the potter’s field as a burial place for foreigners. That is why it has been called the Field of Blood to this day"


Luke.... "With the reward he got for his wickedness, Judas bought a field; there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out. Everyone in Jerusalem heard about this, so they called that field in their language Akeldama, that is, Field of Blood"

Two contradictions in one. If the details matched, there would be no discrepancy. They don't match.
Every scenario you and the other bible haters here have presented have been answered. Time to try another.
Funny how you assume I'm hateful towards the Bible, I take it you're taking my line personally? Btw, the above remark is a contentless assertion only.
 

CrowCross

Well-known member
Matthew... "So Judas threw the money into the temple and left. Then he went away and hanged himself. The chief priests picked up the coins and said, ‘It is against the law to put this into the treasury, since it is blood money.’ So they decided to use the money to buy the potter’s field as a burial place for foreigners. That is why it has been called the Field of Blood to this day"


Luke.... "With the reward he got for his wickedness, Judas bought a field; there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out. Everyone in Jerusalem heard about this, so they called that field in their language Akeldama, that is, Field of Blood"

Two contradictions in one. If the details matched, there would be no discrepancy. They don't match.

Funny how you assume I'm hateful towards the Bible, I take it you're taking my line personally? Btw, the above remark is a contentless assertion only.
If you need two contradictions...keep telling yourself they are there.

Your concerns have already been addressed here and here.
 

Whatsisface

Well-known member
If you need two contradictions...keep telling yourself they are there.
I don't need two contradictions. I need someone to confirm to me the Bible is the word of God. You have not done this. The above does not say why the discrepancies in the stories are reconcilable.
Your concerns have already been addressed here and here.
No they haven't.

If you need two contradictions...keep telling yourself they are there.

Your concerns have already been addressed here and her.
The above does not reconcile the differences in the accounts from Matthew and Luke.
 

Woody50

Well-known member
Somehow I sense that this is an isolated personal observation of yours were we are left looking at each other puzzled as to why he couldn't hang onto the mic and where the heck did he go and why?
Not "somehow."

You lose. I win.

Hence the mic drop.

I'd 5wize drop, but you'd break.
 

5wize

Well-known member
I'm glad you decided to jump in and play. Problem is you too should have done your homework.

It would have been so simple for you to check out my previous link, Your question was answered there.

Concerning who paid for the field, here are two possible ways to reconcile the facts: 1) Judas was promised the thirty pieces of silver several days before Jesus’ arrest (Mark 14:11). Sometime during the days leading up to his betrayal of Jesus, Judas made arrangements to purchase a field, although no money had yet been transferred. After the deed was done, Judas was paid, but he then returned the money to the chief priests. The priests, who considered the silver to be blood money, completed the transaction that Judas had begun and bought the field. 2) When Judas threw the thirty pieces of silver down, the priests took the money and used it to buy the potter’s field (Matthew 27:7). Judas may not have purchased the field personally, but he provided the money for the transaction and could then be said to be the purchaser.



Post 175

So what?


Acts does not say the field of blood is called the field of blood because Judas spilled his blood on it. Under your theory they should have called it the field of intestines.
And this is why evangelical apologetics will die on the vine. The effort and strain put forth to believe is just too worthlessly heavy.
 

CrowCross

Well-known member
I don't need two contradictions. I need someone to confirm to me the Bible is the word of God. You have not done this. The above does not say why the discrepancies in the stories are reconcilable.

No they haven't.


The above does not reconcile the differences in the accounts from Matthew and Luke.
NEXT
 
Top