Judas Contradictions

[JoeMama]

Matthew 27 NIV
The chief priests schemed to arrest Jesus and kill him. Judas Iscariot went to the chief priests and asked, “What are you willing to give me if I deliver him over to you?” So they counted out for him thirty pieces of silver. From then on Judas watched for an opportunity to hand him over.

Early in the morning, all the chief priests and the elders of the people made their plans how to have Jesus executed.
When Judas, who had betrayed him, saw that Jesus was condemned, he was seized with remorse and returned the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests. Then he went away and hanged himself.

Acts 1:15-18
With the “blood money” he received for his betrayal, Judas bought a field; there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out.

The two accounts above contradict each other in a couple of ways.

1. Matthew says Judas died by hanging, while Acts says Judas died in a fall.
2. Matthew says Judas gave the blood money back, while Acts says he spent it.

These two contradictions show that the Bible falsely teaches in some places, contrary to what is claimed in 2 Timothy 3:16:

“All scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching.”

[Purple Knight]

It just occurs to me that despite the fact that I can't ultimately say it's anything but a terrible stretch, if Judas arranged to buy the field from the priests, but suddenly felt awful about it later, him deciding to commit suicide on that field does sort of add to the story, especially if the priests would not undo the transaction even if he threw his silver and then could not pay. In Judas's mind, then, he would be trying to wash the blood off his hands, getting rid of all the rewards he got from his dirty deed, and the priests would not let him. This turns into a very realistic story about guilt versus perceived guilt with a sombre moral: Once something is done, you can't just take it back, no matter how much you might want to.

it could be that when they were cutting him down, the person holding him let his rotten stinky body tip forward and he fell forward and he hit ground and burst, he could have been dead for many days and cut down or the rope had broken

I admit I like this harmonisation mostly because it gives those stinking priests a little comeuppance too, and Judas may well have intended it.

In the ancient world, if you came into contact with filthy corpse ick, it was fairly likely you died.

[TRANSPONDER]

..

There could be a number of ways that Judas fell forward, it could be that the rope had broken at some point during or after his hanging and his feet hit the ground firstly - then falling, tilting forward upon a rocky hard surface where his stomach and head landed upon a rocky area

it could be that he hung himself upon a hill

it could be that when they were cutting him down, the person holding him let his body rotten stinky body tip forward and he fell forward and he hit ground and burst , he could have been dead for many days and cut down or the rope had broken

Of course you can suggest any number of far -fetched ways that could happen. I thought them through and they are not too likely, are they. Also proposing a slip of a hill makes it a hill, not a field. In fact I read (details are hard to come by) but Akeldama is the south part of Mount of Olives, and is a cliff. That would work as a burial place as it is outside the city and a long drop, too. But how can that be the 'potter's field' or 'Field of Blood?' With all these get -outs it still reads like two different stroeis that do not match and that is a better explanation that your improbables.

this is not a contradiction or conflicting details it is just the COMMON CONSISTANT basic " STYLE - FORM - MODE and writing style in which the entire Bible is written by many multiple authors and eyewitnesses.

Yes it is, an apparent contradiction where if Judas had hanged himself and the rope broke, that is what we could expect both writers should have said. What they wrote sounds like two contrdictory stories - and that is far from th only ones; we have cought them contradicting before and will do so again. No clean hands means no trusting them. It reads like a real contradiction and appeal to the 'they wrote differently back then' will not wash. Translations are done by people whio read Koine Greek better than most people of the time did.

regarding the purchase of the field, there is no contradiction whatsoever LET'S LOOK AT EXACTLY what the scriptures say.

Act 1:18  Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out. .... ...... and it was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem;

the Priests took the money and purchased the very field where Judas had died NOTICE - it was purchased by Judas " with the reward of iniquity " it is not saying that Judas had personally used the literal physical money to make the purchase....

the reward of iniquity is how the purchase was made - it is not saying that Judas literally went and purchased the field but with the reward of iniquity Judas purchased the field because the Priests made the physical purchase of the field in the name of Judas - the field where Judas committed suicide was purchased with the money that belonged to Judas.

You are using a strained reading. Judas purchased the field with his reward. If he had someone buy it for him, it would have said so. In any case, such a transaction would mean the money was spent either way, right? So how could he throw it back at the priests? No, nobody could buy it for him and he still had the money. Of course you can make out that what the Bible appears to say - that the priests buying the field - was the same as Judas buying the field. It isn't. The priests buying the field is not Judas buying the field. "This man (Judas) bought a field" (with that money). That is what it says, not that the priests bought it with his money, which is what Matthew says. Your attempt to shove the two stories fit together will not convince anyone who isn't desirous of believing it, no matter how improbable the excuse.

It does not do you much good to appeal to everyone in Jerusalem knowing it. Even if they did and it wasn't just Luke saying how that was the event that got the field its' name, it makes no difference to the problem. In fact Matthew agrees that is the name of this field (curious that's one thing they agree on), but because it was used to bury foreigners, not because Judas spilled his blood there. It's the old problem of trying to explain bits of a story left out when you try to make them the same story. A sequence of events that doesn't fit and has to be rewritten so the purchase of a field by himself before all this has to be the same as the purchase of a field by someone else after these events. Anyone looking at them side by side must opt for contradiction as the best hypothesis, and only someone who wants to deny any contradiction (faihbased bias, it's called ) will buy your excuses. I haven't even touched on the terrible attempt to construct a prophecy by both gospels, but after all that doesn't alter the actual events.

[Falling Light 101]

.

It is complete perversity and confusion to place trust in the Trinitarian translation of the scriptures - this is why we must always go back to the original message in the manuscripts.

Act 1:18
ουτος This - μεν truly / indeed - ουν therefore - εκτησατο acquired - χωριον the field / land - εκ out of - του the - μισθου wages - της of his - αδικιας unrighteousness - και and - πρηνης headlong - γενομενος when he was - ελακησεν burst asunder - μεσος in the midst - και and - εξεχυθη poured out - παντα all - τα his - σπλαγχνα bowels - αυτου  himself

:18
This truly / indeed therefore acquired the field / land out of the wages of the unrighteousness and headlong he was burst asunder in the midst and poured out all his bowels himself.

the original manuscripts says exactly as I explained. - it is not saying in the original that Judas himself had gone and personally purchased the field.

This truly / indeed therefore acquired the field / land out of the wages of the unrighteousness

this is exactly the word for word translation from the manuscripts - Word for Word exactly. we should always go to the original manuscript - the Trinitarian translation is designed to inject and insert contradiction and confusion and perversion.

this is called interjecting spiritual technology into the message - rendering passages in a method that do not exist in the original manuscript message.,

[TRANSPONDER]

.

It is complete perversity and confusion to place trust in the Trinitarian translation of the scriptures - this is why we must always go back to the original message in the manuscripts.

Act 1:18
ουτος This - μεν truly / indeed - ουν therefore - εκτησατο acquired - χωριον the field / land - εκ out of - του the - μισθου wages - της of his - αδικιας unrighteousness - και and - πρηνης headlong - γενομενος when he was - ελακησεν burst asunder - μεσος in the midst - και and - εξεχυθη poured out - παντα all - τα his - σπλαγχνα bowels - αυτου  himself

:18
This truly / indeed therefore acquired the field / land out of the wages of the unrighteousness and headlong he was burst asunder in the midst and poured out all his bowels himself.

the original manuscripts says exactly as I explained. - it is not saying in the original that Judas himself had gone and personally purchased the field.

This truly / indeed therefore acquired the field / land out of the wages of the unrighteousness

this is exactly the word for word translation from the manuscripts - Word for Word exactly. we should always go to the original manuscript - the Trinitarian translation is designed to inject and insert contradiction and confusion and perversion.

this is called interjecting spiritual technology into the message - rendering passages in a method that do not exist in the original manuscript message.,

No, it is called a strained interpretation to make a contradiction work. It doesn't matter whether Judas bought the field himself or got someone to do it for him, it was done by him with his money, and thus before he was dead. It could not be bought by the priests for their own purposes and it be said that Judas bought it. It is the same argument and the same strained interpretation no matter which translation you use.

Looking at the translation
Acts 1. 18 (
Now oun this houtos man bought ktaomai a field chōrion with ek the reward misthos of his ho unjust adikia deed and kai falling ginomai headfirst prēnēs he burst lakaō open in the middle mesos and kai all pas his autos intestines splanchnon gushed ekchunnomai out

I'll check oun houtos but from what I remember it means a particular man and not 'truly indeed therefore' as your translation has it.

Ok, I'll give you this, 'man' is put in brackets at times, so 'man' is assumed. But consider the context:

Acts 1. 16 Men and brethren, this scripture must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake before concerning Judas, which was guide to them that took Jesus. 17 For he was numbered with us, and had obtained part of this ministry. 18 Now this (man) purchased a field with the reward of iniquity;

'This' relates to Judas, not the priests, so the discussion is the same, no matter how you translate it. It is whether Judas buying the field or indeed getting someone else to buy it for him (which means the money was already spent), can be understood as the priests buying it for their own purposes with the money Judas slung back at them. Remember that the apparent meaning has to be strained with Judas hanging himself as Jesus was being condemned being the same as his falling (improbably) headlong in a supposedly flat field (admittedly over a month later). And in neither case (as in so many similar examples) never are the two events described as one. Thus can you blame me or any skeptic for seeing this as a real contradictory tale on two counts, and for good reason, no mater how you interpret what it apparently says in favor of what you want it to say.

It isn't about you admitting 'it is evidently a real contradiction' as you won't, no matter how bad it looks, but whether your apologetic will convince anyone else who isn't already wanting to be convinced.

[Falling Light 101]

.

The problem with the translation is that the translators did not render the passage in the way it is presented in the manuscripts.

Notice the Greek words in red - actually therefore acquired

μεν truly / actually / really - ουν therefore - εκτησατο acquired

- χωριον the field

“ IN THE SENTENCE “ the field was acquired “ - out from / of - the wages of his unrighteousness
Judas - μεν truly \ actually \ really - ουν therefore \ so \ then - acquired

This is what has been removed from the original message

The Greek word - οὗτος _ outos
, is a demonstrative pronoun ....... It describes the manner of " verbal action " or - state of being.
οὗτος - outos indicates a pronoun in context of the narrative for a sentences context = ……… this, he, she, it

Act 1:18
ουτος This - μεν truly / actually - ουν therefore - εκτησατο acquired - χωριον the field / land - εκ out of - του the - μισθου wages - της of his - αδικιας unrighteousness
This truly / indeed actually therefore acquired the field / land out of the wages of his unrighteousness -

Even if we take - ουτος This - to apply to directly to Judas, saying -=-- ουτος This man -
IT STILL DOES NOT CHANGE THE FACT THAT THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE IN GREEK IS SAYING

THIS MAN - μεν truly \ actually \ really - ουν therefore \ so \ then - acquired

The original sentence in Greek is using the word “ ουν therefore “
therefore, is an adverb reflecting inference indicating - “ as a consequence,” “as a result,” Therefore means for this reason, thus, or consequently. - μεν thereafter - after that, - therein - certainly - accordingly: (likewise then), wherefore.
a conjunctive adverb or sentence connector - reflecting a sentence context -

out of the wages of his unrighteousness - truly / indeed actually therefore acquiring the field
this all was completely deleted in the translation

the original authors had full opportunity and a full option to say - - - ……… this οὗτος - man ανθρωπο anthropod, - using the two separate Greek words “ this man “ but they did not
here are some examples of the ORIGINAL MANUSCRIPTS using the two separate Greek words together in the same sentence
Mar 15:39 ……… this οὗτος - man ανθρωπο
Luk 14:30 ……… this οὗτος - man ανθρωπο
Luk 23:47 ……… this οὗτος - was a righteous man ανθρωπο.
Joh 7:46 ……… this οὗτος - man ανθρωπο.
Joh 9:16 ……… this οὗτος - man ανθρωπο
Joh 9:24 ……… this οὗτος - man ανθρωπο
Joh 11:47 ……… this οὗτος - man ανθρωπο
Act 6:13 ……… this οὗτος - man ανθρωπο
Act 22:26 ……… this οὗτος - man ανθρωπο
Act 26:31 ……… this οὗτος - man ανθρωπο
Act 26:32 ……… this οὗτος - man ανθρωπο
Act 28:4 ……… this οὗτος - man ανθρωπο
Luk 7:44  ……… this οὗτος - woman γυνή
Joh 8:4  ……… this οὗτος - woman γυνή

This is not the way Act 1:18 is structured in the Greek

It would be like saying, for example - The man dying in the desert from thirst needed water, Judas saw the man promised he would immediately go and bring water, Judas went and gathered water but on the way back to help the man he found someone else willing to pay an enormous sum of money for him to gather water for them.

- THIS MAN judas - μεν truly \ actually \ really - ουν therefore \ so \ then - killed the thirsty man in the desert - out of the actions of his unrighteousness
but Judas did not physically cause the man to die himself, Judas neglected the dying man - but that in effect as a result - out of the action of his unrighteousness - -

This truly / indeed actually therefore acquired the field / land out of the wages of his unrighteousness

This Man truly / indeed actually therefore acquired the field / land out of the wages of his unrighteousness

If we translate the original message we can understand what the Spirit of God is saying.

[TRANSPONDER]

This is ignoring the preceding bit that shows that Peter is referring to Judas. That the priests bought the field for him is nowhere indicated in the passage and is transported in by you from Matthew in an effort to make one mean the other. That the two methods of demise do not resemble each other indicated that we do have a genuine contradiction and by no means the only one.

[Falling Light 101]

.
There is no doubt the passage is about judas,

Act 1:16  explains that Judas was working as a hired guide to capture Jesus. 

:17  For he was numbered with us, and had obtained part of this ministry. 

because Judas obtained a position of the ministry - because Judas was working as a hired guide to capture Jesus

this situation is the reason why the field was acquired

:18 This truly / indeed actually therefore acquired the field / land out of the wages of his unrighteousness

Act 1:18
ουτος This - μεν truly / actually - ουν therefore - εκτησατο acquired - χωριον the field / land - εκ out of - του the - μισθου wages - της of his - αδικιας unrighteousness

My point is to only present the exact manuscript message and prove that the Translation has changed the original message of the manuscript.

I appreciate your honesty to express that you do not believe what the manuscripts are saying - most trinitarians would be expressing their doubt that the passage is mistranslated.

[TRANSPONDER]

.
There is no doubt the passage is about judas,

Act 1:16  explains that Judas was working as a hired guide to capture Jesus. 

:17  For he was numbered with us, and had obtained part of this ministry. 

because Judas obtained a position of the ministry - because Judas was working as a hired guide to capture Jesus

this situation is the reason why the field was acquired

:18 This truly / indeed actually therefore acquired the field / land out of the wages of his unrighteousness

Act 1:18
ουτος This - μεν truly / actually - ουν therefore - εκτησατο acquired - χωριον the field / land - εκ out of - του the - μισθου wages - της of his - αδικιας unrighteousness

My point is to only present the exact manuscript message and prove that the Translation has changed the original message of the manuscript.

I appreciate your honesty to express that you do not believe what the manuscripts are saying - most trinitarians would be expressing their doubt that the passage is mistranslated.

It is not mistranslated. 'This' is parsed, and reasonably so, as 'This man' (Judas) for comprehension, rather than translate it just word for word. In cases of question like this, I am happy to look at the original Hebrew or Greek, but one has to give some weight to the way the text is translated by the experts.

That said, it is Judas who is the one bought the field with the money that was his reward and the question arises of whether one can make that mean 'The priests used the money he threw back at them to buy a field' as Matthew says, and that isn't a matter of translation but of fiddling the meaning to make it look like two different passages really mean the same thing. Just as is done with the hanging and the falling headlong. Apart from which Luke and Matthew have been found contradicting on many other occasions. Roman camps and Temple loot aside, isn't it feasible and reasonable that they read like different tales because they ARE different tales?

One last thing - you clearly have a bee in your bonnet about Trinitarians. Perhaps you can put what is your beef with them in the form of a question and post it for discussion.

Quora saith:
People also ask
What does being Trinitarian mean?
A trinitarian believes in the doctrine of the trinity. This doctrine states that one God is revealed in three persons. We refer to the three persons as God the Father, God the Son or Jesus, and God the Holy Spirit.

Well, I don't believe in the doctrine of the Trinity either, but that's because I don't believe in any gods. But I don't see why you think that context - sensitive readings of the Bible text are the result of Trinitarian beliefs.

p.s I see that you already have a dedicated thread "Trinity from Elohim?".

[Falling Light 101]

.
This is the problem -

that Trinitarians have attempted to purposefully create their faith system for the world - by outlawing and banning and prohibiting the translation of the Bible for nearly 2000 years.

- all of the originals would have been lost, destroyed and burned . Individuals attempting to translate using the Bible were burned alive by the Trinitarians with their manuscripts and translating tools hung around their necks until everything was lost and destroyed and altered

The Trinitarians along with Muslims, created their own reality of a world with no original manuscripts preserved - they destroyed everything and created a harsh and impossible, violent, and deadly environment for those trying to preserve and make copies and translate them.

While only promoting and building upon the ancient Latin and Greek dialog - that has been itself codified and manipulated - then mixed the Trinitarian
Translations mingling with core prophecies, revelations and spiritual claims of the Arabic Quran-


nearly 2000 years after the original Bible was written, the Trinitarians allow the Scriptures to be translated into a modern language,


What I am getting at = is that after 2000 years,, SUDDENLY THE TRINITARIANS HAVE A NEW REVELATION,, SUDDENLY THE JEWS KNOW THEIR BIBLES AND ARE HEBREW EXPERTS IN THE OLD TESTAMENT.

SUDDENLY THE JEWS MIRACULOUSLY BEEN FOUND WORTHY TO BE ACCEPTANCE IN COMMENTARY ON THE BIBLE -


THE FACT IS - the Trinitarians have just recently permitted the Jews to have their homeland and live in peace for just one single generation,- just 70 years ago -

The GODHEADIAN and TRINITARIAN world has butchered, killed, tortured and slaughtered twice as many Jews as both Islam and Adolf Hitler put together.

Their manuscripts have been manipulated and controlled and the Trinitarians outlawed and banned it illegal to even translate a bible into another language - for nearly 2000 years.

Trinitarians have accused the Jews as being under Gods curse and as being evil deceivers and worth of physical persecution and have exiled and ousted them out of every single Trinitarian country.

What I am getting at = is that after 2000 years SUDDENLY THE TRINITARIANS HAVE A NEW REVELATION SUDDENLY THE JEWS KNOW THEIR BIBLES AND ARE HEBREW EXPERTS IN THE OLD TESTAMENT. SUDDENLY THE JEWS MIRACULOUSLY BEEN FOUND WORTHY TO BE ACCEPTANCE IN COMMENTARY ON THE BIBLE

but this is such manipulation because for 2000 years the Trinitarians have prohibited the entire world from translating the Old Testament and Trinitarians - HAVE COMPLETELY DESTROYED AND ERADICATED AND SNUFFED OUT ALL OF THE ENTIRE BODY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT MANUSCRIPT THAT THE JEWS HAD ATTEMPTED TO POSSES AND PRESERVE.

AND TODAY TRINITARIANS POINT THEIR FINGER AT THE BIBLES THAT THE JEWS POSESS TODAY - and Trinitarians declare, that the fact that the Jews Bibles batch up and match up with their Trinitarian Translations - this means something special and miraculous vindicating their translations.

Yet
Less than a single generation ago the Jews had been living in persecution and under terrorism attacks at the hands of the Trinitarians for the last 2000 years. ! expelled and for 2000 years periodically continually ousted and exiled out of every Trinitarian continent on the planet and living in hiding, as animals, tormented and terrorized and manipulated in every way possible.

My point is not directed toward individual Trinitarians / Godheadians or anyone particular, but I just cannot pretend that things are as the specious appearance that is purported.

THE ENTIRE IDEA AND CONCEPT OF A COMPLETED BIBLE TRANSLATION MOVING BEYOND THE ANCIENT LATIN AND GREEK AND INTO A MODERN REAL-TIME WORLD LANGUAGE - THIS CONCEPT AND IDEA - THIS IS A TOTAL AND FREAK ACCIDENT, IN THE TRINITARIAN WORLD.

A MISTAKE - A TRINITARIAN MISTAKE, THAT SUDDENLY ACCIDENTALLY JUST HAPPENED TO ACCIDENTALLY APPEAR and OCCURE BEHIND THEIR BACKS -

nearly, 2000 years after the book was written

these tiny fragments scattered in the wind that have been accidentally found scattered across the Middle East and Europe. Before the late 1400 s.

do not exist because Trinitarians were preserving the bible -

these are random failed attempts to translate the Bible for 2000 years by hereticks who were hunted and killed. These scattered fragments - thousands of fragments accidentally found scattered throughout Europe and the Middle East - EXIST SOELY BECAUSE Trinitarians never – never NEVER intended to preserve a single page of the original Bible.

[TRANSPONDER]

Well, I am glad you were able to get that off your chests. Theology or Christian denominational squabbles holds little interest for me as, if the Bible is not reliable, then wrangling about which version or derivative religion or denomination becomes wasted study and debate.

I fully agree with you that the Trinity (like indeed Satan and Hell) are later human inventions, but my spiel which is processed not the capital letters but incorrect hyphenation and an obsession with footnotes, is messaging that Jesus was only ever a man to the disciples and Paul. A man supposed to be the Messiah, or A Messiah, at least, but never God incarnated. And thus, while I preach against the Big Lie of Christianity or indeed any Bible -based religion, the doctrine of the Trinity is another big lie that the experts ought to know is as fraudulent as Genesis, the sun standing still, the Nativity, the shekel eating fins and the resurrection - stories, and their experts must know it and either deny it on Faith or pretend it's true because it's a nice little earner.

The clergy project exits because Preachers, sold the Big Lie as youngsters, come out of Mental inseminary - training, knowing they've been sold a bill of goods, but they have no other skills and they have to preach what they know is false and they cannot get out of the trap, bit to say, cult.

My Belief is that Bible - believers know deep down, it isn't true, but they cling to anything that will help to credit the lie, like the Moses camp site, Durupinar Ark and (for a week or so ) the Talpiot tomb, though the Turin Shroud is a persuasive one, if one only listens to one side.

So you dismiss the doctrine of the Trinity, just as I dismiss the doctrine of Creation, Incarnation and Resurrection, and most of the rest of the Book.