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.”

[1213]

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.

1. Acts tell that Judas fell, not that Judas died in a fall. Why atheist need to make up such lies to make Bible look contradictory?

2. The word bought would be better to translate acquired or obtained. Judas obtained the field by his betrayal, which is why it is said "bought a field out of the reward of unrighteousness".

[TRANSPONDER]

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.

1. Acts tell that Judas fell, not that Judas died in a fall. Why atheist need to make up such lies to make Bible look contradictory?

2. The word bought would be better to translate acquired or obtained. Judas obtained the field by his betrayal, which is why it is said "bought a field out of the reward of unrighteousness".

Let's see.

Acts 1.15 In those days Peter stood up among the believers (a group numbering about a hundred and twenty) 16 and said, “Brothers and sisters,[d] the Scripture had to be fulfilled in which the Holy Spirit spoke long ago through David concerning Judas, who served as guide for those who arrested Jesus. 17 He was one of our number and shared in our ministry.”
18 (With the payment he received for his wickedness, Judas bought a field; there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out. 19 Everyone in Jerusalem heard about this, so they called that field in their language Akeldama, that is, Field of Blood.)

You have to stop being so dishonest. It makes yo look bad. "Judas bought a field; there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out."

While it doesn't say he died, it is quite clear that must have been fatal.

Similarly, "With the payment he received for his wickedness, Judas bought a field;" The idea is clear, however you fiddle the translation, Judas used to money to 'obtain' the field. He handed the cash over. That is how commercial transactions work.

Look, you can carry on with these ludicrous attempts at rewriting the Bible or blatant evasion of the facts and truth, I'm just saying, it hurts your case, not ours. In fact I should thank you for enabling us to ram home the contradiction and show how dodgy are the methods Bible -apologists use to try to bury clear contradictions, so thanks

[Bust Nak]

... need to make up such lies...

...You have to stop being so dishonest...

Moderator Intervention

Cut it out!

______________

Moderator interventions do not count as a strike against any posters. They are given at the discretion of a moderator when he or she feels that some sort of intervention is required.

[TRANSPONDER]

Ok,sorry.

[1213]

...
You have to stop being so dishonest. It makes yo look bad. "Judas bought a field; there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out."

While it doesn't say he died, it is quite clear that must have been fatal...

He could have been dead already before the fall. For example, he hanged himself and after that the rope broke of and he fell.

... He handed the cash over. That is how commercial transactions work. ..

That is how it works, if one has unbearable desire to see contradictions. But, in real life one can use mediator/broker and you don't need to hand the cash yourself always. The field was bought with money Judas got from the betrayal, so it was his field and that is why it can be said he obtained/bought it by the betrayal.

[TRANSPONDER]

...
You have to stop being so dishonest. It makes yo look bad. "Judas bought a field; there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out."

While it doesn't say he died, it is quite clear that must have been fatal...

He could have been dead already before the fall. For example, he hanged himself and after that the rope broke of and he fell.

... He handed the cash over. That is how commercial transactions work. ..

That is how it works, if one has unbearable desire to see contradictions. But, in real life one can use mediator/broker and you don't need to hand the cash yourself always. The field was bought with money Judas got from the betrayal, so it was his field and that is why it can be said he obtained/bought it by the betrayal.

You are missing or ignoring the point that the timeline shows these contradictions are real.

Let me set it out.

After the anointing at Bethany (apparently) Judas sells Jesus out for thirty silver. Judas buys this field. He must, before Jesus is arrested as there is no opportunity for him to go and buy anything after that.
After the trial starts, Judas confronts the priests and slings the money back at them. But he must already have spent the money on this field. That is what shows the contradiction, not dickering about whether he uses an intermediary or not.

Jesus is Crucified and Judas hangs himself, supposedly in the field he bought. Some time during the next month or so (as after Jesus ascends 40 days later Peter tells of Judas' death) The priests buy this field in which Judas had already died with the money Judas had already spent. The chronology makes the semantic fiddling you propose invalid in trying to make these two contradictory stories work together. They don't.

That they don't really makes it clear that the method of death is itself a real contradiction and the attempts to wangle them together are futile, and that is a 'clean hands' reason to reject other attempt to fiddle contradictory stories together ,like the Nativities, resurrection appearances, rejection at Nazareth, Temple cleansing, sermon...and most of the rest of the Book.

I believe that once people clearly see the trick, they will not be fooled by it again. The differences in the stories cause suspicion, but understanding that the sequence of events invalidate the stories is what does for it, even without the demonstrable fabrication and falsification of both related "prophecies".

[1213]

....Judas sells Jesus out for thirty silver. Judas buys this field. He must, before Jesus is arrested as there is no opportunity for him to go and buy anything after that.
After the trial starts, Judas confronts the priests and slings the money back at them. But he must already have spent the money on this field. ....

Sorry, I think you are filling too much of your own to the story. That is why it may look contradictory. If we take only what is said in the Bible, there is no contradiction, because all of what is said in the Bible, can be true at the same time, if connected the right way.

No Biblical reason to think Judas had to buy it before he threw the money back, because it was the priests who bought it for him with his money. And Judas could have killed himself next to that field, even if it was not yet his.

[TRANSPONDER]

....Judas sells Jesus out for thirty silver. Judas buys this field. He must, before Jesus is arrested as there is no opportunity for him to go and buy anything after that.
After the trial starts, Judas confronts the priests and slings the money back at them. But he must already have spent the money on this field. ....

Sorry, I think you are filling too much of your own to the story. That is why it may look contradictory. If we take only what is said in the Bible, there is no contradiction, because all of what is said in the Bible, can be true at the same time, if connected the right way.

No Biblical reason to think Judas had to buy it before he threw the money back, because it was the priests who bought it for him with his money. And Judas could have killed himself next to that field, even if it was not yet his.

Well, suppose you set out the timeline from when Judas agreed to sell Jesus out for thirty silver to when Peter tells the disciples about how Judas died. I'll be impressed if you can fit what the Bible says into a timeline that reconcile the contradictions that appear to be there.

Anything (such as the unsupported claims you made above) other than doing it as I did that fits in all the events (without rewriting or making stuff up) will be surely seen as an admission that you can't. I would also be much impressed if you can show the 'prophecies'to be anything other that snipping bits of mangled OT to back up the stories they wrote down and well as, I will bet my afterlife, they made up.

[brunumb]

....Judas sells Jesus out for thirty silver. Judas buys this field. He must, before Jesus is arrested as there is no opportunity for him to go and buy anything after that.
After the trial starts, Judas confronts the priests and slings the money back at them. But he must already have spent the money on this field. ....

Sorry, I think you are filling too much of your own to the story. That is why it may look contradictory. If we take only what is said in the Bible, there is no contradiction, because all of what is said in the Bible, can be true at the same time, if connected the right way.

No Biblical reason to think Judas had to buy it before he threw the money back, because it was the priests who bought it for him with his money. And Judas could have killed himself next to that field, even if it was not yet his.

Sorry, I think you are filling too much of your own to the story.