1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Bible Discrepancies

Discussion in 'Biblical Debates' started by Mister Emu, Oct 4, 2004.

  1. linwood

    linwood Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2004
    Messages:
    7,049
    Ratings:
    +861
    I tire of this.

    When documenting or describing someones, anyones death any person would include the cause of death.

    If Peter was describing the literal death of Judas AND Judas died by hanging he would indeed have mentioned the fact that he was hung.

    I`ve never heard of the death of a gunshot victim described simply "He bled to death".

    It will always be described as "He was shot, and bled to death."

    The assertions in this thread by theists are embarrassing.

    The two stories are indeed a contradiction.

    Can we move to Potters Field please?

    Who owned Potters field?

    Judas or the temple?
     
  2. prosecutor

    prosecutor Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2005
    Messages:
    130
    Ratings:
    +14
    Linwood, why are you so interested in who owned the potter's field? Are you looking to buy it?

    Prosecutor
     
  3. angellous_evangellous

    Ratings:
    +0
     
  4. Pah

    Pah Uber all member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2004
    Messages:
    13,001
    Ratings:
    +1,059
     
  5. Jayhawker Soule

    Jayhawker Soule <yawn> ignore </yawn>
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2004
    Messages:
    36,767
    Ratings:
    +10,108
    Religion:
    Judaism
    I'm still waiting for input on Exodus 9/12 - see post 99.
     
  6. linwood

    linwood Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2004
    Messages:
    7,049
    Ratings:
    +861
    Withdrawing?

    I was unaware they had begun.
     
  7. true blood

    true blood Active Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    Messages:
    848
    Ratings:
    +36
    As many here can tell you, I throw out all logic when it comes to God and talking about God. The two do not mix...yet. The logic of God will not be known until the end of time. The explantion of the "hanged himself" is for my own purposes. I'm not trying to push it on anyone. Believe whatever you want because that is what I do, however I make sure it's in harmony with the rest of what I believe in and if there is something that seems out of place I admit that it can be an error in my own understanding, an error in translation or it's one of the secret things of the world. Peeps back in those days did not hang themselves in suicide. They ran themselves into a sword.

    Lin, I say it was Judas' property. Purchased with the money he stole from "the bag".
     
  8. linwood

    linwood Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2004
    Messages:
    7,049
    Ratings:
    +861
    Thank you Trueblood, at least someone is willing to give it a shot.

    :)

    My answer is also not really directed at you even though you are the only believer to give me an answer.

    It is not directed at you because I know how you view Biblical verse and you are not who I intend to discuss it with for this reason.

    You do not claim Biblical inerrancy.

    I`m not saying I don`t want your input because I do, I`m just saying your understanding of Biblical verse is not the understanding I wish to comprehend.
    I already understand why you believe what you believe about the verse from previous debates.

    That being said I`ll tell you your answer is a good one, perhaps the best I know of.

    But, it`s not good enough.

    Mat 27:5-9
    And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself.
    And the chief priests took the silver pieces, and said, It is not lawful for to put them into the treasury, because it is the price of blood.
    And they took counsel, and bought with them the potter's field, to bury strangers in.
    Wherefore that field was called, The field of blood, unto this day.
    Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying, And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him that was valued, whom they of the children of Israel did value;

    Unless of course there was also a sleazy real estate agent who sold the priests Potters field after Judas hung ..er fell..umm..hung himself..even though this sleazy agent didn`t own it but claimed it after the death of Judas.
    Hey Look!
    I can harmonize!!

    This is a direct contradiction for a couple of reason even if there was a sleazy real estate agent.

    Acts 1:18- 19
    Now this man (Judas) 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; insomuch as that field is called in their proper tongue, Aceldama, that is to say, The field of blood.

    Truebloods harmonization doesn`t work regardless of how slimy a real estate agent might be because when Judas made the deal to betray Jesus with the priests the price agreed on was 30 pieces of silver.

    Mat 26:15
    And said [unto them], What will ye give me, and I will deliver him unto you? And they covenanted with him for thirty pieces of silver.

    When Judas threw the money back at the priests they picked up 30 pieces of silver.

    Mat 27:9
    Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying, And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him that was valued, whom they of the children of Israel did value;

    Judas stole nothing

    Please forgive the stereotype but I doubt a group of Jewish priests would have "Overpaid" Judas in the first place.

    The people I would really like to hear answer this conundrum are those who have been accusing me of splitting hairs.

    Because that would be a really entertaining piece of hypocrisy to witness.

    :)
     
  9. linwood

    linwood Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2004
    Messages:
    7,049
    Ratings:
    +861
    I haven`t seen anyone even attempt Deuts Exodus contradiction in post #99.

    Is there no one who holds the Bible as inerrant anymore?
     
  10. Mister Emu

    Mister Emu Emu Extraordinaire
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2004
    Messages:
    11,471
    Ratings:
    +1,278
    Religion:
    Christian
    Exodus 12:12
    I pointed out the word in, because while the cattle who died were soley of the Egyptians the last plague will not differentiate between Israelite and Egyptian, only blood on the house would cause the passover and thus it could be that the first born cattle who had died were of the Israelite stock.

    Another possibility is that the Egyptians bought more cattle, I am sure they would not want to go without milk and beef.

    Yep, just haven't visited this thread in a while.
     
  11. true blood

    true blood Active Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    Messages:
    848
    Ratings:
    +36
    Judas carried the money bag for Jesus' posse. It's very feasible that he pocketed some of the money. I don't even think he was suppose to have his own private stash but obviously he did and it would've came from stealing out of the disciples treasury. He was like their accountant. The money of iniquity was this stolen money. He sure didn't buy his property with the 30 silver he got from the elder priests, remember he threw it down.
     
  12. prosecutor

    prosecutor Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2005
    Messages:
    130
    Ratings:
    +14
    Why do some of you make something simple so difficult? The passage in Acts 1 about Judas "bought a field with the reward of his iniquity" was indeed the thirty pieces of silver mentioned by Matthew (27:3-10). Judas' purchased the field indirectly. This is the case in that (a) this was the money he received to betray Christ (Matthew 26:14-16), "the reward of his iniquity" (Acts 1:18); (b) the money he threw down (Matthew 27:5) and (c) that money was used by the chief priest and elders to purchase the potters field which came to be known as "the Field of Blood". (Matthew 27:6-8; Acts 1:19) To prove that the "indirect concept" is a Bible one, we read on one occasion where Jesus was said to have been "baptizing more disciples than John" and then followed this with "although Jesus himself did not baptize, but only his disciples" (John 4:1-2) Jesus was given credit, and rightly so, for the work of his disciples. While Judas did not "directly" purchase the field, he did so indirectly.
    Prosecutor
     
  13. Pah

    Pah Uber all member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2004
    Messages:
    13,001
    Ratings:
    +1,059
    But then you would also have to say that the priests indirectly purchased the field for Judas. That would be a neat, tidy solution if you could prove it. When was the title passed and to whom?


    Inspired supposition leaves a lot to be desired.
     
  14. linwood

    linwood Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2004
    Messages:
    7,049
    Ratings:
    +861
    The gospels says he used the silver given by the priests.

    You think I`m making things difficult?
    :biglaugh:
     
  15. true blood

    true blood Active Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    Messages:
    848
    Ratings:
    +36
    Where in the bible does it say Judas used the silver given by the priests? I only find "reward of iniquity" or "reward of sin". His sin was stealing. Do you really believe that giving someone's location for money is/was considered a sin?
     
  16. linwood

    linwood Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2004
    Messages:
    7,049
    Ratings:
    +861
    Whoa.

    We`ve harmonized Judas` betrayal of Jesus right out of the sin category.

    Cool!!
     
  17. prosecutor

    prosecutor Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2005
    Messages:
    130
    Ratings:
    +14
    linwood:

    I'm glad my answer brought you such laughter. However, you did not attempt to answer it did you? :tsk:

    Prosecutor
     
  18. linwood

    linwood Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2004
    Messages:
    7,049
    Ratings:
    +861
    Whats to answer?

    I can`t argue with a harmonization like that other than to say it isn`t supported by scriptural evidence.

    It isn`t denied by scriptural evidence either but niether are the leprechauns that come into my room at night to harvest my nose hairs.

    You are using scripture from a book written by a different author nowhere near the context of the scripture in question to justify the scripture in question.

    Dead people don`t buy real esate directly or indirectly.
    When my mother died I used the money she left me to buy a plot of land south of here.
    Did I buy it or did my mother?
    The money was mine, no one would ever state that my mother bought it.

    When I buy groceries do I tell my kids here`s some food my boss bought for you just because I got the money from my boss?

    It`s ridiculous.

    You are resorting to what I like to call scriptural gymnastics.

    I`m sorry but it gives me the giggles....everytime

    Thats why I post to this thread, comic relief.

    :)
     
  19. prosecutor

    prosecutor Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2005
    Messages:
    130
    Ratings:
    +14
    linwood, the money your mother left you and the case in Matthew 27 are not parallel. Those Jewish leaders refused to accept back the money. (verse 4) Having refused it, Judas threw down the money and left. (verse 5) The chief priests took the money that had been cast down, refused to place it into the treasury which was unlawful since it was blood money" (verse 6), took the money and bought the potters' field as a burial place for strangers. (verse 7) WHOSE MONEY WAS IT? A brother-in-law of mine died a few years ago. He left $500 in the bank. He was not married so his mother tried to get the money. The bank refused to let here have it. By law the account had to also be in her name or he had to have written a will stating that the money go to her. The bank continued to charge its monthy checking account rate until the money was gone. This means in spite of his death the money was still regarded as his. Did he continue to pay for his checking account after his death even though he never personally authorized such to be done? It was the bank that made the decision to use his money to continue to pay for a checking account neither he nor anyone else could use. Is it not the case that he was responsible indirectly for paying for a checking account long after he died? Now place the "bank" and 'the chief priests" together in that both made a decision with regards to money that didn't belong to either. Place my brother-in-law and Judas together in that neither specified how the money that was theirs was to be used. Because my brother-in-law failed to see that the money was given to his mother after his death, does not change the fact that it continued to be his money after his death even though the bank made the decision how it would be used. While this is not a perfect illustration, I hope it will help you to see how that Judas "indirectly" purchased this "field."
    Prosecutor
     
  20. linwood

    linwood Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2004
    Messages:
    7,049
    Ratings:
    +861
    New one.

    Is God satan?
     
Loading...