Judas' Death

[JBlack]

5So Judas threw the money into the temple and left. Then he went away and hanged himself.

6The chief priests picked up the coins and said, "It is against the law to put this into the treasury, since it is blood money." 7So they decided to use the money to buy the potter's field as a burial place for foreigners. 8That is why it has been called the Field of Blood to this day. 9Then what was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet was fulfilled: "They took the thirty silver coins, the price set on him by the people of Israel, 10and they used them to buy the potter's field, as the Lord commanded me."

18(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. 19Everyone in Jerusalem heard about this, so they called that field in their language Akeldama, that is, Field of Blood.)

1. How do Christians explain this clear contradiction between Matthew and Acts concerning the manner of Judas' death?

2. How did Judas die?

[Miles]

I wouldn't be so quick to bring up Act 1:18 if you want to hold to your argument. Note how it contradicts Matthew 27:7

I'm aware that it contradicts Matthew 27:7. This is my point.

Note question 1 of my OP.

1. How do Christians explain this clear contradiction between Matthew and Acts concerning the manner of Judas' death?

You say "bought a field" means Judas hung himself, and that he "bought" it with his blood. But Acts 1:18 says Judas bought it with his reward for his wickedness. How can "With the reward he got for his wickedness, Judas bought a field" mean that Judas bought it metaphorically?

Are you going to say that Acts is wrong and Matthew is right?

Yes.

How can you know that?

I don't.

Where is the evidence for such a claim?

No evidence; it's just the way I prefer to think of it. You know, The Christian apologist way.

Note how it contradicts Matthew 27:7

Ok, so we agree... there's a clear contradiction here.

So, will someone who believes the Bible to be the inerrant Word of God please explain this contradiction?

Yeah!

[JBlack]

I wouldn't be so quick to bring up Act 1:18 if you want to hold to your argument. Note how it contradicts Matthew 27:7

I'm aware that it contradicts Matthew 27:7. This is my point.

Note question 1 of my OP.

1. How do Christians explain this clear contradiction between Matthew and Acts concerning the manner of Judas' death?

You say "bought a field" means Judas hung himself, and that he "bought" it with his blood. But Acts 1:18 says Judas bought it with his reward for his wickedness. How can "With the reward he got for his wickedness, Judas bought a field" mean that Judas bought it metaphorically?

Are you going to say that Acts is wrong and Matthew is right?

Yes.

How can you know that?

I don't.

Where is the evidence for such a claim?

No evidence; it's just the way I prefer to think of it. You know, The Christian apologist way.

Note how it contradicts Matthew 27:7

Ok, so we agree... there's a clear contradiction here.

So, will someone who believes the Bible to be the inerrant Word of God please explain this contradiction?

Yeah!

Oh, ok.

Sorry, I didn't realize your response was just a joke.

[Miles]

I wouldn't be so quick to bring up Act 1:18 if you want to hold to your argument. Note how it contradicts Matthew 27:7

I'm aware that it contradicts Matthew 27:7. This is my point.

Note question 1 of my OP.

1. How do Christians explain this clear contradiction between Matthew and Acts concerning the manner of Judas' death?

You say "bought a field" means Judas hung himself, and that he "bought" it with his blood. But Acts 1:18 says Judas bought it with his reward for his wickedness. How can "With the reward he got for his wickedness, Judas bought a field" mean that Judas bought it metaphorically?

Are you going to say that Acts is wrong and Matthew is right?

Yes.

How can you know that?

I don't.

Where is the evidence for such a claim?

No evidence; it's just the way I prefer to think of it. You know, The Christian apologist way.

Note how it contradicts Matthew 27:7

Ok, so we agree... there's a clear contradiction here.

So, will someone who believes the Bible to be the inerrant Word of God please explain this contradiction?

Yeah!

Oh, ok.

Sorry, I didn't realize your response was just a joke.

When I initially wrote "'Bought a field' means to hang oneself" it was an attempt to see how closely I could emulate some of the explanations apologists come up with--not having any real basis in fact or scripture, but seemingly mere concoctions of the imagination. As others quickly asked, as you did, how certain aspects of my explanation could be reconciled I found myself getting in over my head, and saw my ruse was at an end. For you and others who may feel they wasted their time on my small experiment, my sincere apologies.

[fightwriter]

Would it not stand to reason that they both bought the field? Judas betrayed the Lord and was paid 30 pieces of silver. This money he gave to the priests, in turn they purchased the field. So weren't both parties involved in buying the field? If I go into a shop and knock a lamp over the shopkeeper will say you just "bought" that lamp. So if the shopkeeper tells someone I broke the lamp and I tell someone I bought the lamp both statements are true. Just seems logical to me, they all were involved in the purchase of the field. I don't see the contradiction. You ever give someone some money, send them into the store to buy something for you? who bought it? you both did.

[JBlack]

Would it not stand to reason that they both bought the field? Judas betrayed the Lord and was paid 30 pieces of silver. This money he gave to the priests, in turn they purchased the field. So weren't both parties involved in buying the field? If I go into a shop and knock a lamp over the shopkeeper will say you just "bought" that lamp. So if the shopkeeper tells someone I broke the lamp and I tell someone I bought the lamp both statements are true. Just seems logical to me, they all were involved in the purchase of the field. I don't see the contradiction. You ever give someone some money, send them into the store to buy something for you? who bought it? you both did.

How come Acts doesn't mention the priests?

How did Judas die?

Was the field bought before Judas died or after Judas died?

Why was the field called Field of Blood?

[Goat]

Would it not stand to reason that they both bought the field? Judas betrayed the Lord and was paid 30 pieces of silver. This money he gave to the priests, in turn they purchased the field. So weren't both parties involved in buying the field? If I go into a shop and knock a lamp over the shopkeeper will say you just "bought" that lamp. So if the shopkeeper tells someone I broke the lamp and I tell someone I bought the lamp both statements are true. Just seems logical to me, they all were involved in the purchase of the field. I don't see the contradiction. You ever give someone some money, send them into the store to buy something for you? who bought it? you both did.

Using the passage from Acts, please support your contention that Judas gave the
money to the priests.

If you look at the two stories in isolation, you can not justify the claims of one story with the claims of the other.

[fightwriter]

"Using the passage from Acts, please support your contention that Judas gave the
money to the priests.

If you look at the two stories in isolation, you can not justify the claims of one story with the claims of the other."---Goat

If there is a murder do you not use parts of stories from different witnesses to construct the truth? You don't look at anything else in isolation, why the bible? Matthews story is the support for the money being given to the priest.

If the field is bought before or after his death what is the relevance? Can people not call something the same thing for two different but related reasons? Are both explanations of why the field is deemed "Field of Blood" not acceptable reasons?

[JBlack]

If the field is bought before or after his death what is the relevance?

It's relevant to the Bible's supposed inerrancy.

[Goat]

"Using the passage from Acts, please support your contention that Judas gave the
money to the priests.

If you look at the two stories in isolation, you can not justify the claims of one story with the claims of the other."---Goat

If there is a murder do you not use parts of stories from different witnesses to construct the truth? You don't look at anything else in isolation, why the bible? Matthews story is the support for the money being given to the priest.

If the field is bought before or after his death what is the relevance? Can people not call something the same thing for two different but related reasons? Are both explanations of why the field is deemed "Field of Blood" not acceptable reasons?

Well, that 'two witnesses' is not a valid argument, since it is entirely two different stories. It is not the same story told from two different vantage points.

[fightwriter]

Well, that 'two witnesses' is not a valid argument, since it is entirely two different stories. It is not the same story told from two different vantage points.

hmmm, you get onto me for this kind of nonsense. They are pieces of evidence constructing the truth of the same story. You telling me there has never been a conviction unless there were two witnesses? I was just pointing out the gathering of evidence from different sources not a necessity for "two witnesses"