Judas Contradiction

[Sophus]

I wonder if anyone has been honestly following the conversation.

[LoneMateria]

Wow those of you who have kept reading are awesome.  When I see posts as long I have created I have a hard time forcing myself to read it >.<  And to do that on a regular basis wow.

[dtackett]

Wow we had really strayed way off topic, and I'm not even sure how. Not do dismiss your points but to get back to the OP.
Yes in a literalist approach with today's vocabulary Judas' death was a contradiction that requies a little visualization to reconcile. Bottom line he died and the money he got for betraying Christ was spent to but some land where he might/ might not have died.

[LoneMateria]

Wow we had really strayed way off topic, and I'm not even sure how. Not do dismiss your points but to get back to the OP.
Yes in a literalist approach with today's vocabulary Judas' death was a contradiction that requies a little visualization to reconcile. Bottom line he died and the money he got for betraying Christ was spent to but some land where he might/ might not have died.

Yeah getting OT can be easy.  I think we went too deep to start a new thread about what we were discussing.

Anyway the last part of your post is itself a contradiction from in Matthew 27:5 Judas threw the silver at the priests and went and hung himself.   While in Acts 1:18 he purchased the field with the money from his wickedness where he fell head first and his bowels gushed out.  What is the deal with the silver?

[dtackett]

If he's dead he can't purchase anything. In my church things, purchased with money from esates of those who have passed, are typically named after the person who died. We have several named pews and pices of stained glass. I would assume it's similar. Money from someone to pay for something get's the dead guy's name.

[hvargas]

Back on track, Judas Contradiction. Lets go back a bit. When investigating anything and in this case Judas Contradiction we must asked the right questions. The first will be who related the witness account?, second when did historian wrote it or recorded this as a historical fact?, third will be when was it related to the actual publisher or writer?, forth, ink and paper or what was used as paper at that time was only available to a very limited few. Finally, the printing press was established around the year 1250. Who is to say if the Judas character was a real person or an invented bed time story of a fictional nature. We at this time in our history can't accept the Bible as a book of our world history. We have recorded histories of the different Empires that had dominated the world, as told by historians of that time and there are no contradictions in these data, yet the bible presents us with many contradictions and the reasons is cause when a story is related by word of mouth for a period lasting so many years its contents will take a totally different nature. A sentence can change when verbally passed ( spoken ) in a line of ten people, if you wait a couple of days and tell the first person to related it again, we will find just how much it has change, not only the words but its meanings as well. So, it will be pointless to tried and find out what was the original story of Judas and his death. We may asked, did Jesus die on the cross? there is no recorded historical history of such an event given by historians of his time, how important was this event ? There should had been some mention of Jesus by historians of his time but there is none as there is no historical evidence of such a character as Judas being a real  person. The Biblical stories can't be taken as being real even though there may be some wisdoms as to right and wrong, its contents are not from true life events. In my opinion the Judeo-Christians bible leans more towards mythology and made believe than to the true about what was taking place in the real world of its time.

[Sophus]

I also think the matter of who purchased the Field of Blood is an easy contradiction too (Matthew and Acts) both have different versions. Judas buys it himself in one and in the other he throws the coins to the ground before hanging himself and the priests use it to buy it. I've heard "justifications" that technically it was Judas' money so he did still purchase it in both version. Just seems like nonsense and special pleading to me. I think the author intended it as an altered detail though, considering there are others. Anyone disagree?

[LoneMateria]

http://errancy.org/judas.html

Though this link doesn't point out that the verse said Judas fell head first (something he couldn't do if hanged in the traditional sense) this is the best work i've seen so far about trying to explain the apologists behind it and why its wrong.

[Whitney]

Also w00t go TOM!  I don't know when you became an atheist (or at least updated your world view on your account) but it's awesome!!!  But now we've lost our example that we really are unbiased, we no longer have a theist moderator  :hmm:
JoeActor is the (agnostic) theist mod.

[Whitney]

I won't go further unless you're more cooperative about sharing your concepts and definitions.

There is a very recently active thread on that exact topic:  viewtopic.php?f=2&t=4547

[LoneMateria]

Also w00t go TOM!  I don't know when you became an atheist (or at least updated your world view on your account) but it's awesome!!!  But now we've lost our example that we really are unbiased, we no longer have a theist moderator  :hmm:
JoeActor is the (agnostic) theist mod.

Yeah I realized that... I was confused when I put that.  (don't know if it was due to lack of sleep or lack of coffee)  

[elliebean]

http://errancy.org/judas.html

Though this link doesn't point out that the verse said Judas fell head first (something he couldn't do if hanged in the traditional sense) this is the best work i've seen so far about trying to explain the apologists behind it and why its wrong.

Something in that link [Acts 1:18:
Now this man acquired a field with the reward of his wickedness, and falling headlong he burst open in the middle and all his bowels gushed out. (ESV)] gave me this idea:

Maybe it was translated from a figure of speech; something along the lines of "bought the farm"?

Of course that's one plausible conjecture and there's no way to know for sure. Still, when looking at the meaning of an ancient text, it's important not to discount the possibility that we might have absolutely no idea what it actually means, thanks to forgotten idioms and puns that don't translate.

Just think, how much of what we read on this forum would have made no sense at all just 50 years ago, or even 30?

Not that any of that gives the bible more credibility; on the contrary, I think if more fundamentalist Christians would keep that at the front of their minds while reading it (and resist the temptation to draw concnlusions based on guesses, such as the one I suggested above), they might have an easier time accepting social progress (for example) and dismissing some of the more..... well, ethically questionable passages.