What I wrote in response:
MAT 27:5-8 Then he threw down the pieces of silver in the temple and departed, and went and hanged himself. But the chief priests took the silver pieces and said, "It is not lawful to put them into the treasury, because they are the price of blood." And they consulted together and bought with them the potter's field, to bury strangers in. Therefore that field has been called the Field of Blood to this day.
First of all, notice that the text does not say that Judas died as a result of hanging. All it says is that he "went and hanged himself." Luke however, in Acts, tells us that "and falling headlong, he burst open in the middle and all his entrails gushed out." This is a pretty clear indication (along with the other details given in Acts - Peter's speech, the need to pick a new apostle, etc.) that at least after Judas' fall, he was dead. So the whole concept that Matthew and Luke both recount Judas' death is highly probable, but not clear cut. Therefore, if I were to take a radical exegetical approach here, I could invalidate your alleged contradiction that there are two different accounts of how Judas died. Notice verse 5..."Then he...went and hanged himself." Matthew does not say Judas died, does it? Should we assume he died as a result of the hanging? What does Acts say? ACT 1:18 "Now this man purchased a field with the wages of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst open in the middle and all his entrails gushed out." ACT 1:20 "For it is written in the book of Psalms: 'Let his dwelling place be desolate, And let no one live in it'; and, 'Let another take his office.' Here we may have a graphic explanation of Judas' death. Of course, maybe someone can find some medical source somewhere that discusses the possibility of one having their entrails gush out after being burst open in the middle, and still survive. So, my line of reasoning to dispel the contradiction myth the "two" accounts of Judas' death is this...Matthew doesn't necessarily explain how Judas died; he does say Judas "hanged himself", but he didn't specifically say Judas died in the hanging incident. However, Acts seems to show us his graphic demise. Therefore, there is no contradiction between Matthew and Acts regarding Judas' `death'. A contradiction occurs when one statement excludes the possibility of another. In fact, when you put both stories together you find what happened here is that Judas went and hung himself and then his body later fell down and split open. In other words, the rope or branch of the tree probably broke due to the weight and his body fell down and his bowels spilled out.
On his way falling down it is possible and plausible that he fell from the hanging and hit some rocks, thereby bursting open, but we don't know if Judas actually fell on rocks because the bible left that part out, but we can use our common sense.
Therefore, the new testament is a collection of books that tell of an account of Jesus's life from his birth to his death. Each book is written by a different apostle, a different individual at that so each story is going to be told differently. They're all telling the same story but in a different way. One apostle leaves out certain details, another decides to give these details. Since this story is told from different perspectives one book may leave out certain information that another book did not. However, when you put the stories together they all fit into one truth. Look at it as a puzzle. We all have a piece to the puzzle. My piece is different than yours but when we put them together they make one picture.
As for your 2nd point:
:
The father of Joseph was disputed...some say it was Jacob, some say Heli
This is a very common complaint that Atheist(not saying you are) seem to have:
Who is Joseph's father? In Matthew 1:16 we read, "And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ." However, Luke 3:23 records, "...Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli..." Have we caught the inspired writers in a point of contradiction?
Now the careful Bible student is likely to conclude that Matthew and Luke present two different genealogies: genealogy of Joseph and the geanology of Mary. Following through the genealogies, one will notice that there are some names which are common to both, but also, an great number of differences. Matthew begins at the patriarch Abraham, and works his way to Jesus the Christ. Luke begins at Jesus, and works his way back to Adam. There are two genealogies, with two distinct purposes. Matthew, it appears reveals the genealogy of Joseph, and Luke, presents the genealogy of Mary.
Matthew, penning his gospel with the Jews in mind, sets out to establish Jesus' qualifications to be the Messiah through Joseph's genealogy. Thus, beginning with Abraham, he maps the Lord's genealogy through David, and the kings which followed. He presents Jesus royal lineage (through the males) through "...Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus..."
Luke, writes to the Gentiles with a view toward the humanity of Christ. The concept of one being both God and man would seem strange and foreign to those accustomed to Greek and Roman gods. Thus, Luke begins at Jesus, and follows the genealogy of Mary, passing through the patriarchs, ending with the very first man, Adam.
If Luke is tracing the genealogy of Mary, why does he cite Joseph's name? Today, it would be politically incorrect to map a woman's genealogy through her husband, however, in Luke's day, it was proper and correct. Luke follows Mary's genealogy, beginning with the name of Joseph, her husband, Heli's son-in-law, (in legal terms, Joseph is Helis's son by marriage). Note that Helis is Mary's father.
There is no contradiction.
As far as minted coins go, yes they were used but we have no proof that silver was or wasn't in circulation as well, or if minted coins were the only form of currency. That's an invalid argument.
Can you explain to me what the issues are over Jesus's last words and I'll most likely have a valid explanation .
This is His response To what I wrote:
Oh... but why did you leave out verse 19 of ACTS, which contradicted your aforementioned verse. Let's put verses 18-20 together and read from there.
ACT 1:18 "Now this man purchased a field with the wages of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst open in the middle and all his entrails gushed out." ACT 1:18 And it became known to all those dwelling in Jerusalem; so that field called in their own language, Akel Dama, that is, Field of Blood. ACT 1:20 "For it is written in the book of Psalms: 'Let his dwelling place be desolate, And let no one live in it'; and, 'Let another take his office.'
Which would bring out another contradiction in the bible, since you previously stated, that the field the priests bought was called the field of blood, but does not ACTS say it was the Field in which Judas' entails burst open...
:
Here we may have a graphic explanation of Judas' death. Of course, maybe someone can find some medical source somewhere that discusses the possibility of one having their entrails gush out after being burst open in the middle, and still survive. So, my line of reasoning to dispel the contradiction myth the "two" accounts of Judas' death is this...Matthew doesn't necessarily explain how Judas died; he does say Judas "hanged himself", but he didn't specifically say Judas died in the hanging incident. However, Acts seems to show us his graphic demise. Therefore, there is no contradiction between Matthew and Acts regarding Judas' `death'. A contradiction occurs when one statement excludes the possibility of another. In fact, when you put both stories together you find what happened here is that Judas went and hung himself and then his body later fell down and split open. In other words, the rope or branch of the tree probably broke due to the weight and his body fell down and his bowels spilled out.
On his way falling down it is possible and plausible that he fell from the hanging and hit some rocks, thereby bursting open, but we don't know if Judas actually fell on rocks because the bible left that part out, but we can use our common sense.
Therefore, the new testament is a collection of books that tell of an account of Jesus's life from his birth to his death. Each book is written by a different apostle, a different individual at that so each story is going to be told differently. They're all telling the same story but in a different way. One apostle leaves out certain details, another decides to give these details. Since this story is told from different perspectives one book may leave out certain information that another book did not. However, when you put the stories together they all fit into one truth. Look at it as a puzzle. We all have a piece to the puzzle. My piece is different than yours but when we put them together they make one picture.
which is something I have said. The New testament is written by the Apostles, which means it is not going to be accurate as they reserve the right to doctor it so as they will. Seriously, let's look at the likelihood that Judas survived hanging himself, only to fall onto some rocks below... Are you serious... that's grasping for straws to cover an error in a book that is utterly concieved of human notations.
:
As for your 2nd point: Quote:
The father of Joseph was disputed...some say it was Jacob, some say Heli
This is a very common complaint that Atheist(not saying you are) seem to have:
Who is Joseph's father? In Matthew 1:16 we read, "And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ." However, Luke 3:23 records, "...Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli..." Have we caught the inspired writers in a point of contradiction?
Now the careful Bible student is likely to conclude that Matthew and Luke present two different genealogies: genealogy of Joseph and the geanology of Mary. Following through the genealogies, one will notice that there are some names which are common to both, but also, an great number of differences. Matthew begins at the patriarch Abraham, and works his way to Jesus the Christ. Luke begins at Jesus, and works his way back to Adam. There are two genealogies, with two distinct purposes. Matthew, it appears reveals the genealogy of Joseph, and Luke, presents the genealogy of Mary.
Matthew, penning his gospel with the Jews in mind, sets out to establish Jesus' qualifications to be the Messiah through Joseph's genealogy. Thus, beginning with Abraham, he maps the Lord's genealogy through David, and the kings which followed. He presents Jesus royal lineage (through the males) through "...Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus..."
Luke, writes to the Gentiles with a view toward the humanity of Christ. The concept of one being both God and man would seem strange and foreign to those accustomed to Greek and Roman gods. Thus, Luke begins at Jesus, and follows the genealogy of Mary, passing through the patriarchs, ending with the very first man, Adam.
If Luke is tracing the genealogy of Mary, why does he cite Joseph's name? Today, it would be politically incorrect to map a woman's genealogy through her husband, however, in Luke's day, it was proper and correct. Luke follows Mary's genealogy, beginning with the name of Joseph, her husband, Heli's son-in-law, (in legal terms, Joseph is Helis's son by marriage). Note that Helis is Mary's father.
There is no contradiction.
that I can buy, and makes sense...
[Quote:]
As far as minted coins go, yes they were used but we have no proof that silver was or wasn't in circulation as well, or if minted coins were the only form of currency. That's an invalid argument.
