He is pointing out your inconsistencies.
In addition to this being a completely imaginary figment, invented solely to attempt to resolve a contradiction with absolutely no basis in the literature (the kind of thing an English Lit teacher would mark red), it also does nothing to resolve the issue. This isn’t simply an issue of “how he died”, the entire way he felt after the issue is portrayed differently in the two gospels.
In Acts, there’s no indication he had any remorse - he went and bought a field with that money, and then he “fell headlong and spilled his guts open”. No indication of any regret for what he did, no indication that he is responsible, and a manner of death which is simply completely incompatible with hanging - especially given that he wasn’t dead yet when his guts spilled open.
In Matthew, by contrast, he is seized with guilt, returns the money, and kills himself. This is a drastic difference in tone. Oh, and added bonus: in Matthew, the field is named “The Blood Field” because it was bought by the elders with “blood money”. In Acts, it was named so because Judas (who bought the field himself) died there.
You can’t just handwave this contradiction away by inventing extra pieces; it is two parts of the bible clearly and directly contradicting each other. It’s like if at one point I tell you “The dragon in my garage has shiny blue scales and is never red” and then later I tell someone else “The dragon in my garage has shiny red scales and is never blue”. If I tried to get around this by saying, “Well, sometimes it’s blue and sometimes it’s red”, I’d sound pretty ridiculous. I’d be defending something completely indefensible. Stop trying to make up excuses for how clear and obvious contradictions are somehow compatible. There is no way to reconcile these things, and at that point trying to apply apologetics just sounds weak. Like you desperately have to defend your faith, and are unwilling or unable to admit to any flaw therein. Sure, if you start from the assumption “everything in the bible is accurate and there are no contradictions” you’d be surprised at the kinds of logical knots you can twist yourself into in order to explain away the cognitive dissonance. And yet the flaws and contradictions are there. There’s no reasonable interpretation of this passage that gets you around the contradiction in who bought the field, how Judas died, or how he felt about the issue.
You didn’t just combine the two accounts of Judas’ death, **dougie_monty **-You took out the written parts that didn’t fit, then added unwritten parts from your own imagination.
other than these sly and witty retorts, do you have anything of substance to back up your claims or opinions?
Anything at all ?
Revelation 22:18&19For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book. And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.CMC fnord!
Simple solution: Take out Rev. 22:18 & 19. 
[Shrug] You tell me. How far need someone “fall headlong” for his torso to burst open and bowels gush out? Given the topology around Jerusalem that’s not far-fetched at all. (Of course, he could have hanged himself as high as Haman, 50 cubits (about 82 feet); that might be enough to make his bowels gush out.)
It’s your extrabiblical tall tale-you tell us how it supposedly went down.
I’d rather he provide anything other than “reasonable people surmise that possibly this maybe happened”.
Of course, this is what happens when you make an unjustifiable assumption and make it a central tenet of your identity. You have to twist yourself into knots to justify these things. It’s similar with people who assume god is perfectly moral - you have to try to justify things like slavery, genocide, familial cannibalism, human sacrifice, murder, rape - basically all manner or horrifying atrocities either performed by or condoned by god. And if you start with the position “the bible is perfect and flawless”, then you have to twist yourself into knots trying to explain the gigantic number of apparent contradictions. These are contradictions that, for any normal, rational person, are blatantly obvious. Indeed, if I presented a literary piece with these kinds of contradictions, you’d almost immediately pick up on it, and wonder what the heck is going on.
The problem here is not “non-believers reading between the lines to find errors” - the errors are right there, and any excuses made are attempting to read between the lines, usually in baseless ways - “Judas didn’t die in two different ways; that’s two descriptions of the same death scene at different times”. The problem is this assumption that the bible is perfect. It’s an assumption that is almost transparently wrong, but if you refuse to accept that, there’s always some logical contortion you can make, some way to fool yourself (it’s not going to fool anyone else) into believing that this fundamental part of your identity isn’t wrong. But it is. And we can all see it.
No, you tell me - how did Judas both buy the field with the 30 silver sheckels; and remorsefully return the 30 silver sheckels, and then the temple elders bought the field? They’re two completely different narratives that cannot both be true. It’s as asinine as trying to force compatibility between “P” and “not P”.
Sometimes I almost feel sorry for someone trying to defend the bible as being literal historical fact, without contradictions: such a hopeless task.
But only almost.
Dougie, please, stop trying to debate Biblical interpretations. You have a Sunday-school level of understanding of Scripture at best. You can only continue to embarrass yourself.
It definitely requires some very energetic logical acrobatics, either involving highly contrived interpretations of the text, or else the interpolation of new text – as in the “high cliff” example we just saw.
Matthew - Earthquake with angel sitting outside on the recently moved stone;
Mark - Stone already moved and a young man sitting inside;
Luke - Stone already moved with two men standing inside;
John - Stone moved. No one seen on first visit, but two angels sitting inside after two earlier visits.
This can only work with some very manipulative re-writing and editing. The party visited the tomb, went away, and came back. The party looked the other way, and then looked back. There were three angels. One sat outside but then went inside. There were mirrors involved…
The way it’s actually presented to us is contradictory, and can only be explained by various forms of special pleading. And once you permit that, what prevents you from saying, “Oh, well, Matthew was wrong, but Mark got it right?” Special pleading of this type is a hypocritical way of saying, “I want it my way, yet the texts are perfect nevertheless.”
Faith is not to be sure of what we hope for. If a person believes their partner is cheating on them and it isn’t true, it is a belief unless it is proven.Once proven faith vanishes and becomes reality.
Not really, it is now a proven fact, just your belief happened to be right when proven. You no longer just believe it, it can be proven.
One can believe there are dragons and aliens under their bed, but if it can’t be proven it is just belief, Just as no one can prove God said or did anything it is all based on faith in another human being, not any God. all that is passed on is from another human, or one’s own wishful thinking.
This reasoning works for the word “faith.” It does not work for the word “belief.”
So I can’t believe that Carson City is the capital of Nevada? I can’t believe that twice four is eight?
You’re insisting on a limited definition of the word. It isn’t wrong exactly, because that’s one of several definitions. But it is not the only definition.
Hercule Poirot: Aha! Everyone killed Jesus!
If that’s the way you talk to other people, I’m glad I’ve never met you. I would certainly not care to visit your large wet rock.
Villie: But a crowd of many thousands saw the Romans do it.
Voight: Yes! That shows just how tricky they all were!