The Death of Judas - Bible Contradiction #19

[@justmyusername9209]

This is the same conclusion I came to. I will add one thing: If someone touched a dead body in Israel society they were considered to be "unclean" for 7 days (according to laws in Leviticus) which would have prevented them from participating in the feasts God had ordained. When Jesus died it was the Passover. Many had traveled from around Israel for one of the biggest feasts/festivals of the year. If any of the priests who conspired with Judas, or indeed any member of Israel society had seen Judas hanging in the field - they had a big incentive to "not get involved" or "pretend they hadn't seen it" as it would mean they would be excluded from enjoying and participating in the Passover feast (and the following 7 day Feast of Unleavened Bread) and coming near the Temple. Who would want to miss out on the festivities and miss out on catching up with people they were looking forward to seeing, or for some, official roles they were suppose to carry out? So aside from the fact that Jerusalem would have been full of commotion and business at the time, this could also help explain why Judas's body would be left for a number of days perhaps even a whole week, and hence causing the process to occur where his internals would swell and eventually burst.

[@mrbeastgaming3220]

What about the money in one scene he buys land in another scene he throws it at the preist so does he purchase land or does he throw it away 😂

[@mateichis9461]

@@mrbeastgaming3220 watch the whole video😂

[@mrbeastgaming3220]

@@mateichis9461 ofcourse i have seen the vid no matter how many explanations you give there is a contrariction in it in one of the scene he buys the land in other another he threw it how can you buy land with the same money when you threw it 😂 and was he spinning when he bashed his head or did his body just fell brother there are countless others like this i can show you 😂

[@mateichis9461]

@@mrbeastgaming3220 man it literally explains how judas didn't buy the land but the priests bought it in his name and what that means he explains it really well further on just pay atention

[@mrbeastgaming3220]

@@mateichis9461 if i threw my money to you and you buy a land with it why would you buy it in my name is that my money now or is it yours 😂 and who will the land belong to me or you how stupid can you bee

[@tetelestai5736]

It might also be because: Matthew 27:51 51 And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent; Since Judas was still hanging after the Crucifixion of our LORD, he might have fall free from wherever he was hanging due to the earthquake , causing the body to burst open when fell on the ground Varves, which are annual layers of deposition in the sediments, reveal that at least two major earthquakes affected the core: a widespread earthquake in 31 B.C. and an early first century seismic event that happened sometime between 26 A.D. and 36 A.D.

[@youareright4600]

Tetelestai !!! Very good point!

[@frankmorris6345]

Which not a single current historian or observer noted.

[@toloveselah]

Wooooooow . Nice catch I wouldn't I have put it together

[@frankmorris6345]

@Humanity Galatica you have your whole life to be stupid. Take today off. There were ZERO recordings at the time of these events - that’s what current means.

[@shockthetoast]

@@frankmorris6345 I'm not sure the rudeness was necessary. And the dictionary would disagree with you. Current means "occurring in or existing at the present time" (Merriam Webster). I believe you meant contemporary. I understood what you meant at first read, but the choice of words could have lead to them assuming you meant otherwise.

[@ewankerr3011]

Excellent explanation. Of course, those looking for supposed contradictions are sure to find them and have no interest in listening to the answer.

[@stephentaylor6726]

That's a rather broad brush you paint everyone with...like me saying that it's useless to point out the errors in the Bible because Christians don't want the truth, they just want their comforting lie about an afterlife and will ignore any evidence presented. Both are categorically false statements because they over generalize. There's plenty of people on both side of the argument trying to find the truth. Maybe try not dehumanizing your opponents in a philosophical debate and giving each person the benefit of the doubt.

[@ea-tr1jh]

@@stephentaylor6726 How is he painting everyone with that description? He is literally just describing "those looking for supposed contradictions."

[@thefellowheirs]

Im saved and always looking for these contradictions. This is where the learning happens

[@octaviandanielmaria6789]

Bad explanation. How did Judas die according to Luke? How was Judas hanged?

[@ewankerr3011]

@@octaviandanielmaria6789 : I stand by my answer.

[@makethisgowhoosh]

The Catholic Douay version, translated from the Latin of St. Jerome, has Acts 1:18 as the following, which answers both questions: "And he indeed hath possessed a field of the reward of iniquity, and being hanged, burst asunder in the midst: and all his bowels gushed out."

[@IslamTheTruth5147]

This is obviously a lie, there is no way both the NIV and KJV scribes just didn't see the word hang, it is false thus no one adopted this explanation. And the entire world knows that the Bible can easily be changed, Christians changed the Age of Ahaziah from 42 to 22 and the age of Jehoiachin from 8 to 18 ignoring the original hebrew manuscripts and it completely went unseen.

[@IslamTheTruth5147]

These aren't that easy to reconcile. 1- Acts 1 says he fell INSIDE the field not from a cliff. In terms of the second theory it is just assumptions with no proof, but it could still be debunked. The text says 'went' which means it's not metaphorical, let's use your example, if I say he bit dust it's understanded as a metaphor, but if I say he went and bit dust you'd think I'm insane. 2- Luke says Judas acquired the field with the money of his wickedness, which means he bought it not acquired it. And Matthew says the priests bought the field with the money of Judas. So your Bible is basically saying that Judas bought the field with the money of betraying Jesus in the Gospel of Matthew, and Acts says the priests bought the field with the money of betraying Jesus, so they both bought the same field with the same money, still a contradiction.

[@thelostcaptain5763]

@@IslamTheTruth5147 simply the discovery of more manuscript

[@Brklyn-dd9yo]

Thank you for taking the time to address this!

[@kingm3544]

Too bad he forgot to say that what did judas do with the money did he throw it in the house of worship or did he buy a field with it clear contradiction no matter how u wanna twist up how he died nothing he said is in the bible just head cannon

[@fallowpages4067]

@@kingm3544 Did you watch the video entirely?

[@kingm3544]

@@fallowpages4067 yes i did

[@octaviandanielmaria6789]

Amateurs =))

[@octaviandanielmaria6789]

@@kingm3544, or how did Judas die according to Luke? How was Judas hanged? =))

[@MAP2023]

Fourth! I came faster than an Atheist using the “sky daddy” joke.

[@convert2islaam500]

168th

[@LeviPaladin]

@@convert2islaam500 6,292nd.

[@00selzen]

Miguel...Your comment is sacrilegious. Sacrilege is the worst kind of sin. I will pray for your enlightenment.

[@LeviPaladin]

@@00selzen No, sacrilege isn't the "worst kind of sin," that's blasphemy against the Spirit who tells us that Jesus is Lord, which is the only sin that people aren't forgiven for. Also, he's making fun of atheists, not using the joke to mock God. It occurs to me that you might be joking. Are you joking?

[@MAP2023]

Nancy Selzer LOL nice try Nancy.

[@backtothescriptures6592]

One day after you write your book, I'll be making videos and quoting you: As the great Michael Jones notes in his book "I won't psychoanalyse people" page 5 259. God can easily stop the evil, but then he'll lose you in the process

[@mylucidadventures6540]

A cop can easily stop a murderer from killing you, it's called intervening not taking away free will, gods not taking away people's free will by stoping them from commiting the deed, there mind was already made up and God would just stop the horrid end result. Many cops are more moral then your god. (I am aware some cops are crooked that's why I say many.)

[@mylucidadventures6540]

@roasted pancakes if God is all loving then the problem of evil exists, he has the power to do it and knows every man's thoughts the new testament even supports thought crime, so to say God acting would take away free will is wrong, he would just prevent unnecessary evil. The person commiting mass murder already intended to so he is already guilty in the new testaments opinion

[@mylucidadventures6540]

@roasted pancakes also I don't know if I have seen PoZ version of the problem but I did see Mr atheists.

[@mylucidadventures6540]

@roasted pancakes you also have a good day.

[@backtothescriptures6592]

@roasted pancakes Yes he's patreon supporters see it first

[@garrettelgin4742]

I’m amazed that people actually thought this was a contradiction. It’s so obvious that he fell rotten

[@usray3219]

Here’s something in those verses that wasn’t addressed Matt 27: 6 the chief priests picked up the coins and said “ it is against the law to put this into the treasury, since it is Blood money” 7 so they decided to buy the Potter’s field as a burial place for foreigners. 27:8 that is why it has been called the Field of Blood to this day Acts 1:18 ( 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 . 19 everyone in Jerusalem heard about this, so they called that field in their language Akeldama, that is, Field of Blood) So which one is it ? Is it called Field of Blood because it was purchased with Blood money or because that is the field where Judas spilled his guts ?

[@stephentaylor6726]

Don't forget...god is not the author of confusion... So...stop being confused.

[@diegotobaski9801]

Why not both?

[@anubizzzzz]

Who bought the land

[@JewessChrstnMystic]

Technically Judas did buy the land, even if he did throw the coins back, he gave the coins back and because it couldn't be put in the treasury this means that Judas kinda did buy the field but the pharisees used judas' money to do so, they still looked at it as his money, but they used it to buy the feild, his wickedness and the money he got for his wickedness technically did buy the feild 😂 I mean just think about it.

[@peterk.6930]

With regard to contradictions in the Bible Bart Ehrman has presented on various occasions the case of Judas Iscariot. He considers the two different accounts, in Matthew 27 and in Acts 1 as incompatible. I think he's right, but he overlooks something important. I commented on different channels, but there is a lot of confusion. To clarify I want to evaluate my thoughts and rewrite my comment in a more subtle way. To argue that Judas did not strangle himself, but is still alive when Jesus appeared to the twelve disciples, I would like to mention six points. 1. The two accounts indeed seem very weird, it is plausible to reject them as incompatible. So there must be something else going on than a hanging or another accident in which Judas burst open and his guts came out. 2. John 20:24 says: now Thomas one of the twelve, called the Twin, was not with them when Jesus came. Jesus appeared to twelve disciples, so including Judas, because he is only replaced after the Ascension. There is a problem with the grammar when you take 'the twelve' as a technical term, please read carefully, the pronomen personel 'them' refers directly to the twelve. The pronoun cannot refer to a situation in the past. 3. 1 Corinthians 15:5 says: …and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. When Paul writes about the appearance of Jesus, he writes about the situation before the Ascension, so before the replacement of Judas by Matthias which happened after the Ascension. And then there were twelve disciples, Judas including. So it's not the question that Judas is replaced, but that he didn't hang himself or bursted open. 4. The translation ’hanged himself’ is reasonable but disputable. The Greek απάγχω, composition of από and άγχω means literally squeeze (esp. the throat), strangle, throttle and is also used in derivative or metaphorical meanings as choked with anger, of pressing creditors, of a guilty conscience etc. In Matthew 27:5 απήγξατο appears as 3rd sg. Aoristus Medium and can therefore be translated as strangled or hanged himself. But as I said, a derivative meaning is obvious as well. I do not consider myself fully competent to judge here and leave it open for debate. I propose the following translation: And hurling the pieces of silver in the sanctuary he left; and after he went off, he got very scared. 5. After the Ascension the disciples assembled again to replace Judas. I consider the translation of Acts 1:18 to be very disputable. Only if we assume that Judas has hanged himself and felt, the translation is conceivable. First I would like to mention the passage in the King James Bible: Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the middle, and all his bowels gushed out. There are many variants, such as: …. he fell to his death, his body swelled up and burst open. (Complete Jewish Bible) … having fallen down headlong, burst in the midst. (Darby Bible) … he hanged, burst apart the middle. (Wycliffe Bible) … but he died on that land-falling so that his abdomen burst and his internal organs gushed out. (The Voice). Let ‘s focus on the second part of verse 18: καί πρηνής γενόμενος έλάκησεν μέσος καί έξεχύθη πάντα τά σπλάχνα αύτού The word translated as headlong, πρηνής can mean: with the head foremost, but the first meaning of πρηνής (nom. sg.) is: with the face downwards or prone. Notice: the word falling is not in the Greek text, γενόμενος (nom. sg. part. Aoristus of the verb γίγνομαι) means: come into being, take place. People have in their mind, Judas has hanged, so he has to fall. That is what we call prejudice. If we look at the text with an open mind, we will translate differently. I propose: (being) with his face turned to the ground; or shortly: stooped or knelt. To support my argument I mention the way in which the Vulgate reconciled the two reports. The Vulgate translates Acts 1:18 as following: …et hic quidem possedit agrum de mercede iniquitatis et suspensus crepuit medius et diffusa sunt omnia viscera eius (…. he hanged, burst in the midst and his viscera gushed out). The Wycliffe Bible remains the same. But this translation is plainly wrong. Does the Roman church want Judas to hang? Subsequent (protestant) translations, as the King James Version, changed the text in the falling headlong. The word translated as burst, έλακησεν (3rd. sg. Aoristus of the verb λάσκω, λακάω or ληκέω) means: ring, rattle, crack or burst (especially of things) and scream, shout or cry aloud (especially of animals or human beings). That his bowels gushed out is a way of saying, to express a deep sort of compassion or affection. In Hebrew it is referred to as rechamim. In particular it is used to mention God's mercy. Dutch has a great word for it, namely: barmhartigheid. σπλάχνα is been used at several places in the New Testament: 1 John 3:17; 2 Cor. 6:12, 7:15; Col. 3:12; Philemon: 7, 12, 20; Philippians 1:8, 2:1, Luke 1:78. To mention only Luke: Through the tender mercy of our God, whereby the dayspring from on high hath visited us. If it is metaphorically translated in those places, it is likely to do this here as well. To conclude, I propose the following translation: Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity, when he knelt down, he screamed with great compassion. 6. Acts 1:25 reads: to take the place in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas turned aside, to go to his own place. The current opinion is that the death of Judas is mentioned here, but that can be disputed, again based on the Greek text. Let alone that his own place can be understood as one’s death. The text says: είς τόν τόπον τόν ίδιον. It does not say: τόπον του άυτου, his (own) place, but τόπον τόν ίδιον, his own private place, in the sense of one’s own particular property. How can it be if Judas is dead, he turned aside and went to his own property?

[@MrMattSax]

This is apologetics at its peak! Start with the conclusion that the bible is inerrant and work backward to force all the square pegs into the round holes. Good for keeping the believing in their belief, but utterly unconvincing to even the mildest skeptic, or even anyone who would allow themselves to question that base premise. Just addressing the base claim that someone who has hung and then the corpse decomposes would still fall DOWN rather than HEADLONG, it also skirts right past the other contradictions in the stories that are pretty hard to "harmonize" (aka square pegs, round holes). In Matthew Judas attempts to return the silver to the priests and they refuse it, so he leaves it on the floor of the temple. The priests bought the field and named it the "field of blood" because it was acquired with blood money. Judas is wracked with regret and hangs himself. In Luke-Acts Judas buys the field before he dies, and at the field, he falls "headlong" (no mention of a suicidal hanging) and his guts burst out and the naming of the field comes from this occurrence. So, the harmonization is that both Judas AND the priests buy the field, Judas is wracked with guilt and hangs himself then falls headlong (gravity apparently doesn't function for that split second), his guts spilling out and the naming of the field is simultaneous because of Judas' blood and the blood money used (by both Judas and the priests) to buy the field. Ta Da! Apologetics!

[@JeromeWhitt-o4n]

@@MrMattSax this exactly what I was thinking. How does it prove that he was hung in acts. He fell head long In Acts which does make since if he fell from hanging. So yes it's a clear contradiction.

[@MrMattSax]

@@JeromeWhitt-o4n it is a clear contradiction. But to the fundamentalist that believes in inerrancy, they cannot accept that, so they will talk in circles in order to defend the idea that the Bible is without error, which it clearly is not.

[@JeromeWhitt-o4n]

@MrMattSax true. Yesterday pointed to one person That Sarah and Abraham was brother and sister. Sarah was his sister from his father's side. The person said they read it and they didn't see the word sister. I called him a liar cause I read it too and it was right there in black and white the word sister. They will defend anything that is in there even if they have to lie about it.

[@williamkennedy2474]

It is absurd for you to believe that apologetics are restricted to religion. It doesn't matter what your philosophy or your beliefs are, you will always have views that are hard to reconcile at first or seem utterly contradictory at face value, but you will try to reconcile those apparent contradictions with theories which for outsiders seem overly convoluted and unlikely, but you nonetheless choose to hold on to those theories because you have FAITH and TRUST in whatever it is that you believe in. Let me give you an example for atheism. For an atheist, the obvious fine-tuning of the Universe, the extreme rarity of Earth, the uniqueness of man, the fact that the Universe has a beginning with the Big Bang, the Cambrian explosion, other pointers to design etc. all mean nothing to an atheist and he will instead counter such obvious evidence of design with nonsensical, convoluted and unlikely explanations for these things. However, as far as most people are concerned (most of the world population is religious anyway), the unlikely theories of such an atheist might convince other atheists/skeptics/agnostics in his circle, but for most people it is just a load of crap. But you choose to hang on to them because you have FAITH in them. Besides, why should God, if He exists, inspire every passage in such a way that it becomes indisputably clear? Only so that he could force unbelievers like you to grudgingly accept His existence? We as Christians might understand that these passages could seem contradictory at first, but we have FAITH and TRUST that they will be cleared up eventually and we have confidence in what we already know to be true. In the meantime, we accept and encourage apologetics to try to formulate answers.

[@MrMattSax]

@@williamkennedy2474 here is a massive thing you miss when trying to draw your (false) equivalence between apologetic answers and scientific ones: scientific answers start with observation and then let the data lead to a conclusion where apologetics starts with the answer and works backwards to prove it. Apologetics is beginning with the existence of the preferred god and then forces the square peg of the data into the round hole of the answer and science starts with the data and allows it to lead to a conclusion. Science also has repeatability, testability, and the ability to create novel predictions. Apologetics has faith, which is to say belief without evidence or in contradiction to evidence or pretending to know what you don’t know. The methods, and thus the results, couldn’t be more at odds. If you presuppose that your god exists and wrote an inerrant book then of could you cannot acknowledge any error or contradiction in the book, you’ve already decided there aren’t any. For example, you could read that Judas both threw the silver on the floor of the temple and the priests used it to buy the field and also used it to buy the field himself, and also hung himself while simultaneously tripping and falling and, since you’ve started by believing there cannot be errors, find a poetic way to reconcile those contradicting accounts. That’s apologetics.

[@spitfirered]

I actually learned something from you today, Great knowledge and wisdom you have, thank you for making this video! Also I am new to your channel

[@octaviandanielmaria6789]

Have you heard of physics?

[@octaviandanielmaria6789]

=)) How did Judas die according to Luke? How was Judas hanged?

[@SavedSkeptic]

Why is nobody discussing the possibility that Judas impaled himself? "Hanging on a tree" was commonly referring to impaling. Practically nobody during that time died by hanging on a rope. If he impaled himself, then it makes sense that his bowls would come out. And it would show that he gave himself the Mosaic punishment of betrayal according to Deuteronomy 21:22-23. Please help me understand why impaling is not an option. Thanks!

[@ternuscleargullyiii8154]

Because then he would not fall head first would he now?

[@samuelmccafferty787]

This is a good question. The Greek word used to hang himself is also the Greek word used to strangle. It’s used in the Septuagint of 2 Samuel 17:23 where Ahithophel strangled himself to death. The word ἀπάγχω, apagchō, is G519 in the Strong’s Concordance. That’s why I would say that he hung himself by the neck in order to strangle himself to death.

[@duckymomo7935]

Book of Esther says hanged but means impaled

[@duckymomo7935]

⁠@@ternuscleargullyiii8154Judas still collapses

[@Onlyafool172]

Its because its too brutal of a way to go down

[@RagingBlast2Fan]

This series is just wonderful, brother! Thank you for these well researched responses. The truth is that some of us who have read the bible extensively have to live holding the belief of biblical inerrancy in tension until some of these apparent contradictions can be resolved. I think the death of Judas is one of the most famous examples. Really, just the mere possibility that these are not in fact contradictions allows us to have greater faith in the scriptures. And it's really important that we do hold the bible to be authoritative, since we draw so much out of it, in terms of our doctrines, but much more importantly, it grounds our own personal fellowship with God. Even Jesus Himself held the scriptures to be authoritative, so it's really good to see that you're defending these so soundly. I for one struggled with this particular one and I thank you for putting it to rest!

[@michaelflores9220]

Most exegesis and hermeneutics false under the category "of "Ad hoc rationalization that wold never be appleid ot anything else in life". Take the story of Easter. Every detail of the women's story, supposedly the most important thing in history anyone will ever hear, would be ultra important to them. Imagine you are a detective.

[@Ben_Colney]

Wow mind blown. The time you took to make this video strengthens my faith. Thank you sir, God bless!

[@OldSlyEyes]

Your a blessing to those seeking to strengthen their faith thanks alot

[@danhand8583]

Dan McClellan positioned this contradiction as “any apologist will grab ahold of anything to explain it away as long as it is not physically impossible”. Sounds like a perfectly reasonable explanation to me

[@IslamTheTruth5147]

These aren't that easy to reconcile buddy. 1- Acts 1 says he fell INSIDE the field not from a cliff. In terms of the second theory it is just assumptions with no proof, but it could still be debunked. The text says 'went' which means it's not metaphorical, let's use your example, if I say he bit dust it's understanded as a metaphor, but if I say he went and bit dust you'd think I'm insane. 2- Luke says Judas acquired the field with the money of his wickedness, which means he bought it not acquired it. And Matthew says the priests bought the field with the money of Judas. So your Bible is basically saying that Judas bought the field with the money of betraying Jesus in the Gospel of Matthew, and Acts says the priests bought the field with the money of betraying Jesus, so they both bought the same field with the same money, still a contradiction.

[@joecheffo5942]

But why have a scene in there that confuses so many people, what does it add? If I say, "It's sad, Bob is gone. He fell down the steps." And someone else says "He was shot." Then we find out he was shot and then fell down the steps. Are you telling me that is not confusing and for the most perfect book ever written?

[@johnnylollard7892]

​@@joecheffo5942Arguably, it's not confusing, especially to an original audience familiar with the sight of corpses.

[@johnnylollard7892]

​​@@IslamTheTruth5147That's not a contradiction. It's a common form of speech. For example, when people today talk about a government agency spending money, they'll say "paid for by the taxpayer," even though no taxpayer is making a purchase. Or, the UK calls their ships after, "His Majesty' Ship (HMS)," etc. or institutions like the "Royal Air Force." They're not literally being controlled or owned by the King. Even a child can understand this use of language. Also, your point about "acquire" "went," and "bought" is nonsensical. Went isn't a magic word which implies something is only literal. That's not how the English language works.There's nothing that Luke says which isn't a kind of figure of speech we lack today.

[@joecheffo5942]

Apologetics can “harmonize” anything. Literally. You can never prove or disprove religion. For some people things just get too ridiculous after a while.

[@skullcrusade3436]

when my favorite Religious Teacher became my favorite Science Teacher

[@kevinlitton1399]

Skull Crusade343 At first, I honestly thought this statement was a joke. Reading this truly makes me sad. The statistics don't lie: science illiteracy has reached epidemic levels, and this is the result.

[@matthieurochambeau1075]

@@kevinlitton1399 its real , even in France

[@danielbrowniel]

Lots of Scientists are Christian. You know that dude that invented calculus? How about the inventor of the first MRI machine? You ever watch that channel smarter everyday? My buddy interned for NASA, I'm more of a medicine person myself. There are a lot of dumb Christians, that's true.. but there is also this thing called confirmation bias.. where you as a non-Christian has the desire to cherry pick what you consider to be "Christian". @@kevinlitton1399

[@kennysfdg471]

This is epic and I'll tell you why. Even in DEATH, Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John still got their brotha's backs!

[@BrainDamagedBob]

Another possibility is that "falling headlong" should have been rendered "fell from his head." This would mean that the branch didn't break and nobody cut him down. Due to decay, the neck separated and the bloated body burst open on impact. Nobody would touch that mess and buying the field was part of ignoring it.

[@joshk6066]

Good explanation as always IP.

[@JamesMiddletonDesign]

Have you noticed that there are a number of "dislikes" to this video. I find that amazing. IP set out to explain the supposed contradiction and gives an extremely strong argument on why this is a non-starter for skeptics. However, some still will fight their cause, even when it is clear they have lost. "No, no! I don't care if I am being reasonable, this is a contradiction and that is that". I can just imagine this being said. Turn to the living God. Recognised Jesus as Lord and put your all in all in Him.

[@saminates2002]

It’s also just bots too

[@Bardineer]

Here is all you have to do to reconcile Matthew 27-5 with Acts 1:18 (or any other pesky Biblical inconsistencies). 1) *Ignore* the fact that *God doesn't change* (Malachi 3:6, Numbers 23:19, and James 1:17). What was true of God since before time began has always been true, is true now, and forever will be true. 2) *Ignore* the fact that *God says what He means and means what He says* (1 Samuel 15:29, Titus 1:2, Numbers 23:19). If God *meant* to say that *first* Judas hanged himself, and *then* the rope broke/the branch broke/his body decomposed until it fell, causing his bowels to spill onto the ground, then God *would have said so* . 3) *Ignore* the fact that *God is not the author of confusion* (1 Corinthians 14:23). If one passage indicates that Judas hanged himself and another that he fell and his bowels spilled, (necessitating Apologetics to address the issue) this is a clear indication of *confusion* within the Bible's narrative; and if *God is not* the author of this confusion, then *someone else* must be. 4) *Ignore* the fact the entire Bible was inspired by the *same all-knowing God* (2 Timothy 3:16). As an omniscient being, God natually *knows* exactly how the events surrounding the death of Judas transpired; and if *all* of the Bible's human contributors were inspired by *Him* , then (since He also does not lie and is not the author of confusion) He would have shared the *same* account with *all* of them. Moreover, since He *also* says what He means and means what He says, and they *all* were inspired *by Him* , if He *meant* for the account to state that *first* Judas hanged himself, and *then* the rope broke/the branch broke/his body decomposed until it fell, causing his bowels to spill onto the ground, then this would *already* be reflected in the narrative. 5) *Ignore* the fact that Man is *prohibited from adding to, subtracting from, or otherwise altering the Word* (Proverbs 30:6, Deuteronomy 4:2, Deuteronomy 12:32). Since although plausible, *none* of the above methods of reconciliation are explictly stated in the Bible's narrative, and Man is prohibited from adding to that narrative, (on multiple occasions) which these methods *require* , they are all *violations* of what the Bible explicitly *does* state.

[@JamesMiddletonDesign]

@Danilo Pie Perhaps it is a contradiction? I see no issue with there being such things in the Bible. Eye witnesses get things wrong all of the time. If these reports were exactly the same, we would doubt that they were the testimonies of individuals, and nothing more than later collaborations. However, I really will loose no sleep over this. It doesn't in any way distract from the Gospel narrative, but only adds another level of authenticity. I suggest you read John 19:1. Who scourged Jesus? Did Pilate do it himself? Remember: The New Testament was not written in modern English. It was written from within a high-contextual culture. We happen to live in a low-contextual culture. Issues like this require a good level of exegesis.

[@Cklert]

@Danilo Pie I love the typical "I've read the bible, therefore, I know exactly what the bible means" yet then go on to make a statement about Christianity as a whole to show off ignorance. It's poetic and self-fulfilling.

[@JamesMiddletonDesign]

@Danilo Pie "How long would you wait"___You may have read the Bible twice, but you missed Jesus' comments on the fullness of the Gentiles and the Jerusalem's acceptance of their true Messiah. That is why we are still waiting. "No need to read fairytales again"___Yes, since turning back to the Bible, I have also lost interest in fairytales, such as everything came from nothing, and the fine tuning of the universe with it's directionality is all just a bizarre act of chance.

[@ternuscleargullyiii8154]

Gotta admit that’s a damn weak argument…. ”well maybe it’s scribal error? Or maybe Matthew is using some weird cultural idiom that doesn’t appear anywhere else?” Or maybe Luke and Matthew are copying Mark and filling in the blanks themselves, often leading to discrepancies.

[@goldn5160]

you ignored the fact that he fell headlong and if someone gets hung and the rope breaks they would fall down, not headlong

[@JLTrj00913]

Perhaps the body fell horizontally and his head hit the ground first? Just a thought

[@MarvelGamer2023]

Headlong means deliberately or fast

[@danielanthony8373]

Headlong has 3 Meanings Headfirst is one of them

[@davidyoung]

The trouble with putting both accounts together is that it means neither author has taken the effort to find out what actually happened and record it in sufficient detail. That just means that neither Matthew nor Luke-Acts can be trusted as they could be leaving out considerable amounts of information relevant to what they are describing.

[@kenmccracken5437]

Well explained. Both Matthew and Luke comment that the Potter's field purchased with the blood money as a burial ground for strangers, became commonly known as "the Field of Blood" and Matthew adds "to this day." Sceptics often allege that the gospel writers simply invented biographical incidents in the gospels drawing from O.T. prophecies. But Matthew wrote his gospel for Jews and actually appeals to what was common knowledge among the Jews in Jerusalem concerning this. He would immediately lose credibilty with them if in fact it was not as he said, and this field became in effect a tangible piece of evidence of precise fulfilled prophecy. Matthew 27:9 *"Then was fulfilled what had been spoken by the prophet Jeremiah, saying, “And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him on whom a price had been set by some of the sons of Israel,10 and they gave them for the potter’s field, as the Lord directed me.”*

[@kenmccracken5437]

@@nobs4898 You clearly don't understand my argument.

[@JasonStephens7]

Very helpful. My Muslim friend brought this up and this is a very clear and easy to understand explanation!

[@legend-mj4gv]

Typical Muslims

[@goldn5160]

he ignored the part where it says he fell headlong. if the rope snapped he wouldn’t fall headlong, he would fall straight down because of gravity

[@wjckc79]

Thank you! I no longer have to puzzle over this.

[@michaelflores9220]

Most exegesis, hermeneutics and apologists work falls under the category "of "Ad hoc rationalization that wold never be applied ot anything else in life". Take the story of Easter. Every detail of the women's story, supposedly the most important thing in history anyone will ever hear, would be ultra important to them. Imagine you are a detective.

[@IslamTheTruth5147]

I agree that the first one isn't a contradiction. But the second one is. If we translate it as 'aquired' the verse becomes "with the money of his wickedness Judas aquired a field", aquired with money=bought, so it is still the same.

[@MertKabakci]

It does not matter... If he himself bought it or if the priests bought it. The fact is, the field was bought with the money Judas Iscariot earned for betraying Jesus Christ. It is a fulfillment of a prophecy of Jeremia. It vindicates Christianity as the continuation of Judaism, after the messiah came. Even if the explanation given in the video is not correct, it still does not change anything. The Bible still clearly referring to Jesus as the Christ, the Son of God, and the prophecy in Jeremia about the event is still true in all three possibilities (Only Matthew is right/only Acts is right/both the Matthew and Acts are right) You set Muslim presuppositions to our Book. The Bible is mainly for liturgical use. The Church (Prophets and later the Apostles) wrote the Bible, and their successors, the priest and bishops of today, pass down the teachings. Christianity has its roots in Judaism (Second Temple period Judaism, not today's rabbinical Judaism, with the Talmud) and there is a continuation in the worship practices. (The Eucharist is the new sacrifice) Where is the liturgy in Islam, where is the sacrifice? The Altar? There is no continuity from Judaism and Christianity to Islam. Islam is just like Protestantism, in the sense that, they come much later, read the Bible and have a wrong understanding of it and discrediting the church, the apostles and their successors, establishing a new form of worship and theology... Instead of Bishops and Priests, the churches of today have (female) preachers. Instead of an altar and a sacrifice (liturgical worship), you pray towards a stone your "prophet" took from the pagans. The Bible is NOT the Quran, stop trying to look at it as if it is.

[@jonson856]

Lets not forget another aspect. This is once again a great example of why witness reports of independent stories are worth a lot. Even though they disagree on minor details, they agree on the major points. Judas died!

[@mylucidadventures6540]

Which was probably public knowledge, you know it is 20-40 years after the fact.

[@dougoverhoff7568]

Judas hanged himself, that's true. But, the garment with which he used to hang himself gave out under the force of his weight, and he fell to the rocks below him. So, both reports are correct, in a sense. That's why the details of a story can be of vital importance in fully comprehending it, but are not always totally necessary to the overall validity of a story, as is the case here.

[@Actuary1776]

None of the gospel authors nor the author of Acts were eyewitnesses. These stories differ not because it’s from the vantage point of two different eyewitness perspectives, but because they come from different traditions.

[@dougoverhoff7568]

@@Actuary1776 Please provide evidence for your claim. The scholars of today are nearly unanimous in their opinions that the Gospels were written well within the lifetimes of many eye witnesses. Most early Scriptures were indited between 40 and 65 AD.

[@Actuary1776]

Doug Overhoff I’m not contesting the dates of the gospels, yes scholars believe were all written somewhere between 50-80 AD give or take a decade. Scholars however don’t believe that Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John actually wrote them. There are a myriad of reasons why they couldn’t have been the authors. In fact, I don’t believe any of the gospel authors actually claim to be eyewitnesses. They are anonymous books. We do have an eyewitness claim for the book of Acts, but Acts description of Paul differs significantly from the books actually penned by Paul. The author of Acts was not an actual eyewitness. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were most likely written by educated Greek Christians, and were relying on the stories they learned from the oral traditions of Jesus that had already been circulating from some 30-50 years after his death.

[@00selzen]

Re: Judas hanging v. disembowelment...I read that in those days the most common method of suicide was disembowelment by impaling yourself on a ~3 foot spike. Hangings were RARE in those days. The "contradiction of the 2 gospels" comes in through the interpretation of the ancient language, in which "impaling" was the same as "hanging" due to this fact: When you impaled yourself, you HUNG there, as the stick was usually embedded in the ground. The terms "hung" and "impaled" means one in the same.

[@xBeeGee]

I’m confused. How did he buy the plot of land that he hung himself on when it says in Matthew that he felt bad and returned the money?

[@ToelJhute]

Judas did not buy the plot of land, the priests did in Judas' name, so when Judas hung himself, the land is under his name, rather than the priests.

[@kellerdaboy9956]

Hi, I honestly still see a contradiction between them, and that is Judas in Mathew threw away the pieces of silver, and in the other he acquired a field, so he didn't throw them away. If Judas was hanged, and the rope was cut, he wouldn't fall headlong, rather he would fall flat.

[@grubblewubbles]

1. He threw the pieces of silver away and the priests bought the field with the money that they had given to Judas. Erik Manning explains this well in his 2nd part of refuting HolyKoolaid, on his channel Testify. 2. Didn't Micheal address this at 1:40?

[@rafayshakeel4812]

With all due respect, but there is no scriptural evidence of the rope breaking, brother. This is pure speculation. This is a clear contradiction. May Allah (SWT) guide you to Islam. Ameen!

[@nonpossenonpeccare9104]

Speculation is allowed when not all the circumstances are known. That’s why it is only a possible contradiction. You can’t proof it. You have to bring contradictions you can conclusively proof. That’s why contradiction hunting is fruitless, since most can be refuted.

[@rafayshakeel4812]

@@nonpossenonpeccare9104 This is a clear contradiction that you're trying to ignore. Please stop finding ways to hold onto something that isn't true. Here is another clear contradiction: "Ahaziah was twenty-two years old when he became king, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. His mother’s name was Athaliah the granddaughter of Omri, king of Israel." 2 Kings [8: 26] "Ahaziah was forty-two years old when he became king, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. His mother’s name was Athaliah the granddaughter of Omri." 2 Chronicles [22:2] How could Ahaziah be both 22 years old and 42 years old when he started to reign?

[@spazomaz]

How ignorant can one be, he literally answered it in the video 😂🤦‍♂️

[@DavidAmis2005]

@@nonpossenonpeccare9104 If you speculate, you add to the Word of God... it's all just Assumptions. The narratives do literally contradict.

[@Jesuschristthetruthh]

@@rafayshakeel4812 first this is a copyist error second with this it isnt its simply an additon to the story as one of them were a doctor his body decyaed and mostlikely bursted when the rope broke we can say it broke since there is no biblicial evidence for ur claim either so with the context and clues we have the answer in the video shows that the refutatiton of the supposed contraidction makes the most sense and its refuted may u be guided to lord jesus christ and its simply not a contradiction amen

[@goranvuksa1220]

IP, there is even more to add to this. In the 9th century, Greek monks invented Slavonic writing to translate the Bible from the Greek for the Slavonic nations. They were translating from their native language to the writing that they invented after devoting their life to studying the Scriptures more then any scholar today, so I would say it is safe to assume that this would be a rather good translation and centuries older then KJV. Anyway, this is the literal translation from their version to the English of Acts 1:18: "He therefore acquired the field by the payment unjust, and by hanging himself [he] split open in the middle, and all of his intestines spilled out". It uses word acquired which is a very distinct from the word bought, same as in English. Also, this translation never said that he "fell headlong" (this is a clear later error) and it actually says that he hung himself.

[@theQandA]

My remaining curiosity-if the “hanged himself” is literal-is how his body fell “headlong” from a position of hanging. I guess if someone was holding his legs and someone else was cutting the rope, it could happen easily enough. It’s one of those things we don’t have enough information about to know exactly how it happened. But, what the Scripture contains is sufficient.

[@palyddon]

I think he explains this issue with the possibility of a scribal error with the similarity of the Greek expressions for “fell headlong” and “became swollen”.

[@fero___3005]

Actually head long means recklessly too..

[@peanutgallery4]

"Falling headlong" meaning he was in a headlong position while falling, possibly hitting the ground first with his head, or "falling headlong" meaning he fell onto the ground in such a position that he landed headlong? It depends on the reading of the same two words.

[@AskMeMaths-m7q]

If Judas hanged himself, should we assume that Luke didn't know how Judas died? I just think it's bizarre that Luke would suddenly talk about the decaying body without first mentioning how Judas died in the first place.

[@dodleymortune8422]

It's more in a way of saying how he finished : like saying someone rot in some bad, shamefull place without telling how he got there in the first place, how he died.

[@momfaustel1292]

Have you written a book yet? Please do!

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

mom Fäustel I don’t know if I have the time.

[@momfaustel1292]

@@InspiringPhilosophy I love your videos! All of them!

[@GC3-4370]

Another way it could have been written, "he dug his own grave". We'd mean he was responsible for his death, not necessarily that he was digging.

[@sjappiyah4071]

I see a lot of people trying to discredit the video without actually explaining why it’s a contradiction 🤔.....? Oh well, great video again IP

[@peterk.6930]

With regard to contradictions in the Bible Bart Ehrman has presented on various occasions the case of Judas Iscariot. He considers the two different accounts, in Matthew 27 and in Acts 1 as incompatible. I think he's right, but he overlooks something important. I commented on different channels, but there is a lot of confusion. To clarify I want to evaluate my thoughts and rewrite my comment in a more subtle way. To argue that Judas did not strangle himself, but is still alive when Jesus appeared to the twelve disciples, I would like to mention six points. 1. The two accounts indeed seem very weird, it is plausible to reject them as incompatible. So there must be something else going on than a hanging or another accident in which Judas burst open and his guts came out. 2. John 20:24 says: now Thomas one of the twelve, called the Twin, was not with them when Jesus came. Jesus appeared to twelve disciples, so including Judas, because he is only replaced after the Ascension. There is a problem with the grammar when you take 'the twelve' as a technical term, please read carefully, the pronomen personel 'them' refers directly to the twelve. The pronoun cannot refer to a situation in the past. 3. 1 Corinthians 15:5 says: …and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. When Paul writes about the appearance of Jesus, he writes about the situation before the Ascension, so before the replacement of Judas by Matthias which happened after the Ascension. And then there were twelve disciples, Judas including. So it's not the question that Judas is replaced, but that he didn't hang himself or bursted open. 4. The translation ’hanged himself’ is reasonable but disputable. The Greek απάγχω, composition of από and άγχω means literally squeeze (esp. the throat), strangle, throttle and is also used in derivative or metaphorical meanings as choked with anger, of pressing creditors, of a guilty conscience etc. In Matthew 27:5 απήγξατο appears as 3rd sg. Aoristus Medium and can therefore be translated as strangled or hanged himself. But as I said, a derivative meaning is obvious as well. I do not consider myself fully competent to judge here and leave it open for debate. I propose the following translation: And hurling the pieces of silver in the sanctuary he left; and after he went off, he got very scared. 5. After the Ascension the disciples assembled again to replace Judas. I consider the translation of Acts 1:18 to be very disputable. Only if we assume that Judas has hanged himself and felt, the translation is conceivable. First I would like to mention the passage in the King James Bible: Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the middle, and all his bowels gushed out. There are many variants, such as: …. he fell to his death, his body swelled up and burst open. (Complete Jewish Bible) … having fallen down headlong, burst in the midst. (Darby Bible) … he hanged, burst apart the middle. (Wycliffe Bible) … but he died on that land-falling so that his abdomen burst and his internal organs gushed out. (The Voice). Let ‘s focus on the second part of verse 18: καί πρηνής γενόμενος έλάκησεν μέσος καί έξεχύθη πάντα τά σπλάχνα αύτού The word translated as headlong, πρηνής can mean: with the head foremost, but the first meaning of πρηνής (nom. sg.) is: with the face downwards or prone. Notice: the word falling is not in the Greek text, γενόμενος (nom. sg. part. Aoristus of the verb γίγνομαι) means: come into being, take place. People have in their mind, Judas has hanged, so he has to fall. That is what we call prejudice. If we look at the text with an open mind, we will translate differently. I propose: (being) with his face turned to the ground; or shortly: stooped or knelt. To support my argument I mention the way in which the Vulgate reconciled the two reports. The Vulgate translates Acts 1:18 as following: …et hic quidem possedit agrum de mercede iniquitatis et suspensus crepuit medius et diffusa sunt omnia viscera eius (…. he hanged, burst in the midst and his viscera gushed out). The Wycliffe Bible remains the same. But this translation is plainly wrong. Does the Roman church want Judas to hang? Subsequent (protestant) translations, as the King James Version, changed the text in the falling headlong. The word translated as burst, έλακησεν (3rd. sg. Aoristus of the verb λάσκω, λακάω or ληκέω) means: ring, rattle, crack or burst (especially of things) and scream, shout or cry aloud (especially of animals or human beings). That his bowels gushed out is a way of saying, to express a deep sort of compassion or affection. In Hebrew it is referred to as rechamim. In particular it is used to mention God's mercy. Dutch has a great word for it, namely: barmhartigheid. σπλάχνα is been used at several places in the New Testament: 1 John 3:17; 2 Cor. 6:12, 7:15; Col. 3:12; Philemon: 7, 12, 20; Philippians 1:8, 2:1, Luke 1:78. To mention only Luke: Through the tender mercy of our God, whereby the dayspring from on high hath visited us. If it is metaphorically translated in those places, it is likely to do this here as well. To conclude, I propose the following translation: Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity, when he knelt down, he screamed with great compassion. 6. Acts 1:25 reads: to take the place in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas turned aside, to go to his own place. The current opinion is that the death of Judas is mentioned here, but that can be disputed, again based on the Greek text. Let alone that his own place can be understood as one’s death. The text says: είς τόν τόπον τόν ίδιον. It does not say: τόπον του άυτου, his (own) place, but τόπον τόν ίδιον, his own private place, in the sense of one’s own particular property. How can it be if Judas is dead, he turned aside and went to his own property?

[@lilascott8029]

If we think there is a contradiction, it’s on us because we either don’t understand or we just want to find something to complain about.

[@dan4Jesus2012]

Another brilliant job IP - you're a hero to the Christian faith 😊 God bless you as always!

[@octaviandanielmaria6789]

. =)) How did Judas die according to Luke? How was Judas hanged?

[@dan4Jesus2012]

@@octaviandanielmaria6789 You can just watch the video and it should explain. Judas hanged himself and then when his body fell, his guts spilled out.

[@octaviandanielmaria6789]

@@dan4Jesus2012 , Have you heard of physics? Did he hanged himself by his feet? =)) Amateurs =)) '' (With the payment he received for his wickedness, Judas bought a field; there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out.''

[@sakarir8303]

Thank you, Short and simple, good video! God bless you!🙏

[@JohnsonJLB]

Much like many of the supposed Bible contradictions in the New Testament. If it's logically possible both events could have happened then it's not a contradiction. I find all explanations presented here convincing.

[@kevinlitton1399]

Jonathan Johnson Few things are technically logically impossible. So what you're implying is: what the bible actually says is irrelevant, you've already decided that it's true without looking at the evidence.

[@JohnsonJLB]

@@kevinlitton1399 "Few things are technically logically impossible." I'm not convinced. Seems like a opinionated statement that will set you up for the next line. "So what you're implying is: what the bible actually says is irrelevant, you've already decided that it's true without looking at the evidence." Nope. Case in point. If say one account for Judas' death was by hanging himself in a field alone and the other was by him being stoned to death. Then those statements would present a contradiction. Both cannot be logically possible. However, as seen in the video that is not the case. Even if I also held the subjective view that few things were logically impossible it wouldn't follow that I was implying historical evidence in the Bible is irrelevant. No, I didn't decide that it's true without looking at the evidence.

[@Bardineer]

@@JohnsonJLB Here is all you have to do to reconcile Matthew 27-5 with Acts 1:18 (or any other pesky Biblical inconsistencies). 1) *Ignore* the fact that *God doesn't change* (Malachi 3:6, Numbers 23:19, and James 1:17). What was true of God since before time began has always been true, is true now, and forever will be true. 2) *Ignore* the fact that *God says what He means and means what He says* (1 Samuel 15:29, Titus 1:2, Numbers 23:19). If God *meant* to say that *first* Judas hanged himself, and *then* the rope broke/the branch broke/his body decomposed until it fell, causing his bowels to spill onto the ground, then God *would have said so* . 3) *Ignore* the fact that *God is not the author of confusion* (1 Corinthians 14:23). If one passage indicates that Judas hanged himself and another that he fell and his bowels spilled, (necessitating Apologetics to address the issue) this is a clear indication of *confusion* within the Bible's narrative; and if *God is not* the author of this confusion, then *someone else* must be. 4) *Ignore* the fact the entire Bible was inspired by the *same all-knowing God* (2 Timothy 3:16). As an omniscient being, God natually *knows* exactly how the events surrounding the death of Judas transpired; and if *all* of the Bible's human contributors were inspired by *Him* , then (since He also does not lie and is not the author of confusion) He would have shared the *same* account with *all* of them. Moreover, since He *also* says what He means and means what He says, and they *all* were inspired *by Him* , if He *meant* for the account to state that *first* Judas hanged himself, and *then* the rope broke/the branch broke/his body decomposed until it fell, causing his bowels to spill onto the ground, then this would *already* be reflected in the narrative. 5) *Ignore* the fact that Man is *prohibited from adding to, subtracting from, or otherwise altering the Word* (Proverbs 30:6, Deuteronomy 4:2, Deuteronomy 12:32). Since although plausible, *none* of the above methods of reconciliation are explictly stated in the Bible's narrative, and Man is prohibited from adding to that narrative, (on multiple occasions) which these methods *require* , they are all *violations* of what the Bible explicitly *does* state.

[@Bardineer]

@ 45Raheem So, which part of what I said is incorrect?

[@Bardineer]

@ 45Raheem What did I say that is untrue? That's a simple question.

[@danielesorbello619]

every time IP uploads: I’M FALLIN’ IN LOVE

[@ManuelGonzalez-ws9xf]

How does one fall head long hanged from their neck?

[@cmk5724]

Every person needs to watch this video.

[@nenemens]

I've been watching many videos of supposed contradictions in the Bible and each time I realized how weak the arguments were. God bless you for actually taking time to make this video. Your videos can save souls drowning in doubt. It's interesting to note that Bible critics claim the gospels are not authentic bcos they have similar accounts, yet when differences in writing styles are noted the same critics claim the differences are proof that the gospels are not authentic. Smh.

[@electricspark5271]

Thank you, this was fantastic! Keep doing more I just subscribed !

[@Lee-Darin]

In essence Judas did buy the potter's field by throwing the money into the Temple.

[@matthanlewis1959]

In essence and in energy.

[@Crosshair84]

Yup. We do the same today. A business owner tells an employee to go buy pizza, for a company pizza party, using the company credit card. People would rightly tell others later that "The boss bought us pizza today". Even if all the employees know that it was a co-worker who actually went and did the purchasing. It was by the owners authority and money that the pizza was acquired. I've told people, "I just replaced the roof on my garage". In reality, I did no such thing. I paid a roofer to do it, yet nobody complains that I am lying. I was the one who financed the work.

[@Bardineer]

Here is all you have to do to reconcile Matthew 27-5 with Acts 1:18 (or any other pesky Biblical inconsistencies). 1) *Ignore* the fact that *God doesn't change* (Malachi 3:6, Numbers 23:19, and James 1:17). What was true of God since before time began has always been true, is true now, and forever will be true. 2) *Ignore* the fact that *God says what He means and means what He says* (1 Samuel 15:29, Titus 1:2, Numbers 23:19). If God *meant* to say that *first* Judas hanged himself, and *then* the rope broke/the branch broke/his body decomposed until it fell, causing his bowels to spill onto the ground, then God *would have said so* 3) *Ignore* the fact that *God is not the author of confusion* (1 Corinthians 14:23). If one passage indicates that Judas hanged himself and another that he fell and his bowels spilled, (necessitating Apologetics to address the issue) this is a clear indication of *confusion* within the Bible's narrative; and if *God is not* the author of this confusion, then *someone else* must be. 4) *Ignore* the fact the entire Bible was inspired by the *same all-knowing God* (2 Timothy 3:16). As an omniscient being, God natually *knows* exactly how the events surrounding the death of Judas transpired; and if *all* of the Bible's human contributors were inspired by *Him* , then (since He also does not lie and is not the author of confusion) He would have shared the *same* account with *all* of them. Moreover, since He *also* says what He means and means what He says, and they *all* were inspired *by Him* , if He *meant* for the account to state that *first* Judas hanged himself, and *then* the rope broke/the branch broke/his body decomposed until it fell, causing his bowels to spill onto the ground, then this would *already* be reflected in the narrative. 5) *Ignore* the fact that Man is *prohibited from adding to, subtracting from, or otherwise altering the Word* (Proverbs 30:6, Deuteronomy 4:2, Deuteronomy 12:32). Since although plausible, *none* of the above methods of reconciliation are explictly stated in the Bible's narrative, and Man is prohibited from adding to that narrative, (on multiple occasions) which these mathods *require* , they are all *violations* of what the Bible explicitly *does* state. The same line of thought applies to the assertion that Judas bought the field *by proxy* . If God *meant* that, then this would *already* be reflected in the text. It *isn't* .

[@crawlerjunkie4512]

Everything you said is possible, just not scripture based.

[@prestonyannotti7661]

How so?

[@rub3n410]

​@@prestonyannotti7661 cuz it shows that the bible, being the word of a perfect god, is faulty with a quesionable integrity

[@TheOneAndOnlyJinglebi]

You can play around with the words all you want, the explanation of what he did with the money he got for betraying Jesus just show that these are two completely different accounts that contradict each other

[@NotSoCradleCatholic]

“Then Judas, his betrayer, seeing that Jesus had been condemned, deeply regretted what he had done. He returned the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders, saying, “I have sinned in betraying innocent blood.” They said, “What is that to us? Look to it yourself.” Flinging the money into the temple, he departed and went off and hanged himself. The chief priests gathered up the money, but said, “It is not lawful to deposit this in the temple treasury, for it is the price of blood.” After consultation, they used it to buy the potter’s field as a burial place for foreigners. That is why that field even today is called the Field of Blood. Then was fulfilled what had been said through Jeremiah the prophet, “And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the value of a man with a price on his head, a price set by some of the Israelites, and they paid it out for the potter’s field just as the Lord had commanded me.” Jesus Questioned by Pilate.” ‭‭Matthew‬ ‭27‬:‭3‬-‭10‬ What are you talking about? What Judas did with the money is only recorded in Matthew. And even if it’s recorded somewhere else and it has a different account, it’s a minor issue. It doesn’t completely discredit the gospels.

[@johnnylollard7892]

They don't contradict each other. You're just showing you don't understand what "contradiction" means. A contradiction implies that one thing fundamentally excludes the other. There's nothing about one account which render the other impossible or irreconcilable. That would be a contradiction.

[@TheOneAndOnlyJinglebi]

@@johnnylollard7892 I’ve seen plenty of Bible verses, like actually about ten that are fundamentally contradicting each other… yet people who are blinded always come with the "well it’s actually both" no matter how ridiculous that is, even when it comes to the lineage of of Jesus as. which is described differently in different gospels they just say "well this one actually means adopted son" if you want to make it fit you will always find a way, but every normal person who isn’t filled with the Holy Spirit like you call it will never see one account where Judas throws away the bloodmoney and hang himself as compatible with him buying a field and tripping while his guts burst out

[@johnnylollard7892]

@TheOneAndOnlyJinglebi Appealing to an ambiguous class of "normal" people isn't a proper reason, it's a fallacy. And you still don't understand a contradiction. A contradiction doesn't mean things seem awkward and not saying the same thing, it means two things necessarily can't both be the case. The fact that two different writers have varied accounts of the same event, with different details but which aren't mutually impossible, doesn't indicate it didn't happen or the witness is false. It lends the event and the writer credibility. The two accounts aren't even that different. In your bizarre and twisted reading of Acts, Judas took his silver, bought a field, and just randomly tripped and exploded into gore. Ignoring the other account, or even whether this is just a fairy tale or the word of God, that's a very odd way to understand what's being written. If you understand that he hanged himself (where one literally does by falling "headlong" like said in Acts), and his body was left to rot and bloat for a time (historically, Jews didn't want to touch bodies on the Sabbath, especially the bodies of suicide victims, which were ignoble and oft disposed of in a burning trash heap), the story makes more sense. And he did "buy" the field, because it was purchased with his money, which was explicitly not to go into the treasury. We use this language all the time, today. The weapons the US sends to Ukraine are courtesy of the "taxpayer." Nobody says that meaning taxpayers are getting individual receipts from Lockheed Martin. Will you be so incredulous to say such a thing?

[@TheOneAndOnlyJinglebi]

@@johnnylollard7892 that’s what I’m saying, the contradiction can be as clear as day yet you would find yourself twisting it to the extent that you want so it fits again. It is absolutely impossible to fall HEADFIRST after hanging yourself. Another extremely clear contradiction, is the following, and if you read the context they both describe the same event Mark 6:9 He commanded them to take nothing for the journey except a staff-no bag, no bread, no copper in their money belts-but to wear sandals, and not to put on two tunics. Luke 9:1-3 Then He called His twelve disciples together and gave them power and authority over all demons, and to cure diseases. He sent them to preach the kingdom of God and to heal the sick. And He said to them, “Take nothing for the journey, neither staffs nor bag nor bread nor money; and do not have two tunics apiece.” Did Jesus as. now tell them to take a staff or not? There are countless of those in the Bible but sure go ahead with the mental gymnastics to justify this

[@sml_editzxx6356]

After falling from the noose, after decomposing, and it doesn't say how long he hung there.

[@deluxeassortment]

I'm sorry, but I have to disagree with you. The stories are different because the traditions upon which they were derived are different. I don't think there's any need to reconcile the discrepencies. A side by side comparison of the stories show the same story from different sources, . The theological implications of the dangers of greed are the same in both cases. The best, most researched documentarian stories in all of history have similar discrepencies in different tellings. If someone wants to view the Bible from a fundamentalist maximalist perspective, expecting every word to be divine and perfect, then they will have to use denialism. I think the more important point found in researching this story is it is not found in the earliest manuscripts, same as the story of the virgin Mary. I appreciate your effort, and you did a great job trying to reconcile them, but they just don't jive, and that's ok.

[@sueparrish6057]

very good ans.-harry truman

[@Angelotube5000]

Bart Ehrman, is that you? LOL

[@sjappiyah4071]

Alkyl Dimethyl Benzyl Ammonium Chloride How Exactly do they not “ jive”. Judas hanging himself and then his body decomposing and his bowels falling out makes perfect sense biologically?

[@deluxeassortment]

@@sjappiyah4071 Forensics tells us that a hanging body, exposed to wind and sun on a larger surface than a laying body will mummify rather than decompose. Being off the ground, maggots often fall from body with no way to get back on, and so the number of insects adding to decomposition is low. The story says he fell "headlong" and all his guts spilled out. Why would they describe it as falling headlong if he fell from a tree? It just doesn't read naturally as the same story. As someone mentioned Bart Ehrman, I'll bring up the fact that there are two other versions of the story. What it sounds like to me is Judas made a good urban legend story, and it was common for people to refer to Judas in a legendary sense, kind of like ghost stories, long after he died. Since the Judas death story isn't in any of the earliest manuscripts, wouldn't it be reasonable to assume it wasn't part of the original story, and was added by later traditions?

[@Angelotube5000]

@@deluxeassortment LOL what are your medical sources? This guy...

[@DesGardius-me7gf]

Matthew’s gospel isn’t talking about Judas’s death in a literal sense? Now that’s an apologetic argument I haven’t heard.

[@X22-p4t]

Bible was written by people, with all their flaws and negatives, telling what they knew as reveales to God by them. God didn't threw the Bible from heaven on the heads of the apostles. It was written for many centuries by many people. This doesn't make it less true-it makes it more true.

[@mylucidadventures6540]

No it dosent make it more true.

[@X22-p4t]

@@mylucidadventures6540 It makes more true because of evidence behind these claims and because in KEY things, they agreed. If it was completely same with same style everywhere, I wouldn't believe in what it says, then it would be obvious it was fabricated. However, it's not, and it also not unbelievably contradictory. It is neither too identical nor too same. I am not gonna argue with you on this, I know Jesus Christ is the Son of God and that He is risen from the dead and that He is sitting at the right hand of God and that He will come again. Amen.

[@mylucidadventures6540]

@@X22-p4t you believe that, wether your right or not, you cannot know that. Also I would say no earth quake in all but 1 puts quite a bit on the one that has a earth quake

[@mylucidadventures6540]

@@X22-p4t but of course your not gonna "argue with me" the gospels probably arnt even eye witness accounts

[@X22-p4t]

@@mylucidadventures6540 ,,Gospels aren't even eye witness accounts." Gospels are dated all the way to the 40 AD, Gospel of John may very well be dated in 70 or 80 AD, no matter how much atheist historians like to put it in 110 AD. There are also Epistles of Paul, who was a persecutor of Christians and he suddenly converted to Christianity, leaving all riches behind and spreading the Gosples. Yeah, great reasons to believe in the Resurrection. ,,You believe that, you don't know if you are right or not..." that's not that kind of faith in God. I don't believe in risen Christ because I simply believe, I first know He is risen and I then also believe in Him by putting my confidence in Him. Christ is the most unique and strangest man who walked on this Earth. There was something special about Him, you can see that even as an atheist. Now, will you spit at Him and say He was a lunatic or bow to Him and confess He is the Son of God, is your choice. But your choice does not affect the truth that He is the Son of God. I will certainly not deny Him based on your comments, nor will you confess Him based on my comments. A study must be done. You and I will not come to nothing based on responses on KZbin, it's absurd to think that something will happen out of it. You will not accept some things that I tell you because we are on KZbin and, well, you don't wanna be defeated, you just wanna win in a fist fight, and it is always the case when two are arguing on KZbin. There is no win for anyone. Problem with Internet communications and these kinds of stuff. They can't be more better or efficient than face to face talk and good study. This is why I won't argue with you. Both of us will get nothing from it.

[@xero7077]

Hi, I just finished my devotion about it. I have a question. In Matthew's account, Judas threw the money away and the Priests are the one who picked-up the money and use it to buy a land. But in Luke's account in Acts, the verses said Judas himself used the money to buy the land. These are contradicting and confusing, please enlighten me.

[@Bardineer]

Here is all you have to do to reconcile Matthew 27-5 with Acts 1:18 (or any other pesky Biblical inconsistencies). 1) *Ignore* the fact that *God doesn't change* (Malachi 3:6, Numbers 23:19, and James 1:17). What was true of God since before time began has always been true, is true now, and forever will be true. 2) *Ignore* the fact that *God says what He means and means what He says* (1 Samuel 15:29, Titus 1:2, Numbers 23:19). If God *meant* to say that *first* Judas hanged himself, and *then* the rope broke/the branch broke/his body decomposed until it fell, causing his bowels to spill onto the ground, then God *would have said so.* 3) *Ignore* the fact that *God is not the author of confusion* (1 Corinthians 14:23). If one passage indicates that Judas hanged himself and another that he fell and his bowels spilled, (necessitating Apologetics to address the issue) this is a clear indication of *confusion* within the Bible's narrative; and if *God is not* the author of this confusion, then *someone else* must be. 4) *Ignore* the fact the entire Bible was inspired by the *same all-knowing God* (2 Timothy 3:16). As an omniscient being, God natually *knows* exactly how the events surrounding the death of Judas transpired; and if *all* of the Bible's human contributors were inspired by *Him,* then (since He also does not lie and is not the author of confusion) He would have shared the *same* account with *all* of them. Moreover, since He *also* says what He means and means what He says, and they *all* were inspired *by Him,* if He *meant* for the account to state that *first* Judas hanged himself, and *then* the rope broke/the branch broke/his body decomposed until it fell, causing his bowels to spill onto the ground, then this would *already* be reflected in the narrative. 5) *Ignore* the fact that Man is *prohibited from adding to, subtracting from, or otherwise altering the Word* (Proverbs 30:6, Deuteronomy 4:2, Deuteronomy 12:32). Since although plausible, *none* of the above methods of reconciliation are explictly stated in the Bible's narrative, and Man is prohibited from adding to that narrative, (on multiple occasions) which these mathods *require,* they are all *violations* of what the Bible explicitly *does* state. The problem isn't that Biblical inconsistencies cannot be logically reconciled, it's that according to the Bible itself explicitly says, "Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar," and those explanations *_must_*_ be added._ I am amazed at people who have the gall to designate themselves as God's copy editor and essentially argue, "what God _meant_ to say was..." when the Bible expressly _forbids_ this.

[@Zack-xz1ph]

based

[@rachdarastrix5251]

"What is that to us? She thou to it." Language warning. Translation: "We don't give a shit. Just fuck off."

[@TheLilKimooo]

Will you ever address biblical infallibility and if it's important to the doctrine?

[@JustifiedNonetheless]

According to Matthew 27:3-10, Judas returned the silver to the priests, then hanged himself, and the priests used the silver to purchase the potters field. According to Acts, Judas purchased the field himself, fell, and his bowels burst. Now, yes, these conflicting passages _can_ be reconciled. We can say that Judas bought the field *by proxy* _through_ the priests, that he hanged himself _first,_ and _then_ he fell (because the branch broke, because the rope broke, because his body had decomposed, etc), and his bowels burst. However, since the text *doesn't* explicitly state that he Judas purchased the field _by proxy,_ or that the hanged himself _first,_ and _then_ fell, and makes _no mention_ of a branch _or_ rope breaking, _or_ his body having decomposed, such a reconciliation *isn't,* "simply explaining what a certain passage of the Scripture says." It *_IS_* in fact, *_ADDING_* something to the narrative that *_ISN'T THERE._* That *_IS_* a violation of what the text _does_ explicitly *prohibit.* That's just one problem. There's also the fact that by reconciling the text is that manner, you are no longer following the evidence where it leads, but leading the evidence to where you already want to go. Thirdly, this ties into the whole ideas of Biblical univocality and infallibility. Either the Bible is the product of a single mind (that of the deity of the Abrahamic faiths), or it's not. If it is, then you can't very well attribute these discrepancies to the individual perspectives of the human writers, or you're contradicting yourself. Alternatively, you can argue that the discrepancies are due to the different perspectives of limitations of the human writers, in which case, (any divine inspiration notwithstanding) the text *isn't* infallible because the *human* writers have the potential to make mistakes or to deliberately interject their own thoughts and opinions because of Free Will; and to argue otherwise is to extend perfection to the human writers--something for which we have no justification

[@Eman-wj8gq]

I'm having my doubts and this isn't a good explanation. It's a stretch.

[@DavidAmis2005]

Exactly... so I wonder what actually happened? Since the Bible can't agree.

[@puregospel9907]

Thank you so much. I was reading Acts earlier and I remembered Judas hanging himself. Thank you!

[@Serenity5460]

If you would find a bible contradiction, how would you address that? I mean, my personal faith in God is based on more than just the scripture. Gods personal experience, the philosophy and other revelations from God make a good accumulative case for Christianity. Thank you for your work.

[@fredericdouglas3574]

It makes sense that you don't rely only on scripture for your belief. That "personal relationship" with God/Jesus stuff is not in the Bible.

[@Serenity5460]

Frederic Douglas I don’t exclude it by no means. The scripture is after all the best source to understand God and his love to us. God reveals him trough that in a very special and important way.

[@jonson856]

But never forget, facts over feelings. This also goes with the Bible. I dont mean atheism in this case. What I mean is, even if you feel it is good, it does not mean it is. That is why the Bible always tells us to go back to the scripture and to verify whether our feelings are right or they are wrong.

[@skepticalfaith5201]

@Giovega21 I believe that the Bible is true, but that it is not inerrant. For example, the four gospels all describe the resurrection but do not agree on the details. They are not reconcilable without a lot of mental gymnastics. But, this is actually evidence of the truth of the resurrection because no two people describe an event in exactly the same way. Even secular historians will acknowledge this. But our faith is not built on the writings in the New Testament as the early believers did not have any of these writings. Our faith is built on the fact of Jesus dying on the cross for our sins and rising from the dead to overcome it. And this is completed by the coming of the Holy Spirit and His ministry in our lives. The Bible was written by faithful men who were inspired to write what they saw and believed. Their writings are *_”profitable_* for teaching, reproof and instruction in righteousness.” Not inerrant. Not authoritative. Not the “literal words of God” (although if you want to believe that, the Koran is very explicit in its declaration that it is). The Bible tells us about God and Jesus and how his disciples understood his mission, but we are not limited in our understanding of Him as “we have the mind of Christ.” (I Cor 2:16)

[@sueparrish6057]

this means that you do not know how to study the bible

[@christopher17701-D]

Yes I read about this interpretation of judas death. But...what about the part of it where one version has Judas throwing the 30 pieces of silver back at the Jews religious leaders, and they bought the field. Whereas the other version has Judas buying the field with the silver. Those are two totally different versions, totally different!

[@christopher17701-D]

@Coobest 64 matthew 27:5

[@christopher17701-D]

@Coobest 64 Acts 1:18

[@mrwolley1741]

The only issue is tht he fell headlong. In order to reconcile the issue you are forced to use details that are not in the bible. If we expalin things in tht manner, we can very well put anything. The queation is, why? Why the need for all this gymnastics? Its because you have a narrative tht you must support at all costs.

[@grubblewubbles]

He explained this at 1:40

[@mrwolley1741]

@@grubblewubbles ok he just inserted a narrative that’s not in the Bible. And no, if Luke says he fell headlong, that does not equate to telling us what happened to the body. The Bible said he fell headlong...that’s an active outcome. The word for headlong in the Greek does not mean swollen and if you’re claiming scribal error, how many others of those may exist. All this video amounts to are Ad Hoc rationalizations that are thrown out to harmonize an error.

[@grubblewubbles]

@@mrwolley1741 he did not. He pointed out that there's some evidence to think that Acts originally read "became swollen" instead of "fell headlong", as the two phrases are very similiar in Greek, and it could have been the result of a later scribal error.

[@mrwolley1741]

@@grubblewubbles I read the original Greek, and we are not free to add our own interpretations to what most consider is the word of God. If he’s claiming scribal error, it would raise the question, how many more of those exists in the Bible and to what extent can we trust is, if those errors exist. The one thing that’s for sure tho, one cannot hang oneself AND fall headlong in the same event. You’re also not free to Insert whatever ad hoc rationale that you want.

[@grubblewubbles]

@@mrwolley1741 it's not ad hoc, it's what the original text likely would have said, but an honest mistake was made somewhere along the timeline where two INCREDIBLY SIMILIAR Greek phrases were mixed up by a later scholar. Also, if you're so adamant on the text having to mean headlong, the word also means "recklessly" or "hastily", not having to mean that he literally fell on his head, but rather that he hung himself quickly, which is what we read in Matthew. I still don't see the issue here.

[@golgolmois3993]

This is total BS! Luke would most obviously state that Judas had hanged himself and then fell down, he is saying a completely different thing!

[@kymmoore853]

I always considered that Matthew was describing Judas as being ‘a hanged man’ - ashamed of the reality of his actions, whereas Acts was describing his actual death; which I always considered was more likely falling on a sword (hence falling headlong and his intestines spilling out).

[@parktol02]

Hey IP, I would like a deeper analysis of the Quirinius problem, especially since that seems to be one of the biggest errors touted by atheist scholars such as Bart Ehrman or Tim O’Neill. I know that’s a lot to ask for, but I feel like it’s a problem that has been addressed poorly by apologists, especially those that try to re-date Herod’s death.

[@BOMBI77766]

He has touched on it in his seris on the reliablity of the new testement, that might have some answers.

[@プレイフルクラウド]

He has addressed the topic: kzbin.info/www/bejne/oqarZmtnnbuXjtk

[@parktol02]

Esteban Bonilla Yeah, but I feel like it needs some more attention. Not saying the video was bad, I just think the issue needs to be revisited. The infancy narratives are often the most cited example of the gospels being in error, so maybe we need to spend some more time on it.

[@deluxeassortment]

If you don't deny reality in favor of a more positive view of something you identify as part of yourself, you appear less narcissistic and less dishonest. Accepting the humanity of the Bible is a winning trait, in my humble opinion. If those around me had admitted to the mistakes of the Bible, I probably wouldn't have been prompted to start questioning my beliefs, ultimately leading to my atheism.

[@deluxeassortment]

@roasted pancakes A couple of mistakes and a human-written Bible does not make the doctrine demonstrably false. It's the same doctrine. It's just not perfect, and the rest of us already know this. And that should be ok.

[@michaelflores9220]

People agreeing with this video are jsut thinking what they want to due to cognitive dissonance, not using logic that they would apply to any other book.

[@BrotherDave80]

love this channel

[@mirTVgaming]

Judas death is a contradiction

[@jameswitt108]

Not really

[@KingKing-ky5tt]

Ad hoc interpretation?​@@jameswitt108

[@dinox44]

In one he buys land with the silver in other he throws it away.. that you people still are trying is honestly sad.

[@jameswitt108]

In no version does he "buy" any silver and in all the versions a field is bought with the money.

[@dinox44]

@@jameswitt108 indeed

[@jameswitt108]

@@dinox44 Thanks for responding, hope I didn't come across as rude not my intention.

[@dinox44]

@@jameswitt108 not at all, I’m happy to be corrected correctly.

[@nonprogrediestregredi1711]

"...so this supposed contradiction can be resolved." is stated at the end of the video. Well yes, ANY contradiction can be resolved by using fallacious ad hoc rationale! But that's common, in my experience, among apologists.

[@shardhakumar5347]

Tnk you very much for shearing your wisdom.

[@davidjanbaz7728]

Nice

[@ruthiemay4799]

Judas hung himself in Potter's field, just outside of town where pottery was disposed of when it couldn't be repaired. Judas saw himself beyond redemption. But if he had asked, he would have been forgiven. He certainly would have been hanging there a long time because it was not easily accessible. On the other hand Peter denied Jesus 3 times and was forgiven. Just a thought: if Judas had asked to be forgiven and Peter didn't, we may have had the Books of Judas, instead of the Books of Peter.

[@Zaid26127]

So did Judas discard the silver or did he use it to buy land?

[@neehar6409]

Yes, Judas Iscariot returned the money. But the Elders and religious leaders could not put it back with the donations for the Temple because it was blood money. And so, they used the money to buy the ‘Potter’s Field’. This is explained in just the next verse of matthew 27. Matthew 27:5-8 5So Judas threw the money into the temple and left. Then he went away and hanged himself. 6 The chief priests picked up the coins and said, “It is against the law to put this into the treasury, since it is blood money.” 7 So they decided to use the money to buy the potter’s field as a burial place for foreigners. 8 That is why it has been called the Field of Blood to this day.

[@Zaid26127]

@@neehar6409 But in this case it would have been the Elders and Pharisees that bought the land no? And not Judas who bought it

[@neehar6409]

@@Zaid26127 Yes they bought it but it was Judas's money since they(elders) did not accept it.

[@charliesmith3777]

Interesting, but... For one, Jesus ate the traditional passover which was on a sabbath day, Nisan 15th. Presumably, Judas hang himself that day. So why didn't Judas choose a tree overlooking a high cliff? That way, if he threw himself over the cliff with a rope around his neck, he would hang himself and then bang up against the cliff and his abdomen burst open? Further the concept of being "headlong" suggests he was pointing downward in the action of his death. That's a perfect description of him throwing himself over a cliff with a rope around his neck, then banging against the side of the cliff bursting open. What a horrible death. On a side note, when John says Judas left "but night" at John 13:33, it was a reference to the midnight watch, that is, "but night" means just before the midnight watch which meant he left the meal prior to 9 p.m. The night watch was from 9 p.m. to midnight. Thanks for your wonderful series!!!

[@liberation.of.Al-Aqsa.Derrick]

This is the problem with Christianity. Always with the "maybe" and "possibly" a bunch of conspiracy theories. Come to Islam, Yeshua was a Muslim n said "Ellah"

[@xBeeGee]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/mJyQZaaejtaFrq8

[@xBeeGee]

Watch that video and tell me what you think of it

[@liberation.of.Al-Aqsa.Derrick]

@@xBeeGee "Caesar's Messiah" go watch it.

[@tommynatividad5959]

What they are saying contradictory is Judas tossed the money and did not take it while the other verse said that he purchased a land out of it.

[@RK-dk5vt]

Could you do one one the question: "who killed Goliath, David or Elhanan?"

[@setyoufree2726]

Please use King James Version (KJV) 1611 Bible. No contradiction there about Goliath death and other topics. I found several contradictions if read it from current modern bible. There is explanation from pastor like Dr. Gene Kim (search his youtube channel), why it happened on the modern bible.

[@RK-dk5vt]

@@setyoufree2726 That's not going to work for me. I am a 3rd-year theology student, taking classes in Hebrew, Greek, New- and Old-Testament criticism and the like. Going to the KJV is not going to erase this from the Masoretic Text or the Septuagint. I did find a plausible explanation here, however: www.biblestudymagazine.com/extras-1/2014/10/31/clash-of-the-manuscripts-goliath-the-hebrew-text-of-the-old-testament

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

David, the second passage is based on a textual variant. The Hebrew probably means "brother of Goliath." carm.org/who-killed-goliath-david-or-elhanan

[@setyoufree2726]

@@RK-dk5vt - why KJV is not working for you as a theology student is your personal problem. But the ordinary christian like me, when i read the modern bible like ESV or LEB (Lexham Bible), your example about who killed goliath, show the contradiction between 2 Sam 21:19 and 1 Chro 20:5. ESV and LEB make me confuse. KJV is consistent that David killed Goliath on both verses. Based on IP comment, i believe, there are something unaccurate in the translation of modern bible like ESV, LEB, NIV, etc. Perhaps errors on the source of manuscript that this modern bible used or on the translators himself. You can check that in ESV, LEB, NIV, etc..there are some verses were missing. They put in bracket [missing or empty]. While we can find those verses in KJV 1611. So for me, KJV so far is my only guidance.

[@thisisyoutubetv3235]

Thank you men 🙏🏿

[@loganpeterjones]

Eh not buying it

[@loganpeterjones]

Adam Taurus What do you mean? I do see the evidence for God!

[@mylucidadventures6540]

I mean there's many contradictions in the bible, they continue to say supposed contradictions and it's somewhat scewed

[@loganpeterjones]

Abraham Girt Yeah I’m a Christian, support the resurrection, etc., but I don’t find many of the explanations (like this one) for contradictions to be convincing

[@loganpeterjones]

Hairy Heathens I agree, to a degree. While it’s usually possible to explain away a contradiction, often these explanations are not the most probable based on the historical evidence. For instance, in this video he pointed to how one variant has a reading that can help explain away this contradiction, but the manuscript support for this variant is probably much smaller than for the accepted reading, meaning that the explanation is less probable than that it is a contradiction

[@mylucidadventures6540]

@@loganpeterjones I mean quite a few contradictions atheists are just being nit picky but there is a few that I would say are warranted

[@tubebantam]

It may also be that Judas' rope was too long, so that he burst his guts on the jagged rocks while his head was only elevated a few inches above the ground by the noose. This would have been a slow and miserable death, perhaps attended by taunting demons.

[@museofire]

Why would Peter describe that he "fell headlong"? ; surely, a hanged man would still be hanging, even if his bloated body burst open. Also, one says that he "threw down the pieces of silver", the other that he "purchased a field with the wages of iniquity". It could be that these wages were something different to the silver, but, to any reader, this would have not conveyed anything other than them being the same.

[@PA-1000]

Tge skin of Decomposed bodies can weaken and fall.

[@magnificentuniverse3085]

Peter described him falling headlong because thats how the righteous dead punish the unrighteous according to the Wisdom of Solomon. Also, if we really want to make these narrstives cohere, then you didnt listen to IP well enough, he said that branch could have broken off or that someone cut it, and thats when Judas fell headlong and burst open. Also, Luke doesnt say that he bought the field but that he acquired it. We know that in that day and age they often skipped intermediaries and ascribed actions to initializers of those events. Its not only in the Bible but in other ancient literature as well. For example did Captain went to Jesus and ask him to cure his servant (Matthew) or did he send people to ask Jesus (Luke)? Well, knowing that ancient authors often took their liberty to simplify such narratives, Matthew just skipped mentioning intermediaters.

[@museofire]

@@magnificentuniverse3085 It could be that Peter was referencing an obscure text, written in Egypt, within the same century, but it doesn't seem very likely. It could, however, be a manner of speech used without the literal meaning. There are other contradictions in the accounts as well as these, though. There are two different reasons given for the name "Field of blood" being so-called. Acts 1 18 (With the payment he received for his wickedness, Judas bought a field; there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out. 19 Everyone in Jerusalem heard about this, so they called that field in their language Akeldama, that is, Field of Blood.) Matt 27 7 So they decided to use the money to buy the potter’s field as a burial place for foreigners. 8 That is why it has been called the Field of Blood to this day. So, 3 differing views on 3 points of Judas' death. The death, the name of the field, and who purchased the field. If we take this as meaning the two authors heard two different accounts about the event, then that is easily accepted, but if we take the view that God dictated what to write to both men, it seems implausible. The more convoluted the explanation (God's infallible dictation to the authors), the less believable the rest will seem.

[@joecheffo5942]

@@PA-1000 Are you saying his head ripped off?

[@PA-1000]

@@joecheffo5942 his dead body fell off the rope.

[@77megapixels53]

So why, when many other biblical narratives match much more closely across books, would the Bible record these two versions with such discontinuity? Assuming I accept this hypothesis, which I don’t, I give it a perfect 10 for lingual gymnastics, what’s the purpose of writing this in this way?

[@edwardtbabinski]

Scholarly monograph on the deaths of Judas "Images of Judas across the centuries of Christian interpretation predominantly depict him as an object of horror and condemnation. Some modern interpreters have argued, however, that details about Judas in the canonical Gospels, such as his remorse and suicide, are tragic elements that vindicate Judas, to some extent at least. In addition, the recent discovery of the Gospel of Judas has provided further evidence that even in antiquity there were widely differing views of Judas. The question of the characterization of Judas in early Christianity remains open. Ancient rhetorical handbooks and countless examples from the literature of the Greco-Roman period reveal that death-accounts were regarded as fertile opportunities for shaping the characterization of a figure. Authors and audiences shared the expectation that the manner of a person's death revealed character. This insight provides a new window into the interpretation of Judas in the early Christian era, since three accounts of the death of Judas have survived from before 150 CE through the Gospel of Matthew, the Acts of the Apostles, and the fragments of Papias. Strategies for encomium and invective, and other elements of Greco-Roman and Jewish literary portraiture, vividly reveal the character-shaping significance of the details in the accounts of Judas's death. His final words, final actions, and the mode of his death-whether suicide by hanging, falling headlong and bursting, or swelling to the size of a wagon-all would have been understood to signify Judas's inner qualities and indicate his moral worth. To ancient auditors, the characterization of Judas in these texts could lead only to the assessment of Jesus, 'Woe to that one by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been better for that one not to have been born' (Matt. 26.24)." www.amazon.com/Death-Judas-Characterization-Christian-Monographs/dp/1907534601

[@ryantollmann5918]

NIce research. Historical accuracy has always been a biblibcal staple....Athiets dont research it enough to speak on it, they are psuedo-scientists when it comes to Religion, as they truely dont take it seriously, even if its , at least in their eyes, a history of the Israelites after genisis and before revelations..they just dont have the professional respect for such an old work, show them an egyptian tome or a greek scroll and they treat it with respect, speak of the bibles books and their eyes glaze over with digust. Its personal, believe that.

[@buckhunter6560]

Ahithophel's death means nothing to Matthew. He was being literal. "Cursed is any man who hangs on a tree" is a verse that both Matthew and Judas knew. Judas hung himself because he knew he was condemned and resigned himself to his fate.

[@andrewthomas4636]

Actually, I believe the reason Matthew would have known was for a few reasons. 1. Nicodemus was present at the trial of Christ, and would have known the nitty gritty details. 2. Matthew was a tax collector, he would have known if they placed the 30 pieces of silver in the treasury. 3. Even if the field was never purchased in the name of Judas, he bought the field and the stories line up to fit the narrative fine. I believe this "contradiction" is disingenuous by the readers. 4. The field, according to all known sources, was owned by the family of Annas the high priest. Instead of strangers, High priests were buried in the field, and Caiaphas was not found there, giving some credence that the gospel of Nicodemus is legitimate. Other sources that seem to confirm this is Josephus. Shortly after the death of Christ both high priests were removed from their duties.

[@VierthalerStudios]

Would you ever consider debating Standing For Truth? I think that would make an interesting debate!

[@AffectionateComputerChip-re4iq]

Anything can be reconciled theoretically.

[@derrickpurdy7011]

Since Judas threw the thirty pieces of silver on the temple floor, we may suppose he no longer wished to have anything to do with the priests. So, when the priests bought the field, how would Judas have known they bought the field much less where the field was to hang himself? Was he somehow incapable of hanging himself elsewhere? It doesn't necessarily reason that they would tell him about the field unless they had sinister motivations. If Judas remained alive, he would always stand as evidence against them in the taking of innocent blood. I suggest it is possible that the priests murdered him. I doubt we will ever know for sure in this life but anyone who calls this a contradiction simply isn't willing to listen to reasonable explanations for what might have happened.

[@mikearmentrout4771]

Why are you worried about "contradictions"? Many books/novels contain different details based on different characters' point of view.

[@susangrall5766]

The Bible is written by inspiration of God. 2 Timothy 3:16-17. Christians are not worried, we want to study His word so that we are ready to explain God's word to anyone who attempts to rebuke it. It cannot be done as it is of God and God is infallible.

[@Ejaezy]

These conclusions that you've come to is all speculation. The fact is that the bible doesn't say so and you're looking for extra biblical ways to resolve the obvious issues.

[@spiderfan7981]

Inspiring philosophy sir, have you written a book on religon.

[@NewYorkCityStreetPreachers]

I've always believed that he hung himself on a spear. Or some sort of gate's head. What do you guys think?

[@Eraktab]

Its likely the disciples wanted little to do with Judas and learned about his deaths from third or fourth hand sources without wanting to go verify all of that considering their witnessing of the resurrection

[@speedythirteen6627]

Hey IP do you have any videos covering the epic of Gigamesh and the ark story? A lot of atheists like to use that example to try and disprove the flood story.

[@samchoate1719]

Speedy Thirteen archaeologically speaking, I have read that we have evidence for localized flooding, but not global flooding.

[@speedythirteen6627]

@@samchoate1719 there is a guy i seen named kent hovind that gives a seminar on Noahs Ark and he gives examples of global flood. Youbshould check it out. Its really eye opening.

[@Actuary1776]

Speedy Thirteen The Hebrews lifted their flood tale from the epic of Gilgamesh. The Hebrew narrative isn’t simply the recitation of a localized flood story, rather it is the same story repackaged under their own tribal deity Yahweh. And there is nothing interesting about Kent Hovind at all.

[@speedythirteen6627]

@@Actuary1776 I hear this argument often. but the epic of gilgamesh and Noahs ark do have some key differences. I suggest you watch Chris White's video: kzbin.info/www/bejne/aX_OdqKiq56bn8U Not only that, but Noah's story is the only story to have physical evidence of its existence with the boat being found in the mountains of Ararat (where the bible says that it landed) and matches the same length depicted in the bible. the evidence matches up with its story. *Edit: Also, whats wrong with Kent Hovind? Haha.

[@Actuary1776]

Speedy Thirteen The problem with the Gilgamesh account isn’t the fact that a flood narrative is found across different cultures, that is what it is. The problem with the Genesis account is the details. You stretch credulity when both stories describe the construction of an arc, both stores describe a bird being released, both stories describe sacrifice being made to the Gods upon finding dry land. The Genesis account is not an independent account of a commonly shared experience, it’s more akin to plagiarism of an existing narrative that predates the Jewish people. That does not demonstrate biblical infallibility as Christians claim. It demonstrates there was/is no special revelation from Yahweh, these are simply stories (that may or may not have some historical significance) being retold by man. And no, no one has found the arc in the mountains. Do yourself a favor and find someone other than Kent Hovind to listen to, my 11 year old is infinitely more intelligible.

[@MarioBeukes-vv1uz]

Luke has legend. In Matthew account is correct. Luke is writing to gentiles. In paganism, it's the desired effect that somebody's intestines should came out for betraying innocent blood. Can elaborate further, space to small. Luke portrays to gentiles, other than Matthew writing to Jews.