It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
You are telling me the priests bought the field. Acts 1:18 clearly says Judas bought the field himself.
No, what is said very clearly is that Peter said that. Peter was a fisherman. Alllegedly, Matthew was a tax collector. Trust me, tax people will often describe financial and real estate transactions differently than ordinary working people do.
Just to complicate your life a bit, I am informed by my friends over in the Greek Orthodox Church that Matthew's word for "hanging," which I'll transliterate as hapegzato, can also be used as a generic term for suicide by any means.
Matthew being a tax collector has nothing to do with what Judas did with the silver....
Judas either threw it back or purchased the field. Both accounts are mentioned in the Bible. The contradiction IS very much present.
And I don't see why I need to trust your view of modern tax people to resolve a biblical issue.
Did you mean "apagchó"?
However, there is no contradiction about the money. Acts or Peter says only that Judas purchased some land with the wages of his perfidy. It doesn't say which perfidy.
John 12: 6 says plainly that Judas was a thief who stole from the group. Acts or Peter also doesn't say when Judas purchased the land it mentions.
Scorpie, you're a Muslim apologist.
What you need to wrap your head around is that you haven't actually located a problem for a typical Christian's stance on their book.
There was only one instance in the Bible that Judas received a wage for a "perfidy" or an "inequity".
.e - What he accepted to have Jesus arrested
John 12:6 says nothing about Judas buying land from what he stole. He was a thief. Doesn't say anything about him buying land with what he stole.
So lets stick by Act 1:18's account of him buying the land with the "wages" he earned by betraying Jesus.
Christians refusing to acknowledge these contradictions doesn't mean they don't exist.
In any case, Judas didn't get a wage for grassing on Jesus. He got a piece rate, a flat fee for delivering his victim, not a time-on-task rate, not a wage. At no time was he the priests' employee.
Acts's Peter doesn't say which of Judas' perfidies financed his land purchase.
If you've been both a Christian and a Muslim, then how have you failed to notice the difference in the nature of the scriptural foundations of the two? I conjecture that you weren't much attached to one or the other, or perhaps you weren't a Nicene Chrisitan.
You are splitting hairs on the word "wage".
What do you exactly mean by "nature of the scriptural foundations of the two?"
You brought up the subject of "wages." People who pick nits ought not to complain about split hairs.
There's no contradiction in the texts on this point,
In contrast, multiple reports, written by different people at different times in different places, about the same actual events will differ from one another, especially in the peripheral details. In addition to actual differences, there will be incompleteness in each report, also especially in the peripheral details.
The multiple reports ARE the problem here. Judas' deaths is just a minor issue compared to other more vital issues. The "incompleteness" in the Bible should be a big problem for those who follow the book.