Originally posted by DarfiusReread your Bible. You are totally in error. Even the KJV reads:
Judas didn't buy the field, the priests did. Good try though.
Acts 1:16-18
Men and brethren, this scripture must needs have been fulfilled,
which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake before concerning
Judas, which was guide to them that took Jesus. For he was numbered
with us, and had obtained part of this ministry. Now this man purchased
a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder
in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.
It is truly incredible to watch you turn off your brain.
Nemesio
1 edit
Originally posted by DarfiusIt has been said? What this means is: We made up an explanation
It has been said also that Joseph was the legal son and heir of Heli, though the real son of Jacob, and that thus the two lines terminated in him.
wherein someone can be the literal son and 'legal son.'
Fascinatingly enough, and you will certainly not believe this, but
there are two different words for this in aramaic.
I'd ask you to cite your source (since it is obvious plagarized it)
but I found it on my own.
http://www.biblesearch.com/answers/conflicts/conpass2.htm
You accused me before of reading 'liberal translations' (and I
don't even know what this term means) when, in fact, I strive
to read the Bible in the original.
I have a question for you: Do you ever think for yourself or
do you just search for any answer, however desparate, to hold
onto a tenet (inerrency) which has no Biblical precedent?
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioWell, if the theories seemed like they were grasping at straws, I might think again, but they make a lot of sense.
It has been said? What this means is: We made up an explanation
wherein someone can be the literal son and 'legal son.'
Fascinatingly enough, and you will certainly not believe this, but
there are two different words for this in aramaic.
I'd ask you to cite your source (since it is obvious plagarized it)
but I found it on my own.
http://w ...[text shortened]... however desparate, to hold
onto a tenet (inerrency) which has no Biblical precedent?
Nemesio
Now, let me ask you something, does it makes you sleep better at night to think that the Jews were just brilliant and gave us good morals instead of thinking of a God who you have to answer to?
1 edit
Out of order:
Originally posted by Darfius
Now, let me ask you something, does it makes you sleep better at night to think that the Jews were just brilliant and gave us good morals instead of thinking of a God who you have to answer to?
I can't answer this, since this doesn't even remotely reflect what I think.
Well, if the theories seemed like they were grasping at straws, I might think again, but they make a lot of sense.
Sure, you aren't grasping at straws, claiming the priests bought the
field when the Bible claims otherwise. Sure you aren't grasping at
straws to claim that Joseph was the son and 'legal son' of two different
people when there is nothing to support this. Sure you aren't grasping
at straws when St Luke and St Matthew record the event two different
ways and one of them 'didn't take copious notes' on the font of every
thing they believe about the now and hereafter.
Sure.
With stupid people it isn't as bothersome, but it is so obvious that you
have a brain, it just amazes me you are willing to turn it off in a desparate
attempt to hold onto the notion of 'inerrancy,' as if your faith hinged on
who Joseph's father was or how Judas killed himself.
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioAhhhhhhhh, I see. Are you instead a Catholic who tries to find fault with the Bible so your "Traditions" can hold water?
Out of order:
Originally posted by Darfius
[b]Now, let me ask you something, does it makes you sleep better at night to think that the Jews were just brilliant and gave us good morals instead of thinking of a God who you have to answer to?
I can't answer this, since this doesn't even remotely reflect what I think.
Well, if the theor ...[text shortened]... ,' as if your faith hinged on
who Joseph's father was or how Judas killed himself.
Nemesio
Well, if the best you can do is blame the Bible for not including everything that has ever happened in history, you need to come up with something better.
MEN wrote the Bible, but they were ALWAYS inspired by God. To say otherwise, as I showed with Scripture, is heretical.
By the way, why would Judas throw the coins and then come pick them up to buy a field to hang himself in?
Cmon now. The priests didn't want blood money, so they used it to buy a field. Where does the Bible say Judas had to die in the field?
The Bible says that Judas' bloodmoney bought him a field (through the priests) and his iniquity bought him death.
Originally posted by DarfiusTHAT'S IT. YOU GOT ME. I AM AN ENEMY OF THE SOLA SCRIPTURA
Ahhhhhhhh, I see. Are you instead a Catholic who tries to find fault with the Bible so your "Traditions" can hold water?
MOVEMENT.
SINCE YOU HAVE UNEARTHED MY SECRET I WILL COME AN HUNT YOU
DOWN AND TORTURE YOU UNTIL YOU SAY THE HAIL MARY WITH
DEEP FERVENCY. PRAISE TO THE COREDEMTRIX! HAIL HOLY QUEEN
ENTHRONED ABOVE!
You are a piece of work Darfius. You really are.
By the way, I posted this before but I am sure that I wrote it in Catholic
Cipher which confused you. Here you go:
Acts 1:16-18 (KJV, for your pleasure)
Men and brethren, this scripture must needs have been fulfilled,
which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake before concerning
Judas, which was guide to them that took Jesus. For he was numbered
with us, and had obtained part of this ministry. Now this man purchased
a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder
in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.
Originally posted by NemesioHow does that not line up with what I said?
THAT'S IT. YOU GOT ME. I AM AN ENEMY OF THE SOLA SCRIPTURA
MOVEMENT.
SINCE YOU HAVE UNEARTHED MY SECRET I WILL COME AN HUNT YOU
DOWN AND TORTURE YOU UNTIL YOU SAY THE HAIL MARY WITH
DEEP FERVENCY. PRAISE TO THE COREDEMTRIX! HAIL HOLY QUEEN
ENTHRONED ABOVE!
You are a piece of work Darfius. You really are.
By the way, I posted this before b ...[text shortened]... iquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder
in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.[/b]
The reward of iniquity is death. Judas' blood money bought the potter's field.
Originally posted by DarfiusTHIS MAN (Judas)
How does that not line up with what I said?
The reward of iniquity is death. Judas' blood money bought the potter's field.
PURCHASED (as in bought for himself)
A FIELD (Hakeldama)
WITH THE REWARD OF HIS INIQUITY (the 30 pieces of silver).
This does not line up with your absurd claim that the priests bought
the field. So, Judas goes and recollects the money he threw in the
temple. (Or St Luke and St Matthew have two mutually exclusive
accounts, the logical choice.)
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioTell me why Judas would purchase the field.
THIS MAN (Judas)
PURCHASED (as in bought for himself)
A FIELD (Hakeldama)
WITH THE REWARD OF HIS INIQUITY (the 30 pieces of silver).
This does not line up with your absurd claim that the priests bought
the field. So, Judas goes and recollects the money he threw in the
temple. (Or St Luke and St Matthew have two mutually exclusive
accounts, the logical choice.)
Nemesio
It's obviously a figurative passage. You argue against me using literalism and then use it when it's convenient for you.
LOL
Originally posted by DarfiusWTF?!
It's obviously a figurative passage. You argue against me using literalism and then use it when it's convenient for you.
Judas bought a field is obviously figurative?
That's the biggest load of crap you've shoveled since
the dinosaur stuff.
How, praytell, is this figurative? I am prepared for
your other-wordly wisdom here.
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioHis BLOOD MONEY that he threw back at the priests was the money spend to buy the field.
WTF?!
Judas bought a field is [b]obviously figurative?
That's the biggest load of crap you've shoveled since
the dinosaur stuff.
How, praytell, is this figurative? I am prepared for
your other-wordly wisdom here.
Nemesio[/b]
His iniquity bought him death. It's clearly a double meaning.
Originally posted by DarfiusTHE MAN PURCHASED A FIELD...
His BLOOD MONEY that he threw back at the priests was the money spend to buy the field.
His iniquity bought him death. It's clearly a double meaning.
not 'a field was purchased for the man...'
The 3rd person-active form of the verb 'acquire/purchase,'
elachen, is the word used.
Judas is the one who clearly bought the field with
the money he received for handing Jesus over. If
any passage is going to be interpretted literally, it is
this one.
Error error error.
Here's the amazing thing: my faith remains unshattered
in light of this error. Your faith quivers and groans as you
strive to invent another interpretation of this passage. Turn
off a few more brain cells and it will all harmonize. You
assimilation is almost complete.
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioI don't even bat an eyebrow when YOUR interpretation runs contrary to mine. Whether or not you believe in the Holy Spirit, it guides me.
THE MAN PURCHASED A FIELD...
not 'a field was purchased for the man...'
The 3rd person-active form of the verb 'acquire/purchase,'
elachen, is the word used.
Judas is the one who clearly bought the field with
the money he received for handing Jesus over. If
any passage is going to be interpretted literally, it is
this one.
Error ...[text shortened]... ew more brain cells and it will all harmonize. You
assimilation is almost complete.
Nemesio
Originally posted by DarfiusI have to ask:
I don't even bat an eyebrow when YOUR interpretation runs contrary to mine. Whether or not you believe in the Holy Spirit, it guides me.
If some force is guiding you to read literal passages
(like Judas bought a field) as figurative (e.g., the priests
bought the field), are you sure that it is the Holy Spirit
and not the Deceiver?
I mean, would the Holy Spirit teach you that something
crystally clear as literal is really figurative?
Methinks that you are the child of the devil and you
don't even know it.
Nemesio