taurus25:
please, how can judas iscarriot die in two different ways

Old question, read above.

taurus25,

Please cure your ignorance by following this link.

DoctorAlien:
taurus25,

Please cure your ignorance by following this link.

Thanks brother

felixomor:


My bro,
In John 20:12, the account given there is the 2nd time visit by the women and the disciples.

Luke 20:24 is the first time visit by the women before they went to call the disciples to come and see.

If Luke is the first time visit, then the two men they met ibside the tomb had already told them that Jesus had resurrected and that they should go and tell his disciples which they did according to Luke.

If John is the second visitation then why does the narrative say that they still did not understand from Scripture that Jesus had to rise from the dead after they went in and saw that his body was missing? When they saw that his body was missing they went back to where they were staying while one of the women cried. In Luke the two men told them Jesus had risen and they were to go and tell his disciples. If John's account is their second coming as you claim then why did they show complete ignorance of Jesus's resurrection? It says when the angels saw the woman crying they asked her why she was crying and she told them that they has stolen the body of Jesus. Even when Jesus appeared to her she thought he was a gardener and asked him if he was the one that took his body. If that was their second coming why did they display such ignorance when they were clearly told in their first coming that Jesus had already risen from the dead?

John only talked about one Woman and not a group of women. When shw went to the tomb and discovered that it was opened she ran back to tge disciples . She came running to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one Jesus loved, and said, “They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we don’t know where they have put him!”
She went with a message that they had taken Jesus body and they don't know where they had taken it to. How does that square with the message in Luke that says they were to go and tell disciples that Jesus had already risen from the dead by the two men they saw inside the tomb?

Google search "four accounts, one reality" for proper for a clarification on the "contradictions" in the accounts of the resurrection of Jesus.

dalaman:


If Luke is the first time visit, then the two men they met ibside the tomb had already told them that Jesus had resurrected and that they should go and tell his disciples which they did according to Luke.

If John is the second visitation then why does the narrative say that they still did not understand from Scripture that Jesus had to rise from the dead after they went in and saw that his body was missing? When they saw that his body was missing they went back to where they were staying while one of the women cried. In Luke the two men told them Jesus had risen and they were to go and tell his disciples. If John's account is their second coming as you claim then why did they show complete ignorance of Jesus's resurrection? It says when the angels saw the woman crying they asked her why she was crying and she told them that they has stolen the body of Jesus. Even when Jesus appeared to her she thought he was a gardener and asked him if he was the one that took his body. If that was their second coming why did they display such ignorance when they were clearly told in their first coming that Jesus had already risen from the dead?

John only talked about one Woman and not a group of women. When shw went to the tomb and discovered that it was opened she ran back to tge disciples . She came running to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one Jesus loved, and said, “They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we don’t know where they have put him!”
She went with a message that they had taken Jesus body and they don't know where they had taken it to. How does that square with the message in Luke that says they were to go and tell disciples that Jesus had already risen from the dead by the two men they saw inside the tomb?

I will only have responded to u,
If u read all the lines of what u r replying.

But I wont start another of such endless cycles.

Let me chat with those who read all the lines of what I write first.

Before I may come to u later. Cheers

DoctorAlien:
dalaman,

Follow this link and stop asking those uninformed questions.

Which link? There is nothing there.

Well, it appears I can't really post a link to that article here on nairaland.

Simply google search "four accounts, one reality."

Cc: dalaman

felixomor:


My bro,
In John 20:12, the account given there is the 2nd time visit by the women and the disciples.

Luke 20:24 is the first time visit by the women before they went to call the disciples to come and see.

Okay, thanks (Although, I'll assume "Luke 20:24" above was a typo, since I referenced Luke 24:4, not 20:24). So by your account, Luke's story chronologically precedes John's, yet we are told in Luke 24:8 "They (the women) remembered his words (presumably Jesus' claim of his own resurrection)". Whereas, as dalaman said, they seemed to have forgotten all about his words again on their second arrival to the tomb (in John 20), and were convinced that the body had been removed by someone. This happened after the "they remembered his words". How do you reconcile this apparent inconsistency?

AgentOfAllah:


Okay, thanks (Although, I'll assume "Luke 20:24" above was a typo, since I referenced Luke 24:4, not 20:24). So by your account, Luke's story chronologically precedes John's, yet we are told in Luke 24:8 "They (the women) remembered his words (presumably Jesus' claim of his own resurrection)". Whereas, as dalaman said, they seemed to have forgotten all about his words again on their second arrival to the tomb (in John 20), and were convinced that the body had been removed by someone. This happened after the "they remembered his words". How do you reconcile this apparent inconsistency?

U r welcome.

Bro, please dont follow what another person brought out from John 20.
Go into it by yourself.
Go to John 20, it tells how Mary wept for her son's missing body at the 2nd visit.
And that is very normal for women.

Coupled with the fact that John 20 eventually says, Jesus then appeared to comfort her.

Please quote verbatim, the single line of event in John 20 (bible text) that said "she forgot".
Please be specific.


(mind u, we have left the topic of number of angels or men)

@felixomor I'm opened to learning and I'd love for you to explain what seems like a contradiction in the Bible. Whilst reading the book of 2nd Sam., I noticed two different reports from same writer and honestly, I'm lost. In 2nd Sam 6:23, Michal, the daughter of king Saul was reported to be childless till death but in chap 21:8, same writer tells us she had five children. Please, how do you reconcile these two reports? Your sincere answer will be appreciated.
Thank you.

jimmyjenseng:
@felixomor I'm opened to learning and I'd love for you to explain what seems like a contradiction in the Bible. Whilst reading the book of 2nd Sam., I noticed two different reports from same writer and honestly, I'm lost. In 2nd Sam 6:23, Michal, the daughter of king Saul was reported to be childless till death but in chap 21:8, same writer tells us she had five children. Please, how do you reconcile these two reports? Your sincere answer will be appreciated.
Thank you.

Thanks for your sincere and polite approach.

Here is the verse in question.(verbatim)

2Sm 21:8 But the king took the two sons of Rizpah the daughter of Aiah, whom she bare unto Saul, Armoni and Mephibosheth; and the five sons of Michal the daughter of Saul, whom she brought up for Adriel the son of Barzillai the Meholathite:

The bolded already explains how Micah got children.
It was normal jewish custom to inherit husbands, wives and even children from absent or departed relatives.
In this case, Adriel was the husband of her departed relative.

Even the pharisees once asked Jesus to explain what will happen to a woman in heaven who inherited seven husbands on earth.

I hope this answers u.
Thanks for ur time

felixomor:


Thanks for your sincere and polite approach.

Here is the verse in question.(verbatim)

2Sm 21:8 But the king took the two sons of Rizpah the daughter of Aiah, whom she bare unto Saul, Armoni and Mephibosheth; and the five sons of Michal the daughter of Saul, whom she brought up for Adriel the son of Barzillai the Meholathite:

The bolded already explains how Micah got children.
It was normal jewish custom to inherit husbands, wives and even children from absent or departed relatives.
In this case, Adriel was the husband of her departed relative.

Even the pharisees once asked Jesus to explain what will happen to a woman in heaven who inherited seven husbands on earth.

I hope this answers u.
Thanks for ur time

Wow! Thanks for the swift response bro. I too will do like the people - forgotten the name they were called - Paul praised for checking whether what he preached to them was true.

If you don't mind bro, kindly explain this to me: in Exodus 20:14, God prohibits adultery but asks Hosea to take a wife of harlotry in Hosea 1:2.
Like I stated earlier, I'm learning.
Thanks.

jimmyjenseng:


Wow! Thanks for the swift response bro. I too will do like the people - forgotten the name they were called - Paul praised for checking whether what he preached to them was true.

If you don't mind bro, kindly explain this to me: in Exodus 20:14, God prohibits adultery but asks Hosea to take a wife of harlotry in Hosea 1:2.
Like I stated earlier, I'm learning.
Thanks.

Thats no longer under the topic of "contradiction".
It will only be contradiction if God told Hosea in another place the opposite of that.


God gave commandments.
He alone can also give his prophets any mandate.

God said "thou shalt not kill"
He is the one who also told SaMson to kill the philistines.
Thats for that.

jimmyjenseng,

[url=defendinginerrancy.com/bible-solutions/Hosea_1.2.php]This short piece[/url] might be of help to you.

DoctorAlien:
jimmyjenseng,

[url=defendinginerrancy.com/bible-solutions/Hosea_1.2.php]This short piece[/url] might be of help to you.

Nice one.

felixomor:


U r welcome.

Bro, please dont follow what another person brought out from John 20.
Go into it by yourself.
Go to John 20, it tells how Mary wept for her son's missing body at the 2nd visit.
And that is very normal for women.

Coupled with the fact that John 20 eventually says, Jesus then appeared to comfort her.

Please quote verbatim, the single line of event in John 20 (bible text) that said "she forgot".
Please be specific.

In spite of what it might seem like, that was the question on my mind, dalaman, just beat me to it. Now, moving on, in Luke, she (they?) left to inform the disciples of her (their?) experience after remembering his words. However, it seemed she had forgotten those same words in John, when she thought someone had removed the body, instead of accepting his suggestion that he would rise. Did she remember his words but dismiss them or did she remember the words and then forget them shortly after?

(mind u, we have left the topic of number of angels or men)

Yes, since you claimed that the stories are chronologically distinct.

AgentOfAllah:
In spite of what it might seem like, that was the question on my mind, dalaman, just beat me to it. Now, moving on, in Luke, she (they?) left to inform the disciples of her (their?) experience after remembering his words. However, it seemed she had forgotten those same words in John, when she thought someone had removed the body, instead of accepting his suggestion that he would rise. Did she remember his words but dismiss them or did she remember the words and then forget them shortly after?

Yes, since you claimed that the stories are chronologically distinct.

Please quote the line verbatim.

Moreso,
Jesus appeared to her in John 20.
Thats already the distinguishing factor.

DoctorAlien:
jimmyjenseng,

[url=defendinginerrancy.com/bible-solutions/Hosea_1.2.php]This short piece[/url] might be of help to you.

Thanks for the link sir.

Ermm, the article on that link dwells on assumptions rather than on verifiable facts. The following versions of same biblical verse negates the write up.

Holman Christian Standard Bible
When the LORD first spoke to Hosea, He said this to him: Go and marry a promiscuous wife and have children of promiscuity, for the land is committing blatant acts of promiscuity by abandoning the LORD.

New International Version
When the LORD began to speak through Hosea, the LORD said to him, "Go, marry a promiscuous woman and have children with her, for like an adulterous wife this land is guilty of unfaithfulness to the LORD."

The word promiscuous tells that she already has different partners she's having intercourse with. Now, telling a prophet who was revered at his time to marry a promiscuous woman is acting against his stance on adultery. This is contradictory, isn't it?

jimmyjenseng:


Thanks for the link sir.

Ermm, the article on that link dwells on assumptions rather than on verifiable facts. The following versions of same biblical verse negates the write up.

Holman Christian Standard Bible
When the LORD first spoke to Hosea, He said this to him: Go and marry a promiscuous wife and have children of promiscuity, for the land is committing blatant acts of promiscuity by abandoning the LORD.

New International Version
When the LORD began to speak through Hosea, the LORD said to him, "Go, marry a promiscuous woman and have children with her, for like an adulterous wife this land is guilty of unfaithfulness to the LORD."

The word promiscuous tells that she already has different partners she's having intercourse with. Now, telling a prophet who was revered at his time to marry a promiscuous woman is acting against his stance on adultery. This is contradictory, isn't it?

No, its not.

jimmyjenseng:
New International Version
When the LORD began to speak through Hosea, the LORD said to him, "Go, marry a promiscuous woman and have children with her, for like an adulterous wife this land is guilty of unfaithfulness to the LORD."

The word promiscuous tells that she already has different partners she's having intercourse with. Now, telling a prophet who was revered at his time to marry a promiscuous woman is acting against his stance on adultery. This is contradictory, isn't it?

GOD sometimes declares things which will surely come to pass as already done. Jesus Christ is called "the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world" in Rev. 13:8. We know Jesus was slain only about 4000 years later.

So, when GOD told Hosea to go and marry a wife of whoredoms, He instructed him to go and marry a woman who would definitely become promiscuous. GOD has seen the heart of that young woman, and her tendencies towards adultery.

felixomor:


Sorry Oga.
There are no "contradictions" there.

Unless u want to say, u never read this article.
Check the oxford dictionary meaning of "contradictions".

No time for arguments.

Ok. So how will you explain the judas iscariot account?

One verse says he felt guilty about betraying his master and returned the money, and hunged himself on a tree.

Another says that he used the money to purchase a land (remember the first verse said he returned the money, two contradictory statements). And guess how this verse described his death. This verse says he fell on the field he purchased and his throat gushed out and he died. That is the end of solomon grundy!

izublingz:


Ok. So how will you explain the judas iscariot account?

One verse says he felt guilty about betraying his master and returned the money, and hunged himself on a tree.

Another says that he used the money to purchase a land (remember the first verse said he returned the money, two contradictory statements). And guess how this verse described his death. This verse says he fell on the field he purchased and his throat gushed out and he died. That is the end of solomon grundy!

Already explained in detail.
Just read above.
If u cant, follow this link
https://answersingenesis.org/contradictions-in-the-bible/how-did-judas-die/

Enjoy.

felixomor:


Already explained in detail.
Just read above.
If u cant, follow this link
https://answersingenesis.org/contradictions-in-the-bible/how-did-judas-die/

Enjoy.

It didn't explain how he used the same money he returned to purchase a land!

Mathew said he returned the money
Luke said that he used the money to purchase a land.

Don't know why it is difficult for you to see the contradiction.

Ohh.. Its the bible. Don't question the bible!

izublingz:


It didn't explain how he used the same money he returned to purchase a land!

Mathew said he returned the money
Luke said that he used the money to purchase a land.

Don't know why it is difficult for you to see the contradiction.

Ohh.. Its the bible. Don't question the bible!

Please quote the bible verbatim.
Be specific.

Mind u, ur question has already changed color from how he died to the money he collected.

Nevermind, ride on.

felixomor:


Please quote the bible verbatim.
Be specific.

Mind u, ur question has already changed color from how he died to the money he collected.

Nevermind, ride on.

Lol. I never asked about how judas died. I said explain the judas iscariot account.

Read well.

And mind you, it doe ant matter if I state the chapter or not. The most important thing is that.... It is in the bible.

izublingz:


Lol. I never asked about how judas died. I said explain the judas iscariot account.

Read well.

And mind you, it doe ant matter if I state the chapter or not. The most important thing is that.... It is in the bible.

Ok, good.
Look for ur type.

Shalom

felixomor:


Ok, good.
Look for ur type.

Shalom

Weird beings exists

izublingz:


Weird beings exists

Cheers

The issue of who purchased the potter's field is treated in [url=apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=6&article=755]this short piece[/url]

DoctorAlien:
Well, it appears I can't really post a link to that article here on nairaland.

Simply google search "four accounts, one reality."

Cc: dalaman

I just read it. Just the normal apologetics. The author tried to harmonize the 4 different accounts but failed because he had to omit some parts of the narrative and fill it with word like "Maybe" , "Perhaps ", " If my supposition is true" "Probably" and so many other wild assumptions.

He started by saying that the disciples were not all together. He claimed that maybe Peter and John were not together with the others but were located else where probably in Jerusalem as he wrote, he then used that assumption to explain away the wild card in John. He insisted the people in the tomb were two angels. And used his supposition filled with maybes and assumptions to conclude that things ought to have happened in a certain way. For example that maybe the women broke into two groups and other suppositions.

Let me just burst his bubble. The bible clearly says in the book of Luke that all the disciples were together. That alone destroys every other assumption and supposition of his.

Luke says that after the women left the tomb they went and meet the 11 disciples and told them what they saw, this alone destroys his assumption and supposition that Peter and the other disciple were not together with the rest.

Luk 24:8
Then they remembered his words.
Luk 24:9
When they came back from the tomb, they told all these things to the Eleven and to all the others

This much is very clear. When the women came back according to Luke they told all the 11 and others the things they were told by the 2 men they meet inside the tomb. Unless is Peter and the John were not part of the Eleven which they were . His supposition that Peter and the other disciple were at a different location has been debunked by Luke.

These narratives are internally inconsistent. The apologist tried to harmonized them buy has failed obviously.

dalaman:


I just read it. Just the normal apologetics. The author tried to harmonize the 4 different accounts but failed because he had to omit some parts of the narrative and fill it with word like "Maybe" , "Perhaps ", " If my supposition is true" "Probably" and so many other wild assumptions.

He started by saying that the disciples were not all together. He claimed that maybe Peter and John were not together with the others but were located else where probably in Jerusalem as he wrote, he then used that assumption to explain away the wild card in John. He insisted the people in the tomb were two angels. And used his supposition filled with maybes and assumptions to conclude that things ought to have happened in a certain way. For example that maybe the women broke into two groups and other suppositions.

Let me just burst his bubble. The bible clearly says in the book of Luke that all the disciples were together. That alone destroys every other assumption and supposition of his.

Luke says that after the women left the tomb they went and meet the 11 disciples and told them what they saw, this alone destroys his assumption and supposition that Peter and the other disciple were not together with the rest.

Luk 24:8
Then they remembered his words.
Luk 24:9
When they came back from the tomb, they told all these things to the Eleven and to all the others

This much is very clear. When the women came back according to Luke they told all the 11 and others the things they were told by the 2 men they meet inside the tomb. Unless is Peter and the John were not part of the Eleven which they were . His supposition that Peter and the other disciple were at a different location has been debunked by Luke.

These narratives are internally inconsistent. The apologist tried to harmonized them buy has failed obviously.

You dont know what "fail" means.


"I told all eleven"

vs

" I told all eleven at once, in one place"

Are these 2 sentences the same?