Yuku free message boards

Wow. Your 'OF COURSE NOT' is mighty forceful there, too forceful in fact, because I have used the word 'bought' for varying circumstances many a time. For example:

I owe my sister money, she sees me come home with a new book and questions me on my new purchase, to which I explain 'well actually mum bought it because she gave me money to buy cosmetic cream from the chemist (next to where I work) but I won't be going there till Wednesday (when I get paid, and can reimburse everyone's money accordingly). Now mum was nowhere to be seen at the purchase, but it wasn't my money in this situation, and I don't want it to appear that it was, or I would be obliged to pay it to my sister. In this situation I made use of money that was in my possession but wasn't in fact mine. It was my purchase in an action sense, but it was at the time, clearly my mother's purchase in a monetary sense.

In Judas' case the money wasn't in his possession but it was his, as the priests did not want the blood money (especially after the betrayer had himself declared that Jesus was innocent) and nor could the treasury by law take it, so his throwing of the money which had been payment for a service provided (therefore a legal transaction) did not equate to a transfer of ownership.

Now you may never have had such an experience as that I described above, nor may you even like the comparison I make, but for myself, being familiar with such matters, I see it as quite a legitimate claim. In fact, this Judas case is even more legitimate from a legal perspective since Judas defiled the land and provided the money for its purchase. We have many legal situations where someone can buy something on another's behalf, as our whole trust fund system, power of attorney, and superfund systems etc are based on this legal capability. Although those last stated do not apply to this specific case, I think the point that you miss here is that we are talking about the Chief Priests. They were the law delegates (to a lesser extent at this time than prior to Roman occupation, but clearly still with legal powers). If they bought the land on behalf of Judas, then it was by Jewish Law a legal transaction. It would be the equivalent of what we have in Australia called the Public Trustee where estate matters are finalised on the deceaseds behalf. The text makes it very clear that they did not make the transaction on behalf of the treasury. It never fails to surprise me, the lack of understanding demonstrated by people of simple legal matters.

Second Diskeyezed, you state that there are two accounts of how Judas died. This is in fact your biggest mistake as you have misread the text. What is actually stated in Acts is that Judas fell headlong etc. Nowhere does it mention that this is how he died, in fact the words death or died appear nowhere in the given text. Obviously for the body to burst open as it did, it had to have been in a state of bloat from the hanging possibly several days earlier, especially when the impact was from a headlong position. As for him falling headlong, there would certainly be many conceivable ways that the body may end up falling in such a way eg, the lower half caught up in the rope, or spun round by hitting a branch or a shrub on the way down, or the action of the branch itself breaking shifting his original position in relation to the objects surrounding the body. There are numerous possibilities. Im sure that everyone has seen a CSI episode, and we all understand that to sum a death scene up in a sentence leaves a vast amount unstated.

Many separate facts do not a contradiction make. The facts would have to be opposing each other, but as we see in this case, they actually harmonsie.

For further example, I acquired a new car the other day. I could explain the process by which the car came into my possession in several separate ways, all of which would be different but all of which would also be correct. I could explain the different ways to different people eg. to my accountant I could explain it one way, and to my sister another etc. If one wished to take the details separately and build a case against the combining with the other details then of course, most certainly they could do that, but they would be no more correct in their doing so than you are in this situation.

And about the field; one text explains why it took its name originally, the other text explains why that name continued to be used through to the time of the documents writing. That is in no way a contradiction.

I hope that in the future you are careful to take a clearer and less narrow minded view of the facts. I suspect that your standpoint is tainting your perception.

Kind regards.