Sorry, who bought the field?

As far as I know that was a person, not an event. The discrepancy surrounds the manner of his death, who purchased the field, and why it was called the Field of Blood. The story gives two accounts of these three pieces of information, and they conflict on all three points.

This post was edited by belthasar on Apr 11 2026 01:41pm

The death = event. Not really sure what's confusing that his death is an event that happened historically. I'm not saying that human being is himself an event....

The New Testament gives two accounts of Judas’s death and the Field of Blood. In the Gospel of Matthew, Judas regrets betraying Jesus, returns the silver, and hangs himself; the chief priests use that money to buy a field, which is called the Field of Blood because it was purchased with “blood money” linked to Jesus’s death. In the Acts of the Apostles, Judas acquired a field with his reward and dies there in a violent fall that causes his body to burst open; the field is called the Field of Blood because of the bloody nature of his death in that place.

Both accounts do not conflict, but give 2 sets of details of the same event.

Why do I need a justification? Its logic it is either true or not. Words have meaning if someone commands you going to die if you eat or touch an apple unless there is an explicit adjective added like (spirituality/metaphorically) you dont get to rearange meanings based on whatever you feel like. When bible commands killing, sacrificing people, genocide etc you interpret it as a physical act but when its inconvenient plot hole you cry "its a metaphor".

These "bible experts" are nothing more than spinsters who use the argument of authority to justify lies/inconsistencies. This isn't about justification for reason its about justification of your interpretation of reason so you can claim gods farts smell like roses. Aka christian propaganda.

I already told you logic and reason are axiomatic, you cannot use logic to justify the choice to use logic without falling into circularity, as justification itself relies on logical rules. Yet you keep bringing up this up without demonstrating how it's would be meaningless to not have justification.
Morality is a spectrum it is absolutely relative. While some choices of good and bad might appear more binary they are not. They are just sitting on the opposite ends. Most of morality is sitting in the middle.

(truth" and "morality" are survival tricks and there is no objective good or right, most of the world is religious and most people who have kids are religious therefore it's the "correct" survival choice according to your own logic)
Be specific If the world starts as nearly all religious and ends up with mostly religious thats a measure of progress. From 99.9% to 85% these things are not overnight they take time eventually it will drop to 50% then to single digits.
Its like gravity you are only resisting the inevitable.

I'm not particularly interested in your interpretations of the bible, I want to understand a deeper level of metalogic.
because without a justification it's completely arbitrary, your entire worldview collapses.

you are acting off feelings (determined chemical reactions and brain chemistry) and your worldview collapses into "useful survival delusions", without justification knowledge itself is impossible. you are attempting to get an 'ought' from an 'is' or to justify how things should be, what the good is, while denying the foundations of meaning itself.

so before you can form sentences you must first ground reason itself

to just say "logic and reason are axiomatic" is to be arbitrary, I can simply assert God is "axiomatic". what are these transcendental properties like logic and reason grounded in, or are they your God? Are they made of matter, are they immaterial? Are they universal? How do we have possible relational knowledge of them in a particular way when they are themselves universal (one and the many problem)?

Christianity answers all of these questions perfectly, and unless you can coherently compare a worldview that can even justify logic and reason itself you are simply borrowing from the Logos to attempt to say He is false. It's a performative contradiction.

This post was edited by majorblood on Apr 11 2026 02:53pm

You aren't quoting the bible as it is written.

Exactly how is anyone else rearranging meaning? It would be completing normal to ask questions on something you have an interest in learning about because you lack the knowledge of it. You still continue to gaslight and lie to fit a narrative that has been corrected many times.

This is pathological behavior...

This post was edited by D_urRRR on Apr 11 2026 03:04pm

Does a chicken need a justification to cross the road? No it doesn't. It may prefer a reason but having a justification is not a prerequisite for it to function.
Just like we don't need to know the meaning of life or have moral grounding. Unless there is a pragmatic/useful reason it is purely cosmetic/philosophical.

We invented language, math, logic etc as useful tools to function better in life not because your particular god said so.

I am not interested in your interpretations of the bible either because at the end of the day you and I can dance back and forth on interpretation all day long.
I am interested in the physical proof that cannot be misinterpreted with sophistry and etymology. Either you have it or you don't. Throwing philosophical rabbit holes at the problem is a form of escapism.

You aren't being given interpretations of the bible. You are given the exact context in which it was written.

You are taking God's word put of context and putting your own interpretation on it.

because logic and reason can exist without you knowing or understanding it is actually evidence you are wrong with your position that logic, math, and language are useful tools and not universal. you simply have not justified them, meaning you don't know what they are, where they come from, how we can have access to them, and explained how we can know this is the case.

utility does not justify, using something is not justification of the thing. I can walk down the street, but that doesn't explain what a street is, how it came to be, and what its purpose is. you cannot come to meaningful conclusions while being arbitrary. you cannot know if Christianity is true or false, if we ought survive, if you can form meaningful sentences at all without justification of reason.


language, math, and logic are not universal and are only human inventions now? so logic itself is not universal, is this the new claim? does the concept of logic itself rest in a particular mind, but not mine? is this mind itself universal? how do we know it is reliable? how do we have possible relational knowledge of them in a particular way when they are themselves universal.

why should I accept your 'inventions' as a standard for reality? you can't use an 'invented' tool to demand 'physical proof,' because you haven't grounded the reliability of the senses or the uniformity of nature required to process that proof.

you call philosophy 'escapism,' but you are the one escaping the fact that you can't justify your own mind. you want 'physical proof' while standing on a foundation of 'unjustified axioms.'