This is why CS will refuse to answer the three questions about Judas

Lions and Tigers and… Cows? Oh my!

Maybe I should thank him for editing my comments together

KIA says:

Speaking of God’s word and it’s integrity cs… three questions:
1. Was Judas remorseful or unrepentant?
2. Did he throw the money back to the priests or keep it?
3. Who bought the ‘field of blood’?
Be careful with your answers… there is a known contradiction involved

In reply to ColorStorm.
Does your NT have the long ending of Mark 16?
Or is it in brackets? Or is there a footnote below saying it wasn’t authentic?

In reply to ColorStorm.
How about the story of the woman caught in adultry? Authentic or later addition to the gospel of john?

Pathetic ‘Defense of the Faith’

When certain people see they have been trapped by the very Words they hold to be God’s Word, they avoid answering simple questions and then simply asserting that they have answered… “there are no contradictions, only misunderstandings. You just won’t accept the answers”. 

After yet another dodge trying to explain his non-answer by saying I only have a feigned interest in christianity or the bible… my answer to him

KIA says:

Your comment is awaiting moderation. 

Concept of the day… feigned defence of the scriptures. I have these posts and comments and dsicussions on my blog because people like you refuse to have them honestly on yours.
For me, it’s not feigned interest and you know it. Cast whatever narrative you need to to avoid asking questions you think you already have answers to, but I’m an example of one who did and ended up deconverting from the Faith I held for 34 years and propagated for 25 of those. It matters to me now as it did then ‘whether these things be so’. I’m sorry that you have no such concern

That and he doesn’t want to aid in my ‘deconnery’. He doesnt fully realize that he and other christian bloggers like him, Amateur Internet Apologists, did just that and continue to aid in deconversions as long as they remain unwilling to be honest, open and civil in their conversations on the blogs about Christianity, the Jesus of the New Testament, and the Bible itself.

How would you answer three three questions about the Betrayal of Jesus by and death of Judas? Why not tell me in the comments below. 



53 thoughts on “This is why CS will refuse to answer the three questions about Judas

  1. Don’t worry mike, I’ll do my own post on the stupidity of people who find 10,000 ahem contradictions in scripture, lest here I give credibility to your misinterpretations/ misunderstandings/ gripes/ and your opinions resembling that of an unreasoning animal…………

    The better question you need to ask yourself though should be why you spend time and resources trying to fault a God and book which is perfect, while you believe in neither……..strange. God hasn’t moved, and His word just as good, so the fault lies with you.

    Truthfully mike, you haven’t sought the answers to your ‘three’ questions. They are quite simple if you cared to actually reason. Now the first mention of ‘cherubim’ in scripture, THAT would be hard to explain having no context. But it only takes an understanding of ‘here a little, there a little,’ to appreciate it.

    The life and times of Judas while tragic, as written in scripture, displays the faithfulness of the writers, as well as the results of a man whose ways ended because of the betrayal of the son of God. And quite interesting the character of they who received back the blood money, and what they did.

    Liked by 1 person

    • I know that Santa Claus is not real and I will never attack something that’s fictional. In the other hand, Atheists attack God because deep down in their conscience they know that God does exist and they are guilty before a holy God. They reject God so that they can feel better about their sins, killing their conscience or trying to do so. People only attack what’s real, you never see people attacking the easter bunny why? Because it’s a fictional character….I mean come on. ColorStorm, you shouldn’t bother with the arrogant and haughty, all you’re going to get is a foolish answer. The pride and arrogant are like their father the Devil, and they hate God/Jesus because their father hates them. They are imitating who is in their hearts and that’s Satan. All you can do for them is pray that they make wake up from their stupor.


      • @spain

        Mike will be sure to tell you he is not atheist, and proud of that; he will also tell you that the scriptures are a book of nonsense, and quite proud of that.

        It’s no bother though to point out the gripes of men, while pointing to the jewels of scripture.

        In this case, the life and times of Judas Iscariot, whose untimely death is just as certain as the baptist in a prison.

        The field of blood (Aceldama) is testament to the exactness of scripture, the word kept by the priests to not accept the money back, and the purchase of that field in honor of Judas; it’s all recorded perfectly.

        Everybody knew what happened to Judas. Word of these things travels fast. But scoffers are a dime a dozen.

        Liked by 1 person

              • Your arrogance knows no measure. Your petulance is proof positive that you have no clue as to the Judas you pretend to have an interest in.

                stout ‎(comparative stouter, superlative stoutest)

                large; bulky, thickset; corpulent, fat.

                Stout means many things, yet your blindness is on trial once more. You are being fat headed and full of yourself.

                But for all to see, this is how you roll. Notice you have not said one word about the CONTENT OF MY REPLIES.

                Of course not, as they lay your ignorance to bare. Now go away.


            • From Middle English stout, from Old Frenchestout ‎(“brave, fierce, proud”) (Modern Frenchdialectal stout ‎(“proud”)), earlier estolt‎(“strong”), from Proto-Germanic *stultaz‎(“proud, stately, stiff”), from Proto-Germanic*stil-, *stal-, *stul- ‎(“to be solid, stationary, firm, stiff”), from Proto-Indo-European *stel- ‎(“to put, stand”); cognate with Dutch stout ‎(“stout, bold, rash”), Low German stolt ‎(“stately, proud”), German stolz ‎(“proud, haughty, arrogant, stately”), Old Norse stoltr ‎(“proud”) (Danish stolt ‎(“proud”), Icelandic stoltur‎(“proud”)). Meaning “strong in body, powerfully built” is attested from c.1386, but has been to a large extent displaced by the euphemistic meaning “thick-bodied, fat and large,” which is first recorded 1804. Original sense preserved in stout-hearted (1552). The noun “strong, dark-brown beer” is first recorded 1677, from the adjective.


              • Ok then, good. And as a bonus thought for you to enjoy the rest of the day, consider this:

                Your immediate misunderstanding of a word …… you into a whole lot of trouble, and this is why you cannot see your so-called contradictions in scripture in the proper light.

                You assigned to me a meaning I never intended. The CONTEXT of my point made this clear. Then you go and travel at great length to try to INSERT your meaning into MY usage.

                Not too smart. Actually, pretty stupid. I know what word I used, and I know what meaning I intended, but as usual, you must ply your craft of diversion. But you will not see it.

                This is exactly why you find fault with the Judas narrative. You assign a meaning never intended. Wake up mike!


    • CS the earliest reference to the Gospels cited by most Christian authors is Papias. It is from his testimony that Christians now conclude that the Mark wrote his Gospel based on the preaching of the Apostle Peter.

      He provides the ‘correct’ version of what actually happened to Judas, as subsequently cited by Apollinarius:

      “Judas did not die by hanging, but lived on, having been cut down before he was suffocated. And the Acts of the Apostles show this, that… falling headlong he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out. This fact is related more clearly by Papias, the Talmid/disciple of Yochanan/John, in the fourth (book) of the Exposition of the Oracles of the Lord as follows: Judas walked about in this world a terrible example of impiety; his flesh swollen to such an extent that, where a wagon can pass with ease, he was not able to pass, no, not even the mass of his head merely. They say that his eyelids swelled to such an extent, that he could not see the light at all, while as for his eyes they were not visible even by a physician looking through an instrument, so far had they sunk from the surface…”

      Liked by 2 people

      • Hi jz.

        Yeah, seen your ‘contra’ site before. A cursory perusal reveals a great deal.

        Merely ‘stating’ a so-called ‘contradiction’ does not give it credibility like you would prefer to believe.

        Near the top of the list is the oft referred ‘contradiction’ of:

        a. a man is justified by faith
        b. a man is justified by works.

        So according to your logic, if I could explain to you how this is NOT a contra, then you must admit your remaining thousands and thousands of gripes must also be suspect.

        This is the point. Accusing the text of weakness does not prove his/your point.

        Justification is hardly a contradiction, and both statements are completely true. Paul explained it, James explained, and Christ Himself explained both. There is a harmony too wonderful to indulge, but as I like to say, a man is at a complete loss and at a sever disadvantage in understanding spiritual things, if he does not at least give God the courtesy of existing.


  2. Mike that is a great video. I would defy any Christian to look at it all the way through.

    The thing is that Christians are adept at making excuses for individual contradictions. It is always possible to come up with a reason, no matter how implausible. This sort of reasoning is a psychological ploy to keep cognitive dissonance at bay. But when confronted with the sheer volume of such contradictions this ploy becomes less and less effective.

    And I should point out that this video is only touching the surface, Dr Steve DiMattei is up to 351 documented contradictions and he has not yet finished the pentateuch:

    Jon Darby’s site also contains a very accessible detailing of contradictions, book by book through much of the Bible. His complete list must stretch into the thousands:

    Liked by 1 person

  3. Well well well, if it isn’t the master expositor himself pete.

    ‘They believe not one word of it……..yet expect answers from all of it…………..’
    Professing themselves to be wise………….they became fools………..

    You may want to read the entire exchange with mike above, and if you are honest, you must admit he has not a clue. Nor do you. Only 351? Heck, I read somewhere there were thousands and thousands.

    Then again, they tend to disappear when one really wants the correct answer, and actually spends the time. You may want to start by giving God the courtesy of existing.

    Liked by 1 person

    • You may want to start by giving God the courtesy of existing.

      This is not the starting point. My starting point is to determine whether or not the existence of the Christian God is a reasonable conclusion.

      It is by detailed study of the Bible that I reached the conclusion that the Christian God does not exist. To me, the clear contradictions in the Bible is evidence that there is no Christian God. That and the failure of the promises of the Bible to be answered.

      Liked by 3 people

      • And I am here to tell you that you have not looked carefully at your alleged contradictions.

        The failure is yours, not God, nor scripture, rest assured. Did you follow the demolishing of mikes gripe about judas? Zero contradictions. None.

        Inferences, gripes, misunderstandings, but no contradictions.

        Liked by 1 person

        • The thing is cs, we have looked carefully and Fully at the many contradictions in the story of the ot and the nt. We tried to reconcile them honestly. We had everything invested in doing so and trying to make it all work out. We just couldn’t do so honestly, and refused to do so dishonestly. Apparently, you seem to have no such issues with the dishonesty thing.


          • Then why don’t you take the liberty of explaining justification through works, against the so-called contradiction of justification through faith, to your friend jz.

            Hint Hint. there is none, so you are on the horns of a dilemma.

            And if you persist in saying there is a contradiction, then I will cite you as a liar. Whereas your accusations of citing believers as liars is pure delusion.


              • I thought you said you were not evil? Don’t project your nonsense upon me. I notice when you are met with pure logic, you curl up and toss insults.

                The truth offends you. At least be a man and admit it. Now go away.


              • Sooooooooooo, you cannot answer my reply about your delusional contraction eh? Not interested in my reply to zandes idiocy either eh?

                Even Houdini would be embarrassed at your sleight of hand. Every time you open your mouth against scripture mike, the noose tightens around your own arrogance, stupidity, and obvious inability to follow a line of thought.

                I really do not like embarrassing you on your own blog.


Please comment Responsibly and Respectfully

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s