Asha'man

Con-men also repeatedly talk about faith. Why? Because, when push comes to shove, the con-man has nothing else to offer. His stories will crumble with scrutiny and probing. Personally, I find an appeal to faith to be an admission that the case has no merit, and that a desperate appeal to emotion is the only tactic left.

However, it does mean that the author has failed to communicate his intentions. And, by definition, an omnipotent author cannot fail.

Sposam

I respect anyone's conclusion that the Bible is false. I know I'm not going to change any minds on this. I also know that resolving contradictions does not mean everyone must now believe the Bible. I can't think of any contradictions in "The Lord of the Rings," but that doesn't make it an inspired Word of God.

I know that there are issues that are tricky in the Bible. Just as I know I can't dismiss that, I think is important for those who disagree with me to admit some level of possibility that there is a rational explanation for what seems like a contradiciton.

Also, unless the ONLY definition of "fall headlong" is "burst open", other definitions and explanations have to be considered.

Actually, while the Old Testament may not talk about "faith," it does appear as a theme to the stories. I would say Abraham leaving everything to pursue an unknown land has a lot to do with faith.

And please do not misread my comments. I respect each of you. I am not engaging this web site to win arguments or try and dampen the fun. I want to understand those who disagree with what I believe. I don't want to be a Christian who steretypes atheists and agnostics. I have learned a lot by reading your posts as to what brought you to your current beliefs. I have gained a new appreciation for you (while I don't agree with you

I appreciate your allowing me to engage in these conversations, and maybe we can learn from each other and appreciate one another.

P.S. - I do wish I could de-bunk the notion that faith is a cop-out!

Doctor X

Sposam:

I wish you could say that to a whole lot of nerds I know. . . .

There is always a rational explanation. The most likely is that each author made up his own story . . . to the extreme of using a separate source. Mk does not have Judas die--he disappears from the narrative after "da Mafia kiss." Lk has the "exploding/evicerating Judas." You have to admit it is a vivid image. Mt has him hang himself--and the chief priests use the money to buy "the Field of Blood" which people call "to this day." Lk keeps the "Field of Blood" part.

So . . . did a tradition exist and both used it differently? Did one change it?

Or . . . was it Q that both Lk and Mt used . . . my source on Q does not list Q texts in Acts and suggests that his second part--Acts--is his own creation.

More likely, ever to find a prophecy to fulfill, Mt refers to Jeremiah. Lk? He quotes a Psalm that is similar in that it predicts a desolate field.

Thus, another explanation is that a later redactor added "Field of Blood" details to Acts to harmonize it with Mt.

What about Jn? Judas also disappears from the narrative.

Let us see . . .--than Ishtar for the Perseus Project the passage is:

a variant for prênês genomenos--πρηνηs γενομενοs--"face downwards"--is peprêsmenos--πεπρησμενοs--""blew up/burst""--which is only listed in one variant in my Nestle Apparatus Criticus. See? The witnesses to the texts you have do not agree!

A painfully literal translation of the passage is, then:

Someone with better skill [Anyone.--Ed.] translating can fix that. The basic idea is that the textual witnesses support falling and bursting open. Apologists have tried to claim Judas "rotted off" his noose and his distended rotting belly exploded, but this is not how those hung rot off!

So . . . there really is no other way to translate the passage.

Actually, it had more to do with the promise and the fear of disobeying a god, frankly.

That is greatly appreciated. Most of us argue amongst ourselves. Though it took me forever to work through it, I now know where "blew up" came from!

Well . . . one has to understand the context . . . the Sitz im Leben to use a pretentious word . . . that every text was written. The stories are not going to have much questioning. Some of it is dramatic/funny--Moses protesting his ability to speak. Some of it is political--Aaronid writer having his Aaron speak for Moses and basically supplant Moses in his versions.

I try, as odd as it is, to keep personal religion out of this page. Okay . . . if someone can actually PROVE NO JUNIOR existed . . . yes . . . that will cause a problem for Christians, but it does not mean a Christian cannot worship a god.

Questions of believing in a "higher power" I tend to keep on other pages.

Best,

--J.D.

Ellis14

Sorry to open the poopy-bag and drag this steamer out, but my recently-repaired irony meter blew up in my face again.

I am gonna take a bet Magus that YOU don't understand the Trinity, since it is obviously beyond human comprehension. And when I say "beyond human comprehension" I mean illogical, irrational, self-contradictory and finally, in case you haven't read the bible yourself, non-biblical. The Trinity is not a biblical teaching, so it doesn't matter whether you or anyone knows it anyway, it ain't Christian!

The contradiction stands. Jesus is God, Jesus cries out to himself to appease himself for his own help, but refuses to help himself so lets himself die for himself, and is dead, but then resurrects himself and promotes himself to a position greater than before but still below himself in respect to himself.

The only real miracle about the bible is how people can think it's inerrant!

Mageth

The Trinity is not a biblical teaching, so it doesn't matter whether you or anyone knows it anyway, it ain't Christian!

Well, actually, I'd say it was Christian - a relatively late invention of Christians accepted by most, but not all, Christians.

Sarpedon

Yes, it is christian, who else would have made it up? After all, the bible is made up, so it is on equal footing with everything else they made up (I like to piss off christians by putting the divine comedy on the same level as the bible...and then when they say that its not at all like the bible, I reply "no, its much better written) Anyway. how else were the christians to address the problem of the two extra gods?

Doctor X

Not to mention the introduction of "the Spook" in Acts. "Oh, great, now we have a 'Holy Spirit,' his real name is 'Fred,' but he prefers 'Holy Spirit.'"

--J.D.