Benjamin Franklin

Deleted becuase I posted in the wrong thread

BF

[ October 11, 2002: Message edited by: Benjamin Franklin ]</p>

leonarde

Partial post by K: As I mentioned before, Vanderzyden apparently never said that explicitly; his beef seems
to be that the invocation of "contradictions" is
an overly promiscuous one, unleavened by qualifiers like "apparent", "arguably" etc. He thinks that Biblical contradictions should be the
subject of discussions/disputations, rather
than simply being flatly asserted as already being established....

Cheers!

K

leonarde:

Baidarka

Vanderzyden has moved on to “When is a biblical contradiction REALLY a biblical contradiction?” where he has stated that even though he has searched the bible looking for contradictions he has yet to find one. Well, maybe this isn’t technically Biblical inerrancy but I would say that the difference is purely semantic.

Ion

Not at all, again:
it's a question on whether Judas' business has a place in history as an event, or not.
It sorts out, black and white style, whether something existed or not, just like in today's life.

The answer is, no, Judas' business -and other inaccuracies like "...thirty pieces of silver..." which didn't exist in Jesus' time-, has no place in history:
history accepts as facts, events that are corroborated by archeology and by consistent accounts, and Judas -along with religious characters accompanying him in the Bible- is not.

[ October 11, 2002: Message edited by: Ion ]</p>

leonarde

Partial post by Baidarka: I read
the above statement by Vanderzyden to mean:

1)in principle there may be REAL contradictions in the Bible.

2)that does not mean that every assertion
about a given "contradiction" has to be taken at
face value.

3)we should be at least as sceptical toward allegations of contradictions as we are toward
inerrancy.

But perhaps I am inserting my own outlook. It would be better for Vanderzyden to weigh in on this matter himself....

Cheers!

Radorth

While I am willing to give a point for this particular contradiction to the skeptics, the real question is what it means. Applying the principle "false in one place, false in all" is simplistic and hardly helps us grasp reality- which is supposedly the goal. Can we apply it to all literature, and to Nogo's posts as well? Heh. How about Einsteins theories? If so, we don't know much about anything, do we? Meanwhile if we apply the principle to the works of the Jesus-mythers, we would be ROFOL all day long.

The retort to this is that "Well, it's the word of God. How can it be imperfect?" But that is hardly meaningful if 98% of the Gospels are fact. If Mark is essentially history, how can we deny it and claim to have a grip on reality? How does that improve mental health? "There is no God" is just as extraordinary a claim as "there is" particularly if Mark contains no internal contradictions and is fact. Then there is one.

Say those who determined the canon were fools if you like. Make your own canon without Matthew. A good God will fault no one if they truly love the truth, and work to grasp it.

Radorth

[ October 11, 2002: Message edited by: Radorth ]</p>

leonarde

Partial post by Ion: There are plenty of historical persons whose death
we know little or nothing about (or whose death
is reported in various, apparently contradictory
ways). Yet they remain historical persons.

To me the only important things about Judas
are:
1)his one-time status as an apostle.

2)his turning against Jesus.

On the above two points the 4 canonical Gospels,
The Acts of the Apostles etc. are unanimous.
If he had been run over by a speeding charioteer
it wouldn't matter at all to me...

Cheers!

Ion

Not true:
if historically a person is not known how it died for example, then history recognizes that.
Alexander the Great, Hitler are examples.
So history sorts out what it estalished from what it hasn't established, and claims as truth what it has estalished.

Nothing, is historically estalished about Judas -his "...one-time status as an apostle..." is not-, it's all cult speculation on contradictory accounts, on historical impossibilities like "...thirty pieces of silver...", so the history dismisses these claims as false.

[ October 11, 2002: Message edited by: Ion ]</p>

Radorth

Some highly intelligent and skeptical folks have concluded the inconsistencies are proof of account's veracity. They consider they are merely being consistent in their thinking.

Let's face it. In spite of some compelling arguments in this case, the primary logic employed here is that 40,000 pin-pricks will eventually kill a bull elephant. Meanwhile 6,000 people a day become Christians, I suspect because they apply Occam's razor without really knowing it, and while most of them were looking to avoid conversion, (as I was) intellectual honesty and consistent thinking prevented them.

Radorth