ex-preacher

If this were so, then Matthew should have also referred to the book of Isaiah as coming from the Jeremiah. He doesn't. Instead, he clearly attributes a quote to Isaiah six separate times. The truth is that there is no good reason for Matthew to attribute the material in Mt 27:9-10 to Jeremiah. Also, note carefully from verse 8 that Matthew does not say it comes from the book of Jeremiah. Instead he says "Then what was spoken by the prophet Jeremiah the prophet was fulfilled." Dead wrong.

<STRONG> I believe that the contradiction regarding the death of Judas is quite real if one relies on common sense, but I also think it is fairly easy for Christians to explain it away using the above sleight of hand. For that reason, I prefer to rely on the hundreds of other contradictions which are more blatant and more difficult to wiggle out of. The basic contradiction here involves the mode of death. Did Judas die by hanging or by dashing himself on the rocks? What would the coroner have put as cause of death? Judas cannot have died first by hanging then died again by falling on the rocks. Or perhaps he didn't die at all since Paul says that the resurrected Jesus appeared to the "Twelve" not the "Eleven." (see 1 Cor 15:5)

[QB] First off, compare Matthew's quote to the actual text in Zechariah 11:12-13. There's no field at all in the Zechariah passage! As usual Matthew is playing loose and easy with the OT. He invents a prophecy where none is offered, misattributes a quote and then conveniently re-arranges a text to fit his purposes. Matthew tells us that the chief priests bought the field [note how Thomas Cassidy attributes it to "the Jews"], while in Acts it is Judas who bought the field then fell headlong into it. Notice also how Matthew and Acts disagree completely on how the field became known as the "Field of Blood." According to Matthew, it was because the field was to be used as a burial plot for foreigners - the land has nothing to do with the place of Judas' hanging. In Acts, it is the "Field of Blood" since it is the place where Judas spilled his guts. I think I already know the "answer" to this contradiction. They're both right! One of the secret weapons for resolving contradictions is to insist that both passages are right, each simply omitted irrelevant details. It also leaves us with a God who apparently enjoys putting "apparent contradictions" into his holy book to test the faithful and to damn the reasonable.

ThomasCassidy

It seems to me all of your objections have been answered. Certainly not to your satisfaction, but I have no problem with any of the anwers given. But then you bring up another point. The number of Apostles. There were 12, called "The Twelve" many places in the gospel accounts. Then in Matthew 28:16; Mark 16:14; Luke 24:9; and Luke 24:33, after the death of Judas, they are called "the eleven." Then in Acts 1:26 we see, "And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles." 11+1=12, which we see again in Acts 6:2 where they are refered to as "the twelve."

But, you are correct. 1 Cor 15:5 is obviously refering to a post resurrection, pre Pentecost event, and only eleven of the twelve could have been present, unless Matthias is being counted by Paul as being one of the 12. As Paul was writing about 25 years after the events of Acts 1 it is not inconsistant to understand that Paul was aware of the appointment of Matthias to the office vacated by Judas, and numbered him as one of the 12, indicating he was indeed present and a witness of the resurrection as indicated by Acts 1:21 and 22.

ex-preacher

You seem not to have read my post very carefully. I brought up several items which you have not dealt with. For instance, Matthew specifically says the these words were "spoken" by Jeremiah but you argue that none of them even come from Jeremiah.

So Paul knew about Matthias being present! Inerrantists have the uncanny ability to invent alibis to cover for scripture. What seems clear to all but inerrantists is that Paul goofed. Paul seemed to know precious little about the life or sayings of Jesus. If he knew all about Matthias, I wonder if he also knew that he himself did not qualify as an apostle according to the terms specified by Peter in Acts 1.

For an inerrantist, no possible explanation is too far-fetched or improbable. The problem is that when the same generous hermeneutical rules are applied to the Qu'ran, the Book of Mormon, or "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone," they also turn out to be inerrant.

svensky

ex-preacher, the answer to this is simple. The Twelve could easily be a reference to the disciples as a group. It doesn't matter if the number was only 11 at the time, it could simply be a name people instantly recognized. Why is this a problem ? To claim paul is ignorant or that this is a contradiction is an example of finding one where none is likely to exist. Yet earlier you claimed to have much seminary training etc. What gives ? You should know better ?

Jason

maxptyson

Should know better than what Jason? Know better than to assume that something in the bible says what it says.

Sincerely,

Max

ex-preacher

Indeed, the "Twelve" was a title applied to the group of twelve apostles. It is used this way in all four canonical gospels. However, the synoptic gospels call them "the Eleven" after the death of Judas. See Matt. 28:16, Mark 16:14, Luke 24:9 and 33, and Acts 1:26. It seems that the writer of John may also have missed the news of Judas' death.

Paul clearly states in 1 Cor 15:5 that the risen Christ appeared to "the Twelve." From Paul's other writings, many scholars have concluded that Paul knew very little about the life or teachings of Jesus. For instance, he shows no awareness that Jesus taught primarily (or as Mark says, exclusively) in parables. From reading 1 Cor 15:5-11, it also seems that Paul was quite confused on who was an apostle and who wasn't. He doesn't seem to know that according to Peter's list of apostle qualifications in Acts 1, he (Paul) didn't even qualify to be an apostle.

Is it possible that Paul knew all about Judas and his death and simply used the term "the Twelve" as a convenient label? It's possible. The question is, why wouldn't he have used the term "the Eleven" to keep from making an "apparent error" and misleading honest searchers like me and you. What gives? Shouldn't he have known better?

Kosh

Let's put it this way,...

If you were cross examining a witness trying
to give alibi to the eleven people you were
prosecuting, and he said "I was there with
all 12 of them".... how would you treat that
statement?

Edited because I can't remember who I'm
talking to...

[ November 07, 2001: Message edited by: Kosh ]

Grand Nubian

This guy is willfully calling errors and contradictions okay. No matter what you show(here it says 11, here it say 12), he responds with...well it's okay with me why issn't it okay with you?

What a joke he turned out to be.