Originally Posted by Toto

You forgot to indentify the conservative scholars that you respect.

Originally Posted by ChristMyth

I missed the 911 example so if you could link to it, I would appreciate it.

As for the Lincoln example is that in one instance sschlicter is giving the means by which Lincoln was killed (a bullet in a theater) while the other is giving the place at which he died (at home in his bed). These two statements do not contradict because they are describing the same incident at different times (where he was shot and where he eventually died).

The Judas passages are not doing this. Judas is dying in two different manners (one from hanging another by his insides busting out from his body). To infer a rope or a broken branch is reading into the passage something that is not there.

To use the Lincoln example (which I am reluctant to do, but will anyway just for clarity), it would be the equivalent of saying:

1. Abraham Lincoln was shot in the head by J.W. Booth at Ford's Theater and later died.
2. Blood spewed from Lincolns chest and body as he sat in Ford's Theater and later died.

Now, these two statements can be reconciled: J.W. Booth shot Lincoln in the head, the bullet traveled through his head and exited through the lower part of his jaw entering his chest where blood spewed forth and he later died. But if we are going to do this, why stop? Why not continue adding possibilities that could have happened.

Example 1: J.W. Booth approached Lincoln and intended to shot him. Lincoln, however, having consulted a psychic before hand, knew this incident was to occur, proceeded to grab Booth's arm and wrestle him to the ground. Within this tangle, the gun went off, shooting Lincoln in the head and causing him to slump forward. Not realizing that Lincoln was already dying, Booth quickly pulled a knife from his pocket and stabbed the president in the chest, causing his blood to spew over the theater. Lincoln later died.

Example 2: President Lincoln sat quietly watching the play when J.W. Booth approached him and shot him in the head. The First Lady, secretly in love with Booth and wanting to dispatch her husband so that she may be with her lover, saw an opportunity. Not wanting to take any chances that her husband might survive, slipped a knife into his chest during all the commotion from the gunshot. Blood spewed from the chest all over the theater and Lincoln later died.

Now, all these examples are completely preposterous, but all fit with the two statements I gave before. My point: If your going to read into a text, there is no reason to stop with just the story you happen to like. All readings, no matter how far-fetched they may seem, must be considered if they include the proper incidents that need to be reconciled.

A branch snapping and Judas falling to the ground and having his guts bust open is just one story that connects the dots and would be just a relevant as any other story that might be made up:

Judas hung himself from a tree and died. Jesus, not yet ascended into heaven, was angered by the betrayal of Judas and felt that it was necessary to make an example of his remains so that all would remember this incident until the end of time. With a touch of his hand, he rebuked the tree and it withered (he had already pulled this trick once when he was alive, remember). The now withered branch was not able to sustain the weight of Judas' dead body and broke sending him falling. A split second before it hit bottom, Jesus caused his guts to gush forth from his belly and blood covered the ground.

Not how it happened? Show me where I'm wrong?

Christmyth

Originally Posted by JamesABrown

And they do. Matthew states that the chief priests bought the property with the money that Judas gave back to them. Acts states that Judas bought the property with the money the chief priests gave to him. That's a contradiction.



You've yet to identify where I'm in error. Thinking of possible alternative scenarios is not identifying error.



What facts have I injected? When one account says that the chief priests bought the land with the money that Judas gave back to them, and another account says that Judas bought the land with the money the chief priests gave him, that's not an injection of facts. That's an identification of a contradiction.



The Acts passage did more than add new details. It added contradictory details. What's more, it's not necessary to add these details merely to explain why they selected a new apostle. A brief mention that Judas had hung himself out of remorse would be all that would be needed to remind the readers of Acts what happened to him.

Instead, we have what appears to be a contradiction. Rather than the chief priests purchasing the land, it was actually Judas who purchased the land, and rather than Judas hanging himself, he actually fell to his death and disemboweled himself. By adding needless details, the author of Acts forces readers of both accounts (those committed to inerrantism, at least) to create rickety artifices, coming up with elaborate schemes of chief priests illegally purchasing land in a dead man's name in order to not be associated with either the land or the man, all so that the author can drive home what a bad, bad man Judas was--schemes which you yourself have been doing for the last several days.



Yes. As I stated earlier, this is a common fallback position: "There are no contradictions in the Bible. And all contradictions that are in the Bible are not important."



Is that the standard now? Must every verse in the Bible have "theological importance" or else it can be jettisoned in the name of inerrancy?

All right, I'll do it for Acts 1. In my view, there's no theological importance in telling us how many days Jesus appeared to the disciples. It's irrelevant that two men in white appeared to the disciples when only one of them spoke. To what purpose do we need to know that the Mount of Olives is a sabbath day's walk from Jerusalem? There's no theological importance telling us that Peter spoke to 120 people. And there's little point in naming the two men considered for Judas' replacement when the author could have just named the chosen Matthias.

There. Acts 1 is chockablock with irrelevant details of no theological importance. A sharp editor could tighten that chapter up nicely by excising out the dead wood. Other aspects such as Jesus' final words and Peter's sermon, however, do have theological importance and ought to be included.

As for Judas' death, however, we still have the problem that, whether the details are important or not, their inclusion in the book of Acts creates a problem for Matthew. I'm not about to try to figure out why the author of Acts added the two lines about Judas--I can't read another person's mind, let alone someone who's been dead for two millenia. Why he wrote is not nearly as critical as what he wrote, and based on what he wrote the author of Acts is in conflict with Matthew.



And as I have already pointed out, the majority of biblical translators use the word 'bought' or 'purchased' when translating Acts. Your argument--that 'acquired' has to mean some complicated legal haiku in order to have land bought by neutral parties in a dead man's name--your argument is with all those translators, not me. It's not my fault that the majority of English biblical translators describe both the chief priests and Judas buying the same piece of land with the same money.



More of the same. "It can't mean what it appears to mean because I've decided it can't be a contradiction. It must mean something much more complicated and subtle."

I'm going to close by quoting from Bart Ehrman's Misquoting Jesus. As a young inerrantist, he wrote a college paper to explain why Mark 2 does not contain a contradiction. Jesus told the story of David taking consecrated bread "in the days of Abiathar the high priest." The only problem is that OT passage in question (I Sam 21:1-6) identifies Abiathar's father Ahimilech to be the high priest at that time--an obvious contradiction and an outright error. Here are Ehrman's words:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

quote of Darrell Bock, from Washington Times article regarding Ehrmans departure from faith.

"I think Bart is writing about his personal journey, about legitimate things that bother him," says Darrell Bock, research professor of New Testament studies at the Dallas Theological Seminary. Like many Christian scholars who have studied the ancient scrolls, Bock says his faith was strengthened by the same process that destroyed Ehrman's.

"Even if I don't have a high-definition photograph of the empty tomb to prove Christ's resurrection, there's the reaction to something after Christ died that is very hard to explain away," Bock says. "There was no resurrection tradition in Jewish theology. Where did it come from? How did these illiterate, impoverished fishermen create such a powerful religion?

Originally Posted by JamesABrown

I disagree.

I'm sure you do. Can you show me where in the Acts passage Judas felt remorse and was in the act of committing suicide when he died?

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

So, in order for you to respect a scholar, they have to reach conclusions that you agree with.

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Is that all it takes for any scholar to earn your respect? Or do you have some additional criteria by which you evaluate scholarship?

Originally Posted by gregor

I am reminded of a quote from Silence Didgood on her faith in mormonism. . . "how could people not accept the golden plates, the return of Jesus to the native americans, and the other tenets of our faith. These were not common events, and anyone wanting to dispute their occurrences could easily demonstated that they did not occur. Moreover, the LDS church has over 13 million members in only 100 years - truly a sign of the accuracy of Joseph Smith's gospel."

Originally Posted by aChristian

No I cannot. Can you show in the Acts passage that Judas felt no remorse and was not in the act of committing suicide when he died?