Steven Avery

Cause I really didn't feel to start another scattershot "apologetic" thread out of nowhere. After looking at the interesting one on prenes, and the death of Judas, and some others.

Most all believers I have seen agree on the understanding of the potters field purchase issue, that the priests physically bought it with Judas blood money, perhaps even in his name. In that case I doubt that I can add much to the discussion, like I was able to with the issue of going into or out of Jericho, by tackling the geographic and language issues a bit deeper.

My purpose on the forum is not to play 20 questions, but to really tackle interesting issues, to learn a lot, and to spur one another to think. Iron sharpeneth iron.

Oh, I only caught it once. If I had seen it twice, I probably would have put in a post like this one.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Diogenes the Cynic

So Luke was a liar, then? Or maybe Peter was the liar?

Doug Shaver

No, just mistaken.

Not that your average apologist can see a difference.

Steven Avery

Are you really making a case like this ? You may consider it unusual, but there is clearly no "lie" involved if the priests bought the field with Judas' blood money (even putting aside any more involved scenarios, which I noticed here and there).

In a positive sense we use this type of language all the time.

"Bill and Melinda gave of their ill-found wealth and purchased medicines and vaccinations for a big chunk of Africa and Asia ... will it help the health of those countries or is it really only helping the medical oligopoly and pharmaceutical corporatocracy?"

Yet it was done through foundation, who knows who the trustees are or who made the purchase in the literal sense, likely they didn't directly do any purchasing at all.

Similar language is used in all sorts of intermediary cases.

That is why I ignored the original question, I'm not into rabbit-trail claims, here we have the silly glasses that tries to call something like this a "lie".

You may try to claim its a contradiction, fine, but it is quite weak from the get-go, and when the accusations get so nonsensical as here please don't expect me to waste a lot of time.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

blt to go

After plowing through this thread, I think that praxeus has provided a good example of how apologetics works on contradictions. Usually, the first step is to break down the contradiction into very small pieces and deal with each piece at a time. For example, using Judas’ death, we actually have three (3) contradictions:

1) How he died;
2) Who bought the field; and
3) Why it was named, “Field of Blood”

as GMatthew and AActs give two differing reasons for this. The apologists, rather than deal with the stories as a whole, deal with each element, one at a time. It is important to keep in mind the big picture, and always see how it fits. Sorry to pick on ya, praxeus, but a common resolution to the problem of “who bought the field” is that the priests bought it in Judas’ name. However, if one has previously claimed, to resolve the death issue, that Judas’ body fell off the rope and burst, this would mean that the priests bought a field with a body hanging in it! Yikes!

Notice the sequence this requires, according to the authors of both books:

1. Judas flings money.
2. Judas hangs self.
3. Priests buy field.
4. Judas’ body falls.

(Acts has the purchase prior to the bursting.) Generally, what we see, to line up apparent inconsistencies are a variety of methods:

A. Propose differing aspects of authors.
B. Have one author mention A, D, and F., and the other author mention B, C, and E, so they “align.”
C. Propose any alternative, up to and including whales blown out of volcanoes!
D. Copyist error.
E. Have extremely similar events occur over and over and over, and each author picking a different one to talk about.

I could go on and on and become boring. What fascinates me, though, is the constant use of analogies.

“As humans we…..”
“It would be natural for one human author… while another human author….”
“Humans recounting events can give conflicting stories…”

All of which I agree with. Aren’t they making my point? That the writing of the various books of the Bible, and later compilation look, feel, and appear to be a human endeavor? How exactly is this helping the inerrantist’s claim of the superiority of the Bible, by explaining how humans do this all the time?

By using human analogies, they actually hurt their case, because they are demonstrating that humans make these kinds of apparent inconsistencies all the time.

I don’t mind these very human explanations. Just don’t later tell me how special the Bible is, in that it becomes inerrant by applying convoluted, human explanations to make it so. No different than any other book.

Doug Shaver

No, I was making a joke like that. In my experience in talking with apologists, it is common for them to suggest that if the Bible's authors were not telling the truth, then they must have been lying.

(This is not to deny, by the way, that many skeptics -- equally without justification -- presume that Christianity originated as a deliberate fraud.)

No, but if somebody told me that Judas bought the field, I would have no reason to suppose that anybody else had anything to do with the transaction.

The nature of a foundation and the reason for its existence is understood by anybody who knows what a foundation is and especially who knows something about American tax law.

You quote one writer saying that Bill and Melinda gave some money for such-and-such a purpose. Another writer might say that the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation gave the money for that purpose. Anybody with enough background knowledge of modern society and its tax laws would understand that the foundation was acting strictly as an agent for the Gateses. In a significant and relevant sense, Bill Gates and his wife, and their foundation, are the same entity, and well informed people who read about the foundation's activities know this.

The priests had no such relationship with Judas and the New Testament authors' readers would not have thought they did.

I would be more inclined to call it an inconsistency than a contradiction.

More like trivial.

If I otherwise had good reason to think that Luke and the other gospel authors were reliable historians, I certainly would not change my opinion just because one of them said Judas bought the field and the other said the priests bought the field.

If the claim you were defending was "The gospels and Acts are generally true and accurate," then the discrepancy over who bought the potter's field would be practically irrelevant. But that is not your claim. Your claim is not that they are generally true and accurate, but that they are perfectly so. Your claim is that we have no reason to doubt any assertion anywhere in any of those books, no matter how inconsequential.

Steven Avery

The idea that I did any breaking down is nonsense. Since I simply responded to questions that were raised. Please be more accurate in not making false accusations vis a vis my methodology.

The issue you raise is a legit question, and from what I can see it is addressed in a number of ways. The simplest issue is "buying in Judas name". One can understand that using Judas money is akin to buying in his name. Similarly, the Foundation doesn't buy in Bill & Melinda name, and even if this were Bill's last days, for many years poor people in Africa and Asia might be thanking them (or not) for buying them vaccines and medicines.

Is this the 'final answer' to the question you raise? Dunno, I don't claim to be an expert on any of this, and I like to research as time allows, generally I find perspective and heart is far more significant than the facts on the ground, however sometimes I can add some insight and perspective, as when I explained my local geography going to and from the city.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

Steven Avery

I have some background, and understand that Foundations often act with independence and autonomy. Each situation is different.

Perhaps it was set up that way. Other similar type foundations and trusts and endowments are not.

Oh, you can doubt them. My claim is that the doubt will be unfounded :-)

In fact, my understanding about that concept is a bit different than some that is on the thread. I don't see it as a 'test of faith' per se when there is a little Bible puzzlement, I see the harmonies of the Bible as a net, it is an interconnected unit, and it holds up those who view it with respect and appreciation. God works out all the answers, the archaeology, the teachings, step-by-step. Others only see holes in the net, and fall right through.

Something like that :-)

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Ben C Smith

I view it with the utmost respect and appreciation, yet am far from being an inerrantist.

Ben.

Steven Avery

And I do not begrudge you that view. Perhaps the Net is stretching to hold you.