Freethought & Rationalism Archive

EarlOfLade · 06-08-2006, 07:16 AM

Continuation of off-topic tangent removed.

driver8 · 06-08-2006, 07:24 AM

This thread is spiraling out of control. Quit the personal attacks and converse like adults. If everyone shared your viewpoint there would be little value in having the discussion.

One allegiance, this post http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showpost.php...&postcount=317 was directed at you. I thought you might have been run off by the mud slinging. If not, your response would be appreciated.

Aethernaut · 06-08-2006, 08:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patriarch Verlch

Well I haven't seen a DNA sample... <snip pointless, foaming-at-the-mouth blather>

You seem to be having a problem keeping on the subject which you yourself raised in the OP.

Do you or do you not have any contemporary extra-biblical accounts of Jesus that you would like to share?That's not a question about DNA, or Darwin, or any of your other pet conspiracies. I'll even repeat it: Do you or do you not have any contemporary extra-biblical accounts of Jesus that you would like to share?

Try to stay focused and on topic please. All of this distraction and derailing you're trying is, quite frankly, making it quite clear you have no argument. If that's the case you should probably just concede and walk away instead of hopping the A-train to crazytown with each successive response in an attempt to deflect attention from the topic at hand.

funinspace · 06-08-2006, 08:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by one allegiance

Lets not forget the most convincing evidence...They never had a sound reason for why Jesus's body was never found. They never found it. Perhaps b/c He DID in fact show himself to his disciples and ascend into heaven.

Quote:

Originally Posted by one allegiance

This is very very fallacious. Jesus has been proven to be REAL. There is not even ONE educated atheist that would deny this. And javaman I will reply to you in a moment I have to go get something to eat. That's not even up for debate. The debate is over whether or not he was a deity.

Jimmy Hoffa is proven to be real; and his body has never been found. Maybe he also ascended to heaven and sits with Elijah. We have no sound evidence that this did not happen. Of course, I do wonder who "they" are…when no one noticed this new cult for decades after said events in the Gospels purportedly happened; and still more decades before such documents were being circulated around (at least that we know of).

Just thought I would also help bring this back to the subject of contemporary extra-biblical evidence for the deity Jesus (not simply evidence for the existence of Christians).

Yahoo dictionary for the word contemporary: (1) Belonging to the same period of time: a fact documented by two contemporary sources. (2) Of about the same age.

seraphimkawaii · 06-08-2006, 10:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by one allegiance

but if we all already have a free ticket to heaven then what is the point of free will. What is the point of atonement. What is the point of NOT fulfilling every sinful thought I can.

After I get back from taking my dog to the vet, I'll respond to that in a seperate forum on morality, to avoid making our moderator any more upset.
As for this thread...someone, anyone, put up some EXTRA BIBLICAL EVIDENCE or stop this!!!

one allegiance · 06-08-2006, 12:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by driver8

What one allegiance is trying to say, though not very clearly, is that the two stories do not descride two different deaths of Judas. He bases this argument on the source of money used to buy the land, and seems to be insinuating that Acts is describing someone else's death. This reasoning seems, however, flawed and/or disingenuous.

Matthew's version clearly says that the priests bought the land, whereas Acts less clearly states that Judas bought the land (Men and brethren, this scripture must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake before concerning Judas, which was guide to them that took Jesus. For he was numbered with us, and had obtained part of this ministry. Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity). The subject of Acts seems unchanging, i.e. Judas, who (which) bought the land.

There can be little doubt that they are referring to the same field, as both call it "the field of blood." Matthew states "It is not lawful for to put them into the treasury, because it is the price of blood. And they took counsel, and bought with them the potter's field, to bury strangers in. Wherefore that field was called, The field of blood, unto this day."

Acts clearly describes the field and Judas' death as "Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out. And it was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem; insomuch as that field is called in their proper tongue, Aceldama, that is to say, The field of blood. For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishopric let another take."

Matthew clearly describes Judas' death as "And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself."

So, not only do the stories differ as to Judas' death, they differ as to who bought the field and the genesis of its name, "field of blood." Matthew bases the name on the source of the money that paid for it, while Acts bases the name on the method of Judas' death.

It's obvious that we have two allegorical stories, rumors, or legends for this "field of blood," which the writers of the bible were unable to reconcile, or which they merely overlooked. Are these two versions of a real and relevant event, or is this evidence of incorporation of pre-existing legend? Any other ideas? Either way, one would assume that such fantastic stories would not be subject to such variation, given that these events were supposedly well known by many persons, and that they would be accurately relayed and preserved, especially if the sources were indeed so contemporary to the events they portray.

Thanks for being respectful, I genuinely appreciate it...this thread is getting a little out of hand.

This is probably one of the most disputed "seemingly" contradictory issues of the bible. All I'm going to do is use logic to try and reconcile this contradiction, for that is all that I have. There is no biblical text I can give you that will reconcile this, so you'll have to take in stride and apply logic to it...but I'm sure that might not stop some of you in suggesting that my logic is flawed.

Matthew 27:5 and Acts 1:18 cannot be accepted as legitimately contradicting each other if it is possible for both to be true—and it certainly is scientifically and logically possible for both incidents to have occurred. Consider a fight at a bar. One man hits another in the throat, and the man hit in the throat dies, but cracks his head open on the counter. When the police come to the scene and ask witnesses what happened, one person will likely declare, “Joe struck John and killed him.” Another person may say, “John suffocated,” while another might add, “Falling headfirst, John busted his skull on the ground, causing part of his brain to ooze out onto the concrete.” Are the witnesses’ statements contradictory? No. They are supplementary. Likewise, neither of the statements concerning the death of Judas is contradictory. Simply put, one does not exclude the other.

According to ancient tradition, Judas hanged himself above the Valley of Hinnom on the edge of a cliff. Eventually the rope snapped (or was cut or untied), thus causing his body to fall headfirst into the field below, as Luke described. Matthew does not deny that Judas fell and had his entrails gush out, and Luke does not deny that Judas hanged himself. In short, Matthew records the method in which Judas attempted his death. Luke reports the end result.

Now, on to the very controversial field and money. Acts 1:18 simply informs us that Judas furnished the means of purchasing the field. One is not forced to conclude that Judas personally bought the potter’s field. As in modern-day writings and speeches, it is very common for the Scriptures to represent a man as doing a thing when, in fact, he merely supplies the means for doing it. For example, Joseph spoke of his brothers as selling him into Egypt (Genesis 45:4-5; cf. Acts 7:9), when actually they sold him to the Ishmaelites (who then sold him into Egypt). John mentions that “the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John (though Jesus Himself did not baptize, but His disciples)” (John 4:1-3). The same principle is recognized in law in the well-known Latin maxim, “he who acts through another is deemed in law to do it himself” (I don't know how to say it in latin). Whether one says that Judas “purchased a field with the wages of iniquity” (Acts 1:18), or that the chief priests “bought with them the potter’s field” (Matthew 27:7), he has stated the same truth, only in different ways.

As far as the eyewitnesses go, I don't think and can assume that not ALL of the apostles witnessed or knew at the time of Judas' death. This is a very tough issue to resolve if presuppositional reasoning is applied, but eh. What is your take on my applied logic for this issue?

OldYgg · 06-08-2006, 12:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by one allegiance

Thanks for being respectful, I genuinely appreciate it...this thread is getting a little out of hand.

This is probably one of the most disputed "seemingly" contradictory issues of the bible. All I'm going to do is use logic to try and reconcile this contradiction, for that is all that I have. There is no biblical text I can give you that will reconcile this, so you'll have to take in stride and apply logic to it...but I'm sure that might not stop some of you in suggesting that my logic is flawed.

Matthew 27:5 and Acts 1:18 cannot be accepted as legitimately contradicting each other if it is possible for both to be true—and it certainly is scientifically and logically possible for both incidents to have occurred. Consider a fight at a bar. One man hits another in the throat, and the man hit in the throat dies, but cracks his head open on the counter. When the police come to the scene and ask witnesses what happened, one person will likely declare, “Joe struck John and killed him.” Another person may say, “John suffocated,” while another might add, “Falling headfirst, John busted his skull on the ground, causing part of his brain to ooze out onto the concrete.” Are the witnesses’ statements contradictory? No. They are supplementary. Likewise, neither of the statements concerning the death of Judas is contradictory. Simply put, one does not exclude the other.

According to ancient tradition, Judas hanged himself above the Valley of Hinnom on the edge of a cliff. Eventually the rope snapped (or was cut or untied), thus causing his body to fall headfirst into the field below, as Luke described. Matthew does not deny that Judas fell and had his entrails gush out, and Luke does not deny that Judas hanged himself. In short, Matthew records the method in which Judas attempted his death. Luke reports the end result.

Now, on to the very controversial field and money. Acts 1:18 simply informs us that Judas furnished the means of purchasing the field. One is not forced to conclude that Judas personally bought the potter’s field. As in modern-day writings and speeches, it is very common for the Scriptures to represent a man as doing a thing when, in fact, he merely supplies the means for doing it. For example, Joseph spoke of his brothers as selling him into Egypt (Genesis 45:4-5; cf. Acts 7:9), when actually they sold him to the Ishmaelites (who then sold him into Egypt). John mentions that “the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John (though Jesus Himself did not baptize, but His disciples)” (John 4:1-3). The same principle is recognized in law in the well-known Latin maxim, “he who acts through another is deemed in law to do it himself” (I don't know how to say it in latin). Whether one says that Judas “purchased a field with the wages of iniquity” (Acts 1:18), or that the chief priests “bought with them the potter’s field” (Matthew 27:7), he has stated the same truth, only in different ways.

As far as the eyewitnesses go, I don't think and can assume that not ALL of the apostles witnessed or knew at the time of Judas' death. This is a very tough issue to resolve if presuppositional reasoning is applied, but eh. What is your take on my applied logic for this issue?

Kind of pitches the whole divinely inspired and biblical inerrancy, doesn't it? And that's fine - people can believe without believing everything in the bible, but it does open the door, does it not, that you pick and choose which sections you believe.

While yes, more than one seemlingly contradictory statements can be true, a divinely inspired book, should reconcile these things so that even the appearance of impropriety does not appear?

Old Ygg

one allegiance · 06-08-2006, 12:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OldYgg

Kind of pitches the whole divinely inspired and biblical inerrancy, doesn't it? And that's fine - people can believe without believing everything in the bible, but it does open the door, does it not, that you pick and choose which sections you believe.

While yes, more than one seemlingly contradictory statements can be true, a divinely inspired book, should reconcile these things so that even the appearance of impropriety does not appear?

Old Ygg

I don't necessarily think that this particular issue does anything to the bible's inerrancy, simply b/c it is a record of an act, and therefore didn't really need divine inspiration to write . Yes the apostles were divinely inspired, but this is a record of an event. But I will comment more later...I have work.

seraphimkawaii · 06-08-2006, 01:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by one allegiance

I don't necessarily think that this particular issue does anything to the bible's inerrancy, simply b/c it is a record of an act, and therefore didn't really need divine inspiration to write . Yes the apostles were divinely inspired, but this is a record of an event. But I will comment more later...I have work.

well, that can be argued, but now aren't you assigning rather subjective importance to events in the bible? simply saying that you do not view an event as important and thus it can be discarded doesn't do much for your argument of extra biblical evidence...which we're still waiting for.

gregor · 06-08-2006, 02:31 PM

There is certainly a difference between possible explanations and plausible ones.

You might convince yourself that a reporter would skip the entire hanging himself to death part and just mention that he fell down and his belly split open. That seems extraordinarily implausible to me - kind of like saying several people leap from the Hindenburg, without mentioning the fire. Thus, I'll still say contradiction (however, not logical impossibility).

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-08-2006, 07:16 AM	#361
EarlOfLade Banned Join Date: May 2006 Location: Orlando, Fl Posts: 5,310	Continuation of off-topic tangent removed.

06-08-2006, 07:24 AM	#362
driver8 Regular Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Utah Posts: 167	This thread is spiraling out of control. Quit the personal attacks and converse like adults. If everyone shared your viewpoint there would be little value in having the discussion. One allegiance, this post http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showpost.php...&postcount=317 was directed at you. I thought you might have been run off by the mud slinging. If not, your response would be appreciated.

06-08-2006, 02:31 PM	#370
gregor Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Texas Posts: 932	There is certainly a difference between possible explanations and plausible ones. You might convince yourself that a reporter would skip the entire hanging himself to death part and just mention that he fell down and his belly split open. That seems extraordinarily implausible to me - kind of like saying several people leap from the Hindenburg, without mentioning the fire. Thus, I'll still say contradiction (however, not logical impossibility).

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.