aa5874

No, not great. Your incident did not occur. Saul or Paul did not stone Stephen.

You supplied erroneous information.

sschlichter

The scholars opinion was incorrect. He was wrong about the attitude of the church toward Scripture before 1700.

What would have been a correct thing for your scholar to say that is inerrancy was not a central issue to christians prior to the enlightenment because it was un-necessary. Very few dreamed of (or braved) questioning the authority of Scripture prior to that and making inerrancy an issue was like stating that the sky was blue. Since the enlightenment, the question arose of where authority exists. (or if it exists). Protestant Christians, in their discomfort clung to inerrancy, Catholic Christians affirmed Papal infallibility.

None of this changes the fact that Christians before 1700 beleived in inerrancy unless you can somehow reconcile your statement with Saint Augustines belief of the freedom of Scripture from error.

What I am having trouble understanding is why you are comfortable defending your statement when it is clearly not true.

~Steve

sschlichter

aa,

No thank you, I pass.

God bless,

~Steve

gregor

You're welcome to prepare a referenced paper defending the theory that the Catholic Church continuously asserted the inerrancy of scripture since Athanasius (thereby rendering the Chicago Statement, it's predecessors and progency unnecessary). I'll then consider your argument against John Dominic Crossan's opinion that the Church did not fret over inconsistencies - it not being central to its tenet of faith.

Until then, you'll understand why I ignore the unsupported assertions of an anonymous, internet cut-and-paste apologist, and you are free to again present your convoluted "just so" defenses to obvious differences.

James Brown

Oh, are you suggesting that Matthew's Judas displayed guilt and Acts' Judas displayed repentance? All the while maintaining that the two accounts are not contradictory?

I never said there was, and no one else did either.

You might want to read Acts 1:18-19 again:
And I bolded the "in his name" part because that's a common apologetics tack: since Matthew says it wasn't Judas but the Pharisees who bought the land, then they must have bought the land in a dead man's name (likely to be illegal, btw). Fall guys are never glorified by the people who set them up, and buying land in Judas' name would only bring needless attention to an unethical and likely illegal situation. It would be like the CIA christening a new building "The Lee Harvey Oswald Political Research Centre."

This is incorrect; he was present at the Last Supper (John 13:30: "As soon as Judas had taken the bread, he went out.") and since Jesus was arrested shortly thereafter, it's obvious what he ate before he betrayed Jesus.

Judas was paid thirty pieces of silver for his betrayal, which according to Acts he used to buy land, so he was worth at least that much. No wait, he actually gave the money back to the Pharisees and therefore did not have any money to buy land.

Since only Peter was mentioned having a Mother-in-Law, it's a safe assumption that all the other disciples were single. But if it turned out that Judas was married, it still wouldn't change a thing regarding the contradiction, so perhaps that's why no one bothered to mention it.

I tentatively agree, which is why I don't spend a lot of time grilling apologists on how two angels causing earthquakes and making thundering pronouncements can be portrayed as one boy sitting quietly in a tomb. "Sure, just because Mark didn't write about two angels doesn't mean that there weren't two angels there." By that theory we could easily say that there were actually fifty angels at the resurrection but John only mentioned two of them, right? Still no contradiction.

Despite the confusion over the difference between two sentences and three, your example shows that you are still missing the point. The contradiction is not encapsulated in the physical description of Judas' death; it is in the contradictory description of Judas' life. Two different people cannot buy the same piece of land with the same sum of money. A person cannot both commit suicide AND engage in a complicated real estate transaction.

If Lincoln was described of dying of a gunshot wound, AND if he was described as enjoying his retirement estate where he died of a heart failure, that would be a contradiction. Of course, apologists would complain anyway: "Lincoln was shot and later his heart failed--silence does not mean contradiction!"

But of course, everyone would know that's just silly.

aa5874

God bless? You still continue to supply erroneous information!

sschlichter

You said:
St Augustine said:
How do you reconcile these two statements?

sschlichter

good point! I tried to purposefully select points that was irrelevant. I guess I needed to make sure they were missing before claiming so.

~Steve

sschlichter

ok, then I hope only the best for you. wait, hope might not work either.

have a good day. (is good too absolute for you)

may your heart continue to beat for many days to come.

~steve

James Brown

Yes. And addressing my other arguments would be the right thing to do as well. Or else confirm the statement that there are contradictions in the Bible.