leonarde

Posted by Ion: There is a difference between saying

a)person X is non-existent.

b) there is no extant record of person X .

Why would you expect Judas Iscariot to be
mentioned anywhere else but in the early records
of the Christian church???? He was only a minor
apostle and a renegade one at that.
99 per cent of the Americans alive today will ultimately be lost to history: 2000 years from now
there might not even be gravestones to indicate who they were. That is meaningless: those people
(and I expect to be in the number of the forgotten)do exist nonetheless.

Your statement:
Judas and other Biblical characters, are non-existent outside of the Bible

doesn't account for Pontius Pilate, Herod
the Great, Herod Antipas. In the 1990s the remains
of Joseph Caiaphas were found in a family tomb in
the Jerusalem area. Also I believe that Felix and
other government officials that Saul/Paul dealt
with in the Acts of the Apostles are attested to outside of the NT.

Cheers!

Vanderzyden

There's nothing left to address. It's very clear that there is no contradiction in the text as we have it.

Perhaps you, or someone else, could call to our attention what is lacking.


Vanderzyden

Vanderzyden

But you are not showing us these "clear" contradictions. I can't see that you have done anything to refute position in the OP. You are simply making flippant claims, like the others were doing before.

Also, I didn't say much, if anything, about other NT writers. Rather, I mentioned the historical precision of Luke. You choose the term vague, and use it to imply that a summary account cannot be equally accurate as one that is detailed. Leonarde's examples are quite good in showing that accuracy need not be accompanied by high precision. You then confuse the matter by introducing the term "careful", as though one writer has been "sloppy". And, from that, you declare one of the accounts to be "flawed". This is strong indication that you are attempting to discredit, not analyze.

A fair consideration of the summary accounts of Judas' death necessarily entails recognition of the level of detail that is provided. Presuming that Luke is indeed historically meticulous (as is generally characteristic of Luke and Acts), then we must assume that quick summary accounts within his text are strong indication of the relative unimportance (of the event/person) within the entire narrative. So, when we encounter the few words concerning Judas in the Acts account, we should realize that we are not reading all that Luke might be capable of writing on the precise mode and timing of Judas' demise. Perhaps he would like to write more, but the context and relevance may not warrant a full explanation. We may also say the same for Matthew, though we may not characterize him as historically precise as Luke.


Vanderzyden

[ October 14, 2002: Message edited by: Vanderzyden ]</p>

Baidarka

Vanderzyden

B
I must say that I find your tactic of goading us into a discussion, ignoring and dismissing every argument and finally declaring yourself the winner to be very disturbing. I think that you lack common courteously.
First you insulted anyone who might debate you before we even started with:
V
In modern times, following close inspection by many liberal and conservatives scholars, these skeptics continue to promote the supposed existence of pervasive errors or contradictions in the Bible. This is clear indication that the detractors have not studied carefully, neither the text itself or the commentaries.
B
Then Ron refuted your contention that we are all ignorant goofs with:
R
Originally posted by Ron Garrett:

...My personal library takes up a large room and contains hundreds of commentaries from all perspectives, and I have read them all cover to cover, in addition to much of the holdings of the three Christian academic institutions I spent 20 years of my life at....
...My experience, apparently unlike yours, includes face to face to face time with academics of known and acknowledged competence, as opposed to popular writers of the Dr. Walter Martin variety who have no earned credentials, or received their training at unaccredited Bible Colleges where free academic inquiry is actually prohibited by contract. 35 years of active Christian life brought me into contact with a mere handful of academics in the field of Biblical Literature that would seriously make your statements, and then only with tongue in cheek....

B
And you responded as if Ron was introducing his credentials just to impress us:
V
Are you trying to impress me, Ron? All those credentials, and yet you have nothing SUBSTANTIVE in reply.
I asked you to stop with your disrespectful behavior. You are wasting our time. If you reply again in this thread, please make it very clear in the first few sentences that your business is to refute my assessment. Otherwise, I will disregard it entirely.
B
So you just dismiss rational argument and declare yourself the winner ,very clever,
but it just doesn’t cut it.

Vibr8gKiwi

Does anyone theist or non-theist think, as V puts it:

"There's nothing left to address. It's very clear that there is no contradiction in the text as we have it."

Or does everyone else also think V is misrepresenting the clear, simple facts? Clearly V has his own opinions, but I can't believe anyone else is as deluded as he is. Or am I deluded?

If the problem is simply that V has no grip on reality, we can just leave him to his little fantasy world and end this thread.

[ October 14, 2002: Message edited by: Vibr8gKiwi ]</p>

Family Man

I think it's very clear that Vanderzyden can't answer the criticisms that have been directed at his argument. I think it's also clear that he sees no contradiction not because there aren't any, but because he doesn't want to see them. Vanderzyden's "reconciliation" of the two passages makes absurd assumptions that wouldn't last a minute in a serious discussion of the topic.

It isn't that there's nothing to discuss; it's that Vanderzyden is unwilling to acknowledge a position that destroys his own.

Vampyroteuthis

Does anyone know if Vanderzyden drives a white van???

Ion

If thers is "...no extant record of person X.", then why believe in miracles associated with "...person X."?

There is no reason to believe then.

Miracles associated with "...person X." would have ensured that "...person X." is historically more recognized than Iulius Caesar, Alexander the Great, and about anyone who ever lived in humanity.

Lack of miracles, ensures that "...person X." is not recognized historically as involved in miracles.
It's that simple.
Regarding Pontius Pilate, Herod the Great, Herod Antipas, Josephus' involvement and accounting for Jesus and other Biblical characters, this link:

<a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/scott_oser/hojfaq.html" target="_blank">http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/scott_oser/hojfaq.html</a>

tells you that the ancient non-Christian literature, doesn't make the case for the existence of Biblical characters within established history.

So, no, Biblical characters (like Adam, Eve, Noah, Moses, Jesus, Judas) are not historically established as having existed.

Myself I never saw them in a history book.

[ October 14, 2002: Message edited by: Ion ]</p>

Vanderzyden

As is becoming typical here, you indicate that I "can't answer" but you don't say what specifically.

Let me tell you, I DO WANT to see the contradictions. Show me. I'm ready. I can take it. Please demonstrate just one contradiction, and I will admit it readily.


Vanderzyden

Ion

Aha, Vanderzyden:

Psalm 145:9 reads
"The Lord is good to all."

Jeremiah 13:14 reads
"..."And I will dash them one against another, even the fathers and the sons together." says the Lord. "I will not pity nor spare nor have mercy, but will destroy them."..."

So, one 'Lord' is bad with some people (Jeremiah 13:14), after it is claimed that he is good to all people (Psalm 145:9), including the ones he later on wants to destroy.

I posted this contradiction and two other contradictions in the thread 'When is a Biblical contradiction, a contradiction?', where you participate around my posts, but not confronting my posts.

Is it because you are slow in the class about Biblical contradictions, that I am giving to you?


I bet Vanderzyden is going now to blah-blah me, about different 'contexts' for Psalm 145:9 and Jeremiah 13:14.
At that moment, Vanderzyden himself is going to be in contradiction with the fact that Psalm 145:9 is an absolute statement "The Lord is good to all.", without any context, while Jeremiah 13:14 must be in a 'context' particular to Jeremiah.
That's how apologists like Vanderzyden, are.

[ October 14, 2002: Message edited by: Ion ]</p>