Ion

"...to explain them..." is what you made up yourself Douglas, when adding your 'divine' post to the Bible.

It is not what the Bible claims.

Also, you being wrong only rarely, that's wrong right there, because what you 'explain' doesn't explain at all how come the hanging is the cause of death, and falling headlong is a consequence.

The Bible still reports simultaneously two causes of death -hanging and falling headlong-, which is a contradiction.

Vibr8gKiwi

Douglas,

If all you want is an admission that there is a possible explanation for the contradiction, then you didn't need to post. I had already agreed there could be possible explanations pages ago. Again most biblical errors have some apologetic for believers to at least hang their faith on.

However it would be dishonest for someone to claim there is no contradiction on the face of these accounts. Clearly there is a plain contradiction that requires an explanation like one that you give. Beyond that it's simply a question of what the audience feels is most reasonable. Obviously a Christian will accept any explanation that lets them keep their faith. However I suspect no non-Christian will find these stretched explanations convincing despite being possible.

However here's a few comments on your last post.

I don't know why you bother with the above as in this case there is a clear contradiction that needs explanation. It cannot remain unexplained because it appears one account describes one method of death, field naming etc. and the account describes a different method of death, etc. This IS a "problem" case. You don't need to "assume a contradiction" you can simply observe it from a plain reading of the text.

This is a laughable bit of hand waving that I'm always surprised when I see. Basically what is trying to be made believable here is that where the stories are the same, it's evidence they are an accurate description AND yet at the same time if the stories differ it's also evidence of the same. It's quite a “heads you win, tails I lose” bit of apologetic and it only fools those who need to be fooled. I'm sure you'll understand if I'm not convinced.

Any child can read the contradiction. Any child can imagine a possible reconciliation. However as I've said repeatedly, the contradiction doesn't go away simply because someone imagines a possible explanation (or a dozen possible explanations). It merely provides a possible (though how likely?) explanation of the obvious contradiction in the accounts. We don't know that your explanation is correct--all we do know is the accounts conflict on their face. I hope that's clear now.

You are not an inspired gospel writer and must admit you are only guessing with your explanation. In the end we have a clear contradiction and some guesses. These guesses have some problems to boot as I've mentioned before: your explanation IS additive to the bible--no God had a gospel writer write the account you describe. Also if your explanation is right, it makes a gospel writer at best... "absentminded" or some such as to badly describe attempted hanging, or leave out hanging altogether, etc. Frankly the compound-explanations are not very credible to me (but that's just my opinion of course--the audience can make their own decisions). To me this is just one of many problems that is much easier to explain when the bible is seen as the work of men, not some supposed God.

Certainly though it is dishonest to misrepresent this problem as a non-contradiction or as one easily explained. It is a clear contradiction and it requires a rather stretched explanation that leaves one wondering if an all-perfect God is actually behind the writings. That's the simple fact.

[ November 16, 2002: Message edited by: Vibr8gKiwi ]</p>

Douglas J. Bender

Ion,

Yes it does. I respectfully suggest you read my narrative again, assuming you have already read it at least once.

That's where you are not discerning what the Bible does and does not say, Ion. It does not specifically say that Judas died from hanging, nor does it specifically say that Judas died from falling headlong - it is clear, though, that Judas died as a consequence either of hanging or of falling headlong (in this latter case, it could have been that he fell headlong, he burst open in the middle, his innards gushed out, and he died of starvation). The Bible accounts do not NECESSARILY indicate "two causes of death". Until you can discern this, I don't see any reason to continue a discussion with you on this issue, though it is a pity.


In Christ,

Douglas

Ion

Yes Douglas, it does.

Matt 27:5 writes: "And he cast down the pieces of silver into the temple and departed, and went out and hanged himself.". So, the cause of death number one, is hanging.

Acts 1:18 writes: "And falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all of his bowels gushed out.". Here, the cause of death number two, is falling headlong.

The same person, dying once by today's standards of human knowledge, cannot have simultaneously two causes of death.

That's the contradiction: Judas, died how?

Butters

Posted by Mageth,

Thank you for saying it, That is the only appropriate word I could come up with, but I would hate to further my reputation as a hothead.

Posted by Doug,
See the problem Doug? neither author says anything about his hanging himself then falling and spilling is guts.
One says hanging, one says falling.
Now even if one included both events, we could see that the other was incompleate, but this is not the case.
Also remember that at the time of their writing, that these were two seperate books. So at least one of them reported the event incorrectly.
What you call an apparent contradiction, is a contradiction that can be explained away by inventing scenarios that COULD have happened, ignoring the fact that the bible (oth accounts) does not relate your proposed scenarios. Taking two different accounts, mashing them together, and trying to make one story out of them amounts to squat. Read the Bible doug, your story is not in there.

Douglas J. Bender

(Ummmm, where does it say that he "went and hanged himself to death"?)

(Ummmm, where does it say that he was alive when he fell "headlong"?)




In Christ,

Douglas

[ November 16, 2002: Message edited by: Douglas J. Bender ]</p>

Ion

Douglas wrote "Ummmmm, where does it say "that he went and he hanged himself to death"?".
Hanging and hanging oneself to death that's the same thing. Hanging onself to live doesn't exist. If Judas escaped death by some happening like the rope breaking for example, a reliable text would explain it.

Douglas wrote "Ummmmm, where does it say "that he was alive when he fell "headlong"?".
I am not aware of a cadaver that starts to have the bowels gushing out. The bowels gushing out happen to any person alive, transiting to death.

Douglas, I thought you wrote that you are seldom wrong, but I keep counting your mistakes, including the struggle that you have now to harmonize contradictions in an allegedly divine book.

Family Man

Douglas --

You haven't even come close to reconciling the contradiction. All you have really done is to claim that two authors left vital information out of their narratives. If true, that would explain why the contradiction exists. However, the contradiction still exists.

Even worse for you, you have to demonstrate that it necessarily must be the way it happened. A far simpler explanation is that one, or both, of the authors were making it up. That also explains the contradiction, but in a much more believable fashion than your silly reconciliation.

Your position is extremely illogical.

Vibr8gKiwi

Here's a nice summary comment by Pomp from another thread in case anyone missed it.

B. H. Manners

For a scenario to PROVE there is no contradiction in the Bible I have created a list of 5 criteria it must meet:


* I am going to put Vanderzyden's and Bender's name after my points below for them to qoute and answer in the prescribed manner. If they do not they have no case and are both false teachers worthy of being delivered to Satan by the church for trying to bind false doctrine on us. They require us to accept uninspired testimony on their authority alone, something we should not do.

BH:

1. The person giving the scenario must be inspired of God and authorized to speak for him. If it does not meet this criteria I will reject it.

Vanderzyden's and Bender's proof they are inspired:


BH:

2. The scenario must be proven to be inspired of God in an absolute objective manner. If it does not meet this criteria I will reject it.

Vanderzyden and Bender's absolute objective empirical evidence the scenario is inspired of God:

BH:

3. The scenario must be the one and only scenario allowed by believers as "truth" with dissenters marked as heretics and false teachers. The reason is because of #1 and #2--the scenario is the revealed word of God to not be argued with.

Vanderzyden and Bender:


BH:

4. The events being reconciled by the said scenario must be proven to have actually occurred in a proven absolute objective empirical manner. You cannot assume a scenario concerning Judas hanging himself if he did not actually hang himself.

Vanderzyden and Bender:


BH:

5. The scenario must be proven in an absolute objective manner to be what actually happened regarding a particular event. If this does not occur I will automatically reject any said scenario as guesswork.

Vanderzyden and Bender:

One last question for Mr. Bender: If scenarios are not binding and you admit this, and you admit I can reject all of them, how can you them really say a contradiction is resolved?

The burden of proof is on the believer in the Bible. I will not concern myself with objections otherwise nor reply to any questions by Vanderzyden and Bender until they answer the points above in an absolute objective manner.

[ November 17, 2002: Message edited by: BH ]</p>