Mageth

Indeed. I was expecting a more substantial challenge than has been received thus far. Tell me, Mageth, what in your post should I consider to be a salient refutation of the matter at hand?

The post of yours I last replied to was incredibly weak, Van, to the point of being laughable. Were you trying to redefine "headlong" or use physics to explain how Judas's body could rotate 180 degrees when falling a few feet? Why don't you post a full story including all the conjecture you previously posted, and include the body rotating 180 degrees in order to land on its head?

Remember, the topic under consideration is not the innumerable things that could have happened. No, the topic is "Are the incredibly short Judas' death account in Matthew 27 and Acts 1contradictory?"

So far it's been determined to my satisfaction that they are contradictory, and that a fabricated story can be invented out of thin air in an attempt to reconcile the contradiction. Nothing more.

And have you not posted "innumerable things that could have happened?" That's a cornerstone of your argument. From your OP, for example:

Where is the difficulty in reconciling these two perspectives? There is none. In fact, it is easy to suppose one of two scenarios:

1. After the corpse hung for a while and decomposed, the neck may have decomposed sufficiently to allow the head to separate from the body. The body would then fall free to the ground, where it would break apart (or explode).

2. While attempting to hang himself, he does not succeed. He is unable to secure the noose around his head properly, or the rope snaps, and he falls from a substantial height onto a a sharp object (tree branch, rocks). This impact rips his torso open and the contents spill out.

---

So far, there has been no refutation of the argument presented in the OP. Instead, I see much diversion and conjecture.

You've been reading your own posts, I see. Your argument in the OP was largely along the lines of "innumerable things that could have happened" that may help explain the contradiction. However, as you seem to object to that being the topic in consideration, should we consider those portions of the OP (and your later posts) moot?

[ October 09, 2002: Message edited by: Mageth ]</p>

Vanderzyden

Yet again, you have post nothing to rebut my main argument. Whatever you have posted has simply been to refer to the posts of others. With every post, you affirm my suspicion that your objective here is to discredit, not to discuss.

I will ask again:

Do you have anything original, or from another source, which would provide the first rebuttal to my opening post?

As you can see, I am not alone in my assessment. Others here have also provided summaries which indicate that no refutation has been advanced thus far, and that my characterization of the typical skeptic is not diatribe. Like so many other claims of contradiction, this one also appears to be a failure.

I am very close to considering the matter closed where you are concerned.

(It is already closed with respect to Vibra8, Baidarka, and Ron Garrett.)


Vanderzyden

Jayhawker Soule

Your options are <ol type="1">[*]contradiction, or[*]a contrivance in which your "most historically meticulous of the NT writers" overlooks a suicide by hanging.[/list=a]Which do you find more plausible and why?

Baidarka

Vanderzyden
Why do you bother to pretend to engage in a discussion and then refuse to answer any of our points?
OK I’ll make it simple just answer one question.
How do you harmonize the 2 differing stories of how the Field of Blood got its name? This is the detail that you haven’t addressed yet.
In Matthew it is named Field of Blood because it is purchased with blood money. While in Acts it is named Field of Blood after the Blood (Judas’ own blood) that Judas spilled on the land.

Well which one is it?

Mageth

Yet again, you have post nothing to rebut my main argument.

Once again, the onus is on you to provide evidence to support your contrived argument, not on me to disprove such a fabrication. So far I've seen no evidence, only unsupported conjecture. My rebuttal is that it's a contrived story pulled out of thin air in a weak attempt to reconcile an obvious contradiction. And I have yet to see you prove that rebuttal wrong.

Whatever you have posted has simply been to refer to the posts of others.

Huh?

With every post, you affirm my suspicion that your objective here is to discredit, not to discuss.

Question: reconcile the rotating body theory with the rest of the hanging then falling explanation for the two Judas accounts. Describe and discuss. DCan you not do that?

I will ask again:

Do you have anything original, or from another source, which would provide the first rebuttal to my opening post?

Nothing original perhas, as your argument is the "stock" argument (not original to you) to "disprove" the contradiction and is an obvious, and weak, contrivance, and has doubtless been rebutted many times, including on this thread.

1) Nothing in your OP was original.
2) Nothing in the OP is the least bit convincing.
3) The arguments are nothing more than fabrications in an attempt to reconcile an obvious contradiction.

I've seen you post nothing original (or convincing) in response to 3).

As you can see, I am not alone in my assessment. Others here have also provided summaries which indicate that no refutation has been advanced thus far, and that my characterization of the typical skeptic is not diatribe.

Where did that happen?

Once again, your continued calls for "refutation" or else you declare yourself victorious are ridiculous. You have presented no evidence that any of the conjectures you've posted in an attempt to overcome the contradiction are anything more than just that; conjecture.

Like so many other claims of contradiction, this one also appears to be a failure.

I've yet to see an argument from you that even comes close to reconciling the contradiction. All you've done is invent a story out of thin air in an attempt to reconcile the contradiction. The contradiction still stands.

Once again, post a plausible scenario that includes, hanging, falling, flipping, and smashing.

I am very close to considering the matter closed where you are concerned.

(It is already closed with respect to Vibra8, Baidarka, and Ron Garrett.)

How convenient; declaring victory when fleeing the field.

Sojourner553

First of all: you have chosen an EASY contradiction -- which can be explained by merely insisting "they both happened" -- as opposed to one of the contradictions that exist that cannot be explained away in this manner (ie they "both" happened).


Then: You pretend that there are NO other contradictions in the Bible because by YOUR rules, discussion of OTHER contradictions is "not allowed".

Care for a list of contradictions that cannot be explained this way? The scientific method is to tackle the HARD contradictions -- not the easiest ones one can find.

But I'll focus now on EASY-to explain contradiction. I would maintain that even the APPEARANCE of a contradiction is evidence that the Bible is not perfect... and therefore not divine!

Sojourner

MrDarwin

Before my question gets buried too deeply:

Vanderzyden

You will not be convinced, that much is evident.

(There's little point in saying much else to you.)


Vanderzyden

Doubting Didymus

That little list of naughty people not worthy of your attention just keeps growing. Do you realise that if anyone here applied your own standards to you, you would be left very lonely indeed?

[ October 09, 2002: Message edited by: Doubting Didymus ]</p>

Vanderzyden

Perhaps. But I wouldn't mind, nor would I be surprised, if I stood alone in these forums.

I am, however, encourage that there are a few here: I am presently engaged with several people who are reasonable and respectful. That's enough. I'm not trying to win a popularity contest at Infidels.


Vanderzyden