Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Ron Garrett · 10-10-2002, 06:48 AM

Quote:

Leonarde wrote: My understanding is that Vanderzyden did not choose this particular contradiction: the subject was touched on in one thread, then someone issued a "challenge" in a second thread, but because I and some others became entangled in the second thread and Van wanted a fresh start he began this third thread. (The second thread is "Vanderzyden's gospel contradiction challenge"). So it was in response to someone else's challenge, first (perhaps implicitly) in the first thread, and explicitly in the OP of the second thread which produced ultimately the present thread and its topic 'contradiction'. Vanderzyden asked what the biggest contradiction was supposed to be and, one assumes, the Judas question was selected for the "challenge" not because it was so easy but because it was relatively difficult. Cheers![/QB]

Actually the asertion was made by one poster that the Gospels were full of contradictions. Vanderzygen asserted that there were no contradictions in the Gospels and asked that one be named. I named two: the conflicting paternal geneolgies for Jesus in Matthew and Luke, and the conflicing accounts of Judas'death. He would not respond to either and so we are here, and while he is posting and responding in the sense of the Black Knight scene from Monty Python and the Holy Grail (Arthur: "You're arm's off!" "Black Knight:"No it isn't."), he is doing exactly what one would expect, ad hominem attacks on the skeptics, which if you will review his first post here, it was an entire page of ad hominem, and posts combining fabrication from whole cloth, deflection, evasion, red herring and nonsequitor about the tone and demeanor of the increasingly frustrated skeptic posters.

There are many Christian posters here with honesty and intellect enough to be worth engaging. He's no where close and a complete waste of everyone's time.

[ October 10, 2002: Message edited by: Ron Garrett ]

Mageth · 10-10-2002, 07:07 AM

What I can't figure out is why Vanderzyden is apparently ignoring me, as I have not been rude, insulting, or profane.

I feel the same. And I notice how he's avoided my repeated requests to posit a theory that reconciles his OP with the "headlong" fall (not to mention other points others have brought up). Instead of doing that, he comments that I will not be convinced and apparently chooses to ignore me. How could you expect to convince anyone that obviously fabricated details added to two different @2000-year old accounts in an attempt to reconcile a contradiction are factual? At most, one might expect to convince someone that they are possible.

One thing he will not be convinced of is another point that's been made repeatedly. At face value, the Matthew and Acts accounts of Judas' fate conflict. What he and other apologists attempt with arguments such as he has posted here is not to eliminate the contradiction, but to come up with a possible scenario to reconcile the contradiction.

In the OP, Van posted some (admittedly) possible scenarios that might reconcile the contradiction. (For some reason, he left out an explanation for the headlong fall.) Looking at the scenarios, text, an the counterarguments, and using a bit of common sense, one may use one's judgment to determine probabilities for the scenarios. Doing so, I feel that the scenarios are possible but not probable. It is far more probable that the two authors just got it wrong.

In fact, an explanation that seems more probable to me is that both accounts are different versions of a Judas legend. They have the smell of an "urban legend", in a way. Matthew wasn't written for several decades after the events it describes, and wasn't written by an eyewitness. Neither was Acts. It's possible that neither account is an accurate account, but are two versions of a legend that bifurcated and evolved different details.

[ October 10, 2002: Message edited by: Mageth ]

Jayhawker Soule · 10-10-2002, 07:09 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by leonarde:
For me, it's not a matter of sheer numbers: it is a matter of the types of errors: some WOULD have an impact on theology (if they, the errors, could be established). Others, like the manner of Judas' death, don't really have any significance for the non-literalist (except insofar as they indicate a remoteness from the event described by the Evangelical author).

Unless, of course, it indicates yet another example wherein the author of Matthew attempts to reverse engineer prophesy using poorly understood Jewish sources, in which case the integrity and credibility of Matthew in general is further undermined.

Mageth · 10-10-2002, 07:13 AM

Some Vanerisms:

......

You know, B, I am not trying to "prove" anything.
...
You will not be convinced, that much is evident.

......

Where is the difficulty in reconciling these two perspectives? There is none. In fact, it is easy to suppose one of two scenarios:
...
Remember, the topic under consideration is not the innumerable things that could have happened.
...
4. If the height it sufficient, a falling object (having no airfoil) will rotate such that the heavy end (e.g. torso) oriented downward.

......

[ October 10, 2002: Message edited by: Mageth ]

[ October 10, 2002: Message edited by: Mageth ]

[ October 10, 2002: Message edited by: Mageth ]

Asha'man · 10-10-2002, 08:07 AM

Hey Vandy,

Since we are fabricating solutions out of thin air, why not try a more creative one: Judas simply died twice! After all, being brought back to life in the 1st century seems to be a relatively common happening�.

As to the reason why apparent contradictions are important, that is simple: According to Christian theology, I will go to hell if I read the bible and am unconvinced. Since I have read the bible and am now unconvinced, God�s existence, competency, or motivations must be questioned.

K · 10-10-2002, 08:21 AM

Asha'man:

That's an excellent point. I guess they aren't contradictory

.

Jayhawker Soule · 10-10-2002, 08:35 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Asha'man:
Since we are fabricating solutions out of thin air, why not try a more creative one: Judas simply died twice!

Yes, excellent point. But you exclude Mark? Who knows what he would have reported had he been more (What's that word? Oh, yes ...) meticulous! To be an apologist with integrity, would it not be preferable to suggest: "Judas died at least twice - so far as we know"?

[ October 10, 2002: Message edited by: ReasonableDoubt ]

Vibr8gKiwi · 10-10-2002, 11:46 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by MrDarwin:
What I can't figure out is why Vanderzyden is apparently ignoring me, as I have not been rude, insulting, or profane. At worst I have been exasperated or perhaps slightly sarcastic.

I felt the same way when I first realized I was being ignored. However since then I've been insulting to him I think--might as well call an ass an ass if I'm going to be accused of it regardless. Besides, even when I wasn't being ignored he had no responses to me anyway (which is why I think he really ignores people).

Baidarka · 10-10-2002, 12:45 PM

Vanderzyden to Mageth
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.)

B
And just like that Vanderzyden abandons us to be eternally damned! I don't think that he could really be a true Christian. I think that he is really an evil atheist trying to discredit Christians! Well it won't work I refuse to judge Christians on the basis of Vanderzyden's bad behavior! <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" /> <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" /> <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" /> <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

Valentine Pontifex · 10-10-2002, 02:07 PM

Re: Vanderzyden's on the death of Judas

I will state that can't imagine any context which these two accounts would not be considered to be contradictory.

Vanderzynden's attempt to reconcile the two accounts reminds me of a game that some Trekies play. "Star Trek" has a lot contradictions and had them even before the movies, TNG, DS9, Voyager, and Enterprise. This has not stopped fans from making up ways to imaginative ways to "reconcile" them. About the only difference between what they do and what Vanderzynden is doing it that the Trekies do realize that they are "reconciling" contradictions caused by writers' errors or staff changing its mind about how the Trek universe works. Okay, okay, most of the time most of them realize it....

10-10-2002, 07:07 AM	#102
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	What I can't figure out is why Vanderzyden is apparently ignoring me, as I have not been rude, insulting, or profane. I feel the same. And I notice how he's avoided my repeated requests to posit a theory that reconciles his OP with the "headlong" fall (not to mention other points others have brought up). Instead of doing that, he comments that I will not be convinced and apparently chooses to ignore me. How could you expect to convince anyone that obviously fabricated details added to two different @2000-year old accounts in an attempt to reconcile a contradiction are factual? At most, one might expect to convince someone that they are possible. One thing he will not be convinced of is another point that's been made repeatedly. At face value, the Matthew and Acts accounts of Judas' fate conflict. What he and other apologists attempt with arguments such as he has posted here is not to eliminate the contradiction, but to come up with a possible scenario to reconcile the contradiction. In the OP, Van posted some (admittedly) possible scenarios that might reconcile the contradiction. (For some reason, he left out an explanation for the headlong fall.) Looking at the scenarios, text, an the counterarguments, and using a bit of common sense, one may use one's judgment to determine probabilities for the scenarios. Doing so, I feel that the scenarios are possible but not probable. It is far more probable that the two authors just got it wrong. In fact, an explanation that seems more probable to me is that both accounts are different versions of a Judas legend. They have the smell of an "urban legend", in a way. Matthew wasn't written for several decades after the events it describes, and wasn't written by an eyewitness. Neither was Acts. It's possible that neither account is an accurate account, but are two versions of a legend that bifurcated and evolved different details. [ October 10, 2002: Message edited by: Mageth ]</p>

10-10-2002, 07:13 AM	#104
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	Some Vanerisms: ...... You know, B, I am not trying to "prove" anything. ... You will not be convinced, that much is evident. ...... Where is the difficulty in reconciling these two perspectives? There is none. In fact, it is easy to suppose one of two scenarios: ... Remember, the topic under consideration is not the innumerable things that could have happened. ... 4. If the height it sufficient, a falling object (having no airfoil) will rotate such that the heavy end (e.g. torso) oriented downward. ...... [ October 10, 2002: Message edited by: Mageth ] [ October 10, 2002: Message edited by: Mageth ] [ October 10, 2002: Message edited by: Mageth ]</p>

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

10-10-2002, 08:07 AM	#105
Asha'man Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: southeast Posts: 2,526	Hey Vandy, Since we are fabricating solutions out of thin air, why not try a more creative one: Judas simply died twice! After all, being brought back to life in the 1st century seems to be a relatively common happening�. As to the reason why apparent contradictions are important, that is simple: According to Christian theology, I will go to hell if I read the bible and am unconvinced. Since I have read the bible and am now unconvinced, God�s existence, competency, or motivations must be questioned.

10-10-2002, 08:21 AM	#106
K Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Chicago Posts: 1,485	Asha'man: That's an excellent point. I guess they aren't contradictory .

10-10-2002, 12:45 PM	#109
Baidarka Senior Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: NYC Posts: 590	Vanderzyden to Mageth 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.) B And just like that Vanderzyden abandons us to be eternally damned! I don't think that he could really be a true Christian. I think that he is really an evil atheist trying to discredit Christians! Well it won't work I refuse to judge Christians on the basis of Vanderzyden's bad behavior! <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" /> <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" /> <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" /> <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

10-10-2002, 02:07 PM	#110
Valentine Pontifex Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Orion Arm of the Milky Way Galaxy Posts: 3,092	Re: Vanderzyden's on the death of Judas I will state that can't imagine any context which these two accounts would not be considered to be contradictory. Vanderzynden's attempt to reconcile the two accounts reminds me of a game that some Trekies play. "Star Trek" has a lot contradictions and had them even before the movies, TNG, DS9, Voyager, and Enterprise. This has not stopped fans from making up ways to imaginative ways to "reconcile" them. About the only difference between what they do and what Vanderzynden is doing it that the Trekies do realize that they are "reconciling" contradictions caused by writers' errors or staff changing its mind about how the Trek universe works. Okay, okay, most of the time most of them realize it....

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.