Mageth

Maybe a demon jumped up and down on the branch after Judas hung himself, breaking it, and then flung him off the cliff...

It coulda happened, you know.

Or maybe Judas jumped off a cliff, but on the way down his robe got wrapped around a branch, hanging him and, in the process, swinging him up against the cliff, busting open his gut.

It coulda happened, you know.

Or maybe he hung himself on a tree, but the wind picked up real hard, caught his robes, pulled him off the branch, blew him 100 feet over the edge of a cliff, and flung him to the ground, busting his guts open.

It coulda happened, you know.

Making up this shit is easy. Only problem is, the contradiction still stands!

Ion

Douglas,
focus on this:
It means that Judas' dead body 'adventures', are not the cause of Judas' death.

The cause of Judas's death, reported twice in the Bible differently, that's the contradiction.

Ion

Right on...

I try to pick my favorite made-up, amongst these.

Douglas J. Bender

Mageth,


No, it does not necessarily.

Exactly. So what? The narrative is completely reasonable, even within a completely "naturalistic" worldview.

Absolutely. But it is also not necessarily incorrect. What's your point?

Whoooooooops - I'm afraid you've got that completely backwards, Mageth. You see, in order to PROVE that the Bible is contradictory, you need to show where or why an apparently reconciling explanation is impossible, unreasonable, or itself contradictory. All you, and others here, have done, for the vast most part, is to try to shift the burden which is actually rightfully yours.

No one has shown that either one didn't get the story straight.

Show me where in those accounts in the Bible that it says or indicates "instead". And, show me where either one indicates that Judas' hanging was absolutely successful (that he died from the hanging itself).

Tell me, if someone hangs himself, but someone comes and pulls him down and he live, would it be technically true that he had "hung" himself. Couldn't a story say, "Bob Smith went and hung himself; John Jones arrives in time to save him"? What is the difference between that and saying, "Judas went and hung himself; before he died, though, he fell headlong to his death on some rocks, splattering himself all over"? And if the latter is acceptable, then why couldn't someone shorten it to, "Judas went and hung himself, and falling headlong he burst open in the middle, and all his entrails gushed out", especially if they were not concerned with how Judas died, but how it came about that Judas' entrails "gushed out", resulting in a field being named "The Field of Blood"?

The latter leaves open either of two possibilities: Judas died from hanging, and then fell; or Judas hung himself, but died from falling "headlong". However, if Luke was not concerned to indicate exactly how Judas died, but just to indicate why, in one case, a particular field is called "The Field of Blood", then the detail of what, exactly, caused Judas' death is irrelevant to Luke's purpose, and so would likely not be included in a parenthetical comment such as the one in Acts describing Judas' fate.

In Christ,

Douglas

Vibr8gKiwi

You're not getting it Douglas.

It's not that there isn't some possible explanation. Anyone who has read apologetics for a period of time knows there’s always another "what if" explanation for anything. I even gave a possible explanation previous in the thread: Judas died twice in two different ways (afterall, we're expected to believe people were dieing and coming alive all over the place back then).

The real issue here is that an explanation is required (thus showing there was a problem in the original text to be explained away). And that that explanation is only given because we have the two differing stories--if we had only had one version on its own we would assume something completely different and wouldn't even know there was a conflict (and how many other places in the bible are like that where there aren't two stories to compare against?). And how unlikely the compound-event explanation is compared to other simplier explanations (like it could just be an error in an old mythical document). And how even with a compound-event "solution" that was created to solve the conflicts, we now have a brand new story that isn't told in the bible at all by any "inspired" gospel writer. Do we need you to tell us what the bible really means when it says something?

Are you seeing the issues here yet?

[ November 15, 2002: Message edited by: Vibr8gKiwi ]</p>

Mageth

Whoooooooops - I'm afraid you've got that completely backwards, Mageth. You see, in order to PROVE that the Bible is contradictory, you need to show where or why an apparently reconciling explanation is impossible, unreasonable, or itself contradictory. All you, and others here, have done, for the vast most part, is to try to shift the burden which is actually rightfully yours.

One word, and it's the only appropriate word: bullshit. The two accounts contradict each other; your account is merely a perhaps plausible, totally fabricated attempt to reconcile the contradiction. If the two stories weren't contradictory, why would an attempt at such a reconciliation be necessary?

No one has shown that either one didn't get the story straight.

The two stories plainly and obviously are contradictory. Either one or both are incorrect or a fabrication such as you posted is needed to attempt to reconcile the two.

Show me where in those accounts in the Bible that it says or indicates "instead".

Actually, I got the "instead" from your fabrication on the previous page, where you described his aborted attempt to hang himself where the branch broke.

This is quite amusing, actually. Show me where in either of those accounts in the bible that it says or indicates a branch broke, or that he both hanged himself and fell off a cliff.

And if the latter is acceptable, then why couldn't someone shorten it to, "Judas went and hung himself, and falling headlong he burst open in the middle, and all his entrails gushed out", especially if they were not concerned with how Judas died, but how it came about that Judas' entrails "gushed out", resulting in a field being named "The Field of Blood"?

Good question. If either or both accounts had shortened the story as you did, then we wouldn't be having this discussion, would we? But neither did; they left us with two contradictory accounts, and apologists have to pull improbable reconciliations out of their hats in desparate attempts to explain away the obvious contratiction.

Ion

I emphasize this:

Mageth

I'll echo the same, and indeed, my above post posed a similar question:

If the two stories weren't contradictory, why would an attempt at such a reconciliation be necessary?

[ November 15, 2002: Message edited by: Mageth ]</p>

Douglas J. Bender

Yes, I am. And I'm very seldom wrong.

Thank you for proving that I am right. Now, if only others here in this thread would have the courage to admit what you just have.

That's actually not true. I believe I gave (I think in this thread, though maybe not) examples of at least two things which would be clear contradictions if they appeared in the Bible. For example, if in one case the Bible said, "And Saul died from beheading", and in another case it said, "Saul died from drowning", and it said that Saul only died once, then that would be a clear contradiction. Or, if in one case it said, "David died and was buried in his 70th year", and in another it said, "David did not die until he was 85 years old", that would be a clear contradiction. It's not that difficult to come up with examples of things which would be clear contradictions, and I don't see why others cannot see the difference between a clear contradiction and a seeming contradiction.

Possible, within the Biblical description of the Universe and how it works, but impossible in its unreasonableness, for the following reason: In the second case, in Acts, Judas is presented as being wicked - the Bible indicates that God does not raise the wicked dead until the Final Judgment, which is still in the future; in the first case, Judas, even if he is later resurrected, would then have to fall back into wickedness for him to then be described as wicked in the account in Acts - according to the Bible, God does not raise the wicked from the dead until the Final Judgment, still in the future, and God does not raise the righteous from the dead unless that is how they will remain (otherwise, He would leave them dead, and they would go to Heaven). Therefore, your scenario is not reconcilable with what the Bible teaches, just like if you proposed that Jesus said, "And now I will commit adultery with 5 women of My choice": It is technically possible that Jesus could have said this (it would not have violated any physical or "supernatural" or logical laws), but it would have been impossible if the Bible is correct in its description of God and of Jesus and their characters. One cannot assume the Bible is contradictory in order to prove that the Bible is not contradictory.

Two accounts needing an explanation to be "reconciled" is not necessarily evidence that there was a problem in the original text that needed to be "explained away". It is only a "problem" if one assumes that it indicates a contradiction. If one assumes that it is inconclusive until further information comes in, then it is merely undecidable - in which case, it is not necessarily a contradiction, and thus is not really a "problem".

Kind of like two versions of an auto accident: At first glance, they seem so completely different that they seem to be describing two different events. It happens. Besides, my narrative shows how the two accounts can be reasonably explained - it does not assume any extraodinary, supernatural, events.

Actually, it would seem that it would be highly improbable for Luke to have mucked up an account which Matthew wrote - Matthew apparently wrote first, so it is reasonable to assume that Luke had access to Matthew's account before Luke wrote his account. It's unreasonable to think that someone otherwise so thorough and accurate as Luke would have made such a stupid and obvious mistake as to attribute Judas' death to something so completely different than what Matthew's account seems to suggest, if Luke had read, and had access to, Matthew's account.

And, my narrative, as I've said, is very reasonable - it does not assume that any extraordinary or any supernatural events "impacted" it. There is no "stretch of imagination" that needs to take place in hypothesizing that my scenario took place.

Not really - the story is not "brand new", but builds upon what we do know from the Bible, and shows how those accounts might be reconciled. There are lots of "gaps" in the Bible (like, where did Jesus and the disciples sleep during Jesus' three and a half year ministry; or, who did their laundry; or, where and when did they bathe; etcetera). We are merely seeking to determine if a reasonable explanation can be provided for two seemingly separate accounts - this kind of thing happens all the time in determining the truthfulness of testimony, and the accuracy and correctness of a written account.

Apparently, since you are unwilling or unable to see what it does and does not say when it says something.

I believe so. In all honesty, I am truly amazed at the apparent lack of understanding and discernment displayed by most of those arguing that the accounts of Judas' death are clear contradictions - it seems to me that an average 16 year old could see that the accounts are not necessarily contradictory, especially if that individual had read my narrative. I rather doubt that this thread is worth my time, actually.

In Christ,

Douglas

[ November 15, 2002: Message edited by: Douglas J. Bender ]</p>

Douglas J. Bender

Mageth,

Do you know the difference between "contradictory" and "apparently contradictory"? Do you even realize that there is a difference?

If the two stories weren't contradictory, they might appear to be contradictory; in which case, an attempt at a reconciliation might be "necessary", at least for those who could not immediately see that they were not necessarily contradictory. I've confronted the exact same thing regarding the supposed "contradiction" in the accounts of Jesus' resurrection and who saw Him first and the sequence of events following - either here, or at "AntiBible.com" (now defunct, I believe [be forewarned, InternetInfidels ]), someone presented this as an obvious contradiction in the Bible. At first, and cursory, glance, it seemed that it was. But instead of merely accepting a superficial analysis of the accounts, I decided to see if there was a reasonable way to explain them - there was, and it was not that difficult to figure out what possibly and reasonably could have happened which would reconcile the different accounts. And those I shared my "narrative" with AGREED that it showed that those accounts were not NECESSARILY contradictory. It did not show that they weren't contradictory, but just that it was reasonable to think that they weren't. Same here in the case of my narrative regarding Judas' death.

In Christ,

Douglas