Freethought & Rationalism Archive

leonarde · 10-09-2002, 11:50 AM

A few observations on the way that the thread is
headed:

1)I never read Vanderzyden claim that the Bible is "inerrant". In this particular instance he sees (and has articulated) a way to reconcile two
different accounts of a)Judas' death b)the origin
of the term "Blood Field" c)purchaser of same.

2)Even if he were 100% successful in convincing
everyone here that the two accounts are
reconcilable, that wouldn't necessarily
make him an inerrantist.

3)Someone repeatedly used the word "diatribe" in
referring to Vanderzyden's post(s). I read the
whole thread and see nothing even remotely like a
"diatribe" in what he has written.

4)I agree that in referring to "extra-biblical"
sources, the common meaning is: other texts
which touch the subject. Vanderzyden hasn't introduced such.

Cheers!

Baidarka · 10-09-2002, 11:53 AM

Vanderzyden:

Originally posted by Geoff Hudson:

I thought priests wern't supposed to posess land.

V
“Good point!
I realize that you may not intend this, but I thank you for the additional support. Think about it for just a few minutes and you will realize why.”
B
Pointless!
Vanerzyden your grasping at straw.
This does not help your case at all. If the priests could not personally own land that does not mean that they couldn’t buy land for the Temple. In any event it is ludicrous to think that they picked up the coins and decided to buy a parcel of land to use as a potters field in Judas’ name. Once the land was in Judas’ name he would have control over the land and would not have to go along with the priests’ potters field idea.
Even if you were able to prove that the priests really couldn’t buy land it would just prove that Matthew is wrong, which would be no big surprise since we all know that at least one of the 2 stories is wrong.

Kosh · 10-09-2002, 11:53 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vanderzyden:
[QB
Indeed, it is what it is. But, you've got to read it. If you maintain unwarranted presuppositions that prevent you from reading it and considering what might be true (instead of what you want to be true), then it is no surprise that you hold the views that you describe here.
[/QB]

<disconnect type="Cognitive Dissonance">
Yes, because as we all know, Christians don't go into it with any kind of unwarranted presuppositions. Their belief in the Bible is never due to dogma simply because they grew up a Christian. They ALWAYS approach it from a critical viewpoint, doing a thorough job of researching the claims. When encoutering miraculous claims in the Bible, they have substantial evidence to backup why they believe those claims, yet reject similar claims of other religions and mythology.
</disconnect>

MrDarwin · 10-09-2002, 12:35 PM

Vanderzyden (or any other Christian here), is there is anything that you would consider contradictory within the Bible? That is, two things that are so different as to be irreconcilable, that one or the other cannot be true? If there is, can you give us an example?

And if there isn't, what would it take for you to admit to something being contradictory in the Bible? That is, can you give us a hypothetical example of things you would find so irreconcilable as to represent true contradictions, one or the other of which must not be true?

Vanderzyden · 10-09-2002, 12:37 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by K:
Your point about the Gospels not being newspapers and Judas not being the main character are noted. However, that doesn't remove the contradictions. If you want to argue the insignificance of the contradition, that's fine. I would tend to agree. But if you argue that there is no contradition, I think that's been demonstrated many times to be false.

Thanks for the clarification.

But I still maintain there is NO CONTRADICTION. No one is justified in claiming a contradiction simply for lack of detail, especially when considering multiple, summary accounts.

To be persuasive, you must do more than claim a contradiction. You must demonstrate it. What is necessary from you, K, is a refutation of my argument. If you or anyone else cannot provide one, then it is reasonable to put this particular issue to rest, safely declaring that there is no contradiction.

Vanderzyden

Vanderzyden · 10-09-2002, 12:39 PM

Thanks for the clarification, leonarde!

Vanderzyden

Mageth · 10-09-2002, 12:43 PM

One says he hanged himself. The other says he fell off a cliff and smashed himself. The two accounts contradict.

And how can anyone disprove your reconciliation of the two by filling in unwritten details that aren't there? Indeed, why should anyone be required to? The ball is in your court to provide [edited to replace proof with "evidence"] that your fabricated account is true. You cannot. Modifying your words:

To be persuasive, you must do more than claim a reconciliation. You must demonstrate it. What is necessary from you, Van, is a proof of your argument. If you or anyone else cannot provide one, then it is reasonable to put this particular issue to rest, safely declaring that there is a contradiction.

[ October 09, 2002: Message edited by: Mageth ]

[ October 09, 2002: Message edited by: Mageth ]

Vanderzyden · 10-09-2002, 12:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Baidarka:
...Even if you were able to prove that the priests really couldn't buy land it would just prove that Matthew is wrong, which would be no big surprise since we all know that at least one of the 2 stories is wrong.

You know, B, I am not trying to "prove" anything.

However, I do observe that you have not made one single concession. Nor have you provided any refutation. At this point you appear highly biased and uncritical of your own position. Is this how you approach your search for wisdom and truth?

No, I don't think you take an interest in dialogue. Rather your talent is ridicule and diversion. If that is true, then kindly keep your comments to yourself, so that the others may discuss this matter without your distractions.

Thanks,

Vanderzyden

Mageth · 10-09-2002, 12:57 PM

As far as refutations, I've seen several on this thread to your argument. For example, you have yet to address the problem the word "headlong" poses for your reconciliation story. Are you avoiding this issue for some reason?

Vibr8gKiwi · 10-09-2002, 12:58 PM

As V is apparently ignoring me, so I won't put much effort in this other than to agree with Mageth and repost what he wrote to make it clear to the audience that V has been refuted but simply ignores it.

Quote:

One says he hanged himself. The other says he fell off a cliff and smashed himself. The two accounts contradict.

And how can anyone disprove your reconciliation of the two by filling in unwritten details that aren't there? Indeed, why should anyone be required to? The ball is in your court to provide [edited to replace proof with "evidence"] that your fabricated account is true. You cannot. Modifying your words:

To be persuasive, you must do more than claim a reconciliation. You must demonstrate it. What is necessary from you, Van, is a proof of your argument. If you or anyone else cannot provide one, then it is reasonable to put this particular issue to rest, safely declaring that there is a contradiction.

10-09-2002, 12:43 PM	#57
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	One says he hanged himself. The other says he fell off a cliff and smashed himself. The two accounts contradict. And how can anyone disprove your reconciliation of the two by filling in unwritten details that aren't there? Indeed, why should anyone be required to? The ball is in your court to provide [edited to replace proof with "evidence"] that your fabricated account is true. You cannot. Modifying your words: To be persuasive, you must do more than claim a reconciliation. You must demonstrate it. What is necessary from you, Van, is a proof of your argument. If you or anyone else cannot provide one, then it is reasonable to put this particular issue to rest, safely declaring that there is a contradiction. [ October 09, 2002: Message edited by: Mageth ] [ October 09, 2002: Message edited by: Mageth ]</p>

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

10-09-2002, 11:50 AM	#51
leonarde Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: North America Posts: 1,603	A few observations on the way that the thread is headed: 1)I never read Vanderzyden claim that the Bible is "inerrant". In this particular instance he sees (and has articulated) a way to reconcile two different accounts of a)Judas' death b)the origin of the term "Blood Field" c)purchaser of same. 2)Even if he were 100% successful in convincing everyone here that the two accounts are reconcilable, that wouldn't necessarily make him an inerrantist. 3)Someone repeatedly used the word "diatribe" in referring to Vanderzyden's post(s). I read the whole thread and see nothing even remotely like a "diatribe" in what he has written. 4)I agree that in referring to "extra-biblical" sources, the common meaning is: other texts which touch the subject. Vanderzyden hasn't introduced such. Cheers!

10-09-2002, 11:53 AM	#52
Baidarka Senior Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: NYC Posts: 590	Vanderzyden: Originally posted by Geoff Hudson: I thought priests wern't supposed to posess land. V “Good point! I realize that you may not intend this, but I thank you for the additional support. Think about it for just a few minutes and you will realize why.” B Pointless! Vanerzyden your grasping at straw. This does not help your case at all. If the priests could not personally own land that does not mean that they couldn’t buy land for the Temple. In any event it is ludicrous to think that they picked up the coins and decided to buy a parcel of land to use as a potters field in Judas’ name. Once the land was in Judas’ name he would have control over the land and would not have to go along with the priests’ potters field idea. Even if you were able to prove that the priests really couldn’t buy land it would just prove that Matthew is wrong, which would be no big surprise since we all know that at least one of the 2 stories is wrong.

10-09-2002, 12:35 PM	#54
MrDarwin Veteran Member Join Date: May 2001 Location: Washington, DC Posts: 4,140	Vanderzyden (or any other Christian here), is there is anything that you would consider contradictory within the Bible? That is, two things that are so different as to be irreconcilable, that one or the other cannot be true? If there is, can you give us an example? And if there isn't, what would it take for you to admit to something being contradictory in the Bible? That is, can you give us a hypothetical example of things you would find so irreconcilable as to represent true contradictions, one or the other of which must not be true?

10-09-2002, 12:39 PM	#56
Vanderzyden Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: California Posts: 694	Thanks for the clarification, leonarde! Vanderzyden

10-09-2002, 12:57 PM	#59
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	As far as refutations, I've seen several on this thread to your argument. For example, you have yet to address the problem the word "headlong" poses for your reconciliation story. Are you avoiding this issue for some reason?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.