Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Misc Discussion Boards => Religious Debates & Threads => Topic started by: columbusdude82 on November 03, 2007, 04:59:48 PM
-
Dear loco,
Please put your exquisite gifts of denial to work at explaining how this is NOT a contradiction. Thank you. ;D
Matthew 27:5 "So Judas threw the money into the temple and left. Then he went away and hanged himself."
Acts 1:18 "With the reward he got for his wickedness, Judas bought a field; there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out."
So did he throw the money or buy a field? Did he hand himself or burst open?
Do we believe Luke or do we believe Matthew?
-
I just posted this on the G&O
No conflicts, people who denie conflicts of the Bible try to use one scripture to try to conflict another scripture, any biblical scolor can tell that the Bible was written with amazing accruacy and there are no conflicts. Too much archeological literature has been found to doubt the Bible's accuracy.
-
Looks pretty conflicting to me.
But if you are one who denies these things in the face of facts then no amount of reason, logic, evidence etc... will change your mind.
-
Contemplate the contradictions
A thoughtful person who thinks about God cannot help but notice the amazing contradictions. They are everywhere you look.
Here is one very simple example. On the day Moses comes down from Mount Sinai with the stone tablets containing the Ten Commandments, he discovers that the Israelites have created a golden calf. To punish the people, Moses gathers a group of men and takes the following action in the book of Exodus, Chapter 32:
Then he [Moses] said to them, "This is what the Lord, the God of Israel, says: 'Each man strap a sword to his side. Go back and forth through the camp from one end to the other, each killing his brother and friend and neighbor.' " The Levites did as Moses commanded, and that day about three thousand of the people died.
So... one minute we have God carving into stone, "Thou shalt not kill." Then the next minute we have God telling each man to strap a sword to his side and lay waste to thousands. Wouldn't you expect the almighty ruler of the universe to be slightly more consistent than this? 3,000 dead people is a lot of commandment breaking. Obviously that is a total contradiction. The reason why you find contradictions like that in the Bible is because God is imaginary...
-
Dear loco,
Please put your exquisite gifts of denial to work at explaining how this is NOT a contradiction. Thank you. ;D
Matthew 27:5 "So Judas threw the money into the temple and left. Then he went away and hanged himself."
Acts 1:18 "With the reward he got for his wickedness, Judas bought a field; there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out."
So did he throw the money or buy a field? Did he hand himself or burst open?
Do we believe Luke or do we believe Matthew?
Another "oldie but goodie" skeptic claim.....another easy rebuttal.
Notice that Luke states, "With the reward he got for his wickedness.........". What wickedness would that be? Betraying Jesus, of course. Matthew states that when Judas tried to give the money to the priests, the priests told him that they could not take it, as it was blood money. Since they could not add such to the treasury nor could they accept property purchased with such, guess who got credited with the "Field of Blood": JUDAS!!!
Judas' act of treachery procured the 30 pieces of silver, and Judas' money was used to buy that field. So, Luke's stating that Judas bought the field hardly contradicts Matthew's account. As for how he died, did it ever occur to you that, if he hung himself till death on a tree and the limb snapped, that his bowels would explode and spill on the ground upon impact?
-
Contemplate the contradictions
A thoughtful person who thinks about God cannot help but notice the amazing contradictions. They are everywhere you look.
Here is one very simple example. On the day Moses comes down from Mount Sinai with the stone tablets containing the Ten Commandments, he discovers that the Israelites have created a golden calf. To punish the people, Moses gathers a group of men and takes the following action in the book of Exodus, Chapter 32:
Then he [Moses] said to them, "This is what the Lord, the God of Israel, says: 'Each man strap a sword to his side. Go back and forth through the camp from one end to the other, each killing his brother and friend and neighbor.' " The Levites did as Moses commanded, and that day about three thousand of the people died.
So... one minute we have God carving into stone, "Thou shalt not kill." Then the next minute we have God telling each man to strap a sword to his side and lay waste to thousands. Wouldn't you expect the almighty ruler of the universe to be slightly more consistent than this? 3,000 dead people is a lot of commandment breaking. Obviously that is a total contradiction. The reason why you find contradictions like that in the Bible is because God is imaginary...
Of course, none of our skeptic buddies here seem to notice Israel's commandment breaking, namely commiting adultery, covetousness, and of course, putting other gods before God. This would be the same God, who gave them all that gold in the first place, and delivered them from of slavery in Egypt. And He did so, without the Israelites having to lift one sword in battle. Yet, in verse 4, they are actually crediting the calf for freeing them from Egypt. (Funny!!! They weren't praying to the golden "Bessie" for deliverance, when Pharoah was beating their behinds for four centuries, now were they?).
The commandments also mention something about not worshipping graven images or bowing down and worshipping them and punishing those that do unto the third and fourth generation. In fact, had Moses not lobbied on their behalf, FAR MORE Israelites would have been wiped out, excluding Moses and his family. Considering that over 600,000 men left Egypt, punishing 3,000 of them (<0.5%, if my math's correct), is quite merciful.
Has anyone ever considered that during all this debauchery, women may have been assaulted and raped? And, if they were mimicking other cultures around them, human sacrifice would be part of their newly-acquired worshipping habits (BTW, rape and human sacrifice were captial offenses, in case you missed it). With all of that taken into consideration, it's a wonder that, again, only 3,000 of them got put down.
-
As for how he died, did it ever occur to you that, if he hung himself till death on a tree and the limb snapped, that his bowels would explode and spill on the ground upon impact?
ahh no. Quite impossible.
-
Of course, none of our skeptic buddies here seem to notice Israel's commandment breaking, namely commiting adultery, covetousness, and of course, putting other gods before God. This would be the same God, who gave them all that gold in the first place, and delivered them from of slavery in Egypt. And He did so, without the Israelites having to lift one sword in battle. Yet, in verse 4, they are actually crediting the calf for freeing them from Egypt. (Funny!!! They weren't praying to the golden "Bessie" for deliverance, when Pharoah was beating their behinds for four centuries, now were they?).
The commandments also mention something about not worshipping graven images or bowing down and worshipping them and punishing those that do unto the third and fourth generation. In fact, had Moses not lobbied on their behalf, FAR MORE Israelites would have been wiped out, excluding Moses and his family. Considering that over 600,000 men left Egypt, punishing 3,000 of them (<0.5%, if my math's correct), is quite merciful.
Has anyone ever considered that during all this debauchery, women may have been assaulted and raped? And, if they were mimicking other cultures around them, human sacrifice would be part of their newly-acquired worshipping habits (BTW, rape and human sacrifice were captial offenses, in case you missed it). With all of that taken into consideration, it's a wonder that, again, only 3,000 of them got put down.
Based on the information given, not your or anyone else's conjecture, the story says moses on orders from god order 3000 men be killed for making a golden calf becuase they got insecure and lost faith. In any situation anywhere int he world, that would be considered either mass murder or a war crime.
The punishment of death versus their transgression is way out of proportion.
-
Based on the information given, not your or anyone else's conjecture, the story says moses on orders from god order 3000 men be killed for making a golden calf becuase they got insecure and lost faith. In any situation anywhere int he world, that would be considered either mass murder or a war crime.
The punishment of death versus their transgression is way out of proportion.
Says who? Do you really think that the transgression by the Israelites involved them merely bowing before a image of a shiny cow?
The passage itself states that such was not the case. Verse 25 stated that people were naked and that Aaron (Moses' brother) made them naked unto shame among their enemies. Based on that, and the practices of some of the ancient cultures around Israel, this sounds like giant orgy. And, unless every single person participating in such did so voluntarily, it's safe to say that some of those women were violated. And, if rape and adultery are involved, those were CAPITAL offenses by law.
And lest we forget, Moses gave the people the opportunity to repent, in verse 28. "Who is on the Lord side? Let him come unto me!!" Had those 3000+ repented, they would have been spared.
Speaking of conjecture, that's exactly what you're using with your "war crime" spiel, comparing our practices with those of the ancients.
ahh no. Quite impossible.
Impossible for a dead guy, swinging from a tree by his neck, to fall from a snapping branch and have his bloated corpse splatter upon impact? And this is because.........
-
Oh my, Oh my... aren't we squirming like the pope in a strip club struggling to pull out explanations out of thin air...
McWay, are you trying to say that your gift of denial by far outshines loco's? ;) If so, I'd like to see you two slug it out to see who can come up with the most deranged, far-fetched explanation of how this first post is not a contradiction 8)
-
Oh my, Oh my... aren't we squirming like the pope in a strip club struggling to pull out explanations out of thin air...
McWay, are you trying to say that your gift of denial by far outshines loco's? ;) If so, I'd like to see you two slug it out to see who can come up with the most deranged, far-fetched explanation of how this first post is not a contradiction 8)
Squirimg about what? As I said, this canard is old.....and so is its rather easy rebuttal.
This pitiful claim of contradictions has seen dismantled before and can be dismantled yet again.
Whose money was used to buy the field? JUDAS!!!
Whose acts of treachery was responsible for that money being acquired, in the first place (Luke called it the wages of iniquity)? JUDAS!!
Whose strung himself up, as a result of having "betrayed innocent blood"? JUDAS!!
Again, the priests stated they could not keep that money, because it was blood money. Nor could they keep any property bought with such (why else would an abandoned field be procured to bury dead people). Therefore, the short answer is that the field was purchased in Judas' name.
Given it was the Passover, shortly before the Sabbath of the Passover, who was going to ritually defile himself by taking Judas' corpse down (Remember that old saying, "Cursed is everyone who hangs from a tree!").
As usual, a simple explanation, using the data from BOTH texts, gives a clearer picture of what went down. And, another tired skeptic claim bites the dust.
-
So, McWay, did Judas throw the money in the temple, or use it to buy a field?
-
So, McWay, did Judas throw the money in the temple, or use it to buy a field?
Matthew 14-16: Then one of the Twelve—the one called Judas Iscariot—went to the chief priests and asked, "What are you willing to give me if I hand him over to you?" So they counted out for him thirty silver coins. From then on Judas watched for an opportunity to hand him over.
Matthew 27:3-10
When Judas, who had betrayed him, saw that Jesus was condemned, he was seized with remorse and returned the thirty silver coins to the chief priests and the elders. "I have sinned," he said, "for I have betrayed innocent blood."
"What is that to us?" they replied. "That's your responsibility."
So Judas threw the money into the temple and left. Then he went away and hanged himself.
The chief priests picked up the coins and said, "It is against the law to put this into the treasury, since it is blood money." So they decided to use the money to buy the potter's field as a burial place for foreigners. That is why it has been called the Field of Blood to this day. Then what was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet was fulfilled: "They took the thirty silver coins, the price set on him by the people of Israel, and they used them to buy the potter's field, as the Lord commanded me."
-
ahh no. Quite impossible.
Why would that be impossible?
-
The chief priests picked up the coins and said, "It is against the law to put this into the treasury, since it is blood money." So they decided to use the money to buy the potter's field as a burial place for foreigners.
the priests bought the field then.
Why would that be impossible?
A hung person would not explode if they fell from a tree, it could however have happened as McWay says if the body was decomposing, but i'm not too sure of it.
-
Stella, you say the priests bought the field. That contradicts Acts! (See the first post.)
Which is it? Did the priests buy the field or did Judas?
-
McWay, are you trying to say that your gift of denial by far outshines loco's? ;)
columbusdude82,
Your gift of denial by far outshines anybody's.
-
it could however have happened as McWay says if the body was decomposing, but i'm not too sure of it.
OzmO,
Then why did you say "impossible" if you are not even sure?
-
columbusdude82,
Your gift of denial by far outshines anybody's.
Why evadest thou the question?
What was Judas' cause of death? And who bought the field?
-
Why evadest thou the question?
What was Judas' cause of death? And who bought the field?
See what I mean? MCWAY gave you the answer,
But thou shall denyest the truth either way.
-
Another "oldie but goodie" skeptic claim.....another easy rebuttal.
Notice that Luke states, "With the reward he got for his wickedness.........". What wickedness would that be? Betraying Jesus, of course. Matthew states that when Judas tried to give the money to the priests, the priests told him that they could not take it, as it was blood money. Since they could not add such to the treasury nor could they accept property purchased with such, guess who got credited with the "Field of Blood": JUDAS!!!
Judas' act of treachery procured the 30 pieces of silver, and Judas' money was used to buy that field. So, Luke's stating that Judas bought the field hardly contradicts Matthew's account. As for how he died, did it ever occur to you that, if he hung himself till death on a tree and the limb snapped, that his bowels would explode and spill on the ground upon impact?
Here's McWay's post. Consider the sentence in bold. Notice how McWay evades the question: Did Judas buy the field? He just says that Judas's money was used to buy the field.
Now consider the part in italics. You cannot seriously believe that. He invents out of thin air the possibility of the branch snapping, and out of thinner air the possibility that, if the branch snaps, the impact of falling would make his bowels explode!!!
What was Judas's cause of death?
1. "He Hanged himself"
2. "he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out."
You can't die twice, so it has to be one or the other.
-
OzmO,
Then why did you say "impossible" if you are not even sure?
re-read my post.
If he was hung and died and shortly thereafter the limb broke then it is impossible with the information given that his would have burst out upon impact. However it might be possible if the body was there for a few days and bloated, but i'm not sure.
I'm sure you understood what i posted.
-
Now can anyone answer the questions with out side stepping into debate tactics 101?
1. How did Judas die, falling headlong into a field or by hanging?
2. Did he give the money to the temple or buy a field with it?
Can anyone answer directly? which is it?!!!!!!
-
I'll answer: who cares? I can't believe people spend so much time trying to find ridiculous "contradictions" like this in the Bible.
Good grief . . . . ::)
-
I'll answer: who cares? I can't believe people spend so much time trying to find ridiculous "contradictions" like this in the Bible.
Good grief . . . . ::)
Well, I think it has much more to do with people saying how "infallible" the book is and using the book as the end all be all of what they believe in their lives.
I think these types of conversations are interesting and thought provoking, plus, maybe we learn something in the process.
-
Well, I think it has much more to do with people saying how "infallible" the book is and using the book as the end all be all of what they believe in their lives.
I think these types of conversations are interesting and thought provoking, plus, maybe we learn something in the process.
I understand. On the other hand, comparing a verse or two about Judas and whether he physically purchased a field or whether his 30 pieces of silver purchased a field is much ado about absolutely nothing.
I used to engage in these types of debates. I try and avoid them. No one changes their mind. I don't find them particularly interesting. If the discussion was about something that affects peoples lives, I could see having a discussion. But this? Hardly thought provoking IMO.
-
I understand. On the other hand, comparing a verse or two about Judas and whether he physically purchased a field or whether his 30 pieces of silver purchased a field is much ado about absolutely nothing.
I used to engage in these types of debates. I try and avoid them. No one changes their mind. I don't find them particularly interesting. If the discussion was about something that affects peoples lives, I could see having a discussion. But this? Hardly thought provoking IMO.
I do agree that no one ever changes their minds... That's what "faith" is right?
-
I do agree that no one ever changes their minds... That's what "faith" is right?
Yes, lots of faith involved in religion.
Speaking of faith, I'll be posting some excerpts and comments on a book I'm reading (Billions of Missing Links) about problems with the theory of evolution. Lots of faith involved there too. :)
-
Beach Bum, about the "usefulness" of such debates, there is a point behind them.
As for your very last statement about "faith" being involved in evolution, no, you are wrong :)
-
Beach Bum, a quick Google search reveals that this book "Billions of Missing Links" is by the Discovery Institute, the leading Creationist propaganda front. These people can't get their pseudo-science published in any real scientific journals, so they publish it in these books hoping to mislead people...
If you really are genuinely interested in learning biology, there are many books out there that don't have an agenda in mind and will give you the truth!
-
Stella, you say the priests bought the field. That contradicts Acts! (See the first post.)
Which is it? Did the priests buy the field or did Judas?
MCWAY explained it, but maybe this will help you further (from lookinguntojesus.com)
Luke indicates that Judas purchased it, while Matthew reveals that the chief priests bought the field. This is not a contradiction, but a difference of perspective. Indeed, the chief priests conducted the transaction for the field, however, it was not with their money. Nor would they have claimed the money. In verse 6, the abominable nature of this money is spoken of. They would not permit it to be included in the treasury, and certainly did not take possession of it for themselves. It had to be disposed of in some fashion. Thus, they purchased the field with it. Was it their field? No, for it was not their money that purchased the field (nor did they want the money or the field). The field was purchased by means of Judas, thus it was his field.
There is no contradiction.
Now consider the part in italics. You cannot seriously believe that. He invents out of thin air the possibility of the branch snapping, and out of thinner air the possibility that, if the branch snaps, the impact of falling would make his bowels explode!!!
What was Judas's cause of death?
1. "He Hanged himself"
2. "he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out."
You can't die twice, so it has to be one or the other.
Matthew 27:5 "So Judas threw the money into the temple and left. Then he went away and hanged himself."
Acts 1:18 "With the reward he got for his wickedness, Judas bought a field; there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines
Is either scenario specifically stated as his cause of death? I don't see that as the case.
The death by hanging scenario and the body falling after and spilling it's guts is a possibility.
Ineptness in a hanging attempt and the Judas falling on something that made his guts spill out resulting in death seems to be a possibility too.
You wouldn't think that Acts 1:18 means he stubbed his toe on a rock while walking and fell so hard his guts spilled out? It seems he would have been in some scenario such as hanging from some type of height.
Seriously, do you have an open mind to these possibilities or are your alleged contradictions just an attempt to "pwn" someone? ;D
-
No, I do have an open mind, I really do.
It's just the mechanics of how hanging leads to your guts bursting out seem a bit improbable to me :)
I think what happens here is a different WAY of reading the texts. I read one text, read another, then compare. What you, loco, and McWay seem to do (in this thread and others) is the "Bulldozer approach," i.e., you "flatten" the texts all onto each other as if they were just one text, and try and fill in the gaps and connect the dots.
Thus, you ASSUME that there is no contradiction, and start from there. I start with the text and ask: "why do they say different things?"
-
No, I do have an open mind, I really do.
GReat!
No, I do have an open mind, I really do.
It's just the mechanics of how hanging leads to your guts bursting out seem a bit improbable to me :)
I didn't find it improbable because the texts don't negate each other.
Thus, you ASSUME that there is no contradiction, and start from there. I start with the text and ask: "why do they say different things?"
Fair enough. I think you've presented some interesting alleged contradictions at times that initially I also may ask: "Why do they say diff. things?" and it causes me to research and study. I appreciate that. I don't want to believe in things that are untrue or believe in the wrong God. But I've never been convinced that is the case. I believe wholeheartedly that the God of the Bible is real and true and being prompted to research and study more about HIm and His word has been a blessing and confirmation to me. Thank you :)
I think what happens here is a different WAY of reading the texts. I read one text, read another, then compare. What you, loco, and McWay seem to do (in this thread and others) is the "Bulldozer approach," i.e., you "flatten" the texts all onto each other as if they were just one text, and try and fill in the gaps and connect the dots.
I think you're right about a diff. WAY of reading the texts. We are reading from believer's perspectives and you from a perspective of unbelief. The fact that you are reading at all leads me to believe if you truly do have an open mind w/this stuff you are seeking God and he who seeks will find :D
-
lol! You had me on your side until that condescending last sentence! :)
I have read a good deal of fiction and mythology. When I read the Odyssey and Iliad, did that mean I have an open mind with regards to Zeus and Perseus? When I read Pride and Prejudice, did that mean I have an open mind about Mr Darcy and Miss Elizabeth Bennet? Should I label myself a Darcy-agnostic? It's fiction! Dickens, Old Testament, New Testament, Homer, etc.
I read the Bible from the perspective of "unbelief" as you say, just as I read all other mythology from a perspective of "unbelief."
For me, "belief" comes from reason and evidence, not faith.
-
lol! You had me on your side until that condescending last sentence! :)
??? I did not mean it to be condescending at all!! I'm sorry if it came off that way :(
I have read a good deal of fiction and mythology. When I read the Odyssey and Iliad, did that mean I have an open mind with regards to Zeus and Perseus? When I read Pride and Prejudice, did that mean I have an open mind about Mr Darcy and Miss Elizabeth Bennet? Should I label myself a Darcy-agnostic? It's fiction! Dickens, Old Testament, New Testament, Homer, etc.
But I don't think any of the above (save the OT and NT) are claiming to be the way to heaven?
-
??? I did not mean it to be condescending at all!! I'm sorry if it came off that way :(
But I don't think any of the above (save the OT and NT) are claiming to be the way to heaven?
A word of warning: don't get on Zeus' bad side. When He gets a bee in His bonnet about something, He is ruthless!!!
-
Beach Bum, about the "usefulness" of such debates, there is a point behind them.
As for your very last statement about "faith" being involved in evolution, no, you are wrong :)
I think I know what your point is.
I'm right. :)
-
Beach Bum, a quick Google search reveals that this book "Billions of Missing Links" is by the Discovery Institute, the leading Creationist propaganda front. These people can't get their pseudo-science published in any real scientific journals, so they publish it in these books hoping to mislead people...
If you really are genuinely interested in learning biology, there are many books out there that don't have an agenda in mind and will give you the truth!
[chuckle] The book "Billions of Missing Links" is by Geoffrey Simmons, M.D., a practicing physician. Do you often blatantly misstate facts? If you intended to say the book is written by someone affiliated with the Discovery Institute, you should have simply said so.
I have been taught the theory of evolution many times in geology (arguably the most boring class I've ever taken), biology, history, etc. classes.
I'm only on page 58 and it will take me a while to get through the book, but so far the subtitle is correct: "A Rational Look at the Mysteries Evolution Can't Explain."
And I find it comical that you are discrediting a book you haven't read. Didn't you once criticize people for doing just that? Sounds a little paranoid. Wouldn't want anyone to upset the apple cart, now would we? :)
-
Beach Bum, Geoffrey Simmons is a fellow of the Center for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute: http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=214&isFellow=true (http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=214&isFellow=true)
And here is their link to the book release party:
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=259&program=CSC&isEvent=true (http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=259&program=CSC&isEvent=true)
What facts did I blatantly misstate?
I accept your apology.
-
Beach Bum, Geoffrey Simmons is a fellow of the Center for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute: http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=214&isFellow=true (http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=214&isFellow=true)
And here is their link to the book release party:
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=259&program=CSC&isEvent=true (http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=259&program=CSC&isEvent=true)
What facts did I blatantly misstate?
I accept your apology.
You made the following comment:
Beach Bum, a quick Google search reveals that this book "Billions of Missing Links" is by the Discovery Institute . . . .
That is a blantant misstatement. The Discovery Institute is not the author of the book. Did you even look at the link you provided? The author is Dr. Geoffrey Simmons. I have the book right in front of me. lol. . . . . Here is a link to the book: http://www.amazon.com/Billions-Missing-Links-Mysteries-Evolution/dp/0736917462/ref=sr_1_1/102-7844925-4361751?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1194285231&sr=8-1
-
Yeah, oh my, what a blatant misstatement ;;)
It is a piece of creationist propaganda intended to debauch science and misinform the public. You might as well be reading books about "Flat Earth Geology" by the "Flat Earth Society"...
-
Yeah, oh my, what a blatant misstatement ;;)
It is a piece of creationist propaganda intended to debauch science and misinform the public. You might as well be reading books about "Flat Earth Geology" by the "Flat Earth Society"...
You disappoint me dude.
-
MCWAY explained it, but maybe this will help you further (from lookinguntojesus.com)
Luke indicates that Judas purchased it, while Matthew reveals that the chief priests bought the field. This is not a contradiction, but a difference of perspective. Indeed, the chief priests conducted the transaction for the field, however, it was not with their money. Nor would they have claimed the money. In verse 6, the abominable nature of this money is spoken of. They would not permit it to be included in the treasury, and certainly did not take possession of it for themselves. It had to be disposed of in some fashion. Thus, they purchased the field with it. Was it their field? No, for it was not their money that purchased the field (nor did they want the money or the field). The field was purchased by means of Judas, thus it was his field.
There is no contradiction.
Acts 1:18 "With the reward he got for his wickedness, Judas bought a field; there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out."
Judas did not buy the field. the Priests did.
Judas did not decide to buy the field. The Priest did.
Therefore the priests bought the field not Judas.
I see what you are getting at, but it's a incorrect statement or a contradiction. The field was bought with Judas's money but not with his decision. So to say Judas bought the field is incorrect. It's not a matter of perspective it's a matter of meaning.
If i, for example donated money for the specific purpose to buy a field then it might be said i bought the field even thought someone used my money to buy it, my money was given for that purpose. If i gave money to a chairty and they bought a bike, i did not buy that bike, the charity did.
However, Judas threw the money at the temple and then killed him self. he did not buy the field.
-
Beach Bum, Geoffrey Simmons is a fellow of the Center for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute:
So what? Must we disregard and ignore everything a brilliant scientist says only because he/she is a fellow of the Discovery Institute? Yeah, that's really smart. Let's do that, and we could potentially miss some great scientific advancements.
Jonathan Wells, author of "Icons of Evolution", is also a fellow of the Discovery Institute. He has a PhD in Molecular and Cell Biology and has published articles in peer-reviewed journals:
Inertial force as a possible factor in mitosis.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=3902112
Confocal microscopy analysis of living Xenopus eggs and the mechanism of cortical rotation.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=8620855
Microtubule-mediated transport of organelles and localization of -catenin to the future dorsal side of Xenopus eggs
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/94/4/1224
-
Jonathan Wells? Isn't he the moonie who admitted the only reason he got his PhD was because he wanted to debauch science?
-
I see what you are getting at, but it's a incorrect statement or a contradiction. The field was bought with Judas's money but not with his decision. So to say Judas bought the field is incorrect. It's not a matter of perspective it's a matter of meaning.
If i, for example donated money for the specific purpose to buy a field then it might be said i bought the field even thought someone used my money to buy it, my money was given for that purpose. If i gave money to a chairty and they bought a bike, i did not buy that bike, the charity did.
I see what you are trying to say here too OzmO, but I feel that it supports what I am saying!
Here's how I see my side in what you are saying:
Let's say Fred gives to several charities. One of them is to support the translation and distribution of bibles into native languages and lands. This charity does exactly what Fred intends to support and so Fred is "paying" in a sense for the translators to translate, the printers to print and the distributors to distribute.
Another charity Fred used to support has a ministry to assist ex-convicts in assimilating back into society, giving them a support systems, etc. hoping for a low recidivism rate among them. Fred gave them some money too. Let's say the pastor of this charity and his wife took part of Fred's money and and used it to pay for a motorcycle! Totally NOT what Fred was wanting, but in my mind Fred, in fact, bought (paid for) the motorcycle!
-
Jonathan Wells? Isn't he the moonie who admitted the only reason he got his PhD was because he wanted to debauch science?
I don't know. Did he really admit to that? If he really did, so what? Did he or did he not get his PhD? Can he not still contribute to science? Yes, he can.
-
I see what you are trying to say here too OzmO, but I feel that it supports what I am saying!
Here's how I see my side in what you are saying:
Let's say Fred gives to several charities. One of them is to support the translation and distribution of bibles into native languages and lands. This charity does exactly what Fred intends to support and so Fred is "paying" in a sense for the translators to translate, the printers to print and the distributors to distribute.
Another charity Fred used to support has a ministry to assist ex-convicts in assimilating back into society, giving them a support systems, etc. hoping for a low recidivism rate among them. Fred gave them some money too. Let's say the pastor of this charity and his wife took part of Fred's money and and used it to pay for a motorcycle! Totally NOT what Fred was wanting, but in my mind Fred, in fact, bought (paid for) the motorcycle!
At the very least, if you look at the way you do, the wording is still incorrect and leads the reader to believe otherwise if they are in fact reading it objectively.
Assuming this is the word of God, words from 1 source, he says:
"So Judas threw the money into the temple and left. Then he went away and hanged himself."
He didn't designate how the money is to be spent.
Even if he didn't and his money was used the "correct way to say it" would be:
Acts 1:18 "The money Judas gave was used to a buy a field; Where he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out."
But that's not how it's written.
It's even written as if, by looking at the sequence of events:
1. Bought the field with the money
2. Fell head long
3. Body burst head long
And what you and McWay are suggesting is that the field was purchased by the Priests in the temple after he died.
No of it jives. It's a plain contradiction even if you take into account the implied meaning of who bought the field.
Acts 1:18 "With the reward he got for his wickedness, Judas bought a field; there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out."
Besides that, this is supposed to be the "word of God" and the only one that seems to be directly true is the 10 commandments. And in those he's very direct. But all this is very indirect and open to too much interpretation. Not a very Godly thing to do, if in fact you want your followers to understand exactly what you are saying.
-
OzmO, the infected mind is such that no amount of reason will seep through. In fact, the believer takes pride in the fact that reason and logic cannot permeate their foggy faith.
For Stella and McWay, yes, Judas threw the money in the temple, yes, Judas bought the field with the money, yes, Judas hanged himself, and yes, Judas fell headlong and his body burst open and his intestines spilled out.
There is no contradiction because this is what the Bible says and the Bible doesn't contradict itself.
-
lolllllllll........ exactly
ramen to that brother
-
Same homos attacking the word.
Wheres the contradiction?He paid for the field by throwing the money.
And im amazed that someone would dispute whether someones guts would splatter or not after dropping off a cliff.
-
MCWAY explained it, but maybe this will help you further (from lookinguntojesus.com)
Luke indicates that Judas purchased it, while Matthew reveals that the chief priests bought the field. This is not a contradiction, but a difference of perspective. Indeed, the chief priests conducted the transaction for the field, however, it was not with their money. Nor would they have claimed the money. In verse 6, the abominable nature of this money is spoken of. They would not permit it to be included in the treasury, and certainly did not take possession of it for themselves. It had to be disposed of in some fashion. Thus, they purchased the field with it. Was it their field? No, for it was not their money that purchased the field (nor did they want the money or the field). The field was purchased by means of Judas, thus it was his field.
There is no contradiction.
Said another way, if Luke (or anyone else) consulted a record or deed to find out who the owner of that field was, that owner would be Judas Iscariot.
Judas did not buy the field. the Priests did.
Judas did not decide to buy the field. The Priest did.
Therefore the priests bought the field not Judas.
I see what you are getting at, but it's a incorrect statement or a contradiction. The field was bought with Judas's money but not with his decision. So to say Judas bought the field is incorrect. It's not a matter of perspective it's a matter of meaning.
If i, for example donated money for the specific purpose to buy a field then it might be said i bought the field even thought someone used my money to buy it, my money was given for that purpose. If i gave money to a chairty and they bought a bike, i did not buy that bike, the charity did.
However, Judas threw the money at the temple and then killed him self. he did not buy the field.
Your point from the charity analogy is well-taken. However, there's one major difference between that analogy and the situation with Judas. The key word is "give (gave, given, etc.)
In your analogy, if you give the money and the charity accepts the money; thus anything purchased with it, at that point, belongs to the charity.
However, as is stated in Matthew's gospel, the priese DID NOT accept Judas' silver, because it was blood money. You can't give someone something, unless that someone accepts it. The field was bought with Judas' money, procured by Judas' treachery of betraying Jesus.
If the priests could have legally and ritualistically taken that money, I'll go out on a limb and say that the last thing to be purchased would be an empty field to bury dead people. They did that, for the aforementioned reasons. It was blood money, paid to a traitor who admitted to shedding innocent blood. The priests could have nothing to do with that. And, that ancient society of Israel was cognizant of that fact. Therefore, the money (and anything subsequently purchased with such) belongs to that traitor, which is why Luke's stating that Judas bought that field is not contradictory to what Matthew stated. Matthew simply gives more details, concerning the issue.
-
Said another way, if Luke (or anyone else) consulted a record or deed to find out who the owner of that field was, that owner would be Judas Iscariot.
Your point from the charity analogy is well-taken. However, there's one major difference between that analogy and the situation with Judas. The key word is "give (gave, given, etc.)
In your analogy, if you give the money and the charity accepts the money; thus anything purchased with it, at that point, belongs to the charity.
However, as is stated in Matthew's gospel, the priese DID NOT accept Judas' silver, because it was blood money. You can't give someone something, unless that someone accepts it. The field was bought with Judas' money, procured by Judas' treachery of betraying Jesus.
If the priests could have legally and ritualistically taken that money, I'll go out on a limb and say that the last thing to be purchased would be an empty field to bury dead people. They did that, for the aforementioned reasons. It was blood money, paid to a traitor who admitted to shedding innocent blood. The priests could have nothing to do with that. And, that ancient society of Israel was cognizant of that fact. Therefore, the money (and anything subsequently purchased with such) belongs to that traitor, which is why Luke's stating that Judas bought that field is not contradictory to what Matthew stated. Matthew simply gives more details, concerning the issue.
good points MCWAY
-
good points MCWAY
I concur!
-
Said another way, if Luke (or anyone else) consulted a record or deed to find out who the owner of that field was, that owner would be Judas Iscariot.
Your point from the charity analogy is well-taken. However, there's one major difference between that analogy and the situation with Judas. The key word is "give (gave, given, etc.)
In your analogy, if you give the money and the charity accepts the money; thus anything purchased with it, at that point, belongs to the charity.
However, as is stated in Matthew's gospel, the priese DID NOT accept Judas' silver, because it was blood money. You can't give someone something, unless that someone accepts it. The field was bought with Judas' money, procured by Judas' treachery of betraying Jesus.
If the priests could have legally and ritualistically taken that money, I'll go out on a limb and say that the last thing to be purchased would be an empty field to bury dead people. They did that, for the aforementioned reasons. It was blood money, paid to a traitor who admitted to shedding innocent blood. The priests could have nothing to do with that. And, that ancient society of Israel was cognizant of that fact. Therefore, the money (and anything subsequently purchased with such) belongs to that traitor, which is why Luke's stating that Judas bought that field is not contradictory to what Matthew stated. Matthew simply gives more details, concerning the issue.
It still goes back to Judas not deciding to buy the field. Judas the threw the money at the temple. the priests don't accept the money but, in fact they accept making a decision with the money which means they accepted responsibility for it. They decided to buy the field, therefore they bought the field, not Judas.
They bought a field with Judas's money. In any analogy that's how it's described.
-
It still goes back to Judas not deciding to buy the field. Judas the threw the money at the temple. the priests don't accept the money but, in fact they accept making a decision with the money which means they accepted responsibility for it. They decided to buy the field, therefore they bought the field, not Judas.
They bought a field with Judas's money. In any analogy that's how it's described.
It doesn't matter who made the decision for Judas. Judas bought it.
-
It doesn't matter who made the decision for Judas. Judas bought it.
Yes it does, because by "throwing" the money at the temple he is releasing responsibility for it.
If i throw money at group of people and leave to go hang myself and those people take the money and buy a bottle of Jack Daniels did i buy the bottle or did they?
They bought the bottle.
The priests bought the field.
-
It doesn't matter who made the decision for Judas. Judas bought it.
Sorry, but as i re-read this sentence it becomes more absurd.
To buy something you must first make a decision........ It's impossible to buy something with out making a decision to do so. Judas never made the decision therefore he didn't buy it.
Sorry, loco, you are grasping.
-
Yes it does, because by "throwing" the money at the temple he is releasing responsibility for it.
If i throw money at group of people and leave to go hang myself and those people take the money and buy a bottle of Jack Daniels did i buy the bottle or did they?
They bought the bottle.
The priests bought the field.
Sorry, but as i re-read this sentence it becomes more absurd.
To buy something you must first make a decision........ It's impossible to buy something with out making a decision to do so. Judas never made the decision therefore he didn't buy it.
Sorry, loco, you are grasping.
I disagree, but thanks for sharing your opinion!
-
I disagree.
Why?
Explain how a person can buy something without making a decision to do so.
-
Why?
Explain how a person can buy something without making a decision to do so.
Simple, they took Judas' money and bought the field in Judas' name.
-
Again the scoffers have slithered out of their holes to mount an attack in futility against the most high! When will you demons learn that God’s word has stood the test of time? You will be worm food long before his word passes from this earth; it is from everlasting to everlasting!
Scoffers and men of vanity, do you know what the scripture says about you?
Romans 11:7-10
7 What then? What Israel sought so earnestly it did not obtain, but the elect did. The others were hardened, (OzmO, CD82 and the like)
8 as it is written: "God gave them a spirit of stupor, eyes so that they could not see and ears so that they could not hear, to this very day.”
9 And David says: "May their table become a snare and a trap, a stumbling block and a retribution for them.
10 May their eyes be darkened so they cannot see, and their backs be bent forever."
Thus saith the Lord!
HMIC
-
Simple, they took Judas' money and bought the field in Judas' name.
Then you said it your self: they took Judas' money and bought the field As you say, Judas did not buy the field.
Error in the bible. Contradiction of God's word. Hence the Bible is not 100% the Word of God.
-
Again the scoffers have slithered out of their holes to mount an attack in futility against the most high! When will you demons learn that God’s word has stood the test of time? You will be worm food long before his word passes from this earth; it is from everlasting to everlasting!
Scoffers and men of vanity, do you know what the scripture says about you?
Romans 11:7-10
7 What then? What Israel sought so earnestly it did not obtain, but the elect did. The others were hardened, (OzmO, CD82 and the like)
8 as it is written: "God gave them a spirit of stupor, eyes so that they could not see and ears so that they could not hear, to this very day.”
9 And David says: "May their table become a snare and a trap, a stumbling block and a retribution for them.
10 May their eyes be darkened so they cannot see, and their backs be bent forever."
Thus saith the Lord!
HMIC
Thump Thump ::)
-
Then you said it your self: they took Judas' money and bought the field As you say, Judas did not buy the field.
Error in the bible. Contradiction of God's word. Hence the Bible is not 100% the Word of God.
Really? No, these passages do not contradict, but rather compliment each other, giving us more details about Judas' death, the fate of his body and the fate of his money. I thank God for giving us both passages and not just one of the two.
Again, thanks for sharing your opinion!
-
Really? No, these passages do not contradict, but rather compliment each other, giving us more details about Judas' death, the fate of his body and the fate of his money.
They directly contradict. You just deny it even in the face of black and white evidence; even in the face of your own admission.
A contradiction cannot exist in any capacity blatant or otherwise if person is unwilling to release the self imposed hold on their own common sense.
-
They directly contradict. You just deny it even in the face of black and white evidence; even in the face of your own admission.
A contradiction cannot exist in any capacity blatant or otherwise if person is unwilling to release the self imposed hold on their own common sense.
There is NO contradiction here at all because both are true. A contradiction occurs when one statement excludes the possibility of another.
You deny this because your mind is already made up. You want to see contradictions, thus you see alledged contradictions because you want them to be there.
Nothing I say and no proof in the world will change your mind. You do NOT want the Bible to be 100% the God.
-
There is NO contradiction here at all because both are true. A contradiction occurs when one statement excludes the possibility of another.
You deny this because your mind is already made up. You want to see contradictions, thus you see alledged contradictions because you want them to be there.
Nothing I say and no proof in the world will change your mind. You do NOT want the Bible to be 100% the God.
You cannot throw you money at a temple and hang yourself in one instance and then buy a field with that money in another instance...... as per your definition you have a contradiction.
2 times now, by your own words you have defined a contradiction in the bible.
-
OzmO,
Not only are you in denial, you don't even know what a contradiction really is. Here is an good example of a contradiction
They directly contradict. You just deny it even in the face of black and white evidence; even in the face of your own admission.
So, according to you, I deny that they directly contradict, I admit that they directly contradict. Now, OzmO, you are contradicting yourself. ;D
-
Incidentally, loco, to go slightly off-topic, did you ever read the Gospel of Judas or watch the National Geographic documentary about it?
If so, what did you make of the different take on the story in it?
-
Nothing I say and no proof in the world will change your mind. You do NOT want the Bible to be 100% the God.
And why is this?
-
OzmO,
Not only are you in denial, you don't even know what a contradiction really is. Here is an good example of a contradiction
So, according to you, I deny that they directly contradict, I admit that they directly contradict. Now, OzmO, you are contradicting yourself. ;D
So you've gotten so desperate and have nothing to combat the assertion of this contradiction in the Bible you've resorted to finding fault in my sentence structure?
I'd expect better of you. Or maybe this is one of your silly ploys that you use to distract from the issue because you know exactly what i was getting at. What you try to do is force me to explain in detail what i meant when you know what i meant.
If you have the courage go back to the issue.
If not, I'll accept this latest post as an admission that those verses contradict each other.
-
Incidentally, loco, to go slightly off-topic, did you ever read the Gospel of Judas or watch the National Geographic documentary about it?
If so, what did you make of the different take on the story in it?
Wish I could give you an answer, but I have not read that Gospel or watched that documentary.
-
And why is this?
thump thump ::)
-
And why is this?
I dont' know. Ask OzmO. I think he likes extra-marital sex too much to abstain, and the Bible says it's a sin.
-
I dont' know. Ask OzmO. I think he likes extra-marital sex too much to abstain, and the Bible says it's a sin.
Boy, I'm getting more disappointed in you loco. Is the beginning of throwing stones?
-
I dont' know. Ask OzmO. I think he likes extra-marital sex too much to abstain, and the Bible says it's a sin.
Is this the issue OzmO; you have a problem with abstaining from diverse sins?
-
Is this the issue OzmO; you have a problem with abstaining from diverse sins?
Thump thump ::)
-
So you've gotten so desperate and have nothing to combat the assertion of this contradiction in the Bible you've resorted to finding fault in my sentence structure?
I'd expect better of you. Or maybe this is one of your silly ploys that you use to distract from the issue because you know exactly what i was getting at. What you try to do is force me to explain in detail what i meant when you know what i meant.
If you have the courage go back to the issue.
If not, I'll accept this latest post as an admission that those verses contradict each other.
OzmO, do you really think that repeating the same question over and over again will eventually get you a different answer? You got the answer from MCWAY, but you refuse to accept it.
And feel free to accept any of my posts as an admission of anything you'd like. See if I care. If you ever did get me to agree with you, it would just mean that we are both wrong. What I believe or what I say does not take away from the truth that there is no contradiction at all here and that the Bible is the word of God.
-
Try your best to distract from the issues boys.
But the fact remains: There are contradictions in the Bible and that in itself is proof that the Bible is not the 100% word of God.
It's not the end of the word boys, keep your chins up, it's only the end of your condemnation of others. hope you can recover. ;)
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Thump thump ::)
I am not well versed in internet lingo please explain this "Thump thump" in layman's terms for me.
HMIC
-
Boy, I'm getting more disappointed in you loco. Is the beginning of throwing stones?
Really? I guess I'll have to cry myself to sleep tonight. :'(
-
OzmO, do you really think that repeating the same question over and over again will eventually get you a different answer? You got the answer from MCWAY, but you refuse to accept it.
And feel free to accept any of my posts as an admission of anything you'd like. See if I care. If you ever did get me to agree with you, it would just mean that we are both wrong. What I believe or what I say does not take away from the truth that there is no contradiction at all here and that the Bible is the word of God.
Getting pissed loco? Looks like it.
BTW....2 + 2 does not equal 5, A wrong answer is a wrong answer. Accepting it has nothing to do with it.
The verses speak for themselves they what they are. A contradiction.
-
Getting pissed loco? Looks like it.
BTW....2 + 2 does not equal 5, A wrong answer is a wrong answer. Accepting it has nothing to do with it.
The verses speak for themselves they what they are. A contradiction.
Whatever you say, OzmO. ;D
-
I am not well versed in internet lingo please explain this "Thump thump" in layman's terms for me.
HMIC
Go back to some of your condemning posts, hold your bible and read them out loud and at the same time slap your palm on the front of the bible.
Hear the "thump"?
;) ;D
-
Really? I guess I'll have to cry myself to sleep tonight. :'(
Nah, you won't because you'll just pawn your actions as justified.
-
Whatever you say, OzmO. ;D
fight squiggle squirm............ it won't change a thing. The verses were written in error.
-
fight squiggle squirm............ it won't change a thing. The verses were written in error.
Because you say so, right?
-
Like i said guys, it's not a big deal. It changes the status of your or Christianity's exclusivity to entrance into heaven.
-
Because you say so, right?
Actually you are the one who said it. Of course, i agreed. ;) ;D
-
Actually you are the one who said it. Of course, i agreed. ;) ;D
Are you being sarcastic or are you really agreeing with me that there is absolutely no contradiction in these Bible verses?
-
Like i said guys, it's not a big deal. It changes the status of your or Christianity's exclusivity to entrance into heaven.
Neither we nor Christianity is exclusively the only way to gain entrance into heaven. Jesus is the only way.
-
Are you being sarcastic or are you really agreeing with me that there is absolutely no contradiction in these Bible verses?
2 times you supported my contention:
Simple, they took Judas' money and bought the field in Judas' name.
and
A contradiction occurs when one statement excludes the possibility of another.
The verses satisfy both statements you made.
-
Neither we nor Christianity is exclusively the only way to gain entrance into heaven. Jesus is the only way.
Correction:
It changes the status of your or Christianity's assumption of the need to accept Jesus as a exclusivity to entrance into heaven.
-
2 times you supported my contention:
and
The verses satisfy both statements you made.
If your "contention" is that there is no contradiction and that the Bible is 100% the word of God, then I support your "contention".
-
Correction:
It changes the status of your or Christianity's assumption of the need to accept Jesus as a exclusivity to entrance into heaven.
Is no assumption:
John 14:6
Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
John 6:28-29
Then they asked him, "What must we do to do the works God requires?" Jesus answered, "The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent."
John 3:16
For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
-
Is no assumption:
John 14:6
Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
John 6:28-29
Then they asked him, "What must we do to do the works God requires?" Jesus answered, "The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent."
John 3:16
For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
The fact the bible has errors puts the whole thing into question especially the many points of doctrine such as John 14:6
Heck, the letters Paul sent to the churches are all basically all doctrine.
-
If your "contention" is that there is no contradiction and that the Bible is 100% the word of God, then I support your "contention".
You don't get it do you? your own statements support my contention.
I get you don't agree.
-
The fact the bible has errors puts the whole thing into question especially the many points of doctrine such as John 14:6
So, you keep bringing up Jesus teaching the Golden Rule, Jesus teaching a "good message", etc. You believe that, but you don't believe John 14:6. How convenient. You just pick and choose out of the Bible what is true and that isn't at your convenience.
-
So, you keep bringing up Jesus teaching the Golden Rule, Jesus teaching a "good message", etc. You believe that, but you don't believe John 14:6. How convenient. You just pick and choose out of the Bible what is true and that isn't at your convenience.
The golden rule is something universal found in many many religions......John 14:6 is only found in one religion and is something that makes that religion exclusive to all others in regards to getting to heaven which makes it a religious DOCTRINE of man.
Can you comprehend the difference?
-
The golden rule is something universal found in many many religions......John 14:6 is only found in one religion and is something that makes that religion exclusive to all others in regards to getting to heaven which makes it a religious DOCTRINE of man.
Can you comprehend the difference?
So, you did not believe the Bible when it says that Jesus taught the Golden Rule until you learned that many many religions have the Golden rule too. Okay.
1. When did you learn that, who told you and please do list all the many many religions you talk about
2. So that is your criteria for conveniently picking and choosing out of the Bible what suits you, you must investigate those many many religions, and if they say it too, then it must be the word of God. Is that how it is with you? If so, then
3. List all the things in the Bible that appear in other religions, also listing the religion and the reference where this religion includes this same teaching.
-
So, you did not believe the Bible when it says that Jesus taught the Golden Rule until you learned that many many religions have the Golden rule too. Okay.
Monsterly wrong assumption.
no.
I did believe the bible in regard to the golden rule, and it was reinforced through other religions.
1. When did you learn that, who told you and please do list all the many many religions you talk about
I posted a link in this thread i think or the other one we've talking about. You can look it up.
I learned about the golden rule when i was 8 in Sunday School.
2. So that is your criteria for conveniently picking and choosing out of the Bible what suits you, you must investigate those many many religions, and if they say it too, then it must be the word of God. Is that how it is with you? If so, then
I explained my criteria in the other post. typically anything that hints or displayed exclusivity to the WOG or displayed social norms or condemnatioins of the times or is plain church doctrine is likely man made. Add in consistent actions opposite to moral teachings (like killing children or slaughtering 3000 men) That still leaves quite a lot in the Bible that may be the WOG and if you take some of those similarities you find in other religions you find a moral compass for living that's similar in those regards.
It's not exact, by no means, but some of it, like Killing a nation's children is more than obvious.
3. List all the things in the Bible that appear in other religions, also listing the religion and the reference where this religion includes this same teaching.
If you want to pay my salary for a year, I'd be happy to take on the challenge. Actually not, I enjoy my work.
-
Monsterly wrong assumption.
no.
I did believe the bible in regard to the golden rule, and it was reinforced through other religions.
I posted a link in this thread i think or the other one we've talking about. You can look it up.
I learned about the golden rule when i was 8 in Sunday School.
I explained my criteria in the other post. typically anything that hints or displayed exclusivity to the WOG or displayed social norms or condemnatioins of the times or is plain church doctrine is likely man made. Add in consistent actions opposite to moral teachings (like killing children or slaughtering 3000 men) That still leaves quite a lot in the Bible that may be the WOG and if you take some of those similarities you find in other religions you find a moral compass for living that's similar in those regards.
It's not exact, by no means, but some of it, like Killing a nation's children is more than obvious.
If you want to pay my salary for a year, I'd be happy to take on the challenge. Actually not, I enjoy my work.
No, I asked you why you believe what Jesus said in the Bible about the Golden Rule and not John 14:6, and you answered
The golden rule is something universal found in many many religions......John 14:6 is only found in one religion and is something that makes that religion exclusive to all others in regards to getting to heaven which makes it a religious DOCTRINE of man.
Can you comprehend the difference?
And this is only talking about the Golden Rule. We are not even talking about you bringing up Jesus' "good message". And you are telling me above that if it appears in many many other religions, then it is the word of God? Yeah, right.
You don't really have any criteria for picking and choosing what suits you out of the Bible. You are just making stuff up as you go. If not, why can't you answer my questions? You give me what, a website? If this is really your belief system, you wouldn't need a website to answer my question. You can't even name one of the many many religions you are referring to.
You ask me where I get my belief system from and I can simply tell you The Bible. I ask you the same question and you never have a clear answer, because it is obvious that you don't know yourself.
-
No, I asked you why you believe what Jesus said in the Bible about the Golden Rule and not John 14:6, and you answered
And this is only talking about the Golden Rule. We are not even talking about you bringing up Jesus' "good message". And you are telling me above that if it appears in many many other religions, then it is the word of God? Yeah, right.
You don't really have any criteria for picking and choosing what suits you out of the Bible. You are just making stuff up as you go. If not, why can't you answer my questions? You give me what, a website? If this is really your belief system, you wouldn't need a website to answer my question. You can't even name one of the many many religions you are referring to.
You ask me where I get my belief system from and I can simply tell you The Bible. I ask you the same question and you never have a clear answer, because it is obvious that you don't know yourself.
Do i have to dumb it down for you?
Or are you just pissed because a fallacy in the Bible was exposed and you can't even fix it with interpretation?
So now you are trying to attack how i believe things?
I answered your questions. Unlike yourself who pick and chooses which questions to answer.
If you take the time to read what I wrote you see my criteria.
I get you get your belief system is from the Bible. Well buddy it's flawed and much of it is man made.
-
Do i have to dumb it down for you?
Or are you just pissed because a fallacy in the Bible was exposed and you can't even fix it with interpretation?
So now you are trying to attack how i believe things?
I answered your questions. Unlike yourself who pick and chooses which questions to answer.
If you take the time to read what I wrote you see my criteria.
I get you get your belief system is from the Bible. Well buddy it's flawed and much of it is man made.
Really? You've persuaded me. I guess I'll have to join you in conveniently picking and choosing what suits me out of the many different religions out there.
-
Really? You've persuded me. I guess I'll have to join you in conveniently picking and choosing what suits me out of the many different religions out there.
It seems you think I'm trying to persuade you of something. You asked me the same question before. Is your memory having problems?
My answer was no.
Your sarcasm on the other hand is getting very entertaining.
Loco, i respect you, i think you are good guy and such. But you are sometimes very narrow minded.
All religions have truth in them. Some more then others, but no religion has complete truth. there's nothing that says you must follow one religion unless of course you subscribe to a particular religion that says so like Christianity.
-
It seems you think I'm trying to persuade you of something. You asked me the same question before. Is your memory having problems?
My answer was no.
Your sarcasm on the other hand is getting very entertaining.
Loco, i respect you, i think you are good guy and such. But you are sometimes very narrow minded.
All religions have truth in them. Some more then others, but no religion has complete truth. there's nothing that says you must follow one religion unless of course you subscribe to a particular religion that says so like Christianity.
Thanks, OzmO! I respect you too! But there is something, someone rather who says you must follow him. And that is Jesus. I believe in what he said in NT, and I see no evidence that suggests he didn't say it.
-
Thanks, OzmO! I respect you too! But there is something, someone rather who says you must follow him. And that is Jesus. I believe in what he said in NT, and I see no evidence that suggests he didn't say it.
Outside of the NT, is there any documentation that shows that Jesus lived?
I've been looking around for it, and I just can't find anything.
There are records of Mary and Joseph, but none of this Jesus guy... Can anyone point me in a direction?
-
Outside of the NT, is there any documentation that shows that Jesus lived?
I've been looking around for it, and I just can't find anything.
There are records of Mary and Joseph, but none of this Jesus guy... Can anyone point me in a direction?
Hey tu_holmes! Didn't you and I have a long discussion about this in the political board already?
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=133677.msg1905794#msg1905794
-
Hey tu_holmes! Didn't you and I have a long discussion about this in the political board already?
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=133677.msg1905794#msg1905794
Most likely... I'm still trying to get an answer... Damn these interwebs.
-
Outside of the NT, is there any documentation that shows that Jesus lived?
I've been looking around for it, and I just can't find anything.
There are records of Mary and Joseph, but none of this Jesus guy... Can anyone point me in a direction?
LOL! What cracks me up about these folk that ask questions such as this is, they are quick to believe other so called non-inspired writings such as, all the Gnostic writings (The Gospel of Truth, The Apocryphon of John, The Gospel of Thomas, The Treatise on Resurrection, etc.) that all mention Jesus.
They will debate vigorously that those writings should have been included in the Bible too! Those same folk turn right around and ask "did Jesus really exists?" "is there any evidence of his existence lol"? OMG!
Did anyone ever stop to think that maybe, just maybe when the Romans invaded and destroyed Jerusalem (did that really happen?) and most of Israel, slaughtering its inhabitants in 70 A.D. which also resulted in, entire cities being literally burned to the ground; much of the physical evidence pointing to Jesus' existence was probably destroyed. On top of that many of the eye-witnesses of Jesus were probably killed. This would likely have limited the amount of surviving eyewitnesses to the life and testimony of Jesus, right?
There is overwhelming evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ, both in secular and Biblical history. Maybe the greatest evidence that Jesus did exist is the fact that literally thousands of Christians in the first century A.D., including the 12 apostles, were willing to give their lives as martyrs for Jesus Christ.
Or do you deny that the disciples existed either? Which brings us back to the debate about the Gnostic writings! LOL!
P.S. I don't ever recall any of the Ceasars denying the existence of Jesus I may be wrong but I've been looking around for it, and I just can't find anything...Can anyone point me in a direction?
LOL!
HMIC
-
LOL! What cracks me up about these folk that ask questions such as this is, they are quick to believe other so called non-inspired writings such as, all the Gnostic writings (The Gospel of Truth, The Apocryphon of John, The Gospel of Thomas, The Treatise on Resurrection, etc.) that all mention Jesus.
They will debate vigorously that those writings should have been included in the Bible too! Those same folk turn right around and ask "did Jesus really exists?" "is there any evidence of his existence lol"? OMG!
Did anyone ever stop to think that maybe, just maybe when the Romans invaded and destroyed Jerusalem (did that really happen?) and most of Israel, slaughtering its inhabitants in 70 A.D. which also resulted in, entire cities being literally burned to the ground; much of the physical evidence pointing to Jesus' existence was probably destroyed. On top of that many of the eye-witnesses of Jesus were probably killed. This would likely have limited the amount of surviving eyewitnesses to the life and testimony of Jesus, right?
There is overwhelming evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ, both in secular and Biblical history. Maybe the greatest evidence that Jesus did exist is the fact that literally thousands of Christians in the first century A.D., including the 12 apostles, were willing to give their lives as martyrs for Jesus Christ.
Or do you deny that the disciples existed either? Which brings us back to the debate about the Gnostic writings! LOL!
P.S. I don't ever recall any of the Ceasars denying the existence of Jesus I may be wrong but I've been looking around for it, and I just can't find anything...Can anyone point me in a direction?
LOL!
HMIC
Still doesn't answer the question... Like my previous post states... There are records of Mary and Joseph... So if you want to talk about all of the destruction, wouldn't those get destroyed as well?
Oh right... It's all funny.
Continue to Laugh... I love how when people really have no answer... they do the whole LOL thing.
-
Still doesn't answer the question... Like my previous post states... There are records of Mary and Joseph... So if you want to talk about all of the destruction, wouldn't those get destroyed as well?
Oh right... It's all funny.
Continue to Laugh... I love how when people really have no answer... they do the whole LOL thing.
Maybe those weren't destroyed who knows? This is my question for you (since you don't know either way): If Jesus did exist what does that mean for you and If Jesus did not exist what does that mean for you?
I mean, why even debate peculiarity? Either you trust in the finished work on the cross or you don't! Which do you hold to?
There was a time in my life when I debated against Christ, creation, forgiveness of sins, eternity, the virgin birth, etc.! But when God saw fit to open my eyes and my heart he inclined my heart and drew me to him; of course not without resistance! It is as plain to me as the air I breathe, I can't see it but I know it's there and I know I can't live without it even when I try I need that air (Jesus) I need to take it (Him) in to live!
Don't let a few lost souls (I will not mention names) dissuade you in receiving what God has purposed for you! You see, God is a spirit and those that worship him must worship him in spirit and truth not flesh and evidence! Look pass your flesh and your emotions (what you feel) because they are; to say the least, notoriously unreliable and will lead you astray everytime (sin caused that)!
Talk to God, as him to reveal himself to you and don't stop ("pray without ceasing")!
HMIC
-
Maybe those weren't destroyed who knows? This is my question for you (since you don't know either way): If Jesus did exist what does that mean for you and If Jesus did not exist what does that mean for you?
I mean, why even debate peculiarity? Either you trust in the finished work on the cross or you don't! Which do you hold to
I don't think that's the point really... At least not to me... If you believe that Jesus existed, then you have a basis to believe other things that happened about his life... You have a starting point.
If he never existed, then the entire NT is a fabrication and Christianity crumbles.
Nothing more, nothing less... This question is really not about me... It's about the organized religion of Christianity... to me, that is.
-
I don't think that's the point really... At least not to me... If you believe that Jesus existed, then you have a basis to believe other things that happened about his life... You have a starting point.
If he never existed, then the entire NT is a fabrication and Christianity crumbles.
Nothing more, nothing less... This question is really not about me... It's about the organized religion of Christianity... to me, that is.
True that and more power to you = My hands washed and feet dusted!
-
I don't think that's the point really... At least not to me... If you believe that Jesus existed, then you have a basis to believe other things that happened about his life... You have a starting point.
If he never existed, then the entire NT is a fabrication and Christianity crumbles.
Nothing more, nothing less... This question is really not about me... It's about the organized religion of Christianity... to me, that is.
Seek and you shall find.
Ask and it will be given to you.
-
It still goes back to Judas not deciding to buy the field. Judas the threw the money at the temple. the priests don't accept the money but, in fact they accept making a decision with the money which means they accepted responsibility for it.
No, it doesn’t. Again, you can’t give anything to someone, unless he accepts it. Judas tried to give the money away, but the priests DIDN’T take it. Since the priests did not accept the loot and told Judas that they couldn’t, Judas still owned it and/or anything purchased with it.
Simply throwing the silver to the ground and leaving didn’t relieve him of responsibility or ownership. For all practical purposes, he let the priests spend the money on his behalf.
That's the point you keep ignoring. As Matthew points out, this was blood money. Taking such was an extremely serious offense in ancient Israel. It is for that very reason that the field gets purchased, the very same field in which Judas' corpse was rotting. Why else would that field have been procured, if the priests could have taken the money, themselves?
They decided to buy the field, therefore they bought the field, not Judas.
They bought a field with Judas's money. In any analogy that's how it's described.
In that ancient context, there is no difference between Judas buying the field himself and the priests doing so on his behalf, using his money (obtained by his treachery). It's called the "Field of Blood", because as Judas admitted, he betrayed innocent blood. All ownership in this matter goes to him.
Thus, there’s no contradiction with Luke’s account and that of Matthew. Matthew simply gives more insight.
Yes it does, because by "throwing" the money at the temple he is releasing responsibility for it.
No, he's not, especially when the priests tell him that they can't take the money.
If i throw money at group of people and leave to go hang myself and those people take the money and buy a bottle of Jack Daniels did i buy the bottle or did they?
They bought the bottle.
The priests bought the field.
If they tell you that they won't take responsibility for this money and will not be held liable for what happens, yet you throw the money at them, anyway...........YES, YOU DID BUY THE BOTTLE.
Judas accepted the fact that the priests couldn't accept his blood money. And, he threw the silver down, knowing that whatever was done or bought with it would be charged to him and done in his name. Therefore, Judas bought the "Field of Blood".
-
(...)
You see, God is a spirit and those that worship him must worship him in spirit and truth not flesh and evidence! (...)[/b]
HMIC
So would you agree that faith entails the suspension of reason?
-
You complained about Stella giving you a condescending remark, yet you go and refer to her (and me) as having an “infected mind”.
You aren’t looking for a reasonable explanation, as I stated on another thread. You are merely looking for a platform on which to complain about the Bible, for what reason I don’t really know.
There was nothing unreasonable about the answers, regarding this issue with Judas, just as there was nothing of the sort, regarding your earlier (and already-answered) question about Jesus going to Egypt.
And just as was the case then, using BOTH the accounts of Matthew and Luke give a clearer picture of what happened to Judas. He tried to give the money back; but the priests could not and would not take it. Knowing that, he still threw the money down, ran off and hung himself.Left to rot, his body eventually fell and splattered upon hitting the ground.
But, as I told Ozmo, Judas' tossing the blood money doesn't relieve him of ownership of it (or anything purchased with it). The priests couldn't leave the money laying in the temple. But, they couldn't accept it, either. So, they found the field and purchased it on Judas' behalf with Judas' money. He let the priests use his money to do that. From a ritualistic and legalistic standpoint, that was the same as Judas buying the field himself (as Luke stated in Acts).
-
So is that a yes or a no? 8)
Your explanation is not found in the book. It is from Christian apologetics. There are lots of Christian apologetics site on the web that propose just these answers that you can copy and paste in response to heathens like your humble servant :)
That is an view of evangelical Christianity that smashes all 4 four Gospels (and Acts sometimes) into one big gospel, so that they all make one big storyline. Earlier I called that the "bulldozer" approach. That way, you can explain away any discrepancy between the books. Problem with that is you lose the distinct 'flavor' of each book and each evangelist. Other protestants, Catholics, Orthodox etc may approach these questions differently.
As for "infected mind," the expression originates in the field of "memetics," (I won't go into that here, but google it if you're interested), for example this quotation:
The patient typically finds himself impelled by some deep, inner conviction that something is true, or right, or virtuous: a conviction that doesn't seem to owe anything to evidence or reason, but which, nevertheless, he feels as totally compelling and convincing. We doctors refer to such a belief as 'faith'. ~ Richard Dawkins
-
... or this one:
"The meme for blind faith secures its own perpetuation by the simple unconscious expedient of discouraging rational inquiry."
Richard Dawkins
-
But, as I told Ozmo, Judas' tossing the blood money doesn't relieve him of ownership of it (or anything purchased with it). The priests couldn't leave the money laying in the temple. But, they couldn't accept it, either. So, they found the field and purchased it on Judas' behalf with Judas' money. He let the priests use his money to do that. From a ritualistic and legalistic standpoint, that was the same as Judas buying the field himself (as Luke stated in Acts).
Oh yes it does. It releives him of the responsibility of how the money is spent. He did not make the decision. You can say the priest didn't accept the money all you want. It's not relevant whether or not they accepted because they DECIDED how to spend it. They made the decison to buy the field, hence they bought the field not Judas. They also could have left the money sitting right there. that was an option, however they chose to take the money! By doing that they took possession of it.
It's very black and white. Cut and dry.
If i give you $20 and hang myself and you take the $20 and decide how to spend it you take ownership of it whether you want to admit it or not and you ar the one who spent it and bought somethign with it. NO ONE ELSE.
It is a contradiction
It is an error
The bible is in error.
The bible is NOT the 100% word of God.
Plain and simple.
-
So would you agree that faith entails the suspension of reason?
No, having faith in God does not mean one has suspended their ability to reason! I am sure you exercise faith everyday in some form or fashion!
Hebrews 11:1 & 3
1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
3 By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible.
This faith that we have in God is biblical and you can only get this faith if God gives it to you as a gift.
Ephesians 2:8-9
8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God
9 not by works, so that no one can boast.
The Ephesians quote was to point out that the Christian faith should be exuded in all humility never in arrogance.
-
OzmO,
Then why did you say "impossible" if you are not even sure?
my god, are you suggesting that his body exploded when he fell from a tree, this is highly debatable and ridiculous in fact
-
my god, are you suggesting that his body exploded when he fell from a tree, this is highly debatable and ridiculous in fact
No. How did you get all that from me asking OzmO that question? ;D
OzmO first said that it was impossible, then he admitted to the possibility of it happening if Judas body was decomposing.
-
No. How did you get all that from me asking OzmO that question? ;D
OzmO first said that it was impossible, then he admitted to the possibility of it happening if Judas body was decomposing.
Re-read it again loco.
I said it was impossible based on the scenario of a dead body falling form a tree, then based on McVay's assertion that the dead body may have been bloated from hanging there for a period of weeks or days then it might be possible.
Please read carefully before you make assumptions
-
Re-read it again loco.
I said it was impossible based on the scenario of a dead body falling form a tree, then based on McVay's assertion that the dead body may have been bloated from hanging there for a period of weeks or days then it might be possible.
Please read carefully before you make assumptions
Isn't that what I said? Aren't we saying the same thing?
-
Isn't that what I said? Aren't we saying the same thing?
Yep, becuase i wasn't reading you last post carefully ;D
-
So would you agree that faith entails the suspension of reason?
obviously it does, it is irrational. but all anyone really has in matters of origin is faith.
however, its much more likely to suggest that natrual mechanisms explain it as they have explained everything so far, i dont see the need to abandon logic at the begginning and add a super omnipotent being.
if your making a positive statement about origins it is based on faith, withholding your position is the most logical choice.
-
Oh yes it does. It releives him of the responsibility of how the money is spent. He did not make the decision. You can say the priest didn't accept the money all you want. It's not relevant whether or not they accepted because they DECIDED how to spend it. They made the decison to buy the field, hence they bought the field not Judas. They also could have left the money sitting right there. that was an option, however they chose to take the money! By doing that they took possession of it.
Judas did make the decision, by casting the money down, after the priests clearly told him that they couldn't take it and would not be held responsible for it. Once again, it's blood money, a supremely serious offense in ancient Israel, one that Judas didn't shed, simply by tossing the silver. That money is ritually and legally unclean and it (and anything purchased with it) still belonged to Judas.
It's very black and white. Cut and dry.
If i give you $20 and hang myself and you take the $20 and decide how to spend it you take ownership of it whether you want to admit it or not and you ar the one who spent it and bought somethign with it. NO ONE ELSE.
It is a contradiction
It is an error
The bible is in error.
The bible is NOT the 100% word of God.
Plain and simple.
That's not blood money, now is it? Nor, do we have such a scenario like that in ancient Israel. Yet again, you ignore the seriousness of that issue to make your gripes about this being a contradiction. Based on how it was procured and the legal and ritualistic ramifications therein, the money (and anything subsequently purchased with it) still belonged to Judas.
-
So is that a yes or a no? 8)
Your explanation is not found in the book. It is from Christian apologetics. There are lots of Christian apologetics site on the web that propose just these answers that you can copy and paste in response to heathens like your humble servant :)
That is an view of evangelical Christianity that smashes all 4 four Gospels (and Acts sometimes) into one big gospel, so that they all make one big storyline. Earlier I called that the "bulldozer" approach. That way, you can explain away any discrepancy between the books. Problem with that is you lose the distinct 'flavor' of each book and each evangelist. Other protestants, Catholics, Orthodox etc may approach these questions differently.
That's hardly smashing or bulldozing. One minute you complain that certain accounts in Scripture come from just one account. Yet, when multiple accounts are used, you switch your complaints, because the sources don't say the exact same thing. Please make up your mind here.
Your claim of contradictions, no doubt, comes from skeptic websites. As I’ve often said, this claim isn’t new and neither is the rebuttal to it. But, the issue isn’t the use of websites (skeptic, apologetic, or otherwise).
Again, using both accounts from Luke and Matthew gives us the insight on what happened to Judas.
Therefore, your “which is it?” question has long been answered. There’s no “either/or” to it. The short answer would be: Judas hanged himself as described in Matthew; his corpse rotted, eventually fell, and splattered as described in Acts.
Put another way:
”Neither of these statements excludes the other. Matthew does not deny that Judas, after hanging himself, fell and burst asunder; Luke does not assert that Judas did not hang himself prior to his fall.”- J.W. Haley, author of the book, [Alleged Discrepancies in the Bible
What’s so unreasonable about that? The Biblical texts supports such a scenario (or at least, it doesn’t refute it, as stated above). Plus, if I’m not mistaken, Judas killed himself during the Passover and before the Sabbath. Exactly who was going to take his dead body down during that time? Plus, as the saying went, “Cursed is everyone who hangs from a tree!”
Given that and Judas’ treachery, leaving his body to simply rot (eventually falling and splattering) is hardly out of the realm of logic and reason, unless one has the old proverbial axe to grind with Scripture.
As for "infected mind," the expression originates in the field of "memetics," (I won't go into that here, but google it if you're interested), for example this quotation:
The patient typically finds himself impelled by some deep, inner conviction that something is true, or right, or virtuous: a conviction that doesn't seem to owe anything to evidence or reason, but which, nevertheless, he feels as totally compelling and convincing. We doctors refer to such a belief as 'faith'. ~ Richard Dawkins
Dawkins is way off the mark, here. It's not that conviction doesn't "owe anything to evidence or reason". Dawkins, like far too many non-believers, falsely think use of logic and reason will automatically lead to rejection of faith. When the opposite happens, Dawkins and crew don't want to play the "evidence and reason" game, anymore (Apparently, he forgets that there are Christians, who were once atheists, that became believers by examining some of the very issues being discussed on this forum).
"The meme for blind faith secures its own perpetuation by the simple unconscious expedient of discouraging rational inquiry."
Richard Dawkins
"The fool hath said in his heart, 'There is no God'". - David, king of Israel
-
Judas did make the decision, by casting the money down,
That is NOT making a decision to buy a field.
after the priests clearly told him that they couldn't take it and would not be held responsible for it.
What they "told" him makes no difference, what does make a difference is their "actions" and by their actions they took responsibility for it.
Don't you see how silly that sounds? You throw money at me and then go hang your self and I decide how that money is spent but yet i don't by that very action take responsibility for it? Today and 2000 years ago that would be viewed as taking responsibility for it. If what you say was correct it doesn't show in the intention of the writer. It shows a contradiction.
Once again, it's blood money, a supremely serious offense in ancient Israel, one that Judas didn't shed, simply by tossing the silver. That money is ritually and legally unclean and it (and anything purchased with it) still belonged to Judas.
No it doesn't, even if Judas was still alive when they purchased it. He released ownership of the money when he threw it and the priests assumed ownership whether they wanted to or not when they used it to buy a field. Blood money has nothing to do with it becuase it's blood money is simply a point of view as followers of jesus would see it as blood money, the present establishment wouldn't and even if they did, it doesn't matter.
That's not blood money, now is it? Nor, do we have such a scenario like that in ancient Israel. Yet again, you ignore the seriousness of that issue to make your gripes about this being a contradiction. Based on how it was procured and the legal and ritualistic ramifications therein, the money (and anything subsequently purchased with it) still belonged to Judas.
Seriousness of the issue? Any seriousness is implied by the person trying to interpret it to make it mean what they want it to mean. I'm simply taking the text it self, the plain meaning of both sentences. And these sentences clearly outline that the actually story has changed whether by accident or by just hearing to different stories and writing them down.
In any case it clearly shows that fact that the NT is not the 100% word of God but based partly on hear say.
-
That is NOT making a decision to buy a field.
It is when you do so, knowing that you will still be held responsible for whatever happens with your blood money.
What they "told" him makes no difference, what does make a difference is their "actions" and by their actions they took responsibility for it.
Their actions were due to the fact that (by law and ritual) they HAD TO get rid of it. They couldn’t keep it; nor could they keep anything purchased with it. And, few (if any) would take it, knowing how it was procured.
Don't you see how silly that sounds? You throw money at me and then go hang your self and I decide how that money is spent but yet i don't by that very action take responsibility for it? Today and 2000 years ago that would be viewed as taking responsibility for it. If what you say was correct it doesn't show in the intention of the writer. It shows a contradiction.
Once again, you ignore the ancient context and the issue, regarding blood money and the ritualistic stigma attached with it. We don't have this in our society. So, your attempts to make scenarios and compare it with that of Judas don’t work. Just because the concept of Judas' being held responsible for his blood money sounds "silly" to you doesn't mean that such was invalid, with regards to ancient Israel. The priests thought it anything but "silly". Otherwise, I’m sure they could think of a lot of things to do with that money besides buying a plot for dead people.
No it doesn't, even if Judas was still alive when they purchased it. He released ownership of the money when he threw it and the priests assumed ownership whether they wanted to or not when they used it to buy a field. Blood money has nothing to do with it becuase it's blood money is simply a point of view as followers of jesus would see it as blood money, the present establishment wouldn't and even if they did, it doesn't matter.
Blood money has everything to do with it, in that context (BTW, the priests were NOT followers of Jesus and they referred to it as blood money). Again, why would a field, used for burying dead people, be purchased, if the priests could accept the money? And, of all the fields, why is it that the one purchased just happened to be where the splattered corpse of the man, responsible for all of this, lied?
They had no choice but to get rid of it.
Seriousness of the issue? Any seriousness is implied by the person trying to interpret it to make it mean what they want it to mean. I'm simply taking the text it self, the plain meaning of both sentences. And these sentences clearly outline that the actually story has changed whether by accident or by just hearing to different stories and writing them down.
In any case it clearly shows that fact that the NT is not the 100% word of God but based partly on hear say.
No, the seriousness is defined by the context of the scenario and time period involved. Your not thinking it was serious has no bearing on the situation at that time.
The story hasn't changed one bit. Neither the account in Matthew nor the account in Acts conflicts with one another. That is why both can be used to give a more thorough account of what happened. Why skeptics have a problem with that is beyond me.
Judas tried to return the money; but, the priests didn’t take it (Matthew). In despair, he throws the money to the ground, runs off, and hangs himself (Matthew). Since it was during Passover and before the Sabbath (Matthew, Luke), nobody was going to touch him to take him down. His rotting corpse falls and splatters, with his bowels spilling over a field (Acts), which would become known as the “Field of Blood” (Matthew, Acts).
The priests had to get rid of the money, by law; but, they couldn’t keep it or anything bought with it. So, they meet and decide to get that field where Judas’ body is (Matthew). This is why Luke’s account states that Judas purchased that field (Acts). His treachery earned the “wages of iniquity”, used to get that field in his name.
There would be no “Field of Blood” had Judas not betrayed Jesus. So, crediting him with buying that field hardly constitutes a contradiction, especially in light of how the Israelites viewed money earned by shedding innocent blood, which Judas admits doing.
-
It is when you do so, knowing that you will still be held responsible for whatever happens with your blood money.
If i throw money at a temple it lands on the floor and i leave then a priest picks it up buys gun with it and shoots some one. Will the record show i bought the gun or will it show the priest bought the gun?
(BTW, the priests were NOT followers of Jesus and they referred to it as blood money).
No, correction, the writers of the account wrote it that way. We do not have an actual account from the priests themselves.
They had no choice but to get rid of it.
That doesn't matter what they had to do with it, the fact is they did do something with it. Key word: they (priests, not Judas)
No, the seriousness is defined by the context of the scenario and time period involved. Your not thinking it was serious has no bearing on the situation at that time.
You are thinking in the context of a Jesus supporter and how you view it. The people in general were not as they supported crucifying Jesus over that murderer. So in reality, the money is more like reward money. Not blood money.
Even then in all you say, and in all you argue, what was written in the 2 verses is an incorrect way to say it and is very very very ambiguous to the meaning you say it has and lends far more to the face value of the words use themselves instead of the implied meaning based on personal interpretation.
-
Judas did make the decision, by casting the money down, after the priests clearly told him that they couldn't take it and would not be held responsible for it. Once again, it's blood money, a supremely serious offense in ancient Israel, one that Judas didn't shed, simply by tossing the silver. That money is ritually and legally unclean and it (and anything purchased with it) still belonged to Judas.
That's not blood money, now is it? Nor, do we have such a scenario like that in ancient Israel. Yet again, you ignore the seriousness of that issue to make your gripes about this being a contradiction. Based on how it was procured and the legal and ritualistic ramifications therein, the money (and anything subsequently purchased with it) still belonged to Judas.
dude your not even making rational arguments, for example, if i through money at a hooker to buy food, and then blew my head off, but she used that money to buy a gun to assasinate the president, am i guilty of the assasination, if you think so then i would hope your not in the field of law. honestly, do you think this i correct? its not even rational. if youve ever given money to charity, and they used it to rape children did you willing pay to rape the children? obviously not, this isnt even debatable, your immune to reason.
what is with your christians, you hold on to the most irrational beleifs ive ever seen.
from this money tomfoolery to people exploding after fallin from trees ::)
-
they have no choice. they have to be irrational. TO admit to anything even super small takes away their exclusivity to the truth of salvation.
-
dude your not even making rational arguments, for example, if i through money at a hooker to buy food, and then blew my head off, but she used that money to buy a gun to assasinate the president, am i guilty of the assasination, if you think so then i would hope your not in the field of law. honestly, do you think this i correct? its not even rational.
usmoke, I think you took your analogy one step too far here re: the assasination part.
We gave money to a charity for one purpose and the Pastor and his wife used it for a trip to Israel instead and admitted it to us! Do we feel we paid for their trip to Israel? Damn right we do.
-
OzmO, do you have any problem when people talk about "the sun setting?"
-
OzmO, do you have any problem when people talk about "the sun setting?"
Stella I've been very clear about my contentions with the Bible and those who think it is the 100% WOG.
You yourself, interpret it to your likely as you and i talked about women wearing mens clothing and you said God was speaking to the Jews and not others so it doesn't apply to you.
-
usmoke, I think you took your analogy one step too far here re: the assasination part.
We gave money to a charity for one purpose and the Pastor and his wife used it for a trip to Israel instead and admitted it to us! Do we feel we paid for their trip to Israel? Damn right we do.
It was paid with your money, but who bought it? Who executed the action of buying it?
-
It was paid with your money, but who bought it? Who executed the action of buying it?
They physically enacted the exchange of (our) money for it. But we bought it.
I don't think I understand your answer to this question:
OzmO, do you have any problem when people talk about "the sun setting?"
Do you have a problem w/it or not?
-
usmoke, I think you took your analogy one step too far here re: the assasination part.
We gave money to a charity for one purpose and the Pastor and his wife used it for a trip to Israel instead and admitted it to us! Do we feel we paid for their trip to Israel? Damn right we do.
no its a bit hyperbolic but still correct. ok so i give money to a charity and they use it to buy weapons, would you say "i" bought the weapons? i think not.
intention has a huge part in this, you didnt pay for a trip, you intended to give money to charity, what they do with it does not reflect your initial purpose, hence you didnt pay for a trip. sure they can use the money for anything they want, so if they used it to buy chains to imprison people would you feel your part of a scheme to enslave people like you feel you paid for a trip? if not why? you cant have it both ways.
it doesnt even make sense what some of you guys are proposing, stella look at the verses, hanging versus bursting. its like saying died by stabbing or burning.
they mcway would come on and say "did it ever occur to you that people fall down when they burn? and could of fell on a sharp rock? this makes sense, yup, praise to jesus.
-
They physically enacted the exchange of (our) money for it. But we bought it.
No you didn't because without their action it wouldn't have been bought.
Hence they bought it with your money.
Do you have a problem w/it or not?
no.
-
no its a bit hyperbolic but still correct. ok so i give money to a charity and they use it to buy weapons, would you say "i" bought the weapons? i think not.
See, I can see your side as having merit but why can't you see my side as having merit?
Yes, I would still think "I" bought the weapons.
Let's say you gave to a charity that distributed bibles in different languages to people in their native lands. Were you able to help bless those people? Or did your assistance stop when you gave to the charity that distributes the bibles?
intention has a huge part in this, you didnt pay for a trip, you intended to give money to charity, what they do with it does not reflect your initial purpose, hence you didnt pay for a trip. sure they can use the money for anything they want, so if they used it to buy chains to imprison people would you feel your part of a scheme to enslave people like you feel you paid for a trip? if not why? you cant have it both ways.
Yes, I would feel that I bought the chains and that I assisted in them enslaving people :(
When you pay your taxes do you feel that you are helping to pay to have roads repaired etc?
it doesnt even make sense what some of you guys are proposing, stella look at the verses, hanging versus bursting. its like saying died by stabbing or burning.
But can you agree that hanging and bursting are not mutually exclusive? And neither states that was the cause of death.
Can you not stab and burn someone simultaneously?
they mcway would come on and say "did it ever occur to you that people fall down when they burn? and could of fell on a sharp rock? this makes sense, yup, praise to jesus.
lol! But it is possible no? YES!
-
No you didn't because without their action it wouldn't have been bought.
And without our action (giving them the money) it wouldn't have been bought.
no.
OK thanks OzmO. Why don't you have a problem w/people using the phrase "the sun setting?"
-
And without our action (giving them the money) it wouldn't have been bought.
yep
OK thanks OzmO. Why don't you have a problem w/people using the phrase "the sun setting?"
You typically don't put words in people's mouths and use debate tactics. So I'd appreciate if you just got to the point of your questions and i'd more than happy to amiably discuss it with you.
Oh and to answer your question: Because the sun does set.
-
yep
You typically don't put words in people's mouths and use debate tactics. So I'd appreciate if you just got to the point of your questions and i'd more than happy to amiably discuss it with you.
Oh and to answer your question: Because the sun does set.
OK my point is that the sun does not set. The earth moves. So by saying "the sun sets" is that a contradiction or is that just a way of speaking? I think everyone knows what it means and it's not a contradiction really unless you dissect it in ways that are not intended.
In my opinion it seems that the writers in Matthew and Acts are saying the same thing but in different ways. That's all.
.....and I don't see why you guys can't see our side of it as being a possibility. I think we can understand why you present your side as a possibility.
-
OK my point is that the sun does not set. The earth moves. So by saying "the sun sets" is that a contradiction or is that just a way of speaking? I think everyone knows what it means and it's not a contradiction really unless you dissect it in ways that are not intended.
In my opinion it seems that the writers in Matthew and Acts are saying the same thing but in different ways. That's all.
Very good point. But the sun does set on the horizon as it passes it. It's a figure of speech that doesn't change the action. A third party deciding the course of an object does change the action.
-
OK my point is that the sun does not set. The earth moves. So by saying "the sun sets" is that a contradiction or is that just a way of speaking? I think everyone knows what it means and it's not a contradiction really unless you dissect it in ways that are not intended.
In my opinion it seems that the writers in Matthew and Acts are saying the same thing but in different ways. That's all.
.....and I don't see why you guys can't see our side of it as being a possibility. I think we can understand why you present your side as a possibility.
Besides all of that Stella, we are talking about the WOG not the word of man which is what you describe.
-
Besides all of that Stella, we are talking about the WOG not the word of man which is what you describe.
The word of God has figures of speech in it. Why wouldn't it?
-
The word of God has figures of speech in it. Why wouldn't it?
Because like in this instance, the meaning can become contradictory.
-
Here is what Papias, an early Christian writer, said about the death of Judas:
"Judas was a terrible, walking example of ungodliness in this world, his flesh was bloated. For his eyelids:were so swollen that he could not see the light at all, and his eyes could not be seen:so far had they sunk below the outer surface. When he relieved himself there passed through it pus and worms from every part of his body, much to his shame. After much agony and punishment:he finally died in his own place. And because of the stench the area is deserted and uninhabitable even now; in fact, to this day no one can pass that place unless they hold their nose, so great was the discharge from his body and so far did it spread over the ground."
He seems to echo Acts 1:18, with a bit of exaggeration.
-
Here is what Papias, an early Christian writer, said about the death of Judas:
"Judas was a terrible, walking example of ungodliness in this world, his flesh was bloated. For his eyelids:were so swollen that he could not see the light at all, and his eyes could not be seen:so far had they sunk below the outer surface. When he relieved himself there passed through it pus and worms from every part of his body, much to his shame. After much agony and punishment:he finally died in his own place. And because of the stench the area is deserted and uninhabitable even now; in fact, to this day no one can pass that place unless they hold their nose, so great was the discharge from his body and so far did it spread over the ground."
He seems to echo Acts 1:18, with a bit of exaggeration.
So here we have an account of Judas "walking" with his flesh bloated and not dead and decomposing.
-
If i throw money at a temple it lands on the floor and i leave then a priest picks it up buys gun with it and shoots some one. Will the record show i
bought the gun or will it show the priest bought the gun?
Why you insist on ignoring the aspect of ritual uncleanness, regarding this blood money issue, I'd love to know. Doing so, however, doesn't change the fact that such was a serious matter.
No, correction, the writers of the account wrote it that way. We do not have an actual account from the priests themselves.
So, you're ok with Judas throwing down the money; but now, you have a problem with the priests (who weren't followers of Jesus) calling it blood money? I see why Loco claims you pick and choose your spots on what you believe.
That doesn't matter what they had to do with it, the fact is they did do something with it. Key word: they (priests, not Judas)
No one's denying what the priests did. What you fail (or refuse) to grasp is that, by law and ritual, they could not keep the money or anything bought with it. Again, why else would they use the money on a field with the traitor's body on it? Because it was blood money, the perpetrator (Judas) was still liable for it. That's why Luke's statement that Judas bought the field is accurate.
You are thinking in the context of a Jesus supporter and how you view it. The people in general were not as they supported crucifying Jesus over that murderer. So in reality, the money is more like reward money. Not blood money.
No, I am thinking in the context of how the ancient Jews dealt with ritual uncleanness and blood money. That mob of people was not fully representative of all the Israelites. Furthermore, you forget the minor fact that Judas CONFESSED to betraying innocent blood. Thus, as Luke describes it, that money was the wages of iniquity. And, the priests told him that they wouldn't accept his loot, when he tried to give it to them. If Judas didn't already know beforehand that he'd still be responsible for it, the priests inform him of that.
Even then in all you say, and in all you argue, what was written in the 2 verses is an incorrect way to say it and is very very very ambiguous to the meaning you say it has and lends far more to the face value of the words use themselves instead of the implied meaning based on personal interpretation.
Incorrect, based on what? We know the ancient context in which it was written, which you refuse to take into account, Judas is still liable for that blood money or anything bought with it. Throwing the money away doesn't shed that stigma. So, Luke's stating that Judas bought the field is not a contradiction with Matthew's account. Again, Judas' treachery produced Judas' blood money, used to buy a field on his behalf by priests (who, by law, could not assume legal possession of the money or property bought with such), in which his dead body lay.
[/quote]
-
Why you insist on ignoring the aspect of ritual uncleanness, regarding this blood money issue, I'd love to know. Doing so, however, doesn't change the fact that such was a serious matter.
It was serious matter to those who believed Jesus was the son of God. But the vast majority didn't.
So, you're ok with Judas throwing down the money; but now, you have a problem with the priests (who weren't followers of Jesus) calling it blood money? I see why Loco claims you pick and choose your spots on what you believe.
No, i'm using logic and common sense. That's what loco and now you call picking and choosing. Use your head McWay, we don;t have the priests account, what we do have is a follower's account. Why is it a logical distinction such as that is always labeled as something with tainted intentions by you guys? Use your heads.
No one's denying what the priests did. What you fail (or refuse) to grasp is that, by law and ritual, they could not keep the money or anything bought with it. Again, why else would they use the money on a field with the traitor's body on it? Because it was blood money, the perpetrator (Judas) was still liable for it. That's why Luke's statement that Judas bought the field is accurate.
They did not keep the field and they did not keep the money. I agree and get that. do i need to say it another 10 times so that you get i get it?
But they DID buy the field and not Judas.
No, I am thinking in the context of how the ancient Jews dealt with ritual uncleanness and blood money. That mob of people was not fully representative of all the Israelites. Furthermore, you forget the minor fact that Judas CONFESSED to betraying innocent blood. Thus, as Luke describes it, that money was the wages of iniquity. And, the priests told him that they wouldn't accept his loot, when he tried to give it to them. If Judas didn't already know beforehand that he'd still be responsible for it, the priests inform him of that.
All of which still doesn't matter, as Judas still did not decide to buy the field, the priest did. And the mob of people was representative of the ratio of followers to those who did not recognize Jesus as the son fo God and therefore Judas's actions viewed by the writers of the gophels of course would insinuate blood money, but as you know we don't any accounts outside of it that would have surely seen it quite differently and even with all of that it still as i said does not matter. You can call it blood money all you want. Judas did not decide to buy the field. The priest did. Hence the priest bought the field.
Incorrect, based on what? We know the ancient context in which it was written, which you refuse to take into account, Judas is still liable for that blood money or anything bought with it. Throwing the money away doesn't shed that stigma. So, Luke's stating that Judas bought the field is not a contradiction with Matthew's account. Again, Judas' treachery produced Judas' blood money, used to buy a field on his behalf by priests (who, by law, could not assume legal possession of the money or property bought with such), in which his dead body lay.
You got it switched around and have added to it. The money was used to by a field by the priests in Judas's name.