Scripture and Internal Consistency

[sub_zer0]

Allow me to state my stance, in case you didn't know it already. ;p

Reliability of the Bible:
1.) The Bible is 98½ percent textually pure. Through all the copying of the copies of the Biblical manuscripts of the entire Bible, only 1½% has any question about it. Nothing in all of the ancient writings of the entire world approaches the accuracy of the biblical documents.

2.) The 1½ percent that is in question does not affect doctrine. The areas of interest are called variants and they consist mainly in variations of wording and spelling.

So, having said that, perhaps I am wrong. If I am there should be easily recognizable contradictions within the Scriptures in regards to themselves, as in the OT and the NT contrardicting eachother, or the Bible contradicting historical, or other elements of todays society we use to verify things.

Specifically I am looking for the contradictions to fall under these criteria that is in the form of questions:

Does the OT contradict the NT and/or vice versa? If so, present both scriptures and say why.

Does a specific passage contradict with anything else in the Bible? If so, how and why?

Does a specific passage contradict with what Jesus said or taught?

[Izdaari]

You'll get no disagreement from me. I think some of today's translations are arguably at variance with the original manuscripts, and that on certain points it does affect doctrine, but I agree about the reliability of the original manuscripts.

A fairly well known example of a translation error that affects doctrine: In the Ten Commandments, KJV: "Thou shalt not kill." The Hebrew word used is more properly translated as "murder", so the verse should read "Thou shalt not murder." And, unlike the "kill" rendering, "Thou shalt not murder" is consistant with the Hebrew culture of the time, which accepted killing in self-defense, in lawful executions and in war. In that context, "Thou shalt not kill" makes no sense. That's no small distinction. That translation failure has led to the popularity of pacifism as a Christian heresy.

[sub_zer0]

You'll get no disagreement from me. I think some of today's translations are arguably at variance with the original manuscripts, and that on certain points it does affect doctrine, but I agree about the reliability of the original manuscripts.

A fairly well known example of a translation error that affects doctrine: In the Ten Commandments, KJV: "Thou shalt not kill." The Hebrew word used is more properly translated as "murder", so the verse should read "Thou shalt not murder." And, unlike the "kill" rendering, "Thou shalt not murder" is consistant with the Hebrew culture of the time, which accepted killing in self-defense, in lawful executions and in war. In that context, "Thou shalt not kill" makes no sense. That's no small distinction. That translation failure has led to the popularity of pacifism as a Christian heresy.

Indeed, but my points are based upon todays availability of the manuscripts, thus making the change of "kill" from the english KJV translation and "murder" from a literal translation from Hebrew noticeable and able to be applied properly.

[Izdaari]

Indeed, but my points are based upon todays availability of the manuscripts, thus making the change of "kill" from the english KJV translation and "murder" from a literal translation from Hebrew noticeable and able to be applied properly.Right. Then we are in full agreement. :)

[brainpan]

Does a specific passage contradict with anything else in the Bible? If so, how and why?You betcha'. Go have another look-see at Squirrel's Bible Quiz.

[sub_zer0]

You betcha'. Go have another look-see at Squirrel's Bible Quiz.

The Squrrel's Bible Quiz does nothing to show how there are contradictions within Scripture.

[Dangerrmouse]

How can Joseph be Jesus' blood relative when God cuckolded him?

[sub_zer0]

How can Joseph be Jesus' blood relative when God cuckolded him?

Nobody ever said Joesph was a blood relative. Have you even been reading the debate here?

Joseph is the LEGAL father of Jesus.

[Dangerrmouse]

Then David's bloodline did not reach Jesus, as prophesied.

[sub_zer0]

Then David's bloodline did not reach Jesus, as prophesied.

Wrong, it can be through tracing Jesus' legal lineage through Joseph and His blood lineage through Mary.

[Dangerrmouse]

Where does the prophecy mention quasi-legalistic loopholes?
God promised David “I will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom.”
The text specifies joseph, and male lineage is all that counted in that society.

[Meek Heir]

Where does the prophecy mention quasi-legalistic loopholes?

God. The first Lawyer.

[Dangerrmouse]

Come to think about it, they had a pretty shaky grasp of the reproductive process back then...seed proceeding from the bowels? eeew!

[sub_zer0]

Where does the prophecy mention quasi-legalistic loopholes?

Where does it mention that you can't claim legal father status and then have that in a lineage?

God promised David “I will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom.”
The text specifies joseph, and male lineage is all that counted in that society.

This could very well be referencing Solomon but the more prophetic reference very well could be Jesus. And yes, the text specifies that the male lineage is all that counted, what is your point?

12"When your days are complete and you lie down with your fathers, I will raise up your descendant after you, who will come forth from you, and I will establish his kingdom."

[brainpan]

The Squrrel's Bible Quiz does nothing to show how there are contradictions within Scripture.Gotcha'. You're good with Jesus being born on different dates. No contradiction there, he musta' just crawled back into the womb so he could enjoy additional grand entrances! :lol: :sorry:

[Dangerrmouse]

[QUOTE=sub_zer0]Where does it mention that you can't claim legal father status and then have that in a lineage?

I realise your fondness for the absence of evidence being proof, but this is just silly, the more so when you go on...


And yes, the text specifies that the male lineage is all that counted, what is your point?

QUOTE]

That is my point. The male lineage is all important, but Jesus' biblical progenitor is not of the house of David (ie Joseph).

[neo of the mind]

Birthright and inheritance is transfered to the female line when there is no male line to transfer to. So, to say that the male line is the only one that counted is wrong. Please dispute this so I can bust a scripture cap in you backside! LOL.

[brainpan]

How did Judas die?

[neo of the mind]

How did Judas die?

So, your conceding the lineage issue and going to another topic that is "another" apparent contradiction in your mind?

[FlyingGuineapig]

Birthright and inheritance is transfered to the female line when there is no male line to transfer to. So, to say that the male line is the only one that counted is wrong. Please dispute this so I can bust a scripture cap in you backside! LOL.
Are you sure about "birthright"? Numbers talks about property and inheritence - I don't recall the words "birthright" being stated. If you're going to be literal about it, of course :) .

[neo of the mind]

Are you sure about "birthright"? Numbers talks about property and inheritence - I don't recall the words "birthright" being stated. If you're going to be literal about it, of course :) .

Your correct, birthright is not exactly the correct term but inheritence is. I would think that the oldest daughter could rightfully make an argument for that case with her sisters. Doesn't state that she did that I am aware of. But it does show "legal" precedance that the inheritance and property and everything that entails is passed from the male line to the female line when needed.

Num 27:1-11
27:1 Then came the daughters of Zelophehad, the son of Hepher, the son of Gilead, the son of Machir, the son of Manasseh, of the families of Manasseh the son of Joseph: and these are the names of his daughters ; Mahlah, Noah, and Hoglah, and Milcah, and Tirzah.

2 And they stood before Moses, and before Eleazar the priest, and before the princes and all the congregation, by the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, saying,

3 Our father died in the wilderness, and he was not in the company of them that gathered themselves together against the LORD in the company of Korah; but died in his own sin, and had no sons.

4 Why should the name of our father be done away from among his family, because he hath no son? Give unto us therefore a possession among the brethren of our father.
5 And Moses brought their cause before the LORD.

6 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,

7 The daughters of Zelophehad speak right: thou shalt surely give them a possession of an inheritance among their father's brethren; and thou shalt cause the inheritance of their father to pass unto them.

8 And thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a man die, and have no son, then ye shall cause his inheritance to pass unto his daughter.

9 And if he have no daughter, then ye shall give his inheritance unto his brethren.

10 And if he have no brethren, then ye shall give his inheritance unto his father's brethren.

11 And if his father have no brethren, then ye shall give his inheritance unto his kinsman that is next to him of his family, and he shall possess it: and it shall be unto the children of Israel a statute of judgment, as the LORD commanded Moses.
KJV

[FlyingGuineapig]

Yeah, Numbers 27:4 is kind of interesting in terms of the phrase "name of our father". I'll have to re-read that phrase in the Books of Moses to see what it's got to say about the original Hebrew.

One interesting implication of using "birthright" is that it would allow for female priests in the Old Testament- and I don't recall that (but my Bible scholarship is a bit rusty).

[Dangerrmouse]

Birthright and inheritance is transfered to the female line when there is no male line to transfer to. So, to say that the male line is the only one that counted is wrong. Please dispute this so I can bust a scripture cap in you backside! LOL.

This irrelevant diversion ignores the fact that sub has already conceded that the text specifies the MALE lineage. Providing a copy of the exception which proves that rule is specious argument at best.

[neo of the mind]

This irrelevant diversion ignores the fact that sub has already conceded that the text specifies the MALE lineage. Providing a copy of the exception which proves that rule is specious argument at best.


It's not a "irrelevant diversion" by any means. I know there is some other scripture to show that inheritance can even be transferred from one male to another male not related and I'll suply that later. That being said, what do you think the term "Father -in- Law" means? When you marry into a family the husband becomes a "son" in a lot of respects to the wife's husband.

[Dangerrmouse]

It's not a "irrelevant diversion" by any means. I know there is some other scripture to show that inheritance can even be transferred from one male to another male not related and I'll suply that later. That being said, what do you think the term "Father -in- Law" means? When you marry into a family the husband becomes a "son" in a lot of respects to the wife's husband.

There is little point in "debating" with someone who cannot differentiate between genetics and inheritance. How does Joseph pass on David's genes to Jesus? He doesn't.

[sub_zer0]

There is little point in "debating" with someone who cannot differentiate between genetics and inheritance. How does Joseph pass on David's genes to Jesus? He doesn't.

But he does legally... Jesus' heritage can be traced back legally.

[neo of the mind]

There is little point in "debating" with someone who cannot differentiate between genetics and inheritance. How does Joseph pass on David's genes to Jesus? He doesn't.


He doesn't HAVE to. Nobody said he did, your the only one that thinks that. The genes from DAVID were passed on from MARY. Why is this such a hard concept for you?

[Dangerrmouse]

Why create a complex lineage from David to Joseph, if not to "prove" the connection?

[neo of the mind]

There is a connection, you just insist that it has to be a blood connection, when the blood connection is only through Mary.

Here is one example of an heir going to a male that is not blood.

Gen 15:2-3

2 And Abram said, Lord GOD, what wilt thou give me, seeing I go childless, and the steward of my house is this Eliezer of Damascus?

3 And Abram said, Behold, to me thou hast given no seed: and, lo, one born in my house is mine heir.
KJV

[brainpan]

So, your conceding the lineage issue and going to another topic that is "another" apparent contradiction in your mind?I didn't initiate a discussion on the "lineage issue," or even address it. So again, how did Judas die?

[sub_zer0]

I didn't initiate a discussion on the "lineage issue," or even address it. So again, how did Judas die?

Judas died by hanging himself.

[neo of the mind]

You right, you didn't. I'll chalk it up to the fact that you guys are trying to show a contradiction in the Bible. You guys have failed to find one with Jesus's lineage so now your going to go down to the next one on the list.

Here is a website to save you the time of finding new "contradictions" to literally throw up for discussion.

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/index.htm

It also contains the apologetics and the childish responses from non believers, so save us all some time and read these, then come up with something new to add to the attempts to discredit the Bible.

[sub_zer0]

You right, you didn't. I'll chalk it up to the fact that you guys are trying to show a contradiction in the Bible. You guys have failed to find one with Jesus's lineage so now your going to go down to the next one on the list.

Here is a website to save you the time of finding new "contradictions" to literaly throw up for discussion.

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/index.htm

BTW, the SAB has been debunked...

[neo of the mind]

BTW, the SAB has been debunked...

That won't stop anybody. LOL.

Here is another time saver.

http://www.tektonics.org/index2.html

[brainpan]

Judas died by hanging himself.That's right. He also died by falling headlong and bursting open.

[brainpan]

You right, you didn't. I'll chalk it up to the fact that you guys are trying to show a contradiction in the Bible.This thread was dedicated to a supposed "consistency" in the Bible that I don't believe exists. I am simply expaining why. That's not fair?
You guys have failed to find one with Jesus's lineage so now your going to go down to the next one on the list.I'm not interested in the question of lineage, I haven't even followed the discussion on that subject. I have wondered, for quite some time, about many Bible contradictions, including the different accounts of Judas' death. I apologize that my interest does not precisely mirror Dangermouse's on every subject.
Here is a website to save you the time of finding new "contradictions" to literally throw up for discussion.Never heard of it. I prefer to work from memory, but thanks for your help just the same.
It also contains the apologetics and the childish responses from non believers...I would suggest you take your beef to the owners of the skeptic site. I have no interest in either defending or condemning their efforts.

[sub_zer0]

That's right. He also died by falling headlong and bursting open.

I know what you are getting at brainpan... Allow me to quote Hard Sayings of the Bible by Peter H. Davids, Ph.D.:

"Matthew points out that it was a guilt-motivated suicide, accomplished by the most common means, hanging. Suicide in Jewish literature is most often connected to shame or failure. (So 2 Sam 17:23; compare the other accounts of suicide in Old Testament history, which were normally to avoid a more shameful death.) However, since suicide by hanging was usually accomplished (at least by poorer people) by jumping out of a tree with a rope around one’s neck, it was not unusual (nor is it uncommon in India today) for the body to be ripped open in the process. I hesitate to say that this was exactly what happened, but it is certainly a plausible explanation."

The point is, it isn't a contradiction in Scripture, but exactly the example I am talking about, thank you for that.

[brainpan]

The point is, it isn't a contradiction in Scripture, but exactly the example I am talking about, thank you for that.It wasn't really you who did the talking, and your source, Dr. Davids, doesn't share your confidence in the explanation. He describes his hypothetical as merely plausible, but the evidence which guides his opinion is sketchy, at best, on at least two important points:

1. I seriously doubt that hanging commonly results in disembowelment.
2. There is nothing in the Biblical passage that should lead us to an explanation that involves hanging in the first place.

Finally, we have both the priests and Judas himself using the 30 pieces of silver to purchase the Field of Blood.

[neo of the mind]

It wasn't really you who did the talking, and your source, Dr. Davids, doesn't share your confidence in the explanation. He describes his hypothetical as merely plausible, but the evidence which guides his opinion is sketchy, at best, on at least two important points:

1. I seriously doubt that hanging commonly results in disembowelment.
2. There is nothing in the Biblical passage that should lead us to an explanation that involves hanging in the first place.

Finally, we have both the priests and Judas himself using the 30 pieces of silver to purchase the Field of Blood.

didn't see this coming... :rolleyes:
How about the rope broke and he landed on something that cut is mid section open?

How about there was actually two different fields?

[Dangerrmouse]

There is a connection, you just insist that it has to be a blood connection, when the blood connection is only through Mary.

Here is one example of an heir going to a male that is not blood.

Gen 15:2-3

2 And Abram said, Lord GOD, what wilt thou give me, seeing I go childless, and the steward of my house is this Eliezer of Damascus?

3 And Abram said, Behold, to me thou hast given no seed: and, lo, one born in my house is mine heir.
KJV

Smoke and mirrors. Show me the prophecy that says the messiah will gain his bloodline through his mother.

[brainpan]

How about the rope broke and he landed on something that cut is mid section open?Sure. Why not? Why rely upon actual Biblical text when you can persue baseless conjecture instead?
How about there was actually two different fields?That's desperate. Now you want there to be two Fields of Blood that were both purchased with the same thirty pieces of silver. All of that made even more absurd by the observation that Judas threw the pieces of silver to the priests and hung himself in Matthew. Somehow, he must have retreived his tainted lucre in Acts and used it to purchase yet another Field of Blood!

[FlyingGuineapig]

Sure. Why not? Why rely upon actual Biblical text when you can persue baseless conjecture instead?
That's desperate. Now you want there to be two Fields of Blood that were both purchased with the same thirty pieces of silver. All of that made even more absurd by the observation that Judas threw the pieces of silver to the priests and hung himself in Matthew. Somehow, he must have retreived his tainted lucre in Acts and used it to purchase yet another Field of Blood!
Maybe he came back as a zombie. That would explain why he'd want to buy a place known as a "Field of Blood". I bet a "Field of Brains" would have sold even faster. :)

[neo of the mind]

Smoke and mirrors. Show me the prophecy that says the messiah will gain his bloodline through his mother.

You and others DO NOT WANT the Bible to be correct in any fashion, so no matter what Biblical evidence or logic from the text I give you, you will not consider it valid.

The phrophecy says the messiah will be of the house of David, nothing more.
Can you accept that? If you can't accept what the Bible actually says, in context and in whole, then this discussion is "mute".

[neo of the mind]

Sure. Why not? Why rely upon actual Biblical text when you can persue baseless conjecture instead?
That's desperate. Now you want there to be two Fields of Blood that were both purchased with the same thirty pieces of silver. All of that made even more absurd by the observation that Judas threw the pieces of silver to the priests and hung himself in Matthew. Somehow, he must have retreived his tainted lucre in Acts and used it to purchase yet another Field of Blood!

I was making general statements. Go to the link I provided, it gives the answers in detail.

[neo of the mind]

Maybe he came back as a zombie. That would explain why he'd want to buy a place known as a "Field of Blood". I bet a "Field of Brains" would have sold even faster. :)


Maybe your wrong...no, you are wrong. :)

[heel31ok]

Come to think about it, they had a pretty shaky grasp of the reproductive process back then...seed proceeding from the bowels? eeew!
Not as shaky as your grasp for the meaning of words.

[Dangerrmouse]

Not as shaky as your grasp for the meaning of words.

Explain?

[Dangerrmouse]

You and others DO NOT WANT the Bible to be correct in any fashion, so no matter what Biblical evidence or logic from the text I give you, you will not consider it valid.

The phrophecy says the messiah will be of the house of David, nothing more.
Can you accept that? If you can't accept what the Bible actually says, in context and in whole, then this discussion is "mute".

Did you mean "moot"?

[heel31ok]

Explain?
precisely my point!

[JoeR]

Doesn't any good piece of literature have internal consistency?

[neo of the mind]

Did you mean "moot"?

No, I meant "mute". It's a running joke now, since julierep said it.

It's to give the atheist's something to pick on. You know, point out spelling or grammar mistakes to look superior.

[Dangerrmouse]

precisely my point!

My excellent grasp of the language is unable to cope with the evanescent content of your "contributions" to the debate.

[Dangerrmouse]

No, I meant "mute". It's a running joke now, since julierep said it.

It's to give the atheist's something to pick on. You know, point out spelling or grammar mistakes to look superior.


Does it give you a smug self satisfied feeling?

[heel31ok]

My excellent grasp of the language is unable to cope with the evanescent content of your "contributions" to the debate.
well you started it. :D

[heel31ok]

No, I meant "mute". It's a running joke now, since julierep said it.

It's to give the atheist's something to pick on. You know, point out spelling or grammar mistakes to look superior.
then let us move on to beneficial mootations. :rolleyes:

[Dangerrmouse]

well you started it. :D

A 3rd grade response....at least we progress....

[sub_zer0]

It wasn't really you who did the talking, and your source, Dr. Davids, doesn't share your confidence in the explanation. He describes his hypothetical as merely plausible, but the evidence which guides his opinion is sketchy, at best, on at least two important points:

1. I seriously doubt that hanging commonly results in disembowelment.
2. There is nothing in the Biblical passage that should lead us to an explanation that involves hanging in the first place.

Aloow me to counter your "important" points:

1. You have no idea what a contradiction is in the first place. It means that what is said in Acts cannot make what is said in Matthew possible, or vice versa. That is not shown in your example.

In Matthew 27:1-10 it mentions the fact that Judas died by hanging himself in order to be straight-foward and strictly factual. Luke, however being a physician, in Acts 1:18-19 wants to add detail for Judas' body, and adds to the field spoken about and for Judas.

Nowhere in Acts does it deny that Judas died by hanging.

But to reason with the scriptures to you, one could easily come to a conlusion that justifies both which would seem to be that Judas hanged himself on the edge of a cliff, above the Valley of Hinnom and that is according to tradition.

So quite possibly, eventually the rope snapped, was cut or untied and Judas fell upon the field below as described by Luke in Acts.

Not only that but Judas hung himself on Passover and before a Sabbath no Jew was going to touch the hanging corpse. It is safe to assume that Judas hung himself and that the branch or rope eventually broke, not to mention the birds and other such things that would be attracted to corpses.

2. This alleged contradiction is related to the fact that Matthew 27:5 in his Gospel speaks of Judas hanging himself (yes, hanging himself) but in Acts 1:18 Luke speaks about Judas falling headlong and his innards gushing out.

Conclusion:
However both of these statements are true and a contradiction is something it doesn't make, all that is required is some logic and reasoning of the Scriptures which is something we are told to do and looks like is required in this case. This, even if it was a contradiction but it isn't, it would not effect doctrine in any way shape or form but is something for the skeptics to leech onto.

Having said that, just add some logic and reasoning to the Biblical text, which is what Jesus would do and taught (Acts 17:2).

Finally, we have both the priests and Judas himself using the 30 pieces of silver to purchase the Field of Blood.

And finally, to quote ]101 Cleared-Up Contradictions ([URL=http://www.ovrlnd.com/Apologetics/101contradictions.html) :

62. Is the field called the 'field of blood' because the priest bought it with blood money (Matthew 27:8), or because of Judas's bloody death (Acts 1:19)?

(Category: misunderstood the wording)

Once again, looking at the same two passages as the last two apparent contradictions Shabbir asks why the field where Judas was buried called the Field of Blood? Matthew 27:8 says that it is because it was bought with blood-money, while, according to Shabbir Acts 1:19 says that it was because of the bloody death of Judas.

However both passages agree that it was due to it being bought by blood-money. Acts 1:18-19 starts by saying, "With the reward he got for his wickedness, Judas bought a field". So it begins with the assumption that the field was bought by the blood-money, and then the author intending to cause revulsion for what had happened describes Judas bloody end on that piece of real estate.

[Dangerrmouse]

Hebrews 11:13 Spot the mistake.

[neo of the mind]

Hebrews 11:13 Spot the mistake.

It's time to go down the list because another unproved "contradiction" has fallen short.

Why don't you just tell us what angle your getting at with this one to save us the time of proving your wrong again.

[Dangerrmouse]

I was addressing the organ-grinder.

[Alvin T. Grey]

Cough-cough.....*coffee runs down nose* - OUCH!

[neo of the mind]

Cough-cough.....*coffee runs down nose* - OUCH!

Do you drink like Ted Striker from Airplane?

[sub_zer0]

Hebrews 11:13 Spot the mistake.

I was addressing the organ-grinder.

Hebrews 11:13: "All these died in faith, without receiving the promises, but having seen them and having welcomed them from a distance, and having confessed that they were strangers and exiles on the earth."

What mistake? Organ-grinder?

[Dangerrmouse]

Enoch never died.

[Dangerrmouse]

Noah received his promise while alive, as did Sara

[sub_zer0]

Enoch never died.

What's your point? How is this a contradiction?

[neo of the mind]

Enoch never died.

Heb 11:5: By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God.



13: These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth.

The promise is Jesus Christ.

[Alvin T. Grey]

Do you drink like Ted Striker from Airplane?
No, I'm Irish. I have a different drinking problem.

Two hands......ONE MOUTH

[Dangerrmouse]

Heb 11:5: By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God.



13: These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth.

The promise is Jesus Christ.

If Enoch did not die, but was "translated", how did he "die in faith"?

Promises plural, differed betwixt promisees.

[brainpan]

No, I meant "mute". It's a running joke now, since julierep said it.

It's to give the atheist's something to pick on. You know, point out spelling or grammar mistakes to look superior.You make yourself the fool with this sophistry. It failed to impress Dangermouse, and it offends even my less capable grasp of language.

There is a clear division between the theists and atheists that regularly participate in this forum, and able "wordsmithing" is a quality that dominates on the side the atheists inhabit.

Perhaps I was too polite to discuss this issue before, but unwarranted condescention brings out my less polite side.

[brainpan]

Aloow me to counter your "important" points:

1. You have no idea what a contradiction is in the first place. It means that what is said in Acts cannot make what is said in Matthew possible, or vice versa. That is not shown in your example.You're describing the concept of mutual exclusivity.

I understand that you want to use the ambiguity of scriptural text to your advantage in this case. This strategy might produce a seeming short term victory for you, but it does a lot of damage in the long term. It forces us to conclude that the scriptural text is useless from the start. If the text is too ambiguous for us to determine whether it contradicts itself, then it is also too ambiguous to supply us with reliable information.
Nowhere in Acts does it deny that Judas died by hanging.Nor does the referenced scripture indicate, or even suggest, the author believed Judas died by hanging. Technically, Acts doesn't deny Judas was killed by leprechauns, Sasquatch, or even flying saucers. I wont bother with the extrapolations. It is undeniable they are a product of circular reasoning--the imaginings of apologists--and they don't represent a valid interpretation of Biblical text.
And finally, to quote ]101 Cleared-Up ContradictionsYour link doesn't even address the contradiction. Allow me to quote myself so you can have another try.
That's desperate. Now you want there to be two Fields of Blood that were both purchased with the same thirty pieces of silver. All of that made even more absurd by the observation that Judas threw the pieces of silver to the priests and hung himself in Matthew. Somehow, he must have retreived his tainted lucre in Acts and used it to purchase yet another Field of Blood!

[heel31ok]

A 3rd grade response....at least we progress....
I'll take what I can get.

[heel31ok]

Hebrews 11:13 Spot the mistake.
hmm,you referencing scripture? I spotted it right off.

[heel31ok]

You make yourself the fool with this sophistry. It failed to impress Dangermouse, and it offends even my less capable grasp of language.

There is a clear division between the theists and atheists that regularly participate in this forum, and able "wordsmithing" is a quality that dominates on the side the atheists inhabit.

Perhaps I was too polite to discuss this issue before, but unwarranted condescention brings out my less polite side.
sorry wordsmith , you make yourself a fool when you say in your heart there is no God.

[neo of the mind]

You make yourself the fool with this sophistry. It failed to impress Dangermouse, and it offends even my less capable grasp of language.

There is a clear division between the theists and atheists that regularly participate in this forum, and able "wordsmithing" is a quality that dominates on the side the atheists inhabit.

Perhaps I was too polite to discuss this issue before, but unwarranted condescention brings out my less polite side.

Told ya I said you Atheists think your superior.

[sub_zer0]

I understand that you want to use the ambiguity of scriptural text to your advantage in this case. This strategy might produce a seeming short term victory for you, but it does a lot of damage in the long term. It forces us to conclude that the scriptural text is useless from the start. If the text is too ambiguous for us to determine whether it contradicts itself, then it is also too ambiguous to supply us with reliable information.

Wrong, skeptics maintain that it contradicts itself, it doesn't.

Nor does the referenced scripture indicate, or even suggest, the author believed Judas died by hanging. Technically, Acts doesn't deny Judas was killed by leprechauns, Sasquatch, or even flying saucers. I wont bother with the extrapolations. It is undeniable they are a product of circular reasoning--the imaginings of apologists--and they don't represent a valid interpretation of Biblical text.

OK, good then we can say that it was referring to Judas hanging.

That's desperate. Now you want there to be two Fields of Blood that were both purchased with the same thirty pieces of silver. All of that made even more absurd by the observation that Judas threw the pieces of silver to the priests and hung himself in Matthew. Somehow, he must have retreived his tainted lucre in Acts and used it to purchase yet another Field of Blood!

In Acts 1:18 it states: "18(Now this man acquired a field with the price of his wickedness, and falling headlong, he burst open in the middle and all his intestines gushed out.
19And it became known to all who were living in Jerusalem; so that in their own language that field was called Hakeldama, that is, Field of Blood.) "

In Matthew 27:5-6: "And he threw the pieces of silver into the temple sanctuary and departed; and he went away and hanged himself.
6The chief priests took the pieces of silver and said, "It is not lawful to put them into the temple treasury, since it is the price of blood."

There is one Field of Blood purchased with the money Judas threw at the "chief priests" in the temple. No, with Judas' money, legally they purchased the field in his name with his money as they couldn't be found using the "price of blood" to purchase something.

What is the big deal with these verses?

[Dangerrmouse]

Told ya I said you Atheists think your superior.

Anyone care to correct the mangled spelling and syntax?

[brainpan]

Wrong, skeptics maintain that it contradicts itself, it doesn't.That's not a useful response. In no way does it inform the discussion or even acknowledge my rebuttals.
OK, good then we can say that it was referring to Judas hanging.Only in the same way you could say the text was referring to Judas being killed by things like Big Foot, leprechauns, or flying saucers.
There is one Field of Blood purchased with the money Judas threw at the "chief priests" in the temple.Neo was the one who suggested a second Field of Blood, not me.
What is the big deal with these verses?Well, Neo understood the problem, that's what lead him to the desperate theory about a second Field of Blood.

Even if I allow "falling headlong and bursting open=committed suicide by hanging," (I wont) you still have a problem with Judas and the priests both purchasing the same land with the same thirty pieces of silver.

[sub_zer0]

Only in the same way you could say the text was referring to Judas being killed by things like Big Foot, leprechauns, or flying saucers.

OK, no contradiction.

Neo was the one who suggested a second Field of Blood, not me.
Well, Neo understood the problem, that's what lead him to the desperate theory about a second Field of Blood.

Well, I have just given an explanation of just one Field of Blood.

Even if I allow "falling headlong and bursting open=committed suicide by hanging," (I wont) you still have a problem with Judas and the priests both purchasing the same land with the same thirty pieces of silver.

Of course you won't because you are thinking of it like a skeptic. Just accept it brainpan, nobody will think any less of you.

Wrong. I have just explained this purchasing of the Field of Blood.

There is one Field of Blood purchased with the money Judas threw at the "chief priests" in the temple that was originally given to Judas to betray Jesus.

With Judas' money that he threw back at the priests in the temple, legally they purchased the field in his name with his money as they couldn't be found using the "price of blood" to purchase something.

[Dangerrmouse]

Re false prophecy. Jesus claimed he would fulfil the OT prophecy that the Messiah would rise on the third day. Friday night to Sunday morning is barely three days, is it?

[neo of the mind]

Anyone care to correct the mangled spelling and syntax?

Why don't you do it, since it so important to you. LOL.

[Dangerrmouse]

Why don't you do it, since it so important to you. LOL.

Correct usage of the language facilitates clear communication. But then you are more into sophistry and obfuscation, like heel and sub.

[sub_zer0]

Re false prophecy. Jesus claimed he would fulfil the OT prophecy that the Messiah would rise on the third day. Friday night to Sunday morning is barely three days, is it?

Friday, regardless if it is night or not, is a day. Where did you get the idea it was at night?

Saturday is a day and Sunday is a day. So, it is 3 days.

[NiteGuy]

Friday, regardless if it is night or not, is a day. Where did you get the idea it was at night?

Saturday is a day and Sunday is a day. So, it is 3 days.

Sub, even if it were Friday morning, it's not 3 days. Period. Let's assume for the sake of argument, that even you can follow basic math, OK?

So, let's say that Jesus died on Friday at Noon, just for simplicity's sake.

From Friday noon, to Saturday noon, is 1 day. From Saturday noon to Sunday noon is 2 days. Not 3 days, but 2 days. And if the stone was rolled back, and his followers found the body missing on Sunday morning, that's not even 2 full days.

Get it yet?

[sub_zer0]

Sub, even if it were Friday morning, it's not 3 days. Period. Let's assume for the sake of argument, that even you can follow basic math, OK?

So, let's say that Jesus died on Friday at Noon, just for simplicity's sake.

From Friday noon, to Saturday noon, is 1 day. From Saturday noon to Sunday noon is 2 days. Not 3 days, but 2 days. And if the stone was rolled back, and his followers found the body missing on Sunday morning, that's not even 2 full days.

Get it yet?

That is if you are using a 24 hour time interval, they were obviously using the, I will call it, "seven days in a week" time interval when stating that Jesus died and rose three days later. The writers of the Gospels were counting those days, no matter what time it was as a full day, like the days of the week and there are only seven in all.

So, when the writers stated that Jesus died and rose three days later, they mean Friday is one day, Saturday is one day and Sunday is one day.

[Dangerrmouse]

Jesus said he would fulfil the prophecy "as it is written" in scripture.

[sub_zer0]

Jesus said he would fulfil the prophecy "as it is written" in scripture.

Please give the prophecy in scripture to be fulfilled first.

[Dangerrmouse]

The light dawns....you don't know? Jesus did.

[sub_zer0]

The light dawns....you don't know? Jesus did.

Do you want to foward this debate or not?

[Dangerrmouse]

Try Luke 24. 46, I think " For it is written."....

[sub_zer0]

Try Luke 24. 46, I think " For it is written."....

Actually I was referring to the OT prophecy (Psalm 16:10 and/or Isaiah 53:10), but this will do, thanks.

I'm afraid I do not know what your point is however.

[Dangerrmouse]

Actually I was referring to the OT prophecy (Psalm 16:10 and/or Isaiah 53:10), but this will do, thanks.

I'm afraid I do not know what your point is however.

Psalm 16 is a tad non-specific on 3day resurrections, and your Isiah reference suggests Jesus would live a long life and sire a family?
Isiah 53:10 'And so he will see his descendants; he will live a long life'

[sub_zer0]

Psalm 16 is a tad non-specific on 3day resurrections, and your Isiah reference suggests Jesus would live a long life and sire a family?
Isiah 53:10 'And so he will see his descendants; he will live a long life'

Psalms 16:10 - It states that God will not abandon, forsake a soul in "Sheol" which means grave, which He didn't as Jesus was resurrected and all will be to either go with Him or away from Him.

Isaiah 53:10 - You, again not taking into consideration the Biblical teachings, are reaching far to say that Isaiah is saying Jesus will have descendants and live long in the sense you are thinking at least.

If you read the NT you would know that those who believe in Christ are considered "children of God" and that is what is being referred to. The fact that it states; "He will prolong His days", simply means that Jesus' days are prolonged in eternity with God the Father in Heaven which is where He is.

And your point in the beginning was?

[Dangerrmouse]

Jesus claimed that he would fulfil scriptural prophecy by being resurrected on day 3.

KJV: And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day:

[sub_zer0]

Jesus claimed that he would fulfil scriptural prophecy by being resurrected on day 3.

Luke 24:45 Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures,
46and He said to them, "Thus it is written, that the Christ would suffer and rise again from the dead the third day,
47and that repentance for forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in His name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem.

So, if Christ died on Friday that is one day. Saturday is day two, and Sunday is day three and that is the day He was risen.

[julierep]

Jesus claimed that he would fulfil scriptural prophecy by being resurrected on day 3.

KJV: And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day:

It says He rose from the dead the third day, doesnt it?

[Dangerrmouse]

Luke 24:45 Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures,
46and He said to them, "Thus it is written, that the Christ would suffer and rise again from the dead the third day,
47and that repentance for forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in His name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem.

So, if Christ died on Friday that is one day. Saturday is day two, and Sunday is day three and that is the day He was risen.

Fine. WHERE is it written in the OT in those literal terms?

[sub_zer0]

Fine. WHERE is it written in the OT in those literal terms?

Why does it have to be? There are references to it, and the ones I listed are just that.

Jesus states it more explicitly because He is fulfilling it and teaching from that position.

[brainpan]

OK, no contradiction.A major contradiction. I'm just pointing out that your plea makes the scriptural text so vague and ambiguous as to be completely useless.
Well, I have just given an explanation of just one Field of Blood.It still doesnt work. The text clearly states that Judas purchased the field, it also clearly states the priests purchased the field. It does not state, or even suggest, that the field was purchased in another's name.
Of course you won't because you are thinking of it like a skeptic. Just accept it brainpan, nobody will think any less of you.Now we get to the truth of the dilema. The scriptures are to "just be accepted," and not subjected to reasonable skepticism guided by critical thinking skills.

[sub_zer0]

I'm just pointing out that your plea makes the scriptural text so vague and ambiguous as to be completely useless.

So, no contradiction.

It still doesnt work. The text clearly states that Judas purchased the field, it also clearly states the priests purchased the field. It does not state, or even suggest, that the field was purchased in another's name.

Don't you get it? Judas gave the money back to the chief priests, they couldn't be found using blood money so they bought the field in Judas' name.

Now we get to the truth of the dilema. The scriptures are to "just be accepted," and not subjected to reasonable skepticism guided by critical thinking skills.

So, why couldn't the chief priests purchase a field under Judas' name as it was his money? Why couldn't the ones who killed Jesus have enough power to do that as well?

[brainpan]

So, no contradiction.A major contradiction. Falling headlong and spilling your guts is not the same thing as hanging yourself. Judas gave the money back to the chief priests, they couldn't be found using blood money so they bought the field in Judas' name.In Matthew, the priests purchased the field. In Acts, Judas purchased the field. The text is quite clear about this.

[heel31ok]

A major contradiction. Falling headlong and spilling your guts is not the same thing as hanging yourself. In Matthew, the priests purchased the field. In Acts, Judas purchased the field. The text is quite clear about this.
sorry,not quite clear. the clear part is that the money Judas received was used to purchase a field they called it the field of blood.Judas purchased that field by his betrayal, the priests actually handed over the money for the field.The money was Judas and could not be taken back.I know it is hard for you but the limitations of understanding are not the same as fact for an argument. You seem to think because you do not understand the concept that it does not exist. This is a major flaw you seem to be stuck with.Now if you argued from the point youncannotbelieve it because you do not understand then I think you would have a little more creedence to your arguments.

[heel31ok]

Fine. WHERE is it written in the OT in those literal terms?
so, you are saying if it said that you would then believe it?

[neo of the mind]

Why does it have to be? There are references to it, and the ones I listed are just that.

Jesus states it more explicitly because He is fulfilling it and teaching from that position.

The day was from sunset to sunset as observed by the Jews.

[sub_zer0]

A major contradiction. Falling headlong and spilling your guts is not the same thing as hanging yourself.

Again, if you use logic, one could conclude that Judas jumped off a high tree and severely damaged his mid-section in the process, after rotting up there during the Passover period and quite possibly eaten by vultures and other scavangers and by the time anybody saw it, it was rotted enough to the point that when it fell it then fully bursted open his mid-section and intestines were seen.

That is just one of the plausible explanations, or logical steps one could take to assume no contradiction.

In Matthew, the priests purchased the field. In Acts, Judas purchased the field. The text is quite clear about this.

Acts states that Judas purchased the field, "with the price of his wickedness", that price was the 30 pieces of silver that was thrown back to the chief priests in the tmple.

What did the chief priests say about this money that was thrown back to them from Judas?

Matthew 27:
6The chief priests took the pieces of silver and said, "It is not lawful to put them into the temple treasury, since it is the price of blood."
7 And they conferred together and with the money bought the Potter's Field as a burial place for strangers.
8 For this reason that field has been called the Field of Blood to this day.

The chief priests controlled the treasury so they put Judas name on the papers stating that legally Judas purchased the Field of Blood getting their name away from the "price of blood" that is attached to the 30 pieces of silver.

It is quite valid to say that Judas purchased the field legally, it is also quite valid to say that the chief priests purchased the field.

That is a logical conclusion.

[Dangerrmouse]

So Jesus "quoted" a prophecy that had never been made.

[heel31ok]

So Jesus "quoted" a prophecy that had never been made.
which one would that be?

[Dangerrmouse]

The nonexistent one he "quoted" of course!

[neo of the mind]

The nonexistent one he "quoted" of course!

Do you even know what your talking about anymore?

[Dangerrmouse]

Clue ...... Read the thread.

[sub_zer0]

Clue ...... Read the thread.

We are, at least I am, asking where in the Bible you are referring to.

[Dangerrmouse]

You supplied the verse too.

[Dangerrmouse]

One after the other ......... which of you are real? Father, son Or hg?

[neo of the mind]

One after the other ......... which of you are real? Father, son Or hg?

Yup, I am right, you don't even know what your talking about anymore. Stop wasting everyone's time.

[Dangerrmouse]

Which one are you really? :rolleyes:

[Dangerrmouse]

We are, at least I am, asking where in the Bible you are referring to.

Actually I was referring to the OT prophecy (Psalm 16:10 and/or Isaiah 53:10), but this will do, thanks.

I'm afraid I do not know what your point is however.

Methinks you doth protest in error........

[neo of the mind]

Methinks you can't relate a cognizant thought on the topic and are reduced to whatever it is you think your doing, which isn't making any sense.

[Dangerrmouse]

Are you talkin' to me? I am aware of your limitations, have you remembered which one you are, yet? Larry, Moe, or the other one?

[neo of the mind]

Are you talkin' to me?

Yeah, spit out what it is your trying to say already, we don't have time for a game of 20 questions.

[Dangerrmouse]

Curly! you're back!

[neo of the mind]

Curly! you're back!

I guess your drinking again. :rolleyes: I'll talk to you when your sober.

[Dangerrmouse]

What have you done with Sub, Curly?

[heel31ok]

Are you talkin' to me? I am aware of your limitations, have you remembered which one you are, yet? Larry, Moe, or the other one?
hey now I know what you are doing. You are stealing my shtick! come on stick to your one liners and let me be the vague smart aleck. :D

[Dangerrmouse]

I'm better at it too!

[heel31ok]

I'm better at it too!
You are the ma... mouse! :)

[Dangerrmouse]

So back to the topic at hand. What was JC thinking when he quoted a nonexistent prophecy?

[neo of the mind]

So back to the topic at hand. What was JC thinking when he quoted a nonexistent prophecy?

You actually have to state the book, chapter and verse of the prophecy that doesn't exist that you think you have read that is a quote from Jesus.

We all know your wrong, it's just a matter of what you are wrong about. Help us help you show where you are wrong again in regards to the Bible.

[Dangerrmouse]

You actually have to state the book, chapter and verse of the prophecy that doesn't exist that you think you have read that is a quote from Jesus.

We all know your wrong, it's just a matter of what you are wrong about. Help us help you show where you are wrong again in regards to the Bible.

Jesus was wrong, not me. "For it is not written"

[neo of the mind]

Jesus was wrong, not me. "For it is not written"


ok, I'm done trying to pry an understandable question from you. Somebody else can try.

[Dangerrmouse]

It's quite straightforward.

Luke 24:46... And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day:

Where was it written? As written here? Jesus is claiming that it was prophesied that he would be resurrected on the third day. Where is the prophecy?

[neo of the mind]

It's quite straightforward.

Luke 24:46... And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day:

Where was it written? As written here? Jesus is claiming that it was prophesied that he would be resurrected on the third day. Where is the prophecy?

44: And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.
45: Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures,
46: And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day:
47: And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.
48: And ye are witnesses of these things.

The answer is:

Mathew 12:
38: Then certain of the scribes and of the Pharisees answered, saying, Master, we would see a sign from thee.
39: But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas:
40: For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.
41: The men of Nineveh shall rise in judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: because they repented at the preaching of Jonas; and, behold, a greater than Jonas is here.

Jesus did not say that it was prophesied that he would be dead for 3 days and 3 nights, but rather pointed to the account of Jonah to the scribes and Pharisees as a sign to them, the unbeliever.

[Dangerrmouse]

Wrong! Try again. "Prophecy" written after the event is just propaganda.

[neo of the mind]

Wrong! Try again. "Prophecy" written after the event is just propaganda.

How's that? He stated it before it happened.

[burntgorilla]

As far as I can tell, you're stating that it was written in Matthew 12. Since Matthew 12 was written after Jesus' death, it was a prophecy made after Jesus did it. You would have to get conclusive proof that what happened in Matthew 12 is absolutely completely factual, beyond any doubt, which I don't think you can.

[neo of the mind]

As far as I can tell, you're stating that it was written in Matthew 12. Since Matthew 12 was written after Jesus' death, it was a prophecy made after Jesus did it. You would have to get conclusive proof that what happened in Matthew 12 is absolutely completely factual, beyond any doubt, which I don't think you can.

No, what I am saying is that Dangermouse is wrong in saying that the "sign of Jonah" was a prophecy and that the scripture he cited was stating that Jesus was saying it was. I was pointing out that Jesus gave that to the unbeliever as a sign. It was written down later that he said that as well as everything else in the New Testament for that matter.

Does that mean all books written with quotes in them are false because they were written after the fact? If that's the case, you have a lot of books to throw away.

[Dangerrmouse]

How dense does it get? Jesus is supposed to have claimed he would fulfil "the prophecy" (It is Written!) that he would rise again after 3 days. Where is this previously existing prophecy written?

[neo of the mind]

oh, the confusion is in the part of Jonah. My fault. The prophesy which was written was refered to here:

Acts 2:24-27

24 Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it.

25 For David speaketh concerning him, I foresaw the Lord always before my face, for he is on my right hand, that I should not be moved:

26 Therefore did my heart rejoice, and my tongue was glad; moreover also my flesh shall rest in hope:

27 Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.
KJV

and

Acts 13:33-37

33 God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.

34 And as concerning that he raised him up from the dead, now no more to return to corruption, he said on this wise, I will give you the sure mercies of David.

35 Wherefore he saith also in another psalm, Thou shalt not suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.

36 For David, after he had served his own generation by the will of God, fell on sleep, and was laid unto his fathers, and saw corruption:

37 But he, whom God raised again, saw no corruption.
KJV

These two areas refer to the prophesy at Psalm 16:10 and inferred in Psalm 22.
Ps 16:10

10 For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.
KJV


So there you go, happy?

[Dangerrmouse]

No cigar again. Not even close, either...

[neo of the mind]

No cigar again. Not even close, either...

I gave you the exact prophesy that showed the HOLY ONE would die but his physical body would not be corrupted, hence 3 days and you say no cigar.

Dude, I am tired of arguing with you.

[Dangerrmouse]

Perhaps the KJV wasn't clear enough. let's try the BBE version of Luke 24.46.
"He said to them, "Thus it is written, and thus it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead the third day"

"Thus it is written." I say again, where is it written thusly?

[burntgorilla]

I am guessing at what neo is going to reply with, so I'm just going to point out that the passage you posted above doesn't mention anything about three days. Nor anything about Christ having to suffer, as far as I can see.

[FlyingGuineapig]

Actually, not to get drawn into these Bible whack-a-mole games, but doesn't
Mathew 12:40 say: For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

Now, we covered the "it's three days from Friday to Sunday" earlier in this thread. But that's 3 days, 2 nights.

[sub_zer0]

How dense does it get? Jesus is supposed to have claimed he would fulfil "the prophecy" (It is Written!) that he would rise again after 3 days. Where is this previously existing prophecy written?

Jesus said this in Matthew 12:
39But He answered and said to them, "An evil and adulterous generation craves for a sign; and yet no sign will be given to it but the sign of Jonah the prophet;
40for just as JONAH WAS THREE DAYS AND THREE NIGHTS IN THE BELLY OF THE SEA MONSTER, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

So, Jesus being the fulfiller of the OT is saying that Jonah being in the whale for "three days and three nights" is a literal story to shadow Jesus Christ. Jesus is using the Jonah story (Jonah 1:17) to illustrate His literal three days and three nights He would spend.

What you fail to grasp is the story in Jonah is just a sample of the shadowing the OT does of Jesus Christ.

[Dangerrmouse]

Matthew "wrote" this after the fact. Wrong.

Where is it written "thusly" as described in Luke?

[sub_zer0]

Matthew "wrote" this after the fact. Wrong.

Where is it written "thusly" as described in Luke?

Yes, Matthew and Luke wrote after the prophecy or shadowing of the Jonah story was complete. Jesus said that He was alluded to within the Jonah prophecy.

[Dangerrmouse]

Jesus said "Thus it is written" But written thus it was not....

[sub_zer0]

Jesus said "Thus it is written" But written thus it was not....

Main Entry: thus
1 : in this or that manner or way

So, by Jesus using the word thus in relation to the Jonah story, it fits perfectly as Jonah was in the whale for three days and three nights, and so was Jesus dead for that amount of time.

It was in the same like or manner.

[Dangerrmouse]

Jesus is given the phrase "thus it is written", 18 times, always to signify a that a quote from scripture is about to be made. The problem with this "quote" is that it does not pre-exist his statement. Rationalise and wriggle however you may, Jonah is not and was not a Sign of events to come, until after the events when it was incorporated into the myth as "proof".

[sub_zer0]

Jesus is given the phrase "thus it is written", 18 times, always to signify a that a quote from scripture is about to be made. The problem with this "quote" is that it does not pre-exist his statement. Rationalise and wriggle however you may, Jonah is not and was not a Sign of events to come, until after the events when it was incorporated into the myth as "proof".

Looks like you are wriggling. All I am saying is Jesus is referencing the Jonah story, since the OT spoke of Him.

[brainpan]

Again, if you use logic, one could conclude that Judas jumped off a high tree and severely damaged his mid-section in the process...That isn't logic, it's special pleading. (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/special+pleading)As soon as you add information not contained in the original text, absolutely anything is "possible." The text does not specifically exclude flying saucers, leprechauns, or even Big Foot. You could "use logic" to conclude that aliens in flying saucers split Judas open with lasers. But all those explanations are invalid because the text makes no suggestion of aliens, leprechauns, Big Foot, or gut-busting by way of hanging.

Let's look again in Matthew: "And the chief priests took the silver pieces, and said, It is not lawful for us to put them into the treasury, because it is the price of blood. And they took counsel, and bought with them the potter's field..."

It was the priests who bought the field in Matthew.

Let's look again in Acts: "Now this man (Judas) purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out."

It was Judas who bought the field in Acts.

Simply pleading that the priests bought the land in Judas' name doesn't improve the problem presented by the text. (Judas purchased a field) does not equal (Judas gave money to priests who purchased a field)

[Dangerrmouse]

Looks like you are wriggling. All I am saying is Jesus is referencing the Jonah story, since the OT spoke of Him.

I'm not the one with the track record of being economical with the truth. Also see "special pleading", in brainpan's excellent preceding post.

[sub_zer0]

That isn't logic, it's special pleading. (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/special+pleading)As soon as you add information not contained in the original text, absolutely anything is "possible." The text does not specifically exclude flying saucers, leprechauns, or even Big Foot. You could "use logic" to conclude that aliens in flying saucers split Judas open with lasers. But all those explanations are invalid because the text makes no suggestion of aliens, leprechauns, Big Foot, or gut-busting by way of hanging.

OK, then. Judas hung himself and then fell busting his gut open. Still no contradiction. Just because his gut busts open doesn't mean he didn't hang himself.

Let's look again in Matthew: "And the chief priests took the silver pieces, and said, It is not lawful for us to put them into the treasury, because it is the price of blood. And they took counsel, and bought with them the potter's field..."

It was the priests who bought the field in Matthew.

I know.

Let's look again in Acts: "Now this man (Judas) purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out."

It was Judas who bought the field in Acts.

The chief priests bought the field under Judas' name as he threw the money back at the priests in the temple.

Simply pleading that the priests bought the land in Judas' name doesn't improve the problem presented by the text. (Judas purchased a field) does not equal (Judas gave money to priests who purchased a field)

I am not pleading simply stating that the chief priests, having Judas money could of quite possibly bought the field under his name because they couldn't be found using blood money.

Just because it states Judas' bought the field, doesn't mean that it isn't saying that the chief priests didn't, because it states they did in Matthew.

So, what we have to do is reason with the scriptures and come up with a good answer, this one is. I would rather see harmony than contradiction that is the difference.

[brainpan]

I'm not the one with the track record of being economical with the truth. Also see "special pleading", in brainpan's excellent preceding post.Thank you. I'm glad you were here to see it. Otherwise, I would have been guilty of "throwing pearls to the swine." :)

[Dangerrmouse]

In summary then Sub, on the one hand Jesus is resurrected in 3 days to avoid rotting, while Judas' belly falls out in less time because it rots. Good creationist logic!

[JoeR]

Well, Jesus was embalmed, right?

[sub_zer0]

In summary then Sub, on the one hand Jesus is resurrected in 3 days to avoid rotting, while Judas' belly falls out in less time because it rots. Good creationist logic!

Actually, if you would study the NT you would realize that Jesus is God and was never going to rot to begin with, but raise in three days. Also, He was in a covered, protected tomb. Jesus didn't rise in three days to avoid rotting, rather to prove that He is the Son of God.

Second, Judas is human and was outisde when he hung himself. No Jew would touch him, especially since it was during Passover. The chances of scavangers are high, and the force of him falling would severely damage his mid-section.

So Judas hung himself , fell and then his mid-section tore or at least had deep enough tearing and was most likely scavanged somewhat to where you could see the intestines.

I see no problem with it.

[burntgorilla]

Where does it mention scavengers? I can't believe you're trying to alter the inerrant word of God. If you're willing to be a bit flexible about that, I don't see why you're so rigid on everything else in the Bible.

[FlyingGuineapig]

Actually, one day would be really fast to rot and decay.

Unless Judas was rotten to begin with.
:D

[Dangerrmouse]

... Judas is human and was outisde when he hung himself. No Jew would touch him, especially since it was during Passover. The chances of scavangers are high, and the force of him falling would severely damage his mid-section.

So Judas hung himself , fell and then his mid-section tore or at least had deep enough tearing and was most likely scavanged somewhat to where you could see the intestines.

I see no problem with it.


You see no problem with this pastiche of surmise and conjecture because it is entirely created from your imagination. There is no scriptural basis for claiming any of the above.

[Dangerrmouse]

Actually, if you would study the NT you would realize that Jesus is God and was never going to rot to begin with, but raise in three days. Also, He was in a covered, protected tomb. Jesus didn't rise in three days to avoid rotting, rather to prove that He is the Son of God.
.

Why does your quoted psalm 16 witter on about "not allowing the Holy One to be corrupted" if it is not about avoiding the natural process of rot? You can't have it both ways. If you truly believed that he was never going to rot because of who he is, why make nonsensical speculations about being in a covered protected place?
As for being indoors, try putting a piece of meat in your airing cupboard (to match the desert heat) for 3 days and tell us how you get on....

[sub_zer0]

Why does your quoted psalm 16 witter on about "not allowing the Holy One to be corrupted" if it is not about avoiding the natural process of rot?

It may be, but I think it is speaking along the lines of His spirit not being corrupted by sin.

You can't have it both ways. If you truly believed that he was never going to rot because of who he is, why make nonsensical speculations about being in a covered protected place? As for being indoors, try putting a piece of meat in your airing cupboard (to match the desert heat) for 3 days and tell us how you get on....

I meant, not three day rot, but forever in the ground like Judas, because Jesus would be raised in three days. Why does it even matter if He did rot naturally? It doesn't to me... I stated that He was in a tomb, because scavangers couldn't of gotten at His body like they probably did for Judas'.

Where does it mention scavengers? I can't believe you're trying to alter the inerrant word of God. If you're willing to be a bit flexible about that, I don't see why you're so rigid on everything else in the Bible.

It's called reasoning with the Scriptures(Acts 17:2)... You don't think some type of animal would of at least seen the body? And if so, you don't think it might of been a scavanger that might of eatin at least part of Judas?

I mean, just common sense. Still, with or without vultures no contradiction is there.

[burntgorilla]

It's called reasoning with the Scriptures(Acts 17:2)... You don't think some type of animal would of at least seen the body? And if so, you don't think it might of been a scavanger that might of eatin at least part of Judas?

I mean, just common sense. Still, with or without vultures no contradiction is there.

Sorry, it doesn't mention scavengers so I don't think there were scavengers there. Odd that you're willing to apply common sense selectively, though.

[Dangerrmouse]

I meant, not three day rot, but forever in the ground like Judas, because Jesus would be raised in three days. Why does it even matter if He did rot naturally? It doesn't to me... I stated that He was in a tomb, because scavangers couldn't of gotten at His body like they probably did for Judas'.

.......

I mean, just common sense. Still, with or without vultures no contradiction is there.

But Judas' body was hanging, out of reach of your imaginary scavengers unless, as you imagine, his body corrupted and spilled his guts. I say again, if you truly believed that JC's body was incorruptible why make up extra reasons for it not to?


You may see no contradiction, but that is due to the flies in your eyes.

[sub_zer0]

But Judas' body was hanging, out of reach of your imaginary scavengers unless, as you imagine, his body corrupted and spilled his guts. I say again, if you truly believed that JC's body was incorruptible why make up extra reasons for it not to?

Vultures can't fly? Other scavangers can't climb?

You may see no contradiction, but that is due to the flies in your eyes.

Matthew 7
2"For in the way you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you.
3"Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?
4"Or how can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' and behold, the log is in your own eye?

[sub_zer0]

Sorry, it doesn't mention scavengers so I don't think there were scavengers there. Odd that you're willing to apply common sense selectively, though.

Not really, I am doing so to prove that there is no contradiction. You see to non-skeptics we don't see contradiction unless it exists.

[Dangerrmouse]

Vultures can't fly? Other scavangers can't climb?

Vultures do not feed on the wing .....It's scavEngers...Not mentioned so they didn't happen....Your imaginings are getting rather gory....Your storyline is slipping away again...

"The flies in your eyes stop you from seeing the flies in your eyes."
Catch 22
Joseph Heller. (A great book with a real author)

[sub_zer0]

Vultures do not feed on the wing .....It's scavEngers...Not mentioned so they didn't happen....Your imaginings are getting rather gory....Your storyline is slipping away again...

Just reasoning based upon the Scriptures, the cluture, the enviroment, etc. Not to mention we have no idea how high up he was.

[Dangerrmouse]

Ever more fanciful.

[sub_zer0]

Ever more fanciful.

Not really, if you did it you would probably think there wasn't a contradiction to what is being said.

[burntgorilla]

Not really, I am doing so to prove that there is no contradiction. You see to non-skeptics we don't see contradiction unless it exists.

You're adding stuff in.

[Dangerrmouse]

Not really, if you did it you would probably think there wasn't a contradiction to what is being said.

Yes really. The desperation apparent in these inventions in your attempts to maintain this fiction is quite sad.

[Dangerrmouse]

From your claims so far,
What do you believe to be the optimum height to hang oneself, where one is high enough to damage ones midsection if one fell, but still be low enough to be in reach of scavengers?