My Journey From Being an Atheist to an Agnostic to an Calvinist Christian

[BL2KTN]

Greco roman biographies did not have to live up to the same standards as our biographies today. If you look at Plutarch's work you will see countless contradictions. However, often times people assume that the Bible is contradicting itself when in reality enough exegesis has not taken place to understand how and what is actually being said. The so called contradictions of the death of Judas is not a contradiction at all. LNC is not broken here. Judas hanged himself and then Judas fell down. Also, Paul talks about divorce in 1 Corinthians and references the exception in Matthew. It is quite possible that Mark does not feel the need to comment on this exception because it is so well known. Jesus never says its okay to beat your wife, thats ridiculous.

I find this incredibly lacking. Here's what you've said:

1) Divine scripture should be held to the same standard as Greco-Roman biographies, not higher.
2) Plutarch was contradictory, so God-inspired scripture is fine being contradictory.
3) The following accounts of Judas' death are not contradictory:

And throwing down the pieces of silver into the temple, he departed, and he went and hanged himself. But the chief priests, taking the pieces of silver, said, "It is not lawful to put them into the treasury, since it is blood money." So they took counsel and bought with them the potter's field as a burial place for strangers. Therefore that field has been called the Field of Blood to this day. -- Matthew's account

Now this man acquired a field with the reward of his wickedness, and falling headlong he burst open in the middle and all his bowels gushed out. And it became known to all the inhabitants of Jerusalem, so that the field was called in their own language Akeldama, that is, Field of Blood.) -- Act's account

Question: how does one hang their self and fall headlong with their bowels gushing out?

4) Paul talks about divorce in 1 Corinthians, so that fixes different records in the gospels.
5) Mark may not need to talk about the exemption for adultery because it's well known. Also, apparently Mark thusly does not feel the need to accurately record Jesus' words.
6) Jesus does not allow women to leave abusive marriages, but Jesus doesn't think abusive marriages are okay... even though Jesus never talked about it.
7) Point six is ridiculous because it goes against your specific view of marriage two-thousand years later when women are not seen as property.

 

[Faith Unites]

Judas hangs himself on passover and before the sabbath. So we have at least two days that none would touch him. Also, hanging was a disgrace and if he wasn't on anyones property he could have hanged there for quite some time while his body rotted. Eventually, a limb broke and his guts spilled out when he landed (it is suggested that he hanged himself off of a ledge over the valley of hinnom). Regardless, the two statement are not defeaters and spotlighting information is far from unusual.

We are wayyyyy off topic form the OP and so i'm done with this convo. Feel free to start a new thread

 

[BL2KTN]

Judas hangs himself on passover and before the sabbath. So we have at least two days that none would touch him. Also, hanging was a disgrace and if he wasn't on anyones property he could have hanged there for quite some time while his body rotted. Eventually, a limb broke and his guts spilled out when he landed (it is suggested that he hanged himself off of a ledge over the valley of hinnom). Regardless, the two statement are not defeaters and spotlighting information is far from unusual.

How did he fall headlong if he hung himself? And why is one author so stupid as to not include that his guts burst out because he was a rotting, bloated, hanging corpse?

 

[Faith Unites]

See ledge in previous post. See spotlighting in previous post.

 

[BL2KTN]

You're dodging now. You know a hanging corpse can't fall headlong. Is it fun to lie to yourself to preserve what you wish to be true?

 

[Faith Unites]

so your telling me its impossible for a hanging corpse to fall off of a cliff and not end up going headfirst? branch snaps and weight of branch alters trajectory of body or body hits cliff and rotates hitting headfirst. Regardless of the physics, the issue lies in under standing the translation.

 

[Faith Unites]

Here you go

“kai prenes genomenos elakesen mesos kai exechuthe panta ta splagchna autou.” (Acts was written originally by the author Luke—in Greek.) The basic definitions of these words in English are “and prone being split middle and spilled all the guts his.” The key words for our purposes are “prenes genomenos.” The word “prenes,” when used with a verb meaning “to fall” carries the meaning “to fall forward” or “to fall headlong.” See Liddell and Scott which is the standard Greek lexicon for ancient Greek. But when used without a verb meaning “to fall,” it carries the basic meaning of being face-first on the ground, or being prone, literally a posture with one’s face downward.

 

[BL2KTN]

I think you are being incredibly unjust to the text in order to make it say what you wish.

"Now this man acquired a field with the reward of his wickedness, and falling headlong he burst open in the middle and all his bowels gushed out. And it became known to all the inhabitants of Jerusalem, so that the field was called in their own language Akeldama, that is, Field of Blood."

Nowhere in that does it suggest, even remotely, that Judas hung himself on a cliff, then had his body tumble headfirst downward. Instead it is explicit and direct in saying that he purchased a field, his innards burst out of him as he fell forward in the middle of the field, and the field is known as the Field of Blood for this reason. There is nothing to suggest that he hung himself on a cliff. You are doing mental gymnastics to figure out loopholes in which two stories can inerrantly coexist. In doing so, you are warping one of the texts.

 

[Faith Unites]

how does one get their innards to burst out of them without some other variable entering the equation?

 

[BL2KTN]

That's not for me to guess, that's for the text to say. Unlike you, I'm respectful of it enough to not introduce completely foreign story lines to it. The text simply says he bought the field, fell in the middle of it, his innards burst out, that's why they named it the Field of Blood.

Wouldn't make sense to name it the Field of Blood if he hung himself there. Wouldn't be particularly remarkable at all that his innards burst forth in fact.

 

[Cearbhall]

"Transubstantiation (in Latin, transsubstantiatio, in Greek μετουσίωσις metousiosis) is the change whereby, according to Catholic doctrine, the bread and the wine used in the sacrament of the Eucharist become, not merely as by a sign or a figure, but also in reality the body and blood of Christ.[1][2] The Catholic Church teaches that the substance or reality of the bread is changed into that of the body of Christ and the substance of the wine into that of his blood,[3] while all that is accessible to the senses (the outward appearances - species[4][5][6] in Latin) remains unchanged." -- Transubstantiation

Yup. This has nothing to do with its genetic makeup. "Substance" is a theological term, not a scientific one. It does not mean "DNA."

 

[Faith Unites]

in matthew the field gets its name because it was purchased with blood money.

 

[BL2KTN]

Yup. This has nothing to do with its genetic makeup. "Substance" is a theological term, not a scientific one. It does not mean "DNA."

Substance is not a theological term, it is explicitly dealing with the physical. It says that the actual substance changes except for outward appearances available to the senses remain the same. I suspect the idea of transubstantiation was not prepared for the removal of magical veils in the modern era when we can view items at the molecular level.

in matthew the field gets its name because it was purchased with blood money.

Which is in contradiction to what Acts tells us, isn't it?

Do you often take whole critiques of what you say, then respond to tiny snippets without the grander picture?

 

[Faith Unites]

Acts 1: 18 Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.

No, its not a contradiction. The money he threw back to the pharisees was used to by the land.

 

[BL2KTN]

How in the world do you get that the pharisees purchased the land when it says "this man purchased a field"?

Is the bible a book of riddles in which half-truths are given for the same stories so that the mind must be twisted in order to make sense of it? Is that the way you read the text?

 

[dhh712]

How in the world do you get that the pharisees purchased the land when it says "this man purchased a field"??

Well I would think that just one of them, one of the Pharisees, went and did the transaction of the purchase. Why would they all need to go and purchase it as a group? It seems that just one of them would be enough.


I was wondering about the Judas account myself in acts, how it didn't match up with a previous account. Not that I would doubt the word of God is true, but I wondered about how it seemed to be different--especially that the bowels burst open, that was the part that I couldn't get, how it happened. It makes a lot of sense that he would have fallen from where he'd been hanged, with his face down (it seems that that would be the headlong part--there wouldn't be from what I can think of any other way he could have fallen headlong; even if someone else hung him, it doesn't make any sense for them to have hung him upside down. And how would his insides have broken open if there was no force with which to have it accomplished? He must have fallen for them to have broken open. If he'd hung there for a couple days, depending on the weather--does anyone have the account of what the climate was like at that time?--it would have been enough to turn a corpse into a bloating mess just ready to burst at the slightest pressure. Didn't take more than a few days at the most after a battle). Thanks Faith Unites for clearing that up though, it makes a lot of sense now.

Is the bible a book of riddles in which half-truths are given for the same stories so that the mind must be twisted in order to make sense of it? Is that the way you read the text?

Well, to some who do not take it as the only authority for truth, it might seem that way. It's definitely not easy to understand in some places. I think sometimes things are written the way they are just so that people who don't have a relationship with God don't get it (Jesus' disciples even asked Him why He spoke in parables and not plainly and He answered that He didn't do it because then they might see and understand and then be saved). They place their authority for truth in what they can understand instead of submitting to the word of God as the ultimate authority for truth; they make themselves the authority for truth. If that's what you want. For me, I prefer to be with God though.

 

[BL2KTN]

Well I would think that just one of them, one of the Pharisees, went and did the transaction of the purchase. Why would they all need to go and purchase it as a group? It seems that just one of them would be enough.

Brothers, the Scripture had to be fulfilled that the Holy Spirit through the mouth of David spoke in advance about Judas, who became a guide to those who arrested Jesus. For he was one of our number and was allotted a share in this ministry.” Now this man acquired a field with his unrighteous wages. He fell headfirst and burst open in the middle, and all his insides spilled out. This became known to all the residents of Jerusalem, so that in their own language that field is called Hakeldama (that is, Field of Blood). -- Acts 1:16-19

It is explicit in stating that Judas purchased the field with his money, not a pharisee. Nowhere is a pharisee even mentioned. Neither is there any mention of hanging, cliffs, or hitting rocks as he fell. That's all a bunch of rubbish being added to the text in a very disrespectful way towards what the author intended.

Thanks Faith Unites for clearing that up though, it makes a lot of sense now.

If believing things that are not written, nor conveyed, is what it takes for you to find sense, it is concerning.

Well, to some who do not take it as the only authority for truth, it might seem that way. It's definitely not easy to understand in some places. I think sometimes things are written the way they are just so that people who don't have a relationship with God don't get it (Jesus' disciples even asked Him why He spoke in parables and not plainly and He answered that He didn't do it because then they might see and understand and then be saved). They place their authority for truth in what they can understand instead of submitting to the word of God as the ultimate authority for truth; they make themselves the authority for truth. If that's what you want. For me, I prefer to be with God though.

Your god is a Caananite war god named Yahweh, son of the Canaanite chief god El. Your bible is a compilation of books which believe the sky is a hard dome held up by mountain pillars, that camels existed in the Middle East when they did not, that Abraham lived in a city that did not exist until centuries later, that rapists must purchase their rape victims as their property, and that being eaten by lions is a fair punishment for not punching a religious leader. It is a compilation of texts which supports genocide, racism, slavery, misogyny, mysticism, and anthropomorphic polytheism.

Please do not think that I am fooled for one moment that the creator of the universe is the horrible character depicted in the bible. The author of quantum physics is smarter than creating a world in which all people have an invisible darkness in their invisible souls, inherited from a rib-woman who tricked a dirt man after she was convinced by a talking snake to eat a magic fruit. Furthermore, it is even more ridiculous that the solution for this imaginary darkness is that a god would send himself as a sacrifice to himself as his zombie son, to fix the imaginary darkness because he loves humans, so that they can telepathically accept what he did and thus avoid him setting them on fire for trillions of years. Somehow mixed in with all of that, his followers become vampires, drinking his wine blood and eating his bread flesh.

 

[Faith Unites]

The verse in Matthew uses the word ἀγοράζω (transliterated agorazō, strongs #59) which is translated consistently as "buy" or "purchase" through 27 places in the NT. 3 more instances in Revelation are translated "redeem" or "ransom" which certainly carries the same general idea.

A further examination of the verse in Acts shows that the Greek word used is κτάομαι (transliterated ktaomai, strongs #2932). The other places it occurs in scripture are translated in the ESV as "acquire", "get", "gain", "obtain", "bought" and even "control". It seems quite likely that the word could be used for something acquired through a transaction in which you used your own money, but it quite often used for other ways of coming into possession or control.

So again, the issue is with understanding the original text. It sometimes baffles me how people read a foreign text that is two thousand years old and expect it to be as if it was written in a text book yesterday. Do you really think that the authors didn't see these "contradictions" when they were being written? If something made no sense they would have removed it or aligned it with the other viewpoints. Proper exegesis will alleviated much of your confusion.

 

[BL2KTN]

I thought I was discussing this with Faith Unites, but obviously I'm discussing this with textual discrepancies - Who bought the Field of Blood, Judas or the Priests? - Christianity Stack Exchange.

What you have posted has very little to do with what we are discussing (what does the meaning of ktaomai have to do with anything). Rather than respond to my criticisms, you have responded to something of non-issue, plagiarized, obfuscated by claiming the bible can't be held to the same standards as modern books (despite it being of supposed divine origin), and offered the term "exegesis" to me as if it will magically solve all the problems I have shown you. If "exegesis" is so great, then why are you copying and pasting from websites?

Let me clarify that I am not confused. I am very confident that the accounts of Judas are contradictory, and you plagiarizing websites in a non-effective manner does very little to shake that.

 

[Faith Unites]

I don't have time to sit here and argue so i copy and paste when needed. I never learned greek so I piggyback off those who have. Don't see an issue there