Originally posted by CliffLandinJudas hung himself. In Jewish tradition, you can't touch the body of a person who commits suicide. When someone cut the rope of Judas' body, it fell, and since he was undoubtedly bloated, his guts burst out.
Eighteenth
[b]Judas died how?
"And he cast down the pieces of silver into the temple and departed, and went out and hanged himself." (Matt. 27:5)
"And falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all of his bowels gushed out." (Acts 1:18) [/b]
Originally posted by CliffLandinSo Matthew took more copious notes, what's your point?
Nineteenth
[b]How many beatitudes in the Sermon on the Mount
MAT 5:3 Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
MAT 5:4 Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted.
MAT 5:5 Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.
MAT 5:6 Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: fo ...[text shortened]... ld, your reward is great in heaven: for in the like manner did their fathers unto the prophets. [/b]
There's a difference between a contradiction and omission.
Originally posted by DarfiusIt is so sad to watch someone who is obviously intelligent
the 'anger of the Lord' is Satan. That's why the he is he instead of "He" drove David.
Satan drove David to do that.
suspend all reason to ensure that a compilation of books
written over a 2000 year period have no internal inconsistencies.
It is just pathetic.
The 'Anger of the Lord' is a euphamism for Satan? What a joke.
Nemesio
Originally posted by CliffLandinFirst of all, we need to realize the Bible does not contradict itself. God’s Word is truth (John 17:17). The scripture cannot be broken (John 10:35).
Twentieth
[b]Do you answer a fool?
PRO 26:4 Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.
PRO 26:5 Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit. [/b]
These two verses (Proverbs 26:4-5) are not contradictory. They complement each other. The last part of each proverb shows the set of circumstances under which each is to be used.
Verse 4 tells us not to answer a fool according to his folly, lest we be like him. In this situation, to answer the fool’s specific statement or question, you would be descending to his level, and end up in a pointless argument.
An example of this is given in Luke 20:1-8, where the Pharisees asked Christ by whose authority He did certain things. The Pharisees were not there seeking to learn anything. To avoid being like the fools they were, Christ didn’t answer their question. Rather, He asked them a question, which they couldn’t answer without condemning themselves. Since the Pharisees couldn’t answer His question, the discussion was dropped.
Verse 5 tells us that under another set of circumstances, we must answer the fool according to his folly -- with a foolish answer, which will expose how ridiculous his statement, claim or question is – or he will be wise in his own conceit. This case is well illustrated by Paul’s example, in II Corinthians 11:23.
Certain men were at Corinth, who claimed to be true apostles of Christ, but they were false apostles (II Corinthians 11:13). For Paul to have remained silent at the time, would have given tacit approval of these men, who were leading the church astray. They would have appeared wise in their own conceit. Therefore, in Verse 23, Paul said, “Are they ministers of Christ? – I speak as a fool – I am more: in labors more abundant, in stripes above measure, in prisons more frequently, in deaths often.” These men had been boasting of their qualifications, and in this epistle, Paul was exposing these men for what they were. Paul answered these false apostles’ claims, so that they would not appear wise.
These scriptures do not contradict each other; but taken together, they explain two different methods of handling the questions and statements of fools. You need wisdom to know just when and how to apply these principles. And, wisdom comes from God.
Originally posted by DarfiusAnother example of a Gospel writer forgetting to mention something.
Judas hung himself. In Jewish tradition, you can't touch the body of a person who commits suicide. When someone cut the rope of Judas' body, it fell, and since he was undoubtedly bloated, his guts burst out.
Each story forgets major details in order for these stories to 'harmonize.'
St Matthew forget to mention that Judas, after casting the silver in the temple,
but before he killed himself, he went back and collected the money (so
he could buy the field), St Luke forgets to mention that hung himself on
a tree, and forgot to mention that someone came and cut him down (but
that he fell instead).
Is there any fantasical thing your mind won't do in order to insist on 'inerrency?'
Nemesio
Originally posted by DarfiusOr........
So Matthew took more copious notes, what's your point?
There's a difference between a [b]contradiction and omission. [/b]
St Matthew reinterpretted Q from which the two of them drew.
Being of decidely conservative Jewish stock, he couldn't handle
the idea that 'Blessed are the poor' is really what Jesus
meant, so he edited it.
Heaven forbid!
So you are saying St Luke's Gospel is inaccurate; that is, he
omitted critical stuff like (Blessed are the poor in spirit).
Great. Very reliable. A guy who can't take copius notes on
his Lord and Savior.
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioAre you trying to tell me Joseph had two fathers, Nemesio?!
This is utterly made up.
First of all, the Greek doesn't have the word 'son' in it. It reads,
literally, 'Joseph of the Eli of the Maththa of the Levi of the Melchi...
of the Enoch of the Seth of the Adam of the God.'
Unless you are claiming that this entire record here is an 'in-law'
record (or some bizarre thing) or that Joseph's relati ...[text shortened]... y on the inerrency of the Bible that you are willing to
do this, then be my guest.
Nemesio
Cmon now, obviously one had to be father in law. They wouldn't have put Mary above Jesus and below her father because Jews of the day had no respect for women, but they definitely would have understood that Joseph didn't have two fathers, and that Joseph was put in the place of Mary for one.
Originally posted by NemesioJudas didn't buy the field, the priests did. Good try though.
Another example of a Gospel writer forgetting to mention something.
Each story forgets major details in order for these stories to 'harmonize.'
St Matthew forget to mention that Judas, after casting the silver in the temple,
but before he killed himself, he went back and collected the money (so
he could buy the field), St Luke forgets to mention that ...[text shortened]... s there any fantasical thing your mind won't do in order to insist on 'inerrency?'
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioLuke wasn't there, Nemesio. He heard from Paul and Paul heard from someone else.
Or........
St Matthew reinterpretted Q from which the two of them drew.
Being of decidely conservative Jewish stock, he couldn't handle
the idea that 'Blessed are the poor' is really what Jesus
meant, so he edited it.
Heaven forbid!
So you are saying St Luke's Gospel is inaccurate; that is, he
omitted critical stuff like (Blessed are ...[text shortened]... Great. Very reliable. A guy who can't take copius notes on
his Lord and Savior.
Nemesio
There are no contradictions, but since God did not recite the Bible verbatim, there are sometimes OMISSIONS of things that people commonly knew back then, but are confusing nowadays unless you take it in CONTEXT.
Originally posted by DarfiusNo. I am saying there is an error, an error that makes no difference
Are you trying to tell me Joseph had two fathers, Nemesio?!
and shouldn't shake any reasonable person's faith.
The mental gymnastics that you are doing to harmonize these accounts
is ludicrous. As I wrote before:
A Gospel writer put the entire geneology in father-son fashion
from the time of Adam straight down until Eli, at which point he puts
a father-in-law geneology, all of this supported by a heretical 2nd
century Gospel, assuming you accept the Elichim-Joachim switchero.
You can accept this baloney because, in order to believe, the Bible
must be inerrant. This is a sad restriction. You don't know what True
Freedom is and I pity you.
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioIt has been said also that Joseph was the legal son and heir of Heli, though the real son of Jacob, and that thus the two lines terminated in him. This was the explanation suggested by most of the Christian fathers, and on the whole is the most satisfactory. It was a law of the Jews that if a man died without children, his brother should marry his widow. Thus the two lines might have been intermingled, According to this solution, which was first proposed by Africanus, Matthan, descended from Solomon, married Estha, of whom was born Jacob. After Matthan's death, Matthat being of the same tribe, but of another family, married his widow, and of this marriage Heli was born. Jacob and Heli were therefore children of the same mother. Heli dying without children, his brother Jacob married his widow, and begat Joseph, who was thus the legal son of Heli. This is agreeable to the account in the two evangelists. Matthew says that Jacob begat Joseph; Luke says that Joseph was the son of Heli, i. e., was his legal heir, or was reckoned in law to be his son. ...
Or........
St Matthew reinterpretted Q from which the two of them drew.
Being of decidely conservative Jewish stock, he couldn't handle
the idea that 'Blessed are the poor' is really what Jesus
meant, so he edited it.
Heaven forbid!
So you are saying St Luke's Gospel is inaccurate; that is, he
omitted critical stuff like (Blessed are ...[text shortened]... Great. Very reliable. A guy who can't take copius notes on
his Lord and Savior.
Nemesio
Though these solutions may not seem to be entirely satisfactory, yet there are two additional considerations which should set the matter at rest, and lead to the conclusion that the narratives are not really inconsistent.
1. No difficulty was ever found, or alleged, in regard to them, by any of the early enemies of Christianity. There is no evidence that they ever adduced them as containing a contradiction. Many of those enemies were acute, learned, and able; and they show by their writings that they were not indisposed to detect all the errors that could possibly be found in the sacred narrative. Now it is to be remembered that the Jews were fully competent to show that these tables were incorrect, if they were really so; and it is clear that they were fully disposed, if possible, to do it. The fact, therefore, that it is not done, is clear evidence that they thought it to be correct. The same may be said of the acute pagans who wrote against Christianity. None of them have called in question the correctness of these tables. This is full proof that, in a time when it was easy to understand these tables, they were believed to be correct.
2. The evangelists are not responsible for the correctness of these tables. They are responsible only for what was their real and professed object to do. What was that object? It was to prove to the satisfaction of the Jews that Jesus was descended from David, and therefore that there was no argument from his ancestry that he was not the promised Messiah. Now to make this out, it was not necessary, nor would it have conduced to their argument, to have formed a new table of genealogy. All that could be done was to go to the family records-- to the public tables, and copy them as they were actually kept, and show that, according to the records of the nation, Jesus was descended from David. This, among the Jews, would be full and decided testimony in the case. And this was doubtless done. In the same way, the records of a family among us, as they are kept by the family, are proof in courts of justice now of the birth, names, etc., of individuals. Nor is it necessary or proper for a court to call them in question or to attempt to correct them. So, the tables here are good evidence to the only point that the writers wished to establish: that is, to show to the Jews that Jesus of Nazareth was descended from David. The only inquiry which can now be fairly made is whether they copied those tables correctly. It is clear that no man can prove that they did not so copy them, and therefore that no one can adduce them as an argument against the correctness of the New Testament.