Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

Question For Christians About Biblical Inerrancy


Neon Genesis

Recommended Posts

... I sort of exhasusted myself on the above post...

You sort of exhausted the rest of us with it too. :HaHa:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... I sort of exhasusted myself on the above post...

You sort of exhausted the rest of us with it too. :HaHa:

:lmao:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

name='rayskidude' date='Feb 1 2009, 10:20 AM' post='427649']

Everyone is aware of other writings that purported to be from Biblical writers - but they were not incorporated into the NT because they did not meet the requiremennts that I've stated previously. Placing (or not placing) a book into the Bible is a serious matter - because people will lives their lives based on Scripture since it is God's Word.

The Early Church considered this matter with a discerning eye, and established a process to determine which books were actually Scripture. There are no sustainable reasons to doubt the current NT canon.

 

Are you defining the "Early Church" as being specifically the Catholic Church?

Wasn't the process a matter of elite human clerics, none of whom lived at the time of Jesus or the apostles, voting on what scripture they deemed to be authoritative?

The Catholic Encyclopedia gives the dates AD 220-367 as the period of discussion for the canon of the New Testament and assigns the period of fixation for the canon of the New Testament as AD 367-405.

The issue of Luther and others rejecting parts of the NT canon was dealt with at the Council of Trent (AD 1546), indicating that there were Christians that had serious doubts about the canon that was fixed hundreds of years earlier.

The Catholic Encyclopedia states that Luther rejected Jude, Hebrews, James, and the Apocalypse as canon.

However, if there are no reasons to doubt the current NT canon as you suggest, do you extend that certainty to other Catholic doctrines as well?

In other words, do you recognize the Catholic Church as the supreme authority in Christian matters?

If you rely on the traditions of the Catholic Church to accurately establish something as vital as "God's Word", do you also look to the authority of the Church in all matters relating to Christian belief and behavior?

The reason I bring this up is to establish how seriously you view the authority of the Catholic Church, which has directly expressed itself in the canon of the New Testament, which you have no reason to doubt as being entirely the Word of God.

This is an exerpt from the Catholic Encyclopedia, section titled "Dogma".

 

Against the theory of interpretation of Scripture by private judgement, Catholics regard as absolutely unacceptable the view that God revealed a body of truths to the world and appointed no official teacher of revealed truth, no authoritative judge of controversy; this view is as unreasonable as would be the notion that the civil legislature makes laws and then commits to individual private judgment the right and the duty of interpreting the laws and deciding controversies. The Church and the supreme pontiff are endowed by God with the privilege of infallibility in discharge of the duty of universal teacher in the sphere of faith and morals; hence we have an infallible testimony that the dogmas defined and delivered to us by the Church are the truths contained in Divine revelation.

 

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05089a.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me see if I understand this:

 

27.5 And throwing down the pieces of silver in the temple, he departed; and he went and hanged himself.

27.7 So they took counsel, and bought with them the potter's field, to bury strangers in.

 

So he runs off and hangs himself. Now he's dead. Just swinging in the breeze. The priests gather the money. Hold a meeting. Decide to buy a field. Find a field with a corpse swinging from a tree. Take a liking to that one. Buy it. Leave the body up there even though the field is to bury strangers in. Is it because they sort of knew Judas that they left him up there? He wasn't entirely a stranger? The whole point of dragging old jesus from the cross was that they didn't want to leave a body out since it was against the rules but these guys seem to not care in the least. Judas is hanging there for quite some time. Enough time to go through some bloating and rope rotting enough to break in some strange physics defying head-first fall scenario. You'd think the animals would have gotten to him first.

 

Then there's the story in Acts.

1:18 (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.

So a dead man buys a field (according to the backwards they bought it with the money he returned logic). He hangs there for a long time since no one takes him down even though they know he's there since he's just sort of hanging around when they buy it (or did no one bother to look at the property...let me guess they bought it sight unseen). Then his magical fall accelerates him to the bursting point since his thick waterproof skin and lack of bodily orifices prevent the leakage of his fluids allowing for his gooey rupture upon hitting the ground. Sounds good so far. Really.

 

The problem I have is with the middle section of this last verse: "and falling headlong, he burst open in the middle" because it looks like this "kai prēnēs genomenos elakēsen mesos"

 

Now I know that seems like the same thing but it's not. Everyone seems to cheat on the translation.

 

"Prēnēs" is much like "prone" or "face down." In fact, by itself, it is rendered as "bending forward" or "prostrate." But when tied to this magic word "genomenos" people turn it into "falling headlong" and this only happens in this one magical verse. Strange isn't it? Now, "genomenos" means lots of things (around 40) so I can't name them all and "falling" is one of them but it usually has something to do with "to come," "to become," "come to pass," "came to be" and the like. Having to do with "falling" is probably there simply because of this verse since it's more to do with movement to a destination (as you can see "falling" fits that) but in a more temporal than physical sense (maybe "to befall" if you want "fall" in there).

 

"Elakēsen" we're told is "burst open" but that's not quite right. It's really more to "crack open" and not just "crack open" but rather "to crack open with a noise" or maybe if you like the bursting idea "burst open with a cracking sound." Like a pinata. Crack. And "mesos" is "midst" or "middle."

 

Now what we have here is "and bending forward he cracked open in the middle and his intestines spilled out." That's a much more accurate rendition of that part of the verse (and remember the noise that goes with that cracking open because it's in the Greek...gotta love it).

 

I have to say I used to love Papias' version where he got fatter than a chariot and then got ran down by one (thus breaking open) but I'm kind of liking this version now that this little discussion has forced me to read it in the original language. It's quite funny. I can only imagine that if this were to really happen that it would become known throughout Jerusalem just as the next verse asserts.

 

Oh well, the hanging and popping open version is good too I guess.

 

mwc

 

thank you for the input.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would contend that a large portion of Matthew is very direct. Regardless, an author could chose to tell the story in a different way. If both of us saw a robbery in progress; maybe I would remember the gun he had and you would focus on the outfit he was wearing and another witness might focus on what he said. This doesn't mean there was three different robbers, just different perspectives on them. In Matthew and Acts, the reader understands the same point: Judas was a wicked man, money was used to buy a field, and that field was named field of blood. I just don't see a contradiction that you are so adamant about.

 

Nobody on earth can prove that Jesus was an actuall person, but I think it is hard to deny the existence of Him. He is prophesized in the OT, obviously the four cannonical gospels, multiple apocryphal writings including Jesus, and the shear impact He had on the culture lends credit to the existence of Jesus.

 

FREEDAY!!!! :bounce: How the hell are you?? Wow, now that's a voice from the past. Good to see you! Often wondered how things were for you...

 

Anyway, I'd like to offer some responses to the above, but I sort of exhasusted myself on the above post earlier today, and tonight is reserved from relaxing with a good wine and music, and perhaps some lighter posts. I look forward to discussions again with you. Later.....

 

Doing great, I see you are still giving the apologetics hell, I wouldn't expect anything less from you. I come and read the site sometimes, but rarely do I post. Hope things are going good your way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everyone is aware of other writings that purported to be from Biblical writers - but they were not incorporated into the NT because they did not meet the requiremennts that I've stated previously. Placing (or not placing) a book into the Bible is a serious matter - because people will lives their lives based on Scripture since it is God's Word. The Early Church considered this matter with a discerning eye, and established a process to determine which books were actually Scripture.
Now you're arguing from double standards. You said that the early Christians have always believed that the verse in 1 Timothy regarding biblical inerrancy referred to the other scriptures being written during this time. If the 1 Timothy verse means all scripture claiming to be the words of God are divinely inspired, then it must apply to the Gnostic gospels too. So, you must either believe that the Gnostic gospels are divinely inspired or you must agree that your reasoning is flawed and does not prove anything about biblical inerrancy. Furthermore, you offer up no evidence whatsoever to your claim that the early Christians have always accepted that all scripture is inerrant and to be read literally.

 

What about St. Augustine? Even he didn't believe that the book of Genesis should be read literally because he realized the contradiction that it's impossible for God to have created light before creating the sun and this was way back in the 2nd century, long before the theory of evolution ever came along. So, this whole concept of interpreting the scriptures through symbolism and metaphor is not some new post-modern liberal invention created by cherry picking liberal Christians or whatever. The question of whether or not we should interpret scripture literally or symbolically is a debate that's as old as Christianity itself and you are ignoring history by acting like the truth has always been clear from the start and we're just too arrogant to realize it. You're also ignoring the question that if placing scripture in the bible is a serious matter, why doesn't the final twelve verses of Mark 16 appear in any of its earliest manuscripts if the bible is truly diversely inspired? Did God just happen to be on vacation with Baal that day and forgot to inspire them when they created the early manuscripts?

 

There are no sustainable reasons to doubt the current NT canon.
To which claim I must ask, have you ever read it?

 

This much is exposed through the tools of scholarship at our disposal today. This has nothing to do with “attitude” of arrogance as you choose to frame it. It has to do with tools at our disposal, and years upon years of collected minds pouring over these manuscripts in countless volumes written about them and other cultures. I hardly consider this an arrogant attitude, any more than I would say Newton was a buffoon for not being aware of the world through quantum physics, or that the ancient world thought that women were underdeveloped males in the womb, an inferior human as opposed to a different type of human. That’s what they understood with the knowledge they had. Not fools; just us without our knowledge through our tools.
I think one way of looking at is that it's like how everyone used to think the Earth was flat back in the old days and it may have been perfectly reasonable to believe that back then. That doesn't mean they were necessarily arrogant for believing that you could fall off the edge of the Earth if you sailed too far away from shore. It simply means they were wrong about their beliefs. On the other hand, I think it certainly would be silly to now claim with our current knowledge that modern science is wrong, and there's some grand conspiracy plot created by NASA to fool us into thinking we landed on the moon when the whole thing was staged, and so we should take it on faith the Earth is flat.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would contend that a large portion of Matthew is very direct.

 

I wasn't talking about how direct he was, I was talking about literary styles.

 

Regardless, an author could chose to tell the story in a different way. If both of us saw a robbery in progress; maybe I would remember the gun he had and you would focus on the outfit he was wearing and another witness might focus on what he said. This doesn't mean there was three different robbers, just different perspectives on them.

 

This analogy doesn't really work, its more like if one man said the robber had a blue hat and the other said the hat was yellow....one of them cannot be right.

 

In Matthew and Acts, the reader understands the same point: Judas was a wicked man, money was used to buy a field, and that field was named field of blood. I just don't see a contradiction that you are so adamant about.

 

LOL, now your backpedaling, you were quite willing to claim that the story was allegory before, now you are claiming its factually true...which is it?

 

I pointed out the contradiction, so if you can't see it, you just don't want to see it. In fact the stories portray Judas very differently, one makes him out to be a victim who regrets his choice, and the other he is quite happy to take the money and use it to buy himself some land. Then he dies mysteriously as some sort of karmic pay back.

 

Nobody on earth can prove that Jesus was an actuall person, but I think it is hard to deny the existence of Him. He is prophesized in the OT, obviously the four cannonical gospels, multiple apocryphal writings including Jesus, and the shear impact He had on the culture lends credit to the existence of Jesus.

 

Its not hard at all, there may have been a person that the gospels were based upon, but the character of Jesus in the gospels is mostly fiction.

 

There isn't a single prophesy for him in the OT, (I know you think there is, but it just isn't so) Most of them are shoehorned in and fit very poorly. The most famous of which are in Isaiah.

 

The canonical gospels were written anonymously 30+ years after his death (the names were attributed to them in late 2nd/early 3rd century)

 

Apocryphal writings such as the gospel of Peter, or Thomas were mostly written even later, and if you had read them you would know that most of them portray Jesus in some ways that are very incompatible with orthodox/fundamentalist theology.

In the gospel of Peter for example Jesus is often portrayed as not having a physical body, and the crucifixion was all an elaborate show.

 

Jesus hasn't had influence on diddly squat, the CHURCH did those things, and it is no more evidence of it being true than Islam's influence on the middle east. This kind of argument might work on someone who thinks that the united states is the only place of consequence in the world, but I've been living in another country for nearly half a year, and I can tell you quite frankly that to a great many people Christianity has no influence whatsoever, and yet they are still decent people.

 

Don't get me wrong, I don't think you are stupid for not being able to offer better arguments in favor of your religion. You are, in fact, offering me the best fundamentalist apologetics has to offer. The fact that it stinks like a dead fish is hardly your fault. I've heard all this before when I was still a believer, I am on this side of the fence for the exact reason that all of these arguments are really really bad.l

 

As far as the Matthew/Acts catechism, you wouldn't scrutinize the different perspectives if this was in a different book.

 

You can't prove that Jesus was fictional, you just feel that way because it is your partiality. There are far more prophecies in the OT than just Isaiah, Micah contains my personal favorite. I think the fact that the historical accounts are written within 30-70 years of the account lends credit to the historical accuracy of the Gospels. I, too, have read most of the Apocryphal writings, and am aware that they do not portray Jesus in accordance with the cannonical writings; hence the fact that they were not included. Nevertheless, these are writings of about the same era which shows the popularity and wide views of Jesus in that day. I tend to believe that people would waste thier time writing that much about a false figure who did not exist.

 

I really like the idea that you presuppose of that the church created Jesus and not vice versa. I will have to research this for my own before I will comment on this. Obviously I could regurg what the bible has to say about the creation of the church body, but I would prefer to look at some secular sources also. Thank you for raising this point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as the Matthew/Acts catechism, you wouldn't scrutinize the different perspectives if this was in a different book.

 

You are just factually wrong, historians compare literally styles in ancient writings all the time, I've done literary analysis of books other than the bible in literature classes in college. Literally analysis is one the tools of historiography used to piece together how things happened.

 

I would certainly very heavily scrutinize any book that made such grandiose claims as the bible if I was being told they were factually true. If you were a Muslim we would be discussing your uncritical acceptance of the Koran. You're suggesting that I have a double standard here is rejected. I have merely placed the bible on the same level as all other literature.

 

You can't prove that Jesus was fictional, you just feel that way because it is your partiality.

 

Haha, this is funny coming from someone who clearly has a partiality towards his existence. In any case it depends on what you mean by prove. I cannot provide a deductive proof for this... but deduction cannot prove a negative, and it isn't the best tool for historical study anyway.

 

I have no vested interest in proving that Jesus was entirely fictional, I didn't even make that claim.

 

By the way, I used to be a Christians, so I had the same partiality you have for believing that the accounts for Jesus in the bible were accurate.

What changed my mind was that the evidence did not support this. You conveniently ignore that because it makes the point you are making here a pretty weak one.

 

There are far more prophecies in the OT than just Isaiah, Micah contains my personal favorite. I think the fact that the historical accounts are written within 30-70 years of the account lends credit to the historical accuracy of the Gospels. I, too, have read most of the Apocryphal writings, and am aware that they do not portray Jesus in accordance with the cannonical writings; hence the fact that they were not included. Nevertheless, these are writings of about the same era which shows the popularity and wide views of Jesus in that day. I tend to believe that people would waste thier time writing that much about a false figure who did not exist.

 

I know there are more, I just threw out one example. They are all bad, I did studies of dozens of them during my deconversion process, trying to find something worth believing. There wasn't any.

 

If you think 30-70 years is a small amount of time, ask yourself who shot JFK. People weren't even sure what happened a week later.

Also, generations were shorter during the 1st century so 40 years after the event few, if anyone who was an adult at the time would have been alive. I would have to dig up reference material, but I believe the average adult life span was about 37-38 years at the time.

 

To your last point....arguing that the gnostic writings support Jesus existence by showing he was a popular mythological figure is just not sensible. Do you think Hercules is a real person because he was a popular mythological figure? Do you think big foot really exists simply because lots of people read the Enquirer? C'mon think about where your argument leads before you make it.

 

I really like the idea that you presuppose of that the church created Jesus and not vice versa. I will have to research this for my own before I will comment on this. Obviously I could regurg what the bible has to say about the creation of the church body, but I would prefer to look at some secular sources also. Thank you for raising this point.

 

Did I claim this? I'm not sure I did. I was more just pointing out that the effects you were speaking of Jesus having on culture were not actually things that Jesus did, but things that the Church did. If you are going to argue that the church's effect on western culture proves Jesus' divinity then by that same logic Islam's influence on the middle east proves that Mohamed was really God's prophet.

 

I'm just pointing out that you're argument, taken to its logical conclusion, would lead lots of places you wouldn't go anymore than I would.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the other hand, I think it certainly would be silly to now claim with our current knowledge that modern science is wrong, and there's some grand conspiracy plot created by NASA to fool us into thinking we landed on the moon when the whole thing was staged, and so we should take it on faith the Earth is flat.

 

I had to laugh when I read this, cause my grandfather actually believed the moon landing was staged :lmao:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I looked up the passage in Micah you were referring to freeday.

 

Micah 5:2 if I'm not wrong

 

But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.

 

I studied this passage back in the day too. One problem is that this isn't referring to the town of Bethlehem, which didn't even exist at the time. ( it may not have existed at the time of Jesus' supposed birth either) Bethlehem Ephratah was a clan, not a town.

 

This point is even more important because it shows how the NT writers redacted the OT to suit their own ends. Since Mathew quotes this passage by saying "Bethlehem" instead of "Bethlehem Ephratah" He intentionally rewords the passage to get it to fit.

 

However the real problem is here

 

5:5 And this man shall be the peace, when the Assyrian shall come into our land: and when he shall tread in our palaces, then shall we raise against him seven shepherds, and eight principal men.

5:6 And they shall waste the land of Assyria with the sword, and the land of Nimrod in the entrances thereof: thus shall he deliver us from the Assyrian, when he cometh into our land, and when he treadeth within our borders.

 

Did Jesus ever lead an army against Assyria? Nope, in fact the nation of Assyria didn't even exist by the time he was born.

 

This "prophesy" like most of the others is basically saying that a warrior from some clan (the clan of Bethlehem, who was the son of Caleb's second wife, Ephrathah in this case) would rise up and lead an army against the Assyrians which were causing problems for Israel at the time. Unfortunately for the northern tribes no such leader ever arose.

 

I'm sorry but your "favorite" fails....really badly. *sigh* no one ever reads these things in context, its like the surrounding passages don't exist.

 

By the way, the rest of Micah consists of a jolly little tale about how god is going to rip the "gentiles" to shreds and kill them in the most horrid ways imaginable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow... an even better image than mine... bending forward prostrate... kneeling and begging for forgiveness... get the image?

 

... then he bursts apart like a pinata...everything spilling out at once... "he spilled his guts". He tells them why he did it. He tells them he doesn't want the money anymore...

Well, if that's how you wish to interpret it I can see how you'd get there. I'm sure you can imagine why I wouldn't see it that way (if you can't it's because I'm not trying to harmonize these two stories so he either hangs himself or he cracks in two) but that's really neither here nor there. I did mess up slightly when I re-wrote things. I should have had him bending over rapidly or quickly (in place of the falling headlong part). So something like "quickly bending over" or something to that effect.

 

Thanks for the heads up.. I will take a look at the Greek and Aramaic idioms that are related.

Did they even use "spill their guts" (or the equivalent) then? I've never looked so I'm not aware of it in 1/2C CE.

 

Perhaps the Judas theories are correct... that he was trying to force Jesus to declare his Messiahship and bring about the great liberation of Israel, and when Jesus responded passively, Judas realized that he had caused Jesus' death.

The last thing anyone would want is for their chosen messiah to declare his "messiahship." One was basically appointed (recognized) messiah by others. Essentially greatness needed to be thrust upon him rather than simply declaring himself great and expecting people to accept it. Judas would know this. The follow-up I posted to my other message shows the author of Acts wanted his readers to understand that his Judas simply drew the short straw.

 

mwc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

'mwc'

Well, if that's how you wish to interpret it I can see how you'd get there. ...

 

The follow-up I posted to my other message shows the author of Acts wanted his readers to understand that his Judas simply drew the short straw.

 

I can't find any mention of that as an idiom, however I did find an interesting translation from the Peshitta that references many of the idioms...

http://www.v-a.com/bible/

 

He translated the Acts passage this way:

16. "Brethren,* it was sanctified that Scripture should be fulfilled, which beforehand the holy Spirit declared through the mouth of David, regarding Judas, who was the leader of those who arrested Jesus.

17. "Because of that he was with us, and his lot was that he should perform this requiem.

18. "He is the one who earned himself the wages of sin, and fell flat on his face, his belly split open and his guts spilled out on the ground.*

19. "And this is known by everyone who lives in Jerusalem. And that is why that field is called in the language of the land, Field of Blood, which is translated country of blood.

*1:16 Lit. Ar. idiomatic figure of speech: "Men brothers [of] ours."

*1:18 Lit. Ar. idiomatic construction: "And fell on his face on the ground and his middle tore up and all his inside poured out."

 

I find it a rather odd description of anything physical that might have happened. It seems too "vulgar" to be anything other than an idiomatic expression of despair and guilt.

 

You are correct... I am attempting to make sense of two passages that may be completely unrelated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I looked up the passage in Micah you were referring to freeday.

 

Micah 5:2 if I'm not wrong

 

But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.

 

I studied this passage back in the day too. One problem is that this isn't referring to the town of Bethlehem, which didn't even exist at the time. ( it may not have existed at the time of Jesus' supposed birth either) Bethlehem Ephratah was a clan, not a town.

 

This point is even more important because it shows how the NT writers redacted the OT to suit their own ends. Since Mathew quotes this passage by saying "Bethlehem" instead of "Bethlehem Ephratah" He intentionally rewords the passage to get it to fit.

 

However the real problem is here

 

5:5 And this man shall be the peace, when the Assyrian shall come into our land: and when he shall tread in our palaces, then shall we raise against him seven shepherds, and eight principal men.

5:6 And they shall waste the land of Assyria with the sword, and the land of Nimrod in the entrances thereof: thus shall he deliver us from the Assyrian, when he cometh into our land, and when he treadeth within our borders.

 

Did Jesus ever lead an army against Assyria? Nope, in fact the nation of Assyria didn't even exist by the time he was born.

 

This "prophesy" like most of the others is basically saying that a warrior from some clan (the clan of Bethlehem, who was the son of Caleb's second wife, Ephrathah in this case) would rise up and lead an army against the Assyrians which were causing problems for Israel at the time. Unfortunately for the northern tribes no such leader ever arose.

 

I'm sorry but your "favorite" fails....really badly. *sigh* no one ever reads these things in context, its like the surrounding passages don't exist.

 

By the way, the rest of Micah consists of a jolly little tale about how god is going to rip the "gentiles" to shreds and kill them in the most horrid ways imaginable.

 

 

You are doing the exact same thing you are accusing me of. The part of Micah that you quote is under a different topic which does not relate to the previous topic of discussion. This passage is describing the fall of the Assyrians to the Babylonians who disperse the remnant Jews in captivity.

 

Micah uses Bethlehem Ephrath to delineate which Bethlehem he is referring to, whereas Matthew does not have to differentiate between the two since it has already passed. By the way, an article in National Geographic states that archeologist had found metal works dating back to 500 BC, thus the town would have been present at Jesus' birth. There is even mention of the town as early as Genesis and in Judges.

 

The clan you are referring to are the Ephrathites which were people from Bethlehem.

 

There was no "redacting" of the OT since the Septuagint was translated around 300 years prior to Jesus' birth which includes the book of Micah.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't find any mention of that as an idiom, however I did find an interesting translation from the Peshitta that references many of the idioms...

http://www.v-a.com/bible/

 

He translated the Acts passage this way:

His translations differ a bit from (what appears to be) the more literal translation found at peshitta.org (not knowing any Aramaic I can't begin to guess at which is the better version or if either one is). Have you read theirs? It took me a second to realize their PDF's were flowing from right to left. :HaHa: It reminds me of the various versions of the lord's prayer that float about.

 

I find it a rather odd description of anything physical that might have happened. It seems too "vulgar" to be anything other than an idiomatic expression of despair and guilt.

It really depends on what the author wanted to convey. If they wanted to show the inner turmoil of Judas then I would say you're right. If they wanted to show some sort of "come uppins" then something this "vulgar" may be what the "audience" demanded. So is the text somehow showing Judas in a kind way? It doesn't appear to be. Even if you show him repenting it appears "forced" (I'll explain this is a second) so a sort of "divine vengeance" looks to be what he's going for.

 

Jews really didn't go prostrate except when they heard the divine name (I imagine there may have been other times but I can't think of any right now) so to pray he would have offered a sacrifice (but if he was unwilling to go to the priests he may not see this as an option) or faced the temple (since it was seen as a sort of conduit). The OT does have many mentions of divine justice being metered out quickly so people would know who was doing it and this strange death would certainly qualify.

 

The thing is I believe that many parts of these texts may several "layers" (either initially, as part of the original intent of the author, or something that got redacted in over time as ideas "morphed") so it may actually intend to convey both meanings as the Judas "cult" decided he wasn't a villain after all (ie. first came the "divine justice" and later came the "repentance" layer). It's hard, if not impossible, to say.

 

You are correct... I am attempting to make sense of two passages that may be completely unrelated.

Yep. Sometimes it's helpful and sometimes it's not. Depends on the exercise. At this point I'd say it's best to treat them as separate stories since doing otherwise muddies the waters (though the original question was about the contradiction so maybe I'm wrong because the only way to avoid the contradiction is to create a harmony).

 

mwc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are doing the exact same thing you are accusing me of. The part of Micah that you quote is under a different topic which does not relate to the previous topic of discussion. This passage is describing the fall of the Assyrians to the Babylonians who disperse the remnant Jews in captivity.

 

Read the passage again, there is no change in subject, and the majority of biblical scholars side with me on this.

Believe me when I say I've heard this particular garbage argument before, I actually heard it when I was still a christian, but having doubts, and I was reading up on this stuff.

I was, in fact, desperate to find justification to continue believing, but I must have read this passage 50 times, and researched scholars studies, and for the life of me I cannot find any reason to suppose that he changed topics in those scant two verses in between. It seems clear as day to me that both are referring to the same person.

 

Considering that most scholars (who have studied the passage far more in depth that you or I) tend to side with my opinion, perhaps you might consider that you are allowing your bias to influence your conclusion.

 

 

Micah uses Bethlehem Ephrath to delineate which Bethlehem he is referring to, whereas Matthew does not have to differentiate between the two since it has already passed. By the way, an article in National Geographic states that archeologist had found metal works dating back to 500 BC, thus the town would have been present at Jesus' birth. There is even mention of the town as early as Genesis and in Judges.

 

I'd be interested in seeing the article that states this, last I heard the evidence suggested otherwise. But archeologists are always making new discoveries.

 

There was no "redacting" of the OT since the Septuagint was translated around 300 years prior to Jesus' birth which includes the book of Micah.

 

Yes, but this has nothing to do with my statement, what the Septuagint has to do with the fact that the writer of Matthew redacted the passage by removing a word which made the fact that this passage was taken out of context more obvious.

 

Unless you are claiming that the Septuagint left the word out...I'll confess I've never read the Septuagint so I wouldn't know, but that would just present an error of another kind to deal with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep. Sometimes it's helpful and sometimes it's not. Depends on the exercise.

At this point I'd say it's best to treat them as separate stories since doing otherwise muddies the waters

(though the original question was about the contradiction so maybe I'm wrong because the only way to avoid the contradiction is to create a harmony).

 

mwc

 

I agree. I think they are separate stories.

In the same way the explanations of who was behind the JFK assassinations or the 9/11 attacks are all separate stories. (Or even news coverage from CNN and Fox News)

Yet, there is a common cultural, political or historical thread that runs through them.

That is what I am looking for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree. I think they are separate stories.

In the same way the explanations of who was behind the JFK assassinations or the 9/11 attacks are all separate stories. (Or even news coverage from CNN and Fox News)

Yet, there is a common cultural, political or historical thread that runs through them.

That is what I am looking for.

I guessed that was how you viewed many of these things based on things you've said elsewhere. ;)

 

The problem then is how do you account for, say, Papias' version? Surely Judas didn't grow fat as fat as and then get smacked by a chariot. So then he too must have been speaking in yet more allegory (whether he knew it or not)? Or was are we simply looking for the bursting open aspect to tie these two (Papias and Acts) together? There is a similar theme there.

 

I would say there's more between Papias/Acts than G.Matthew and the others. In G.Matthew he returns the money and commits suicide by hanging (not one, but two of the worse things a Jew could do...both very dishonorable...especially the hanging because there are cases where Jewish suicide was seen as honorable but obviously by choosing hanging this isn't one). So the story has him taking matters into his own hands. In the other two versions forces basically act upon him. He bends over and cracks open. He grows fat and gets crushed by a chariot (causing him to squish open...I haven't looked to see if the wording is the same as Acts).

 

If I had to guess at an explanation of sorts for these "traditions" I would say that G.Matthew and Papias grew from different traditions and Acts came after them drawing on ideas from both (the field and the bursting open). The idea that the others would take those two ideas from Acts and split them seems unlikely but merging the two (leaving out the parts they didn't care for in the process) seems more logical.

 

But I've never really given this little vignette (it's not a pericope) much thought until just now so perhaps there's more I need to consider.

 

mwc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I had to guess at an explanation of sorts for these "traditions" I would say that G.Matthew and Papias grew from different traditions and Acts came after them drawing on ideas from both (the field and the bursting open). The idea that the others would take those two ideas from Acts and split them seems unlikely but merging the two (leaving out the parts they didn't care for in the process) seems more logical.

 

But I've never really given this little vignette (it's not a pericope) much thought until just now so perhaps there's more I need to consider.

 

mwc

 

Nor have I. Suffice to say they wanted to get Judas out of the picture and they did. And further more, they wanted him punished... so he's dead.

 

There are more important fish to fry in trying to understand what they wrote, why they wrote it and why some things were allowed or disallowed into the Canon.

 

(Pericope, eh? Now there is a word you don't see used very often in everyday liturgical conversation. I am not sure i have ever come across it. I had to look it up.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(Pericope, eh? Now there is a word you don't see used very often in everyday liturgical conversation. I am not sure i have ever come across it. I had to look it up.)

Then I didn't have to feel so bad for doing the same thing! :HaHa: Okay. "Peri" I knew, "cope" for cut. Good to know. A few more tools in the etymological tool-chest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

K-man, please read my previous response re: Dr. Ehrman; he does not deal with facts alone - his conclusions arise also from presuppositions, assumptions, unprovable theories about various literary and historical criticism methods. It is a methodology that is given to subjective judgments. Therefore, though much has been done in this area of study called higher criticism, the conclusions reached are not based on any hard science, but personal and subjective thought processes brought to bear on the data. And they draw conclusions that are in opposition to men 1600 years closer to these issues - does this not cause some level of consternation on your part?

 

Everyone is aware of other writings that purported to be from Biblical writers - but they were not incorporated into the NT because they did not meet the requiremennts that I've stated previously. Placing (or not placing) a book into the Bible is a serious matter - because people will lives their lives based on Scripture since it is God's Word. The Early Church considered this matter with a discerning eye, and established a process to determine which books were actually Scripture. There are no sustainable reasons to doubt the current NT canon.

 

Please reread your own post and look for the obvious hypocrisy... Ehrman's conclusions are given to subjective judgments???? What about the Canon itself and the arguments about what should be in and what shouldn't... from people like Athanasius, Marcion, Irenaeus, Origen, Eusibius.... and a myriad of others... even Martin Luther disagreed with the Canon. (James' "Epistle of Straw", for example) The Canon was a popular vote!

 

In your second paragraph... what does "Biblical writers" mean? Who is implicitly included and excluded from that group?

 

In II Thess 2:2, Paul writes; "... that you not be quickly shaken from your composure or be disturbed either by a spirit or a message or a letter as if from us, to the effect that the Day of the Lord has come." So here we see that Paul ackowledges that this church may have received a letter purportedly from Paul. Then in Galatians 1:6-10, Paul condemns anyone - man or angel - who would preach a Gospel different from the one Paul preached. The remainder of the letter shows that men had come to this church and preached a false Gospel that was to be rejected.

 

In Matthew 24, the Olivet Discorse concerning the future - Jesus said, "Many false prophets will arise and will mislead many... For false Christs and false prophets will arise and will show great signs and wonders, so as to mislead, if possible, even the elect. Behold, I have told you in advance... do not believe them." And we all know of Jesus' warning about wolves in sheep's clothing.

 

SO yes, there are the Gospel of Peter, the Gospel of Thomas, the Shepherd of Hermes, and various Gnostic writings that people tried to pass off as Christian - but the Holy Spirit guided and protected the church from these heretical attacks.

 

There were also writings of bona fide very early church leaders, such as Irenaeus and Polycarp - but their excellent writings, though correct and very helpful, were not incorporated into Scripture either. There was a discerning, Spirit-guided process in place to establish the NT canon. And there's no sustainable reason not to accept the work done by the early churches in this regard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

K-man, please read my previous response re: Dr. Ehrman; he does not deal with facts alone - his conclusions arise also from presuppositions, assumptions, unprovable theories about various literary and historical criticism methods. It is a methodology that is given to subjective judgments. Therefore, though much has been done in this area of study called higher criticism, the conclusions reached are not based on any hard science, but personal and subjective thought processes brought to bear on the data. And they draw conclusions that are in opposition to men 1600 years closer to these issues - does this not cause some level of consternation on your part?

 

Everyone is aware of other writings that purported to be from Biblical writers - but they were not incorporated into the NT because they did not meet the requiremennts that I've stated previously. Placing (or not placing) a book into the Bible is a serious matter - because people will lives their lives based on Scripture since it is God's Word. The Early Church considered this matter with a discerning eye, and established a process to determine which books were actually Scripture. There are no sustainable reasons to doubt the current NT canon.

 

Please reread your own post and look for the obvious hypocrisy... Ehrman's conclusions are given to subjective judgments???? What about the Canon itself and the arguments about what should be in and what shouldn't... from people like Athanasius, Marcion, Irenaeus, Origen, Eusibius.... and a myriad of others... even Martin Luther disagreed with the Canon. (James' "Epistle of Straw", for example) The Canon was a popular vote!

 

In your second paragraph... what does "Biblical writers" mean? Who is implicitly included and excluded from that group?

 

In II Thess 2:2, Paul writes; "... that you not be quickly shaken from your composure or be disturbed either by a spirit or a message or a letter as if from us, to the effect that the Day of the Lord has come." So here we see that Paul ackowledges that this church may have received a letter purportedly from Paul. Then in Galatians 1:6-10, Paul condemns anyone - man or angel - who would preach a Gospel different from the one Paul preached. The remainder of the letter shows that men had come to this church and preached a false Gospel that was to be rejected.

 

In Matthew 24, the Olivet Discorse concerning the future - Jesus said, "Many false prophets will arise and will mislead many... For false Christs and false prophets will arise and will show great signs and wonders, so as to mislead, if possible, even the elect. Behold, I have told you in advance... do not believe them." And we all know of Jesus' warning about wolves in sheep's clothing.

 

SO yes, there are the Gospel of Peter, the Gospel of Thomas, the Shepherd of Hermes, and various Gnostic writings that people tried to pass off as Christian - but the Holy Spirit guided and protected the church from these heretical attacks.

 

There were also writings of bona fide very early church leaders, such as Irenaeus and Polycarp - but their excellent writings, though correct and very helpful, were not incorporated into Scripture either. There was a discerning, Spirit-guided process in place to establish the NT canon. And there's no sustainable reason not to accept the work done by the early churches in this regard.

That's it? This is your response? I know I'm waiting for your reply to my massive response earlier and you can take your time, but I have to remark on the above response to kcdad.

 

Essentially you are appealing to the Bible to appeal to itself. This is circular reasoning. I hesitated bringing up one of your self-referential appeals regarding 2 Thessalonians, but I will. Again citing Ehrman,

 

"A book written in Paul's name, 2 Thessalonians, warns against a letter, allegedly written by Paul, that had disturbed some of its readers (2:2). In an interesting twist, scholars today are not altogether confident that 2 Thessalonians itself was written by Paul."
Early Christianities
, page 10

 

So... lets suppose you had 4 groups of people. Each one claiming the other was false. Each one saying beware of false teachers from those other groups! Then time passes, events occur and the last man standing cites his own sayings as proof of its validity. It writes history in its favor, denouncing its competitors as of the devil, deceived, unenlightened, and dangerous. This is politics, plain and simple. All you are doing is trying to justify your version of history that suits a tradition handed down to you. It's all self-referential.

 

I look forward to your response to my post from earlier.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SO yes, there are the Gospel of Peter, the Gospel of Thomas, the Shepherd of Hermes, and various Gnostic writings that people tried to pass off as Christian - but the Holy Spirit guided and protected the church from these heretical attacks.

 

There were also writings of bona fide very early church leaders, such as Irenaeus and Polycarp - but their excellent writings, though correct and very helpful, were not incorporated into Scripture either. There was a discerning, Spirit-guided process in place to establish the NT canon. And there's no sustainable reason not to accept the work done by the early churches in this regard.

The church was not protected by heretical attacks because they were guided by the Holy Spirit. The church actively suppressed anyone they condemned to be heretics. Even in the bible there are clear examples of where the church forced their beliefs on people. One such example is the story of Ananias and Sapphira from Acts 5 who were murdered by God because they dared to question church authority. Here, I'll quote it for you yourself since you seem to have never actually read the bible yourself. Acts 5:1-10 says
But a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession. 2 And he kept back part of the proceeds, his wife also being aware of it, and brought a certain part and laid it at the apostles’ feet. 3 But Peter said, “Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and keep back part of the price of the land for yourself? 4 While it remained, was it not your own? And after it was sold, was it not in your own control? Why have you conceived this thing in your heart? You have not lied to men but to God.”

5 Then Ananias, hearing these words, fell down and breathed his last. So great fear came upon all those who heard these things. 6 And the young men arose and wrapped him up, carried him out, and buried him.

7 Now it was about three hours later when his wife came in, not knowing what had happened. 8 And Peter answered her, “Tell me whether you sold the land for so much?”

She said, “Yes, for so much.”

9 Then Peter said to her, “How is it that you have agreed together to test the Spirit of the Lord? Look, the feet of those who have buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out.” 10 Then immediately she fell down at his feet and breathed her last. And the young men came in and found her dead, and carrying her out, buried her by her husband. 11 So great fear came upon all the church and upon all who heard these things.

How is the Holy Spirit "protecting" the church in this case? By murdering anyone who disagrees with how it's run? Yet when I cited the example of the Catholic church's treatment of Galileo for defying church authority, you say they weren't "true" Christians yet they're clearly using the same tactics Peter and the Christians in the bible used. Are you therefore saying that Peter wasn't a "true" Christian and the Holy Spirit wasn't following the will of God correctly? By admitting you believe the bible to be the perfect word of God, are you admitting that you worship a god that would murder people for daring to question authority? If you believe the bible to be the perfect word of God, then you must either admit you worship a murderer and approve of such actions or you must concede that the bible is not the word of God. If the early church had accepted the Gnostic gospels as canon and actively suppressed the current canon gospels, then we'd be debating today whether or not the Gnostic gospels are the word of God and why Matthew Mark, Luke, and John didn't make it into the canon. And if the Holy Spirit was guiding the church against the heretics, why didn't the last 12 verses of the Gospel Of Mark appear in any of the earliest manuscripts of Mark?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

SO yes, there are the Gospel of Peter, the Gospel of Thomas, the Shepherd of Hermes, and various Gnostic writings that people tried to pass off as Christian - but the Holy Spirit guided and protected the church from these heretical attacks.

 

I'll concur with Antlerman. This is it?

The winners must have had God on their side because if they didn't they wouldn't have won.

The traditions of the most powerful sect of the "Church" won out over less powerful elements, and this

establishes that the "Holy Spirit" was guiding the winners and protecting them from "heretics"?

 

There were also writings of bona fide very early church leaders, such as Irenaeus and Polycarp - but their excellent writings, though correct and very helpful, were not incorporated into Scripture either. There was a discerning, Spirit-guided process in place to establish the NT canon. And there's no sustainable reason not to accept the work done by the early churches in this regard.

 

Same rationalization process at work.

In other words, winners must have done the right thing because they came out on top.

If they didn't have the Holy Spirit and proper discernment they wouldn't have won and so there is no good reason to reject the results.

Therefore, the NT canon cannot be anything other than the authoritative Word of God.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
K-man, please read my previous response re: Dr. Ehrman; he does not deal with facts alone - his conclusions arise also from presuppositions, assumptions, unprovable theories about various literary and historical criticism methods. It is a methodology that is given to subjective judgments. Therefore, though much has been done in this area of study called higher criticism, the conclusions reached are not based on any hard science, but personal and subjective thought processes brought to bear on the data. And they draw conclusions that are in opposition to men 1600 years closer to these issues - does this not cause some level of consternation on your part?

 

Everyone is aware of other writings that purported to be from Biblical writers - but they were not incorporated into the NT because they did not meet the requiremennts that I've stated previously. Placing (or not placing) a book into the Bible is a serious matter - because people will lives their lives based on Scripture since it is God's Word. The Early Church considered this matter with a discerning eye, and established a process to determine which books were actually Scripture. There are no sustainable reasons to doubt the current NT canon.

 

Please reread your own post and look for the obvious hypocrisy... Ehrman's conclusions are given to subjective judgments???? What about the Canon itself and the arguments about what should be in and what shouldn't... from people like Athanasius, Marcion, Irenaeus, Origen, Eusibius.... and a myriad of others... even Martin Luther disagreed with the Canon. (James' "Epistle of Straw", for example) The Canon was a popular vote!

 

In your second paragraph... what does "Biblical writers" mean? Who is implicitly included and excluded from that group?

 

In II Thess 2:2, Paul writes; "... that you not be quickly shaken from your composure or be disturbed either by a spirit or a message or a letter as if from us, to the effect that the Day of the Lord has come." So here we see that Paul ackowledges that this church may have received a letter purportedly from Paul. Then in Galatians 1:6-10, Paul condemns anyone - man or angel - who would preach a Gospel different from the one Paul preached. The remainder of the letter shows that men had come to this church and preached a false Gospel that was to be rejected.

 

In Matthew 24, the Olivet Discorse concerning the future - Jesus said, "Many false prophets will arise and will mislead many... For false Christs and false prophets will arise and will show great signs and wonders, so as to mislead, if possible, even the elect. Behold, I have told you in advance... do not believe them." And we all know of Jesus' warning about wolves in sheep's clothing.

 

SO yes, there are the Gospel of Peter, the Gospel of Thomas, the Shepherd of Hermes, and various Gnostic writings that people tried to pass off as Christian - but the Holy Spirit guided and protected the church from these heretical attacks.

 

There were also writings of bona fide very early church leaders, such as Irenaeus and Polycarp - but their excellent writings, though correct and very helpful, were not incorporated into Scripture either. There was a discerning, Spirit-guided process in place to establish the NT canon. And there's no sustainable reason not to accept the work done by the early churches in this regard.

That's it? This is your response? I know I'm waiting for your reply to my massive response earlier and you can take your time, but I have to remark on the above response to kcdad.

 

Essentially you are appealing to the Bible to appeal to itself. This is circular reasoning. I hesitated bringing up one of your self-referential appeals regarding 2 Thessalonians, but I will. Again citing Ehrman,

 

"A book written in Paul's name, 2 Thessalonians, warns against a letter, allegedly written by Paul, that had disturbed some of its readers (2:2). In an interesting twist, scholars today are not altogether confident that 2 Thessalonians itself was written by Paul."
Early Christianities
, page 10

 

So... lets suppose you had 4 groups of people. Each one claiming the other was false. Each one saying beware of false teachers from those other groups! Then time passes, events occur and the last man standing cites his own sayings as proof of its validity. It writes history in its favor, denouncing its competitors as of the devil, deceived, unenlightened, and dangerous. This is politics, plain and simple. All you are doing is trying to justify your version of history that suits a tradition handed down to you. It's all self-referential.

 

I look forward to your response to my post from earlier.

 

Sorry - I have been on vacation in SC >> the sun, the beach, the fried seafood, the sweet tea, the golf; but as always, now it's back to the Salt Mine.

 

Re: Ehrman - he has a method of Biblical interpretation, but his methodology carries certain presuppositions and certain speculations, of which he is very confident. BUT literary criticsm is not a hard science, and so you end up in a "my expert vs your expert" situation. And so I maintain with the conservative scholars that I have cited previously - men & women who have weighed the same data re: inerrancy and authority and authorship, etc - that there are no sustainable reasons to doubt the NT veracity nor its inerrancy - nor the careful process which established the NT canon.

 

Re: the self-referential aspect of Bible witness. We must remember that a person's testimony about themselves is accepted as valid in a court of law. This is an analogous situation. The Bible claims to be the Word of God - testifying to its own veracity and authority based on authorship (the Holy Spirit moved upon men and guided their writing). People for centuries have assembled some evidence > which is circumstantial at best > to contradict the Bible's testimony of itself. All this is fine. BUT the fact is there has been no objective proof submitted which would demand a denial of the Bible's claims. And there is also evidence to substantiate the Bible's claims for itself.

 

The scenario of the "last men standing" is sheer conjecture. It's considered by some as a plausible explanation for how we got our current Bible, based on minimal data, but loads of speculation of how this could possibly occur by positing... any number of scenarios.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are doing the exact same thing you are accusing me of. The part of Micah that you quote is under a different topic which does not relate to the previous topic of discussion. This passage is describing the fall of the Assyrians to the Babylonians who disperse the remnant Jews in captivity.

 

Read the passage again, there is no change in subject, and the majority of biblical scholars side with me on this.

Believe me when I say I've heard this particular garbage argument before, I actually heard it when I was still a christian, but having doubts, and I was reading up on this stuff.

I was, in fact, desperate to find justification to continue believing, but I must have read this passage 50 times, and researched scholars studies, and for the life of me I cannot find any reason to suppose that he changed topics in those scant two verses in between. It seems clear as day to me that both are referring to the same person.

 

Considering that most scholars (who have studied the passage far more in depth that you or I) tend to side with my opinion, perhaps you might consider that you are allowing your bias to influence your conclusion.

 

 

Micah uses Bethlehem Ephrath to delineate which Bethlehem he is referring to, whereas Matthew does not have to differentiate between the two since it has already passed. By the way, an article in National Geographic states that archeologist had found metal works dating back to 500 BC, thus the town would have been present at Jesus' birth. There is even mention of the town as early as Genesis and in Judges.

 

I'd be interested in seeing the article that states this, last I heard the evidence suggested otherwise. But archeologists are always making new discoveries.

 

There was no "redacting" of the OT since the Septuagint was translated around 300 years prior to Jesus' birth which includes the book of Micah.

 

Yes, but this has nothing to do with my statement, what the Septuagint has to do with the fact that the writer of Matthew redacted the passage by removing a word which made the fact that this passage was taken out of context more obvious.

 

Unless you are claiming that the Septuagint left the word out...I'll confess I've never read the Septuagint so I wouldn't know, but that would just present an error of another kind to deal with.

 

The passage in Micah 5:2-15 describes the ministry of God's Messiah. 5:2 prophesies the place of His birth for His First Coming , specifically Bethlehem Ephrathah to distinguish this Bethlehem in the district Ephrathah from another that exisited duirng the days of Micah. The remainder of Micah 5 describes the ministry of the Messiah during His Second Coming when He comes to establish His Millennial Kingdom and He defeats unbelieving nations. Oftentimes in OT Scripture that referred to the Messiah, there was no distinction between what would take place in His First Coming and His Second Coming. Isaiah Ch 61 is another example of this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.