• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Challenge to Atheists

Somerville said:
Ah yes, the need to understand "correctly". It seems this matter of "understanding" is the reason there are 30,000+ groups which call themselves "Christian"
Click to expand...

As I said, there are none, when understood correctly...if any of those groups have contradiction/errors in their understanding, then they are obviously wrong...
 
Somerville said:
Ah yes, the need to understand "correctly". It seems this matter of "understanding" is the reason there are 30,000+ groups which call themselves "Christian"
Click to expand...

This represents to a large degree the failure of Christianity. If Christians insist on separation from each other then separation from God is inevitable.
 
Metanoia said:
This represents to a large degree the failure of Christianity. If Christians insist on separation from each other then separation from God is inevitable.
Click to expand...

Wrong...we are told to separate ourselves from unbelievers/false worship...only then will our own worship be acceptable to God...

“‘Therefore, get out from among them, and separate yourselves,’ says Jehovah, ‘and quit touching the unclean thing’”; “‘and I will take you in.’” 2 Corinthians 6:17
 
Elvira said:
Wrong...we are told to separate ourselves from unbelievers/false worship...only then will our own worship be acceptable to God...

“‘Therefore, get out from among them, and separate yourselves,’ says Jehovah, ‘and quit touching the unclean thing’”; “‘and I will take you in.’” 2 Corinthians 6:17
Click to expand...

It is your belief that other Christians are unbelievers.....that is only your ego informing you of such. They very easily can think the same thing of you....with verses to back them up. It comes down to the individual....one’s righteousness is not guaranteed by membership in a specific denomination h.
 
Metanoia said:
It is your belief that other Christians are unbelievers.....that is only your ego informing you of such. They very easily can think the same thing of you....with verses to back them up. It comes down to the individual....one’s righteousness is not guaranteed by membership in a specific denomination h.
Click to expand...

If they believe unscriptual doctrines, yes they are...the Bible is in complete harmony...
 
This all reminds one of the parable of the publican and the Pharisee. The Pharisee commended himself.....the publican acknowledged his sin.
 
Elvira said:
There are none, when understood correctly...
Click to expand...

Matthew 27:3-10
3 Then Judas, his betrayer, seeing that Jesus had been condemned, felt remorse and brought the 30 pieces of silver back to the chief priests and elders,+ 4 saying: “I sinned when I betrayed innocent blood.” They said: “What is that to us? You must see to it!”* 5 So he threw the silver pieces into the temple and departed. Then he went off and hanged himself.+ 6 But the chief priests took the silver pieces and said: “It is not lawful to put them into the sacred treasury, because they are the price of blood.” 7 After consulting together, they used the money to buy the potter’s field as a burial place for strangers. 8 Therefore, that field has been called Field of Blood+ to this very day. 9 Then what was spoken through Jeremiah the prophet was fulfilled: “And they took the 30 silver pieces, the price that was set on the man, the one on whom a price was set by some of the sons of Israel, 10 and they gave them for the potter’s field, according to what Jehovah* had commanded me.”

Acts 1:15-20

15 During those days Peter stood up in the midst of the brothers (the number* of people was altogether about 120) and said: 16 “Men, brothers, it was necessary for the scripture to be fulfilled that the holy spirit spoke prophetically through David about Judas,+ who became a guide to those who arrested Jesus.+ 17 For he had been numbered among us+ and he obtained a share in this ministry. 18 (This very man, therefore, purchased a field with the wages for unrighteousness,+ and falling headfirst, his body burst open* and all his insides spilled out.+ 19 This became known to all the inhabitants of Jerusalem, so that the field was called in their language A·kelʹda·ma, that is, “Field of Blood.”) 20 For it is written in the book of Psalms, ‘Let his dwelling become desolate, and let there be no inhabitant in it’+ and, ‘His office of oversight let someone else take.’

Now, these two passages clearly contradict each other as written. Any claim that they do not contradict requires speculation and facts not in evidence.

The explanation that makes the most sense to me is that each author wanted to claim fulfillment of different prophecies and so changed whatever actually happened to what they wanted to emphasize. We cannot know which, if either, version is more accurate.
 
pinqy said:
Matthew 27:3-10
3 Then Judas, his betrayer, seeing that Jesus had been condemned, felt remorse and brought the 30 pieces of silver back to the chief priests and elders,+ 4 saying: “I sinned when I betrayed innocent blood.” They said: “What is that to us? You must see to it!”* 5 So he threw the silver pieces into the temple and departed. Then he went off and hanged himself.+ 6 But the chief priests took the silver pieces and said: “It is not lawful to put them into the sacred treasury, because they are the price of blood.” 7 After consulting together, they used the money to buy the potter’s field as a burial place for strangers. 8 Therefore, that field has been called Field of Blood+ to this very day. 9 Then what was spoken through Jeremiah the prophet was fulfilled: “And they took the 30 silver pieces, the price that was set on the man, the one on whom a price was set by some of the sons of Israel, 10 and they gave them for the potter’s field, according to what Jehovah* had commanded me.”

Acts 1:15-20

15 During those days Peter stood up in the midst of the brothers (the number* of people was altogether about 120) and said: 16 “Men, brothers, it was necessary for the scripture to be fulfilled that the holy spirit spoke prophetically through David about Judas,+ who became a guide to those who arrested Jesus.+ 17 For he had been numbered among us+ and he obtained a share in this ministry. 18 (This very man, therefore, purchased a field with the wages for unrighteousness,+ and falling headfirst, his body burst open* and all his insides spilled out.+ 19 This became known to all the inhabitants of Jerusalem, so that the field was called in their language A·kelʹda·ma, that is, “Field of Blood.”) 20 For it is written in the book of Psalms, ‘Let his dwelling become desolate, and let there be no inhabitant in it’+ and, ‘His office of oversight let someone else take.’

Now, these two passages clearly contradict each other as written. Any claim that they do not contradict requires speculation and facts not in evidence.

The explanation that makes the most sense to me is that each author wanted to claim fulfillment of different prophecies and so changed whatever actually happened to what they wanted to emphasize. We cannot know which, if either, version is more accurate.
Click to expand...

Nope, the differences require reason and common sense...clearly it is 2 different eyewitness accounts recorded...one focuses on Judas' hanging, the other focuses on the results of his hanging...the priests purchased the field, but since Judas provided the money, it could be credited to him...

“It was not lawful to take into the Temple-treasury, for the purchase of sacred things, money that had been unlawfully gained. In such cases the Jewish Law provided that the money was to be restored to the donor, and, if he insisted on giving it, that he should be induced to spend it for something for the public weal [well-being]...By a fiction of law the money was still considered to be Judas’, and to have been applied by him in the purchase of the well-known ‘potter’s field.’” - The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, 1906, Vol. II, p. 575
 
pinqy said:
Matthew 27:3-10
3 Then Judas, his betrayer, seeing that Jesus had been condemned, felt remorse and brought the 30 pieces of silver back to the chief priests and elders,+ 4 saying: “I sinned when I betrayed innocent blood.” They said: “What is that to us? You must see to it!”* 5 So he threw the silver pieces into the temple and departed. Then he went off and hanged himself.+ 6 But the chief priests took the silver pieces and said: “It is not lawful to put them into the sacred treasury, because they are the price of blood.” 7 After consulting together, they used the money to buy the potter’s field as a burial place for strangers. 8 Therefore, that field has been called Field of Blood+ to this very day. 9 Then what was spoken through Jeremiah the prophet was fulfilled: “And they took the 30 silver pieces, the price that was set on the man, the one on whom a price was set by some of the sons of Israel, 10 and they gave them for the potter’s field, according to what Jehovah* had commanded me.”

Acts 1:15-20

15 During those days Peter stood up in the midst of the brothers (the number* of people was altogether about 120) and said: 16 “Men, brothers, it was necessary for the scripture to be fulfilled that the holy spirit spoke prophetically through David about Judas,+ who became a guide to those who arrested Jesus.+ 17 For he had been numbered among us+ and he obtained a share in this ministry. 18 (This very man, therefore, purchased a field with the wages for unrighteousness,+ and falling headfirst, his body burst open* and all his insides spilled out.+ 19 This became known to all the inhabitants of Jerusalem, so that the field was called in their language A·kelʹda·ma, that is, “Field of Blood.”) 20 For it is written in the book of Psalms, ‘Let his dwelling become desolate, and let there be no inhabitant in it’+ and, ‘His office of oversight let someone else take.’

Now, these two passages clearly contradict each other as written. Any claim that they do not contradict requires speculation and facts not in evidence.

The explanation that makes the most sense to me is that each author wanted to claim fulfillment of different prophecies and so changed whatever actually happened to what they wanted to emphasize. We cannot know which, if either, version is more accurate.
Click to expand...

Very little contradiction. In the end the fact remains that it was the money of Judas that bought the field.
 
Elvira said:
Nope, the differences require reason and common sense...clearly it is 2 different eyewitness accounts recorded...one focuses on Judas' hanging, the other focuses on the results of his hanging...the priests purchased the field, but since Judas provided the money, it could be credited to him...

“It was not lawful to take into the Temple-treasury, for the purchase of sacred things, money that had been unlawfully gained. In such cases the Jewish Law provided that the money was to be restored to the donor, and, if he insisted on giving it, that he should be induced to spend it for something for the public weal [well-being]...By a fiction of law the money was still considered to be Judas’, and to have been applied by him in the purchase of the well-known ‘potter’s field.’” - The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, 1906, Vol. II, p. 575
Click to expand...
As I said, speculation and facts not in evidence. You cannot show that Judas hung himself, then his guts spilled out and Even supposing the elders bought it in his name after he died we still have Matthew saying it was bought before he died. Those are not simple differences of eyewitness accounts.

Is your version possible? Maybe, but it’s a bit of a stretch. You have no evidence that your version is true.
My version is also speculation but it is the simpler and more consistent explanation.
 
Elvira said:
There are none, when understood correctly...
Click to expand...
Translated to mean "you have to read the words the way I read them, the context I think they should be taken in, rather than what you are actually reading and the history that goes with it".

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
 
Metanoia said:
Very little contradiction. In the end the fact remains that it was the money of Judas that bought the field.
Click to expand...

Which is the point both authors meant to make. But both versions cannot be true as written without introducing facts not in evidence. No it is not a problem from a non-literal viewpoint, but it is a point against the position of inerrancy and literal meaning.
 
pinqy said:
As I said, speculation and facts not in evidence. You cannot show that Judas hung himself, then his guts spilled out and Even supposing the elders bought it in his name after he died we still have Matthew saying it was bought before he died. Those are not simple differences of eyewitness accounts.

Is your version possible? Maybe, but it’s a bit of a stretch. You have no evidence that your version is true.
My version is also speculation but it is the simpler and more consistent explanation.
Click to expand...

As I said, logic and commons sense, along with the understanding of human nature accounts, makes it very possible and even probable...
 
roguenuke said:
Translated to mean "you have to read the words the way I read them, the context I think they should be taken in, rather than what you are actually reading and the history that goes with it".

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Yes, if taken in the right context, there are no contradictions...
 
Elvira said:
As I said, logic and commons sense, along with the understanding of human nature accounts, makes it very possible and even probable...
Click to expand...

Without presupposing there cannot be a contradiction, your version is in no way supported by logic or common sense.
 
pinqy said:
Without presupposing there cannot be a contradiction, your version is in no way supported by logic or common sense.
Click to expand...

There is no presupposing to it...the truth of the Bible is there and it does not contradict itself...it's up to you to find that truth...few do...Matthew 7:13,14...
 
pinqy said:
Without presupposing there cannot be a contradiction, your version is in no way supported by logic or common sense.
Click to expand...

They just didn’t have copy and paste then....:)
 
Elvira said:
Nope, the differences require reason and common sense...clearly it is 2 different eyewitness accounts recorded...one focuses on Judas' hanging, the other focuses on the results of his hanging...the priests purchased the field, but since Judas provided the money, it could be credited to him...

“It was not lawful to take into the Temple-treasury, for the purchase of sacred things, money that had been unlawfully gained. In such cases the Jewish Law provided that the money was to be restored to the donor, and, if he insisted on giving it, that he should be induced to spend it for something for the public weal [well-being]...By a fiction of law the money was still considered to be Judas’, and to have been applied by him in the purchase of the well-known ‘potter’s field.’” - The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, 1906, Vol. II, p. 575
Click to expand...

That makes absolutely no sense. It looks like a rationalization to explain away a contradiction.
 
Elvira said:
.By a fiction of law the money was still considered to be Judas’, and to have been applied by him in the purchase of the well-known ‘potter’s field.’”
Click to expand...
Do you have any evidence that this is what actually happened? Any third Scriptural account I’m not aware of? That explanation is not the only explanation as to why Matthew and Acts differ as to who bought the field. So without asserting or assuming there cannot be contradictions, what logic or reason could lead you to that conclusion as opposed to the conclusion that we can’t know what actually happened but one or both authors ignored the truth to tell a story that fit their message?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom