Challenge to Atheists

[Daisy]

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?

Because it makes sense...

 

[pinqy]

Because it makes sense...

It makes sense to you that Matthew was truthfly saying that Judas bought the field before dying when he knew that what really happened was he died first and the elders bought the field? Nothing says they bought it in his name or attributed it to him.

Why does it not make sense to you ,given the historical concept that objective history and story telling was not common at all then, that the authors preferred to present a version tying to a different prophecy then the literal truth? Without assuming inerrrncy, on what grounds can you reject that as a possibility?

 

[Daisy]

It makes sense to you that Matthew was truthfly saying that Judas bought the field before dying when he knew that what really happened was he died first and the elders bought the field? Nothing says they bought it in his name or attributed it to him.

Why does it not make sense to you ,given the historical concept that objective history and story telling was not common at all then, that the authors preferred to present a version tying to a different prophecy then the literal truth? Without assuming inerrrncy, on what grounds can you reject that as a possibility?

It makes sense that it was Judas' money that was used, so yes, he bought it...in a sense...:2razz:

 

[pinqy]

It makes sense that it was Judas' money that was used, so yes, he bought it...in a sense...:2razz:

Before or after he died? And how did he die? And you didn’t answer my question about on what grounds other than assumption of inerrancy you can reject author creativity to make a point.

 

[Daisy]

Before or after he died? And how did he die? And you didn’t answer my question about on what grounds other than assumption of inerrancy you can reject author creativity to make a point.

Technically it was his money before and after, no matter who's hands it was in at the time, as I've already pointed out to you but I will do it again...yes, I did...it makes sense, that's why..

“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

 

[Thorgasm]

Give me a supposed error in the Bible and I will destroy it

The Joshua tree.

 

[Metanoia]

As a Christian apologist I know that you could have chosen other passages that are contradictory. And much more so than this one. Some are multiple witnesses told from different perspectives....some are translation errors(news flash...the Bible is not inerrant).....some are not initially understood...and some scriptures complement each other and taken together provide understanding.

 

[pinqy]

As a Christian apologist I know that you could have chosen other passages that are contradictory. And much more so than this one. Some are multiple witnesses told from different perspectives....some are translation errors(news flash...the Bible is not inerrant).....some are not initially understood...and some scriptures complement each other and taken together provide understanding.

That an explanation can explain an apparent contradiction or inconsistency does not mean it is the right explanation.

 

[Metanoia]

That an explanation can explain an apparent contradiction or inconsistency does not mean it is the right explanation.

Get out of the mind frame of either/or ....sometimes it can be both/and...every belief or truth we hold is dependent on POV...

 

[RAMOSS]

Technically it was his money before and after, no matter who's hands it was in at the time, as I've already pointed out to you but I will do it again...yes, I did...it makes sense, that's why..

“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

That is not how things work in Jewish law. Why do you go to sources that lie about things? It's not technically his money.

 

[Daisy]

That is not how things work in Jewish law. Why do you go to sources that lie about things? It's not technically his money.

lol...why do you think I would take your word...a nobody on the net who talks outta both side of his mouth...over the word of experts on the subject? Answer...not in a million years...:2razz:

 

[RAMOSS]

lol...why do you think I would take your word...a nobody on the net who talks outta both side of his mouth...over the word of experts on the subject? Answer...not in a million years...:2razz:

You don't have to. HOwever, your source is.. well,, let's say.. not accurate. it's pretty damn wrong in fact.

 

[pinqy]

Get out of the mind frame of either/or ....sometimes it can be both/and...every belief or truth we hold is dependent on POV...

I wasn’t using a mind frame of either/or. My argument is that if there are two conflicting claims or accounts of an event, there are multiple explanations as to why. One could be completely true and the other false, neither might be true, both are partly true, and even both are completely true with information or circumstances we don’t know serving to reconcile the two. But without additional information to let us know what the truth is, we cannot just pick or invent additional facts to resolve the conflict.

For the death of Judas, maybe he bought the field before he died, maybe the elders bought it after, maybe in his name, maybe not. Or maybe there was no field. We don’t know. Maybe he hanged himself, maybe his guts exploded, maybe both, maybe neither. We don’t know.

To claim a harmonized version is true on the grounds that it resolves the contradiction is dishonest.

 

[TypicalRussian]

The Joshua tree.

"Very conservative"

your profile pic does not line up

 

[Daisy]

I wasn’t using a mind frame of either/or. My argument is that if there are two conflicting claims or accounts of an event, there are multiple explanations as to why. One could be completely true and the other false, neither might be true, both are partly true, and even both are completely true with information or circumstances we don’t know serving to reconcile the two. But without additional information to let us know what the truth is, we cannot just pick or invent additional facts to resolve the conflict.

For the death of Judas, maybe he bought the field before he died, maybe the elders bought it after, maybe in his name, maybe not. Or maybe there was no field. We don’t know. Maybe he hanged himself, maybe his guts exploded, maybe both, maybe neither. We don’t know.

To claim a harmonized version is true on the grounds that it resolves the contradiction is dishonest.

You've just admitted yourself that harmony is a valid possibility, so thanks for that...I'll go with the harmony any day over the contradictions which appear to be lies...like this seemingly one because the harmony of the 2 makes much more logical sense...

"I and the Father are one.” John 10:30

"for the Father is greater than I am." John 14:28

Jehovah and Jesus Christ are one in the sense that they are one in thoughts/actions/goals...

one: Or “at unity.” Jesus’ comment here shows that he and his Father are unified in protecting sheeplike ones and leading them to everlasting life. Such shepherding is a joint task of the Father and the Son. They are equally concerned about the sheep, not allowing anyone to snatch them out of their hand. (Joh 10:27-29; compare Eze 34:23, 24.) In John’s Gospel, the unity in fellowship, will, and purpose between the Father and the Son is often mentioned. The Greek word here rendered “one” is, not in the masculine gender (denoting “one person”), but in the neuter gender (denoting “one thing”), supporting the thought that Jesus and his Father are “one” in action and cooperation, not in person. (Joh 5:19; 14:9, 23) That Jesus referred, not to an equality of godship, but to a oneness of purpose and action is confirmed by comparing the words recorded here with his prayer recorded in John chapter 17. (Joh 10:25-29; 17:2, 9-11) This is especially evident when he prays that his followers “may be one just as we are one.” (Joh 17:11) So the kind of oneness referred to in chapter 10 as well as in chapter 17 would be the same.

John 10 — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY