|
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
 Posted - 01/08/2003 : 11:58:33 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Infamous
Actually there is a passage somewhere in the Bible that tells why the Gnostic books were rejected.
Huh?
quote:
Originally posted by Infamous
It's because they contradicted the existing Christian beliefs at that time.
Just mind-boggling: the anti-Gnostic Christians rejected the Gnostic books because they disagreed with them. Who would have thunk?
quote:
Originally posted by Infamous
Also, I've heard several explanations for the apparent contradiction between Luke's and Matthew's accounts of the death of Judas:
1. Judas attempted to hang himself in a tree, but fell ("fell headlong") out of the tree and went splat on the ground ("burst asunder") before he could do so.
2. Judas attempted to hang himself, but the rope broke and he fell and went splat.
3. Judas hung himself successfully, but the force of the drop severed his neck and the rest of his body went splat.
Thanks for sharing, but do you have any opinion on what you've heard? My understanding is that the poor fool hung himself in the path of a herd of stampeding unicorn which, understandably, gored him and broke the twine as they rushed by. |
For the philosophical naturalist, the rejection of supernaturalism is a case of "death by a thousand cuts." -- Barbara Forrest, Ph.D. |
 |
|
|
Doomar
SFN Regular
USA
714 Posts |
Posted - 01/08/2003 : 23:38:58 [Permalink]
|
[/quote]Thanks for sharing, but do you have any opinion on what you've heard? My understanding is that the poor fool hung himself in the path of a herd of stampeding unicorn which, understandably, gored him and broke the twine as they rushed by.
I don't get it. Eaten any gnats lately?Matthew 23:24 |
Mark 10:27 (NKJV) 27But Jesus looked at them and said, “With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible.”
www.pastorsb.com.htm |
| Edited by - Doomar on 01/08/2003 23:40:13 |
|
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 01/09/2003 : 03:57:34 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Doomar
I don't get it.
That much is obvious. |
For the philosophical naturalist, the rejection of supernaturalism is a case of "death by a thousand cuts." -- Barbara Forrest, Ph.D. |
|
|
|
Infamous
Skeptic Friend
85 Posts |
Posted - 01/09/2003 : 09:17:01 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ConsequentAtheist
quote:
Originally posted by Infamous
Actually there is a passage somewhere in the Bible that tells why the Gnostic books were rejected.
Huh?
KJV:
2 Corinthians 11:3-4
"But I fear, lest somehow, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, so your minds may be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. For if he who comes preaches another Jesus whom we have not preached, or if you receive a different spirit which you have not received, or a different gospel which you have not accepted--you may well put up with it!"
Here Paul is expressing his fears that the church in Corinth will accept a gospel different from the one originally preached by the disciples.
Galatians 1:6-9
"I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ, to a different gospel, which is not another; but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed."
Here Paul is referring to those who wanted to "Judaize" Christianity, the people who attempted to re-institute the Jewish laws as part of Christianity. Paul warns against any gospel different from the one originally preached by Jesus and the disciples. This is why the Gnostic books were rejected.
quote:
Originally posted by ConsequentAtheist
Thanks for sharing, but do you have any opinion on what you've heard? My understanding is that the poor fool hung himself in the path of a herd of stampeding unicorn which, understandably, gored him and broke the twine as they rushed by.
Well, actually it makes sense...as Slater pointed out earlier, there are no jagged rocks in the field upon which someone could fall and burst open. The only way someone could fall and explode would be if they were to fall from a great height...such as out of a tree. And according to Matthew, Judas was most likely in a tree, because he hung himself. |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 01/09/2003 : 10:56:34 [Permalink]
|
Infamous, you are missing a number of important points.
Yes, the surviving Gospels say they are the truth and the Gnostic (there were other versions than just the Gnostic. I'm including them under the one title for the sake of brevity, and not accuracy) are not.
So what?
Today's gospel wasn't the original and the Gnostic perversions that came later. Both the Gnostic and the gospels you claim are true date from exactly the same time. There are also claims that the Gnostic are the original and surviving gospels a misunderstanding of the "mysteries" presented in the original causing them to incorrectly be presented as history and not religion.
Only one gospel makes the claim that it is written by an actual Apostle and that is a Gnostic gospel, not one of yours.
The surviving gospels were chosen to please the Emperor of Rome, who was not a Christian. They were not chosen because they compared accurately to known historic events. They were chosen because they better suited the political aims of those involved.
You can have no idea if your gospels are accurate and the Gnostic are not because you have no way of assessing what the facts are.
----------
The problems with your story about Judas are many. Foremost, by trying to combine the two stories in the NT you have come up with a third story that doesn't match either bible tale instead of reconciling them. So you make matters worse. That's why there was a joke about a stampeding unicorn thrown in, to show you that you were just making up an entirely new story out of your own imagination.
In Matthew Judas gets his money from the priests and then feels great remorse and tries to give the money back. He becomes suicidal and hangs himself. The priests take the money Judas threw at them and buy the "field of blood" named after an event in the past.
In Acts Judas gets his money from the priests and feels absolutely no remorse whatsoever. Far from being suicidal he plans for the future by buying land with the money that he never threw at the priests. At this point God steps in; causes him to fall and burst--supernatural retribution. The people name Judas' property "the field of blood" because of Judas' blood.
You can make a good case that the NT has a third version of Judas death because Paul never mentions it. He seems not to know that Judas betrayed Jesus. In Paul nothing unusual happens to him.
But falling out of a tree never happens in the NT. Besides to actually burst you would have to fall 80-90 feet.
|
-------
I learned something ... I learned that Jehovah's Witnesses do not celebrate Halloween. I guess they don't like strangers going up to their door and annoying them.
-Bruce Clark
There's No Toilet Paper...on the Road Less Traveled |
|
|
|
darwin alogos
SFN Regular
USA
532 Posts |
Posted - 01/09/2003 : 23:09:45 [Permalink]
|
For Slater: quote:
Red Herring
AKA:
Ignoratio Elenchi ("ignorance of refutation", Latin)
Irrelevant Thesis
Type:
Informal Fallacy
Exposition:
This is the most general fallacy of irrelevance. The name comes from the reputed practise of escaped convicts
using pickled herrings to throw bloodhounds off the scent. Thus, a "red herring" argument is one which distracts
the audience from the issue in question through the introduction of some irrelevancy. This frequently occurs during
debates when there is an at least implicit topic, yet it is easy to lose track of it. By extension, it applies to any
argument in which the premisses are logically irrelevant to the conclusion.
History:
The fallacy is often known by the Latin name "Ignoratio Elenchi", which translates as "ignorance of refutation".
The ignorance involved is either ignorance of the conclusion to be refuted--even deliberately ignoring it--or
ignorance of what constitutes a refutation, so that the attempt misses the mark. This explanation goes back to
Aristotle's On Sophistical Refutations, the focus of which is fallacious refutations in debate. As with all of
Aristotle's original fallacies, its application has widened to all arguments.
Of course, fallacies of ambiguity involve irrelevancy, in that the premisses are logically irrelevant to the
conclusion, but this fact is disguised by ambiguous language. However, Aristotle classifies Ignoratio Elenchi as
language-independent, though he does say:
One might, with some violence, bring this fallacy into the group of fallacies dependent on language
as well. (Section 1, Part 5; W. A. Pickard-Cambridge, translator).
But this would make Ignoratio Elenchi so wide that just about every fallacy--with the exception of Begging the
Question--would be a subfallacy of it. This is too wide to be useful, so we will follow Aristotle in restricting it to
non-linguistic fallacies, excluding those disguised by ambiguity or vagueness.
Exposure:
Logical relevance is itself a vague and ambiguous notion. It is ambiguous in that different types of reasoning
involve distinct types of relevance. It is vague in that there is little agreement among logicians about even
deductive relevance, with logicians divided into different camps, so-called "relevance" logicians arguing for a more
restrictive notion of logical relevance than so-called "classical" logicians.
Another ambiguity of the term "relevance" is that logical relevance can be confused with psychological
relevance. The fact that two ideas are logically related may be one reason why one makes you think of the other,
but there are other reasons, and the stream of consciousness often includes associations between ideas that are
not at all logically related. Moreover, not all logical relations are obvious, so that a logical relationship may not
cause a psychological relationship at all.
Because it is the most general fallacy of irrelevance, most fallacious arguments will be identified as some more
specific type of irrelevancy.
Subfallacies:
Appeal to Consequences
Bandwagon Fallacy
Emotional Appeal
Genetic Fallacy
Guilt by Association
Straw Man
Two Wrongs Make a Right
Sources:
Aristotle, On Sophistical Refutations
S. Morris Engel, Analyzing Informal Fallacies (Prentice-Hall, 1980), pp. 95-99.
Main Menu: The Fallacy Files
Last modified:
Saturday, 07-Dec-2002 00:58:26 CST
 |
To deny logic you must use it.To deny Jesus Existed you must throw away all your knowledge of the ancient world. To deny ID
you must refute all analogical reasoning. So the question is why deny? |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 01/10/2003 : 09:31:26 [Permalink]
|
So you think that the Gnostic Bibles are "red herrings"...is that what you are saying? Or do you just enjoy cutting and pasteing without explaination?
The Gnostic Bibles have the same pedigree as the surviving bibles...except they weren't picked by the Pagan Emperor. They are from the same time, they claim an immediate authorship, but they tell a different story. How do you know that their story isn't the correct one? Please answer that or cut and paste the definition of "evasion." |
| Edited by - Slater on 01/10/2003 10:00:39 |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 01/10/2003 : 10:15:49 [Permalink]
|
Why did you post that DA? Should we laugh or cry at the irony since you have been lobbing red herrings left and right since you got here? With that in mind it's more than obvious that you have no idea what you just pasted in there.
@tomic |
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law!
Sportsbettingacumen.com: The science of sports betting |
|
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 01/10/2003 : 11:49:01 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Slater
The Gnostic Bibles have the same pedigree as the surviving bibles...except they weren't picked by the Pagan Emperor.
Nicely worded. |
For the philosophical naturalist, the rejection of supernaturalism is a case of "death by a thousand cuts." -- Barbara Forrest, Ph.D. |
|
|
|
darwin alogos
SFN Regular
USA
532 Posts |
Posted - 01/10/2003 : 19:14:19 [Permalink]
|
Slater: quote:
DA, either the Gnostic bibles are still part of the NT as they were when they were written or they no longer are. Since
they no longer are they must have been edited out. Tell me, Fool, on what bases were they edited out?
This is still a red herring Because I already informed you that the Council you claimed slected the NT had nothing to do with it(see p. 4). Slater: quote:
ny problems with early texts on Apollonius mean that they aren't the inerrant word of God. But then, nobody is
claiming that they are.
Contradictions in the Bible show that it is on exactly the same supernatural ground as the life of Apollonious. It is not
the word of any god.
Again another red herring Who's claimin the NT are "the inerrant word of God".My point in bringing up the Problems with Apollonius was to show you how an objective open minded scholar would handel any so called contradictions in any ancient text,obviously you couldn't,wouldn't see it.  |
To deny logic you must use it.To deny Jesus Existed you must throw away all your knowledge of the ancient world. To deny ID
you must refute all analogical reasoning. So the question is why deny? |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 01/10/2003 : 23:11:20 [Permalink]
|
This is still a red herring Because I already informed you that the Council you claimed slected the NT had nothing to do with it
Were the Gnostic gospels edited out or were they kept? If they were edited out then why were they? If they were kept where are they now? |
-------
I learned something ... I learned that Jehovah's Witnesses do not celebrate Halloween. I guess they don't like strangers going up to their door and annoying them.
-Bruce Clark
There's No Toilet Paper...on the Road Less Traveled |
|
|
|
darwin alogos
SFN Regular
USA
532 Posts |
Posted - 01/11/2003 : 00:21:47 [Permalink]
|
Slater: quote:
Were the Gnostic gospels edited out or were they kept? If they were edited out then why were they? If they were
kept where are they now?
For the last time that has nothing to do with the issue ofalleged contraditions and the scholarly method of trying to give the ancient text the benefit of the doubt! (edited for examples)Doesn't Matthew make a mistake by attributing a prophecy to Jeremiah when it actually was given by Zechariah?
In the Gospel according to Matthew, Judas Iscariot, after betraying Jesus, feels remorse because of his evil deeds, throws the betrayal money into the sanctuary, and commits suicide. Matthew goes on to relate how this money was taken by the priests and used to buy a potter's field.
Matthew concludes:
Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremiah, the prophet, saying, And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him that was valued...and gave them for the potter's field, as the Lord appointed me (27:9,10, KJV).
The problem is that verse 9 attributes the prophecy to Jeremiah, when it appears that it was Zechariah who gave this prediction. When Matthew 27:9 is examined closely in light of Zechariah 11:12,13, it is clear that this prophecy is the one fulfilled. Why then does Matthew assign it to Jeremiah?
A possible solution is Jeremiah's priority in the Talmud. 43/362 Jeremiah was placed first in the ancient rabbinic order of the prophetic books. Matthew was then quoting from the collection of the books of the prophets, and cited Jeremiah since it was the first and therefore the identifier. The same thing is done in Luke 24:44, where Psalms is used when the entire third division of the Hebrew canon is in mind.
Perhaps the best solution would be to understand that Matthew is combining two prophecies, one from Jeremiah and one from Zechariah, with a mention of only one author in the composite reference, namely Jeremiah, the major prophet.
Zechariah says nothing concerning the buying of a field, but Jeremiah states that the Lord appointed him to buy a field (Jeremiah 32:6-8) as a solemn guarantee by the Lord Himself that fields and vineyards would be bought and sold in the land in a future day (Jeremiah 32:15,43ff).
One of the fields which God had in mind was the potter's field. Zechariah adds the details of the thirty pieces of silver and the money thrown down on the floor of the Temple. So we see that Matthew takes the details of both prophets, but stresses Jeremiah as the one who foretold these events.
Dr. J. E. Rosscup of Talbot Seminary adheres to a view consistent with the above. In classroom lectures he pointed out:
Matthew felt that two passages were fulfilled, one typical (Jeremiah 19:1-13) and one explicit (Zechariah 11:13), and mentions only one author in the composite reference, a practice that sometimes occurred, according to Robert Gundry. 32/124-25
John N. Cool also concludes that Matthew used Zechariah chiefly, but had Jeremiah 19 prominently in mind as well, especially due to its theme of judgment on Israel.
Cool says,
Both (valley, Jeremiah 19; field, Matthew 27) become burial grounds and both their names are changed to remind the people of God's judgment. [This is] confirmed by the traditional location of the potter's field ... within the valley of Hinnom where Jeremiah pronounced his judgment by changing its name to 'valley of slaughter.'
Second, Matthew's consistent use of Isaiah and Jeremiah in his formula quotations reminds his readers of God's salvation and judgment for His people. Isaiah was associated with salvation, Jeremiah ... with judgment.
The use of tote in Matthew 2:17 and 27:9 instead of the purposeful Hina or Houtos found in other formula introductions also underscores the judgment motif by referring to Christ's enemies as fulfilling prophecy.
Gundry says that Matthew's reference to Jeremiah in the introduction formula makes certain that readers will take note of the connection with Jeremiah 19, which might be overlooked.
How would you explain the inaccuracy between Judas "went away and hanged himself' in Matthew 27:5 and "falling headlong, he burst open" in Acts 1:18?
This question of the manner in which Judas died is one with which we are constantly confronted in our travels. Many people point to the apparent discrepancy in the two accounts as an obvious, irreconcilable error.
Some have gone so far as to say that the idea of an inerrant Bible is destroyed by these contradictory accounts. However, this is not the case at all.
Matthew relates that Judas hanged himself, while Peter tells us he fell and was crushed by the impact. The two statements are indeed different, but do they necessarily contradict each other?
Matthew does not say that Judas did not fall; neither does Peter say that Judas did not hang himself. This is not a matter of one person calling something black and the other person calling it white. Both accounts can be true and supplementary.
A possible reconstruction would be this: Judas hanged himself on a tree on the edge of a precipice that overlooked the valley of Hinnom. After he hung there for a time, the limb of the tree snapped or the rope gave way and Judas fell down the ledge, mangling his body in the process.
The fall could have been before or after death as either would fit this explanation. This possibility is entirely natural when the terrain of the valley of Hinnom is examined. From the bottom of the valley, you can see rocky terraces 25 to 40 feet in height and almost perpendicular.
There are still trees that grow around the ledges and a rocky pavement at the bottom. Therefore, it is easy to conclude that Judas struck one of the jagged rocks on his way down, tearing his body open.http://www.greatcom.org/resources/areadydefense/default.htm
|
To deny logic you must use it.To deny Jesus Existed you must throw away all your knowledge of the ancient world. To deny ID
you must refute all analogical reasoning. So the question is why deny? |
| Edited by - darwin alogos on 01/11/2003 08:25:07 |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 01/11/2003 : 10:34:21 [Permalink]
|
quote:
A possible reconstruction would be this: Judas hanged himself on a tree on the edge of a precipice that overlooked the valley of Hinnom. After he hung there for a time, the limb of the tree snapped or the rope gave way and Judas fell down the ledge, mangling his body in the process.
The fall could have been before or after death as either would fit this explanation. This possibility is entirely natural when the terrain of the valley of Hinnom is examined. From the bottom of the valley, you can see rocky terraces 25 to 40 feet in height and almost perpendicular.
So, Judas, in his distraught state, climbed a tree and maneuvered to a branch that reached beyond the edge of the terrace. He must have been going for maximum effect. If this was the case you can't fault Judas for not having a theatrical streak. Obviously, Judas could not have positioned himself on such a branch without some effort. With all his guilt he was still compelled to arrange for a spectacular death. Imagine the site of him hanging out over the edge of a cliff. Guess someone or something intervened and loosened the rope or broke the branch so as to be not upstaged.
I don't see how Judas can be blamed for wanting to go out with some pizzas. After all, he was going to be vilified for helping to set the stage for the single most important event in all of Christianity.
That is, if any of this happened.... |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
PhDreamer
SFN Regular
USA
925 Posts |
Posted - 01/11/2003 : 19:06:35 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kil
I don't see how Judas can be blamed for wanting to go out with some pizzas.
[emphasis mine]
More Kilbonics?! Or yet another unfulfilled prophecy? |
I believe that, as a species, human beings define their reality through suffering and misery.
-Agent Smith |
|
|
|
Boron10
Religion Moderator
USA
1266 Posts |
Posted - 01/11/2003 : 19:57:47 [Permalink]
|
| I assume he means pizazz. The spell checker hosed him on this one.... |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
