25 replies to this topic

[Steven]

I'm just placing this in the correct forum as a note to myself to come back to the Acts1:18 problem later ...


Aristophanes, Thesmophoriazusae

Greek (ed. F.W. Hall and W.M. Geldart) line 493
Mnêsilochos : hupo (from) tou lêkômetha (we shouted, we burst asunder) tên nuchth' (of the night), heôthen (early in the morning) skoroda (garlic) diamasômetha (we eat),

English (ed. Eugene O'Neill, Jr.)
Mnesilochus : And when we eat garlic early in the morning after a night of wantonness,

[nightmare]

Many believe Judas hung himself the problem with that is his burst assunder in the midst im still looking into this one. But a great scholar told me when Judas repented and threw the silver back he posed a great problem for the men who hired him to betray Christ they could not have him walking around telling on them so they hung him up and split in down the middle. I believe this so I havent really had a chance to look at the greek.

[nightmare]

Good post im definately going to look into that one

[Jeremy]

Harry Whittaker suggested that "bowels" in this context refers to emotions (usual NT use of the word, I think), and that before Judas hanged himself he had a powerful emotional outburst when he recognised what he had done.

[Steven]

Jeremy, on Dec 19 2007, 10:01 AM, said:

Harry Whittaker suggested that "bowels" in this context refers to emotions (usual NT use of the word, I think), and that before Judas hanged himself he had a powerful emotional outburst when he recognised what he had done.

Yes, I've been wavering on this, but in sum it's definitely not an idea anyone should laugh at (and if they do then the jokes on them whether its right or not). Every line in the verse could be read figuratively of his coin-throwing tantrum. It's a bit like one of those pictures

[Jeremy]

I like it!

[Corky]

It's clearly a contradiction that everyone seems unwilling to see. In one account, Judas throws the money to the floor and walks out and goes and hangs himself and the priests buy the potters field with the money. In the other account, Judas takes the money and buys the potters field and falls down and bursts open. If you can see it, it's really a double contradiction.

Mat 27:3 Then Judas, which had betrayed him, when he saw that he was condemned, repented himself, and brought again the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders,
Mat 27:4 Saying, I have sinned in that I have betrayed the innocent blood. And they said, What is that to us? see thou to that.
Mat 27:5 And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself.
Mat 27:6 And the chief priests took the silver pieces, and said, It is not lawful for to put them into the treasury, because it is the price of blood.
Mat 27:7 And they took counsel, and bought with them the potter's field, to bury strangers in.
Mat 27:8 Wherefore that field was called, The field of blood, unto this day.

VS

Act 1:18 Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.
Act 1:19 And it was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem; insomuch as that field is called in their proper tongue, Aceldama, that is to say, The field of blood

1st account - the priests bought the potter's field with the money Judas threw away.
2nd account - Judas buys the potter's field.

1st account - Judas hangs himself.
2nd account - Judas has a head first fall and bursts open.

Double contradiction.

The origin of the name "field of blood" is uncertain but could be the same as Azekah in "Ephesdammin" (Heb. - the boundry of blood) in I Sam. 17:1. Named the field of blood because the clay there was of a strong red color.

[Steven]

Well, Corky, that's one reason why the assumption that "και πρηνης γενομενος" is talking about after he hung himself is worth questioning, and why "ελακησεν μεσος" and "εξεχυθη παντα τα σπλαγχνα αυτου" might be better read, which wouldn't be unnatural, in a figurative, emotional sense. Though there are other answers.

In all sincerity hope you can leave this and eat drink and be merry this Christmas, without any irritation from what hope others may have.
God bless
Steven

[Corky]

Steven, on Dec 25 2007, 08:07 PM, said:

Well, Corky, that's one reason why the assumption that "και πρηνης γενομενος" is talking about after he hung himself is worth questioning, and why "ελακησεν μεσος" and "εξεχυθη παντα τα σπλαγχνα αυτου" might be better read, which wouldn't be unnatural, in a figurative, emotional sense. Though there are other answers.

In all sincerity hope you can leave this and eat drink and be merry this Christmas, without any irritation from what hope others may have.
God bless
Steven

Personally, I think there is only one gospel and I do not think that Matthew is it, for more than just this contradiction. My vote is for Luke - and Luke only - and not all parts of Luke. Of course, I don't get to vote on that, the Catholic Church decided the NT canon for us (unfortunately) but when I see contradictions, I know something is wrong.

Nothing irritates me much anymore except condescention by patronizing and ad hominem,for surely there is always "hope" whether I can ever prove there is a God or not.

[Steven]

Corky, on Dec 26 2007, 05:27 AM, said:

Nothing irritates me much anymore except condescention by patronizing and ad hominem,for surely there is always "hope" whether I can ever prove there is a God or not.

Not according to Paul. Corky, you're an atheist who believes there is no hope. Why not just leave believers alone?

[Chris]

Corky, on Dec 25 2007, 11:57 AM, said:

It's clearly a contradiction that everyone seems unwilling to see. In one account, Judas throws the money to the floor and walks out and goes and hangs himself and the priests buy the potters field with the money. In the other account, Judas takes the money and buys the potters field and falls down and bursts open. If you can see it, it's really a double contradiction.

Mat 27:3 Then Judas, which had betrayed him, when he saw that he was condemned, repented himself, and brought again the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders,
Mat 27:4 Saying, I have sinned in that I have betrayed the innocent blood. And they said, What is that to us? see thou to that.
Mat 27:5 And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself.
Mat 27:6 And the chief priests took the silver pieces, and said, It is not lawful for to put them into the treasury, because it is the price of blood.
Mat 27:7 And they took counsel, and bought with them the potter's field, to bury strangers in.
Mat 27:8 Wherefore that field was called, The field of blood, unto this day.

VS

Act 1:18 Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.
Act 1:19 And it was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem; insomuch as that field is called in their proper tongue, Aceldama, that is to say, The field of blood

1st account - the priests bought the potter's field with the money Judas threw away.
2nd account - Judas buys the potter's field.

1st account - Judas hangs himself.
2nd account - Judas has a head first fall and bursts open.

Double contradiction.

For a Bible literalist...maybe. But, I see no contradiction here. The wages of Judas' treachery purchased the field. You're trying to argue from a literalist standpoint but should know better....Christadelphians don't view inspiration in such a way.

Try this book on for size; it's pretty good at explaining the gospels in light of textual criticism.

[Corky]

Steven, on Dec 26 2007, 04:36 AM, said:

Corky, on Dec 26 2007, 05:27 AM, said:

Nothing irritates me much anymore except condescention by patronizing and ad hominem,for surely there is always "hope" whether I can ever prove there is a God or not.

Not according to Paul. Corky, you're an atheist who believes there is no hope. Why not just leave believers alone?

True, I'm an atheist but it's not true that I believe there is no hope. There is always a hope for the future of the race etc. but I don't hold onto any hope of living forever because I have no knowledge of such. No one knows of living forever, although many folks "believe" that they will. I have nothing against that belief but I accept it as only as a belief and not a fact.

Your question has been asked by a lot of people, "why not just leave believers alone?" and the answer is because believers don't leave unbelievers alone and down through history have beat, tortured, jailed, burnt and otherwise dismissed unbelievers as ignorant. Recently, we are unpatriotic and shouldn't even be counted as citizens of the country (USA) we live in and have fought and died for, just so folks have the freedom to believe as you do.

Let's just say, "what if". What if the beliefs you have are false, does it do any harm? If false, yes, it perpetuates a myth, a false hope, instead of trying to improve the lot of mankind and just wait until Jesus returns and straightens everything out.

But, what if it's true? Then everyone should have been given knowledge of it and not 33,000+ versions of it. I was born an atheist, I didn't believe in God when I was born, neither did you. We learned it from our parents and from the society in which we live. As it turned out, I was taught wrong and the Baptist God was not the true God.

It made sense to me, at the time, that there had to be a "true church" - somewhere. Well, I haven't found it. I thought that I had a couple of times (ha!) but I came to realize that the Bible could be interpreted thousands of different ways and the only way to know "the truth" was for God himself to tell us. We know that the Bible is written by men and we only have these dead men's word that it is true - and look who compiled it and canonized it. If it took "inspiration" of the Holy Spirit to write it, then it only makes sense that it would take the inspiration of the Holy Spirit to interpret it (just as Peter says in II Pet. 1:20-21) and I don't have that, do you? I've heard preachers and other people claim the Holy Spirit but I don't believe them, mostly because I haven't seen anyone demonstrate it and because of the murderous history of Christendom.

If it's not true, why would men die for it? Well, men flew airplanes into buildings, strapped bombs to themselves, warred for centuries over Islam - does that make Islam true? Does that make the Qu'ran true? I don't think so, people will die for false beliefs and false hopes just as well as for truth and freedom. What about the Book of Mormon? The man who invented it, died for it. Does that make the Book of Mormon true?

So, why do atheists care about religion? Because it is dangerous, especially for unbelievers,

[Chris]

Corky, on Dec 26 2007, 11:44 AM, said:

Your question has been asked by a lot of people, "why not just leave believers alone?" and the answer is because believers don't leave unbelievers alone and down through history have beat, tortured, jailed, burnt and otherwise dismissed unbelievers as ignorant. Recently, we are unpatriotic and shouldn't even be counted as citizens of the country (USA) we live in and have fought and died for, just so folks have the freedom to believe as you do.

What a silly reply. This is your excuse?

[Corky]

TwoPutt,

I've read apologetics of the gospels before and they are a real stretch of the imagination but thanks for the link.

Jesus said that no sign would be given to that generation, except one. Therefore, all miracles have been added to the original gospel - because miracles are signs.

You could probably take Mark and remove the miracles from the text, add the parables of Luke that are not contained in Mark and arrive at the original gospel.

At one time there were many, many more gospels than the four we have. The Catholic Church decided which should be kept and which should be thrown away. You may trust the RCC to have been honest and never added to or edited the gospels, but I don't.

[Matt Smith]

Corky said:

Your question has been asked by a lot of people, "why not just leave believers alone?" and the answer is because believers don't leave unbelievers alone and down through history have beat, tortured, jailed, burnt and otherwise dismissed unbelievers as ignorant. Recently, we are unpatriotic and shouldn't even be counted as citizens of the country (USA) we live in and have fought and died for, just so folks have the freedom to believe as you do.

Really. When was the last time you saw a Christadelphian act like that?

[Chris]

Corky, on Dec 26 2007, 12:20 PM, said:

You could probably take Mark and remove the miracles from the text, add the parables of Luke that are not contained in Mark and arrive at the original gospel.

No thanks. That sounds ridiculous.

Corky said:

At one time there were many, many more gospels than the four we have. The Catholic Church decided which should be kept and which should be thrown away. You may trust the RCC to have been honest and never added to or edited the gospels, but I don't.

You have no idea what you are talking about Corky. Talk about a stretch of the imagination.

[Corky]

Matt Smith, on Dec 26 2007, 11:26 AM, said:

Corky said:

Your question has been asked by a lot of people, "why not just leave believers alone?" and the answer is because believers don't leave unbelievers alone and down through history have beat, tortured, jailed, burnt and otherwise dismissed unbelievers as ignorant. Recently, we are unpatriotic and shouldn't even be counted as citizens of the country (USA) we live in and have fought and died for, just so folks have the freedom to believe as you do.

Really. When was the last time you saw a Christadelphian act like that?

Christadelphians don't, thankfully, and I wish all of Christendom had the same attitude but they don't. On the other hand, we have no way of knowing what would happen should Christadelphians rise to power with the state behind them, do we?

Christadelphians do start with the assumption that God exists and that the Bible that we have is actually the word of God. Those are only assumptions though, and have not been proved.

We can assume that Jesus spoke the Olivet prophecy and that would be proof. However, we don't know that the gospels weren't written post-70 AD.

"Prove all things", said the man, and if it is necessary to believe God exists - then you should prove it. Because, surely, that would be among the most important things to prove.

It seems to me, if someone is going to teach something to be true, then they should have to prove that what they are teaching is true. So, how can I take someone's word for it if they cannot prove what they teach?

I've even heard people say, "you know it's true". Well, no I don't know that it is true, I've only heard from other humans (who know no more than I do about it) that it is true, ie, that God exists and the Bible is his word. I want to see proof of it before I teach someone else this "truth". Know what I mean? I don't want to teach a lie or a myth to someone else and perpetuate that lie or myth - that would be . . . wrong.

Not only is it wrong to perpetuate a lie or myth, this same "truth" is not only taught from birth but that we must believe it - without evidence - or be punished for it. We are bombarded with this "truth" from friends, neighbors, churches, billboards, TV, radio, advertisements etc. but no one seems able to prove it. They assume it and believe it and want me to assume it and believe it. Why? Why should I assume it and then believe it? To live forever, maybe, if I'm good enough, worthy enough etc.? Well, that's another assumption with no proof.

Imagine the people tortured and killed for not believing in the other person's religious views - of which they didn't even have any proof of. A believer, for the most part, cannot tolerate an unbeliever. Why is it that believers must make believers out of unbelievers? To the point of forcing them to believe as they do? When, in fact, they can't even prove what they believe is true to start with.

[Chris]

Corky, on Dec 26 2007, 01:07 PM, said:

On the other hand, we have no way of knowing what would happen should Christadelphians rise to power with the state behind them, do we?

What?!!

[Corky]

TwoPutt, on Dec 26 2007, 12:27 PM, said:

Corky, on Dec 26 2007, 01:07 PM, said:

On the other hand, we have no way of knowing what would happen should Christadelphians rise to power with the state behind them, do we?

What?!!

It's okay, I know it's not going to happen. It's the old "power corrupts" thing, which just happens to be true.

[Matt Smith]

Corky, on Dec 26 2007, 11:07 AM, said:

Matt Smith, on Dec 26 2007, 11:26 AM, said:

Corky said:

Your question has been asked by a lot of people, "why not just leave believers alone?" and the answer is because believers don't leave unbelievers alone and down through history have beat, tortured, jailed, burnt and otherwise dismissed unbelievers as ignorant. Recently, we are unpatriotic and shouldn't even be counted as citizens of the country (USA) we live in and have fought and died for, just so folks have the freedom to believe as you do.

Really. When was the last time you saw a Christadelphian act like that?

Christadelphians don't, thankfully, and I wish all of Christendom had the same attitude but they don't. On the other hand, we have no way of knowing what would happen should Christadelphians rise to power with the state behind them, do we?

And you know full well our stance on political and military service, so this is a useless comment.

Quote

Christadelphians do start with the assumption that God exists and that the Bible that we have is actually the word of God. Those are only assumptions though, and have not been proved.

And you start with the assumption that God does not exist and that the Bible that we have is not actually the word of God. Those are only assumptions though, and have not been proved.

Quote

We can assume that Jesus spoke the Olivet prophecy and that would be proof.

How is the assumption of anything proof?

Quote

However, we don't know that the gospels weren't written post-70 AD.

True

Quote

"Prove all things", said the man, and if it is necessary to believe God exists - then you should prove it. Because, surely, that would be among the most important things to prove.

Why is it so important to you to prove that He does not exist?

Quote

It seems to me, if someone is going to teach something to be true, then they should have to prove that what they are teaching is true. So, how can I take someone's word for it if they cannot prove what they teach?

Have you looked at history, archaeology and the Bible? How about the Jews?

Quote

I've even heard people say, "you know it's true". Well, no I don't know that it is true, I've only heard from other humans (who know no more than I do about it) that it is true, ie, that God exists and the Bible is his word. I want to see proof of it before I teach someone else this "truth". Know what I mean? I don't want to teach a lie or a myth to someone else and perpetuate that lie or myth - that would be . . . wrong.

And to perpetuate the lie or myth of the non-existense of God?

Quote

Not only is it wrong to perpetuate a lie or myth, this same "truth" is not only taught from birth but that we must believe it - without evidence - or be punished for it. We are bombarded with this "truth" from friends, neighbors, churches, billboards, TV, radio, advertisements etc. but no one seems able to prove it. They assume it and believe it and want me to assume it and believe it. Why? Why should I assume it and then believe it? To live forever, maybe, if I'm good enough, worthy enough etc.? Well, that's another assumption with no proof.

And why should you assume that there is no God? Another assumption with no proof.

Quote

Imagine the people tortured and killed for not believing in the other person's religious views - of which they didn't even have any proof of. A believer, for the most part, cannot tolerate an unbeliever.

Again, when have you ever seen a Christadelphian act that way? Or anyone else that holds our beliefs?

Quote

Why is it that believers must make believers out of unbelievers?

Must? No. We offer them something. It's up to them if they choose to take hold of it.

Quote

To the point of forcing them to believe as they do? When, in fact, they can't even prove what they believe is true to start with.

To my knowledge, no one has been forcibly converted to true Christianity.

[Richie]

Matt Smith, on Dec 26 2007, 02:47 PM, said:

Quote

To the point of forcing them to believe as they do? When, in fact, they can't even prove what they believe is true to start with.

To my knowledge, no one has been forcibly converted to true Christianity.

In fact it would be impossible. If someone was coerced into accepting the gospel then they couldn't possibly really have faith.

[Steven]

Corky, on Dec 26 2007, 05:44 PM, said:

If it's not true, why would men die for it? Well, men flew airplanes into buildings, strapped bombs to themselves, warred for centuries over Islam - does that make Islam true? Does that make the Qu'ran true? I don't think so, people will die for false beliefs and false hopes just as well as for truth and freedom. What about the Book of Mormon? The man who invented it, died for it. Does that make the Book of Mormon true?

So, why do atheists care about religion? Because it is dangerous, especially for unbelievers,

Okay, then perhaps you would do more good taking your message and mission to a mainstream Christian forum rather than that of a church founded in 1863 around the principle of not taking the sword? Being here is as about as much use from your standpoint as converting Quakers to atheism.

[Chris]

Steven, on Dec 27 2007, 04:46 AM, said:

Corky, on Dec 26 2007, 05:44 PM, said:

If it's not true, why would men die for it? Well, men flew airplanes into buildings, strapped bombs to themselves, warred for centuries over Islam - does that make Islam true? Does that make the Qu'ran true? I don't think so, people will die for false beliefs and false hopes just as well as for truth and freedom. What about the Book of Mormon? The man who invented it, died for it. Does that make the Book of Mormon true?

So, why do atheists care about religion? Because it is dangerous, especially for unbelievers,

Okay, then perhaps you would do more good taking your message and mission to a mainstream Christian forum rather than that of a church founded in 1863 around the principle of not taking the sword? Being here is as about as much use from your standpoint as converting Quakers to atheism.

Steven makes a very valid point. You are throwing out things that you know full well aren't supported within Christadelphia as though we should provide you with an answer. Sorry, we can't since we aren't of those groups. So, to us you are simply ranting....which is certanily nothing new for you.

I tell you what....I'm going to throw on the mod hat and say that this is enough. It is high time we get back to the topic of this thread.

[Corky]

TwoPutt, on Dec 27 2007, 08:56 AM, said:

Steven, on Dec 27 2007, 04:46 AM, said:

Corky, on Dec 26 2007, 05:44 PM, said:

If it's not true, why would men die for it? Well, men flew airplanes into buildings, strapped bombs to themselves, warred for centuries over Islam - does that make Islam true? Does that make the Qu'ran true? I don't think so, people will die for false beliefs and false hopes just as well as for truth and freedom. What about the Book of Mormon? The man who invented it, died for it. Does that make the Book of Mormon true?

So, why do atheists care about religion? Because it is dangerous, especially for unbelievers,

Okay, then perhaps you would do more good taking your message and mission to a mainstream Christian forum rather than that of a church founded in 1863 around the principle of not taking the sword? Being here is as about as much use from your standpoint as converting Quakers to atheism.

Steven makes a very valid point. You are throwing out things that you know full well aren't supported within Christadelphia as though we should provide you with an answer. Sorry, we can't since we aren't of those groups. So, to us you are simply ranting....which is certanily nothing new for you.

I tell you what....I'm going to throw on the mod hat and say that this is enough. It is high time we get back to the topic of this thread.

Very well, consider it dropped. Suffice to say that things that do not exist cannot be proved to exist and things that do not exist cannot be proved to not exist either. However, something that does exist should be fairly easy to prove.

I was kinda hoping that Christadelphians might have enough of an open mind to at least consider the possibility and regardless of your thinking that I want to prove God does not exist, I want to prove that he does. And that's the only way to go, IMHO, because a negative cannot be proven and if I can't prove the positive, then it would be more reasonable and rational to not believe it rather than just to assume it.

[Richie]

Corky, I think people are reacting against your intimation that we have blind faith and making assumptions. That is not true. Just because you can't accept the evidence we see in Creation, prophecy, the amazing way the Bible is put together etc. does not mean that we are acting on assumptions. For us it is clear evidence for the existence of God. Solid evidence and we aren't acting blindly.

[Chris]

Corky, on Dec 27 2007, 11:30 AM, said:

Very well, consider it dropped. Suffice to say that things that do not exist cannot be proved to exist and things that do not exist cannot be proved to not exist either. However, something that does exist should be fairly easy to prove.

I was kinda hoping that Christadelphians might have enough of an open mind to at least consider the possibility and regardless of your thinking that I want to prove God does not exist, I want to prove that he does. And that's the only way to go, IMHO, because a negative cannot be proven and if I can't prove the positive, then it would be more reasonable and rational to not believe it rather than just to assume it.

Use an appropriate thread. This thread is about Acts 1:18.