contradiction

[jasoncran]

that may not be actually written by barnabas. and tell me . how far was the quran put together after the prophet mohammed's death?

 

[jasoncran]

it was memorized. was that an oral tradition.

 

[jasoncran]

not much different then the nt in the parts, as luke recorded what he saw the apostles did in acts.

 

[jasoncran]

he was their with paul and the others the whole time if i recall, look at the acts 1. and it will tell you.

 

[crusaderbard]

Paul, a guy who never witnessed a single miracle by Jesus, gets to write 1/3 of the bible?

But he did witness the greatest miracle of all! Christ ressurected. Why would you accept miracles presented by the pre crucified Christ and not the ones after he was raised as truth? And we must remember that the Holy Spirit through Paul did perform miracles (like raising someone from the dead ACTS 20:7-12 ) that the other apostles and others witnessed.

 

[Vic C.]

Paul did witness a miracle. He was transformed by Christ Himself, from a persecutor of Christians to one of the greatest spokesmen and evangelists of Christianity.

Also, Paul did not write 1/3 of the Bible.

 

[mamre]

For example, the apostle Paul, in 1 Cor. talk about baptism for those that died without hearing of the Gospel:
"Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?"

Baptism of the dead, mamre?

hmmmm... Are you ready to make an announcement of some sort? ;)

Mike,

There is a passage of scripture where Jesus, categorically said "... Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." John 3: 5 Are you familiar with that scripture?

The implication of what He said is that everyone that is born on this earth, needs to be baptized (no exception) if he/she really want's to enter the kingdom of God. Since billions of people died without having even heard of Jesus Christ and the Gospel, and a huge number of people continue to live and die on this earth without ever having had a chance to hear the gospel and have a chance to decide if they want to enter the Kingdom of God or not, it stands to reason that God would not be a just God if they didn't have that chance. To have that chance it is imperative that baptism be available for them. Don't you agree?

That is the reason Jesus "...went and preached unto the spirits in prison;" 1 Pet. 3: 19, those spirits of people that had already died. Now, if some of those people who already died accepts the Gospel in the spirit world, how can they be baptized being only spirits. Spirits don't have a body of flesh and bones that can be touched, and therefore baptized. See what Jesus says about spirits: "...for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have." Luke 24: 39 So if those in the spirit world accept the gospel and need to be baptized they need someone alive to stand in their place and be baptized for them, as if it were them.

Hence the primitive church of Jesus Christ had the practice of baptizing for those that had already died in the hope that they accepted the gospel as it is being preached to them in the spirit world.

That's merciful and just, because all God's children deserve a chance to accept the gospel, and if that's the case, they need to be baptized as the Lord has categorically indicated.

If God would give a chance for only a few to enter His kingdom, He would not be a God of justice, and it would contradict the scriptures that says that God has no respect of persons, as we are all His children, and it would not be right for some to have a chance and others not.

Baptism for those that have already died and never had a chance to hear the gospel is not by any means a strange doctrine. Else, how would the ones that died would have a chance to enter the kingdom of God?

See what Peter says about those that died without having the chance to hear the gospel: "For for this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead" 1 Pet. 4: 6 therefore there needs to be people that would be baptized for them on this earth for them to enter the kingdom.

Think about your own ancestors: how do you feel if God would exclude them from life eternal because they never heard of the gospel, and therefore were never baptized? Do you think that would be fair?

mamre

 

[Mike]

For example, the apostle Paul, in 1 Cor. talk about baptism for those that died without hearing of the Gospel:
"Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?"

Baptism of the dead, mamre?

hmmmm... Are you ready to make an announcement of some sort? ;)

Mike,

There is a passage of scripture where Jesus, categorically said "... Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." John 3: 5

Mamre, you know where I was going, I'm sure.

So now we have:
1. baptism of the dead
2. Jesus was created
3. We existed as spirits before we were created
4. A "unique" understanding of eternal separation from God

Mamre, if I seem bent on you admitting where you are coming from, it's only because it would make our discussions more intellectually honest. I'm in threads with JW's, Muslims and atheists that are wonderfully amicable and beneficial. Your faith is fierce, and that's very admirable. But why do insist on denying where you're coming from? Nothing would be lost, and much would be gained in our discussions. It's just odd that you disassociate yourself from the one church that holds all of this doctrine. This isn't a "witch hunt" to root out all of the different points of view. There are terrific contributors who state clearly, "I am Mormon. This is what I believe." or I am JW, Muslim, etc. It lends to their credibility. It doesn't take away from it!

 

[jasoncran]

i would like to understand where mamre is coming from myself.

 

[crusaderbard]

Did anybody also see His vision of Jesus(AS)? You base your proof on seeing Jesus(AS) in a vision, on what Paul said he saw. Where else on earth would this happen? Why is it OK for Paul to see Jesus(AS) in a vision by himself and proclaim to be a new Apostle (35 years later), but when Joe Smith or David Coresh claim the same, they are considered whackos?

Yet your willing to accept the word of a man, living some 540 years after Christ, who also didn't have any witnesses. He learned his new scripture while in a cave, by himself from some angel.

In the book of Galatians we see: "But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned!" ~Galatians 1:8. (NIV)

This then (and also Deuteronomy 18:22) is our standard in the new and the old testament for determining if a prophet or someone was truely speaking from God. David Coresh, Joe Smith, and Mohammad brought/recieved a new gospel.

 

[Vic C.]

Hence the primitive church of Jesus Christ had the practice of baptizing for those that had already died in the hope that they accepted the gospel as it is being preached to them in the spirit world.

That's just not true. Historical evidence shows they didn't. I assume you didn't read my earlier post.

Besides, John the Baptist said this:

Mat 3:11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:

Water baptism is a voluntary act. :yes

 

[mamre]

Mamre, you know where I was going, I'm sure.

So now we have:
1. baptism of the dead
2. Jesus was created
3. We existed as spirits before we were created
4. A "unique" understanding of eternal separation from God

Mamre, if I seem bent on you admitting where you are coming from, it's only because it would make our discussions more intellectually honest. I'm in threads with JW's, Muslims and atheists that are wonderfully amicable and beneficial. Your faith is fierce, and that's very admirable. But why do insist on denying where you're coming from? Nothing would be lost, and much would be gained in our discussions. It's just odd that you disassociate yourself from the one church that holds all of this doctrine. This isn't a "witch hunt" to root out all of the different points of view. There are terrific contributors who state clearly, "I am Mormon. This is what I believe." or I am JW, Muslim, etc. It lends to their credibility. It doesn't take away from it!

Mike,

I am not refusing to disclose, I chose not to disclose exactly for the reason above. And you have proven my point. "Branding" each other, is not constructive at all. If one is truly seeking the truth, the affiliation will not matter at all, because eventually he/she will find the right place, as the Lord said "my sheep hear my voice." But when we insist on "branding" people as this or that, it means we are sectarian. Sectarian because we are separating those that agree with us and those that don't. When you do that, you stop learning, because you judge others' ideas against your beliefs. When, in reality we should judge others' ideas against the source of all truth, God. Furthermore, "branding" people that way shows that you believe that your belief is the only one that counts.

In my exchanges in this forum I have learned a lot. And I continue to learn. As a matter of fact that is one of the prime reasons I decided to join this forum, to learn. That is why you will never see me writing that this or that sounds like JW, Baptist, Mormon, or what have you. And you will never see me saying that someone is wrong in their belief, either. I learn, and I offer what I have learned. If people are true seekers of the truth they will check my context against the source of all truth, which is Our Father which is in heaven. And I invite everyone to do just that, and not rely on my word, as I am nothing.

See Jesus position on people that didn't "follow" with Him:
"...and we forbad him, because he followeth not with us. And Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us."

The above gives us a clear example that we should not "brand" people this or that, because truth is found everywhere. And who knows you may find a thread of truth in some other denomination that will eventually lead you to eternal salvation? And clearly, "branding" people: this follows with me, that one doesn't follow with me. This believe as do, that doesn't believe as I do, is NOT the Lord's teaching at all.

For that reason I will not disclose, so I am not bias and I don't cause my fellow men to be bias either. I am a disciple of Jesus Christ, our Eternal God. Besides Him there is no other name by which I can obtain salvation. He is the way. All truth lead to Him. So I say, look honestly, sincerely for the truth, and the truth will lead you to the right place.

mamre

 

[Bugala]

To answer for the original topic.

Even after hte explanation of buying the field, there are still two different deaths for Judas left.

1. He hang himself.
2. He threw himself to rocks.

Basically those both can have happened, since Acts version doesnt necessarily say he himself jumped, but he might have rottened being hanged and so on, and fell to the ground and dur to rottening there his indigestions come out etc.

Hoever, i personally think there is better explanation for that one.

If you look ast Matthews testimnoy about Judas death, that i would argue is the biblical truth.

While if you look at Acts account on same subject, you can notice that its not actually saying that this is how it happened, but it is REPLYING what Peter SAID.

What Peter said isnt necessarily the what actually happened. For what reason did Peter then say thiscontradictory comment, i dont know, i can only guess.

Maybe he rememebred wrong, maybe he had heard wrong, maybe there were several rumor about how it all happened. Maybe he just thought its easier to explain it simply this way to get to the actual point of meeting, to choose the new 12th disciple.

Anyway, that seems credible answer to me, and i stand behind that there are no contradictions in bible.

 

[Ahuli]

Ok, I know it's a big belief in Christianity that the Bible is completely without error. Now, I am a Christian, and I don't want anyone saying otherwise because of what I'm about to say, but I don't believe that.
The reason is, there are too many contradictions. For example, in the gospels, it says that Judas was paid 30 pieces of silver for turning Jesus over, but that afterward, he felt guilty and gave the money back. In another part of the gospels it says that Judas hung himself on a piece of land he bought with the money. So one account says he gave back the money, another account says he bought land with it. One of those versions is wrong. How can people believe the Bible is 100% accurate when there are so many contradictions?
I'm not trying to sound like I'm against the Bible or like I'm not a Christian, because I am. I love Jesus and I have a relationship with Him, but I know people are going to look negatively on me for believing this way. Does anyone else agree with me, or can anyone explain how the Bible is without error despite the contradictions?

You have named one ... supposedly a contradiction ... yet you use the word "many". Where are the many to which you allude? In what way does the demise of Judas have an impact on your salvation? Do ALL eyewitness accounts match? What about those who happen by word of mouth?


Did the farmer's cow fall into the pit the farmer dug or did she walk three miles and come home late for dinner?

 

[Hawkins]

The reason is, there are too many contradictions. For example, in the gospels, it says that Judas was paid 30 pieces of silver for turning Jesus over, but that afterward, he felt guilty and gave the money back. In another part of the gospels it says that Judas hung himself on a piece of land he bought with the money. So one account says he gave back the money, another account says he bought land with it. One of those versions is wrong. How can people believe the Bible is 100% accurate when there are so many contradictions?

First you need to know that Christianity relies heavily on Witnessing. For important things, honest and precise witnessing is required, as for unimportant things honest witnessing is required but to certain situations the "best witnessing" is good enough.

For example, 10 independent agents are sent to report a local battle in WWII. The German army was with a death toll of 4235 (for instance), you'll be surprised if the 10 agents all report back with the same number precisely. On the other hand, honest witnessing requires that 10 agents may and will report different number but up to a certain consistency. One may report 4101, the other 3899, yet the other 4502..etc. If they all report back the same number, they are apparently suspect of false witnessing.

The reports from the 10, disregarding the inconsistency in numbers, can still be very accurate and honest reports about that local battle. The variance in numbers actually should be the expected pattern for a valid witnessing.

In Judas' case, he used the money on a piece of land which later on used as grave called the Land of Blood (by blood money). This is confirmed by both stories.

On the other hand, one of the witness says that he returned the money then hang himself, the other says that he fell headlong with his body burst. One witness may confirm that he went to field for a suicide attempt, the other may confirm that however it turned out that he fell headlong and dead (perhaps he's too heavy and fell while trying to hang himself).

The confirmed part is important, that is, the money is spent on a piece of land (whether the money was finally returned is irrelevant). The details of his death process is unimportant, he's dead as a curse anyway.

The situation can still be regarded as accurately witnessed.

 

[elijah23]

Ok, I know it's a big belief in Christianity that the Bible is completely without error.

Some Christians believe the Bible is infallible. Others feel differently, I believe.

 

[Packrat]

Let's examine some supposed contradictions from Matthew 27:3-10, Acts 1:18-19, Jeremiah and Zechariah 11:12-13.

• Matthew 27:3-7 resembles the Zechariah passage more closely - not any passage in the book of Jeremiah.

• Jeremiah also buys a field with silver, however, the amount of coins he uses and other specifics are not given in the book. So we'll forgo using it. What I think it's best to take away from Matthew 27:9 is the fact that we do not have all of the books which are given reference to in the Bible. One example would possibly be the Book of Jashar as referenced in Joshua 10:13. In the Book of Jashar it records the same miracle as was recorded in the Book of Joshua. However, we no longer have this book. Perhaps there were some further writings of Jeremiah we do not have as a part of our Bible? Keep in mind that I am not encouraging others to take as truth any of the apocrypha.

• Matthew 27:5 says that Judas hung himself. Acts 1:18-19 says that Judas fell and burst open. So far we have no problem. Some concerns, however, are: did he hang himself on a tree? If he hung himself on a tree, then how tall a tree? Was he taken down from the object he was hung from before sunset as was the obligation of every law-abiding Jew to do so (Deuteronomy 21:23)? Did they take him down in haste? Were they able to keep his corpse from falling when they cut him down from, perhaps, a tall tree? If not then could his corpse have burst open when it hit the ground? In fact I find it hard to believe that Judas could have burst open by simply falling unless he had first hung himself from a particularly high object.

• Acts 1:18 mentions Judas as buying the potter's field that was known as the Field of Blood, but Matthew 27:7 mentions that the priests bought the field. Which is it? Well, notice that Matthew 27:7 does not say that the priests purchased it with "their" money. They purchased the field with "the" money. Why? Because it wasn't their money. It was Judas' blood money. Judas gave the money to the priests to do with as they pleased. However, the priests rejected it as their own. No one else claimed it; therefore it still technically belonged to Judas who had originally earned it. Since the priests bought the field with Judas' money that Judas had given them to do with as they pleased, then it could be said in a sense that Judas did buy the field with his own money.

There is no problem with the account of Judas' death. There is no contradiction except for some preconceived notions posited by people's imaginations. The specifics are not given us, so that does not leave us to just flagrantly assume that he hung himself from a tiny pear tree or that he fell down by missing a step and burst open somehow, etc.