The issue with discussing contradictions in the Bible is that apologists will set the bar at "possible" interpretations rather than "probable" ones.For example with Judas Iscariot's death, it's not logically impossible that Judas could have hung himself on a tree, then a gust of wind came and broke the branch and threw him headlong, then he hit his stomach on a sharp rock which made his intensities spill, AND that the author of Acts decided to not mention he hung himself for some reason, AND that the author of Acts decided to say Judas bought the field instead of specifying it was the Pharisees who bought it with his money, AND that the two authors give different reasons for why it's called "the Field of Blood", OR... they contradict.Have any Christians addressed this?
>>17433818Judas was executed by Peter.
Ananias and Sapphira was executed by Peter.You don't seriously think God killed them for hiding money from Peter and the gang?
>>17433818Keep in mind that if they accept Papias' claim about hearing from the followers of Jesus that Mark and Matthew wrote two gospels (pretty much our only source about their authorship that every other Church Father copies), they also have to incorporate Papias' claim of the death of Judas into the harmonized story.>But Judas went about in this world as a great model of impiety. He became so bloated in the flesh that he could not pass through a place that was easily wide enough for a wagon—not even his swollen head could fit. They say that his eyelids swelled to such an extent that he could not see the light at all; and a doctor could not see his eyes even with an optical device, so deeply sunken they were in the surrounding flesh. And his genitals became more disgusting and larger than anyone's; simply by relieving himself, to his wanton shame, he emitted pus and worms that flowed through his entire body. And they say that after he suffered numerous torments and punishments, he died on his own land, and that land has been, until now, desolate and uninhabited because of the stench. Indeed, even to this day no one can pass by the place without holding his nose. This was how great an outpouring he made from his flesh on the ground.Eyewitness testimony handed down by apostolic tradition sure is amazing!
But why can't you have it both ways?Jesus was a magical mystical dude.AAAAAAND people wrote about this shit dozens of years after he died, and they weren't necessarily his apostles, and they were separated by hundreds of miles, and due to the above reasons and many more, the stories contradict.And what ultimately decided the "biblical cannon" that we have today was basically a hissy-fit between several bearded gentlemen thousands of years ago.All of these things can exist at the same time.
>>17433818How is it a contradiction when you have two eye witnesses writing down what they saw, all you do is put 2 and 2 together to get 4. People who hate god want to make 2 + 2 = 5, so fuck them.
>>17433818Well, the bar for a contradiction is “two claims that logically cannot be true at the same time in the same way”, so that is a fair and reasonable standard.
>>17433827acktchually by Peter's henchmen, but otherwise yes, communists gonna communist.
>>17435328>How is it a contradiction when you have two eye witnesses writing down what they sawBecause to make the two accounts make sense you have to come up with an incredibly unlikely (but not impossible) scenario.>>17435417>Well, the bar for a contradiction is “two claims that logically cannot be true at the same time in the same way”Maybe for something like mathematics, but not for history/literature. If that's your standard you could never find a contradiction between any texts.
>Have any Christians addressed this?I hope you don't seriously believe you noticed something obscure that all Christians for two millennia were just ignoring or covering up, especially if you haven't done any reading into the topic yourself. One of the first things that any learned reader of Scripture will tell you is that the letter of the text is not the meaning. When he reads something in the Gospels, his first reaction is "What is the meaning here?" He's no reading it with the mindset of merely gathering information from a chronicle and the Gospels were never intended to serve that purpose, they're works of theology first and foremost, albeit ones heavily grounded in the reality of a particular place in time.
>>17436682>I hope you don't seriously believe you noticed something obscure that all Christians for two millennia were just ignoring or covering upI'm not asking for specific harmonizations (I know them already), I'm asking about probable vs possible harmonizations.>One of the first things that any learned reader of Scripture will tell you is that the letter of the text is not the meaningThis is true for any text, not just Scripture.>He's no reading it with the mindset of merely gathering information from a chronicle and the Gospels were never intended to serve that purpose, they're works of theology first and foremostThe author of Luke-Acts seems to set a very "historical" tone:"Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught."
>>17433818Yes. Have fun burning!
>>17436670There’s no special definition for “contradiction” just for the study of history. The word means what it means.
>>17436943>There’s no special definition for “contradiction” just for the study of historyIt's not a "special" definition, it's just the colloquial definition people use everyday. Otherwise historians could never say anything contradicts since they could always come up with an unlikely yet not impossible harmonization. Historians (and everyone else) judge history based on what probably happened, not on what possibly could have happened.
>>17436700You're 100% going to Jahannam
>>17437485Okay, well the inference to the best explanation regarding the minimal facts of the life, death, and resurrection of Christ is that he wasn’t a charlatan and what he said was true. So, if something seems difficult to explain in the text, there’s probably a good explanation. This is the Christian line of thought.It would be silly to see the difficulties in the two Judas stories and decide that what’s probably true is that everything in the bible is false.
>>17437645You can say the same thing mutatis mutandis for Muhammad and the Quran. There is no standard a text can meat which has probative value for its supernatural claims.
>>17437645The resurrection isn't a minimal fact. Hell, Habermas even excludes an empty tomb from his list of minimum facts because he estimates only two thirds to three quarters of biblical scholars think Jesus was buried in a tomb.
>>17437645>So, if something seems difficult to explain in the text, there’s probably a good explanation. This is the Christian line of thought.What you're essentially saying is that if Christianity is true then the harmonization should be accepted no matter how unlikely it is. I would agree with this but it obviously isn't convincing for anyone who isn't already a Christian.>It would be silly to see the difficulties in the two Judas stories and decide that what’s probably true is that everything in the bible is false.No one says this. All they say is that the difficulties in the two Judas stories show that they're two separate accounts (just like how Papias records a third separate account).
>>17437645Could you explain why the Apostles can't agree on whether or not to obey the Pharisees, and why they can't agree on how many animals Jesus rode into Jerusalem?
>>17433818>Have any Christians addressed this?Just stop believing in inerrancy, it's that easy.
