Reading all the midwit pop psychology takes on the Bible posted on /lit/ and /his/ have made me realize that the Catholic church was right, and the average person is too retarded to interpret scripture by themselves. Which commentators should I read? I like RC Sproul.
>>25510666Kenneth GentryDavid PawsonBruce GoreCS LewisNT Wright
>>25510666>666>the Catholic church was right>I like RC Sproul
>>25510666You literally worship statues, bitch. Shut the FUCK up.
>>25510683No, faggot. I won't.
>>25510666Jesus:>Call no man fatherCatholics be like:>oh holy daddy I’ve been a bad boy let me buy some indulgences please also I love your fancy robes and hat that really separates you from all the unwashed masses. Just put the cracker on my tongue already!
If you can read the Bible thank a Protestant.
>>25510666>boohoohoo, my "perfect" book totally written by a divine authority is actually incredible susceptible to interpretation and full of apparent contradictions
I gatekeep my best biblical scholarship because I don't want to cast pearls before swine. But I've been noticing recently that one of the public domain commentaries available on Biblehub, the Keil & Delitzsch Old Testament commentary, is really freaking good.
>>25510751>The retarded public get things wrong even after centuries of explaination.Yes.
>>25510773So then feel free to explain exactly how Judah died and what exactly happened to the pieces of silver using only the various biblical accounts, without added a bunch of head canon to try to resolve the contradictions.
>>25510666>the average person is too retarded to interpret scripture by themselvesYou don't need to be catholic to understand the simple fact that a 21st century American can't correctly interpret ancient Hebrew scripture without commentary
>>25510817You don't need to finish the whole book to understand the simple fact that all the contradictions can't possibly be resolved no matter how you choose to interpret things and the best you can do is invoke some kind of god works in mysterious ways tier cope.
>>25510864I wasn't talking about contradictions. Even plain reading requires historical and cultural context. We have a millions of people who believe in the holy trinity, a completely anachronistic post biblical innovation.
>>25510789> how Judah diedYou mean Judas? Hung himself above a field. Rope eventually snapped and he burst open hitting the ground. Terrible example if you want to point out a contradiction.The silver is a better example. But it seems to be the case that it was used to buy the field Judas hung himself in. Whether that was after the fact or before we don’t really know
>>25510877If there are trees, then its not a field, its an orchard and the story says he fell headlong, not that he fell from a rope, so he hanged himself upside down?>it was used to buy the fieldBut the passage specifically says that he bought it himself, not that someone bought it for him after he hanged himself in shame so he could remain hanging upside down in the field until the rope broke and he fell headlong.
>>25510889>If there are trees, then its not a field, it’s an orchard and the story says he fell headlong, not that he fell from a rope, so he hanged himself upside down?Trees border a field. And sometimes Bronze Age farmers deliberately left trees in their fields for fertiliser and other reasons (https://www.mdpi.com/1999-4907/12/10/1327). The rope could have snapped and Judas flipped midair onto his head from the force; we don’t know how high he was hanging, the wind conditions, or anything else. Maybe someone came to remove his body, held his legs in doing so, cut the rope, and he fell over their shoulder and burst that way. We don’t know. >But the passage specifically says that he bought it himself, not that someone bought it for him after he hanged himself in shame so he could remain hanging upside down in the field until the rope broke and he fell headlong.Someone buying it with his money on his behalf (perhaps he even communicated his intentions to buy it at some point to the pharisees) is little different to him buying it himself. Either way this is the smallest of contradictions either multiple methods of reconciliation. It’s very easy for the average Christian to read this and fill in the gaps of how it happened. A religious person naturally takes the Bible on faith and if you think a small passage that can easily be explained through several different means is going to shake that then you’re a bit naive
>>25510902>Trees border a field.Then it would be outside of the field, not in it.>The rope could have snapped and Judas flipped midair onto his head from the force;No, unless he was using a bungee cord, jumped from the top of the tree, and bouncing repeatedly until it broke, but that still doesn't explain how he can die both from hanging and from falling like the books say.>Maybe someone came to remove his body, held his legs in doing so, cut the rope, and he fell over their shoulder and burst that way.Remember how I said not to make up a bunch of retarded bullshit to try to explain the discrepancy in the books? And if someone else did that, then he didn't fall, someone cut him down and again the story says he died from the fall, so your explanation doesn't resolve it. Also one story says that priests bought the field after he was already dead and the other says that he bought the field, then died, even by making stuff up, you haven't resolved the contradictions. >We don’t know. That is even worse than the mysterious ways cope.>Someone buying it with his money on his behalfNope, it clearly says "With the reward for his wickedness, Judas bought a field" not that someone else bought it after he hanged himself in the field.>Either way this is the smallest of contradictionsI accept your concessions its a book filled with contradictions that require individual interpretation rather than a perfect work from a divine author that applies universally to all.>A religious person naturally takes the Bible on faith and if you think a small passage that can easily be explained through several different means is going to shake that then you’re a bit naiveNo, I am just saying that is why OP has to cry and cope since its clearly not actually about people being too retarded to interpret the book, its about retarded people cope away all the contradictions and nonsense because muh faith.
>>25510789First of all, as a point of methodology, I don't consider it necessary to harmonize the two passages, since they don't give us two conflicting accounts of the same thing, but obviously just tell us about two different things, the passage in Matthew telling us how Judas died, and the passage in Acts telling us that his insides burst open. But I'll harmonize them anyway. The passage in Acts is quite obviously not giving us any sort of full account of how Judas died, because if I told you so-and-so died by falling headlong and bursting in the middle, you'd be left with questions of why and how he fell and why he burst in the middle and whether it was the fall or the rupture that killed him. So what is it actually saying? First, notice that falling implies a height from which to fall. This fits with the account in Matthew, which tells us a good reason why Judas was up high. Next, the word translated "headlong" is prēnēs, which means "leaning forward". One might ask the question why mention that Judas was leaning forward at all; what difference does it make in what posture he fell? Since the point of the passage is to explain the blood, prēnēs is best understood as explaining why his insides burst. Judas fell, and when he fell he fell face-down, and as a result he burst in the middle. The implication is that the posture exposed his middle to rupture, probably from landing on a sharp rock or something. Thus, it's not telling us that Judas fell onto the crown of his head, but, if we imagine for sake of argument that he fell straight down feet-first after his noose broke, then when he landed on the ground his body still had to continue falling rather than standing up, and Judas fell leaning forward.
>>25510666Catholics are right, eh?
>>25510923>you'd be left with questions of why and how he fell and why he burst in the middleEven in the hanging scenario, there are question about how he did it, was it from a tree, was it even outside, did he even use a rope, did he break his neck while hanging or did he take a while to suffocate, etc... so its not like that is a "full account" either.>First, notice that falling implies a height from which to fall. No, falling from a height doesn't necessarily cause intestines to burst open, to me it implies he fell on some kind of rock or field tending tool that cut open his midsection.>which tells us a good reason why Judas was up highNo, you don't have to be at any considerable height to hang yourself, there are plenty suicides from seated hanging or with a counterweight, not to mention people hang themselves to death with light strangulation while jerking off.>The implication is>it's not telling usThe implication is that the perfect holy book by a divine authority actually left out a ton of details that resulted in competing scenarios that apparently conflict.>if we imagine for sake of argument Exactly, you can't depend on what is written in the book to actually explain exactly what happened, you have to make up details in your imagination and convince people to accept your imagination over the book's various conflicting descriptions.
>>25510933My point is that the passage in Matthew explains how he died, while the passage in Acts does not. Your explanation of the Acts passage doesn't make sense because you seem to be implying he *tripped* and fell, but still in order to say that, you would need to say he tripped, because people don't just fall for no reason. Or you could just acknowledge that Acts does not explain how Judas died, because that's clearly not the purpose of the passage.
>>25510938>My point is that the passage in Matthew explains how he died,Except it doesn't because as I said it doesn't really answer to whether he broke his neck and died nearly instantly or he strangled in a long drawn out agonizing way.>while the passage in Acts does not. So falling down while walking through the field and having his intesting burst out wouldn't kill him? It only "does not" because you are making up a bunch of head canon to act like that isn't suppose to be a description of how he died.>you would need to say he tripped,Falling and tripping are the same thing when people say their grand fell in the bath, they mean she tripped.>Or you could just acknowledge that Acts does not explain how Judas diedOf you could explain how falling and bursting open to the point all his intestines fall out wouldn't kill him.Also you still haven't resolved the conflict with the silver either.
>>25510889>>25510919>>25510933>>25510954>reddit spacingLol you can't help yourself, can you?
>>25510666It's really sad what churches have done to pervert Christianity. Christ comes along and gives us literally the perfect blueprint for peace on Earth, but those who don't want to part with their earthly comforts and vices while still wanting to feel righteous decided to creatively "interpret" the text so that they don't need to actually change their lifestyle at all and all that really matters is that you affirm the authority of the church. The Catholic church is most guilty of this, with their torture, warfare, alliance with the state, hierarchies, idol worship, etc.
>>25510666XNITY PRIMERhttp://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1a-9eWjZWH-6uUOcRFJ4hFsgB2vOhdZZf....learn moar discern moar
