contradictions in the bible??? (Jesus, moral, punishment, Moses, Earth)

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Originally Posted by Charity

Penguin, what I am saying is there are conflicting statements about the method of death for Judas.....I know what it says in Mat 27, but in Acts it states that he fell headlong,This appears to be conflicting views, not saying that he hung himself.....So I am saying how 2 opposing views could have happened.....Please read the post again.....

I read it. My point was that the idea of Judas being hanged after death as a way to display his corpse would conflict with Matthew, in which it says it was Judas himself who performed the hanging.

Originally Posted by Charity

Also in the Bible we have the book of Jude, although Jude is a Hebrew form of Judahand the Greek "Judas". It is believed that this book was written by either Judas the brother of the Lord or Judas another apostle, not Judas Iscariot....

The Gospel of Judas is an apocryphal Gospel not generally accepted by Christians (or non-Christians, for that matter). The Gospel of Judas that the article describes gives an account of the Gospel from Judas' perspective. In it, Judas is a reluctant and misunderstood force for good, who is asked by Jesus to turn Him over to the authorities.

[Charity]

Ok I see what you mean by the book of Judas, thanks.....

[crystalonyx]

Originally Posted by 9-10ths_Penguin

The Gospel of Judas is an apocryphal Gospel not generally accepted by Christians ). .

Big surprise here. LOL

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Originally Posted by crystalonyx

Big surprise here. LOL

Why would they automatically accept it?

I've noticed a trend in some non-Christians where they treat the canonical books of the Bible with great skepticism, but then just accept any apocryphal books that come along.

There were plenty of fake Gospels floating around in the early days of Christianity. Even if you believe that there's some vast Christian conspiracy to cover up the real truth of Jesus, you also have to recognize that there was a lot of fake garbage floating around pretending to be scriptural back then. Personally, I have no reason to believe that the Gospel of Judas wasn't some fabrication that was made up in an effort to hop on the bandwagon of the other Gospels.

[logician]

Originally Posted by 9-10ths_Penguin

Why would they automatically accept it?

I've noticed a trend in some non-Christians where they treat the canonical books of the Bible with great skepticism, but then just accept any apocryphal books that come along.

There were plenty of fake Gospels floating around in the early days of Christianity. Even if you believe that there's some vast Christian conspiracy to cover up the real truth of Jesus, you also have to recognize that there was a lot of fake garbage floating around pretending to be scriptural back then. Personally, I have no reason to believe that the Gospel of Judas wasn't some fabrication that was made up in an effort to hop on the bandwagon of the other Gospels.

The point here isn't the validity of said books, I don't believe any of them for a minute, it's just that the Council of NIocea picked and chose the books that backed the Jesus story they wanted told, and pretty much obliterated the rest.

[Jayhawker Soule]

Originally Posted by logician

The point here isn't the validity of said books, I don't believe any of them for a minute, it's just that the Council of NIocea picked and chose the books that backed the Jesus story they wanted told, and pretty much obliterated the rest.

That is foolishly and pathetically inaccurate, a fact that has been repeatedly made on these forums.

In his Easter letter of 367, Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, gave a list of exactly the same books as what would become the New Testament canon, and he used the word "canonized" (kanonizomena) in regards to them. The African Synod of Hippo, in 393, approved the New Testament, as it stands today, together with the Septuagint books, a decision that was repeated by Councils of Carthage in 397 and 419. These councils were under the authority of St. Augustine, who regarded the canon as already closed. Pope Damasus I's Council of Rome in 382, if the Decretum Gelasianum is correctly associated with it, issued a biblical canon identical to that mentioned above, or if not the list is at least a sixth century compilation. Likewise, Damasus's commissioning of the Latin Vulgate edition of the Bible, c. 383, was instrumental in the fixation of the canon in the West. In 405, Pope Innocent I sent a list of the sacred books to a Gallic bishop, Exsuperius of Toulouse. When these bishops and councils spoke on the matter, however, they were not defining something new, but instead "were ratifying what had already become the mind of the Church." Thus, from the fourth century, there existed unanimity in the West concerning the New Testament canon (as it is today), and by the fifth century the East, with a few exceptions, had come to accept the Book of Revelation and thus had come into harmony on the matter of the canon. [source]

Why do you persist in preaching authoritatively on topics of which you demonstrate significant ignorance?

[jenni_boo22]

What!? 3 heavens? i think there is a translation issue going on with the heavens meaning the sky and heaven meaning actual heaven. you have to remember that a lot of the little translations from hebrew to greek to english have affected the way we can read the bible today... how can we be sure that those who translated it were right?

[jenni_boo22]

also, i think the old testament is meant to be taken a little bit more figuratively. so to compare the writings of the old and the new for contradictions is not really fair. a lot changed in the world when Jesus came i mean A LOT!!

[Saint Tigeress]

My co-worker tried to convince me the other day that there are no contradictions within the bible. Supposedly those that see contradictions are unable to follow simple rules