CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
When you have one passage where Judas takes the money and buys a field selfishly, with no guilt, God makes his body explode and his guts fly out.
The other passage has him feeling guilt and so he throws the money into a temple and hangs himself.
Quite a bit different from each other, the second one implying Jesus did not come back from the dead and that Judas had killed his friend for no reason.
The other one appears to be extremely unrealistic to the death of a friend. I doubt a person who hangs around a person like Jesus would end up being so selfish, and then explode from the inside.
It makes sense that Judas had felt immeasurable guilt at his murder, perhaps he thought Jesus would come back too, but when he didn't, he killed himself.
-
Matthew 27:5
Saying, 'I have sinned in that I have betrayed the innocent blood'. And they said, 'What is that to us? See thou to that.'
So Judas threw the money into the temple and left. Then he went away and hanged himself.
Acts 1:18
With the payment he received for his wickedness, Judas bought a field; there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out.
It is a simple case of both happened. Most people when they read things while trying to find flaws in it would think it be contradictory. However, it is very simple... they both happened.
"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,
Saying, I have sinned in that I have betrayed the innocent blood. And they said, What is that to us? see thou to that.
And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself.
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.
And they took counsel, and bought with them the potter's field, to bury strangers in.
Wherefore that field was called, The field of blood, unto this day." (Mathew 27v3-8)
"Men and brethren, this scripture must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake before concerning Judas, which was guide to them that took Jesus.
For he was numbered with us, and had obtained part of this ministry.
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.
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."(Acts 1v16-19)
Now that we can see more of the extract, the two descriptions are suddenly a lot more similar. The only contradictions being the causes of death.
Apart from the fact that Acts doesn't depict a cause of death, it merely states that the body of Judas fell and his body burst, which is very likely when you leave a man hanging from a tree and his dead weight causes the rope to break.
Do carcases magically lose their guts when they fall from a little height ?
At the very least you have to assume that he was also stabbed and hanged(and you really should assume more), but that is simply your assumption. When you have to be creative to make the puzzle pieces fit, maybe you have more than one puzzle.
Yes, if he was stabbed, then his guilt was meaningless, and it was NOT suicide.
It was pure guilt at killing Jesus, and thinking that Jesus would rise again, but when Jesus did not rise, he killed himself.
If we make a magical world where anything is possible from god, then the second story would likely happen, where he explodes.
However, because we are to be rational and logical, and because there are two stories, we must examine both of them without bias.
If Jesus was an ordinary man, as logic would indicate, then this story fits in very well with this.
Judas had no reason to have his guts explode after he had hung himself. This is clearly a very grave inaccuracy directly related to the central theme of the Jesus myth. If Jesus had risen, do you think Judas would have killed himself? Jesus, as told in the Gospel of Judas, told Judas to betray him. Perhaps Jesus thought he would rise too, or something along those lines. I was not there, but if Judas was expecting a miracle, and that miracle did not happen, then his guilt and suicide is easily explained.
"It was pure guilt at killing Jesus, and thinking that Jesus would rise again, but when Jesus did not rise, he killed himself."
The fact that Jesus ressurrected afterwards makes it more likely that Judas would kill himself. As he couldn't bring himself to face the innocent man he condemned.
However this is all speculation and we cannot prove it.
"Do carcases magically lose their guts when they fall from a little height ?"
Where does it state that he "magically lost his guts" and that he fell from a "little height"?
"At the very least you have to assume that he was also stabbed and hanged(and you really should assume more), but that is simply your assumption. When you have to be creative to make the puzzle pieces fit, maybe you have more than one puzzle."
Also, how can you know that this wasn't edited after? Buying a field before his death and dying as he walked into it is different than hanging yourself, then throwing away the tainted money and buying a graveyard to bury a person in or whatever a potter's field is.
"Then that which was spoken through Jeremiah the prophet was fulfilled, saying, "And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of the one whose price had been set by the sons of Israel; and they gave them for the Potter’s Field, as the Lord directed me." (Mathew 27v9-10)
The priests took the money thrown at them by Judas and bought the field in his name. For reasons we can only speculate.
This is the most amusing of your arguments yet. Just because the KJV is written in Old English means it's mythical?
Are all the written records of Rome and The early British Empire all made up as well? Because they are written in old languages that "sound" mythical to you?
You say it sounds like a story book legend and really it doesn't to me. The first part says Judas hanged himself and it said nothing about him dying. The truth is many people hang themselves and either give up or the rope breaks. I believe it was Casper who says that we make a religious assumptions to make the pieces fit and some one else said if you dont see the contradiction your steeped in religion but you all assume Judas died by hanging which is just as bad as someone attempting to defend the Biblical verse. By the way if you want to assert judas' death by hanging i know someone who attempted to commit sucide twice while he was high( I Live in Jamaica that stuff happens alot) and believe it or not he failed twice. In other words judas could have failed. So in conclusion when judas hanged himself maybe he was dead b,ut in Acts he was DEFINETELY DEAD.
Plausible, but why did they describe his death twice anyways, and is rationalizing one example really explaining away all the OTHER inaccuracies and inconsistencies?
I mean, from page one, it looks a lot more like a creation legend as found in many religions across the world.
From what (relatively) recently invented telescopes have revealed is something much different than described in the Bible.
"Let there be light" is very vague and could describe the light of a sunny day, or the light of the Big Bang, but there is simply not enough detail to warrant such a simple creation story as being worth much in today's world. There is not enough information on certain things when that information is now known today, fitting in with modern evolution perfectly.
Whether or not you accept evolution, it does mean that Genesis is wrong, and that page 1 of the Bible is wrong based on today's knowledge.
To ignore this knowledge we now have would be a nice fall into a dark age.
"Plausible, but why did they describe his death twice anyways, and is rationalizing one example really explaining away all the OTHER inaccuracies and inconsistencies? "
Surely you know that the Bible was contructed during Roman times from other books. To different authors who witnessed or heard of this event wrote it down.
"From what (relatively) recently invented telescopes have revealed is something much different than described in the Bible.
"Let there be light" is very vague and could describe the light of a sunny day, or the light of the Big Bang, but there is simply not enough detail to warrant such a simple creation story as being worth much in today's world. There is not enough information on certain things when that information is now known today, fitting in with modern evolution perfectly."
I don't understand how modern telescopes have disputed the Creationist theory, simply by stating that the announcemtn "let there be light" could mean a sunny day?
You don't need telescopes to work that out.
"To ignore this knowledge we now have would be a nice fall into a dark age."
From what I imagine, to me, a dark age would be creationism overtaking scientific thought.
You might not remember, but the scientific revolution meant a lot more freedom and a lot more ease of life. We could begin to make discoveries which lead to the industrial revolution, which allowed us to discover America, a totally new part of the world.
To me, I would call the times I live in a dark age if atheists/gays/people not christian start getting killed more than they are now, if scientists are no longer trusted by the majority population and if new ideas are covered up and called lies or heresy.
This is happening in some places, but we are still able to make discoveries. If science and technology levels drop, or the USD crashes, I would consider it a dark age.
And what I mean by telescopes is we can observe the universe expanding. Take that back in time and you get a period where the universe is very small, take if back farther and you have what happened before the big bang. Because of the time scale involved, it allows stars to produce heavy elements like helium, iron, oxygen and others, and that can lead to planet formation. Because those elements and molecules like methane and ammonia can produce amino acids which can lead to life after a long time, this makes a non-creation story of life possible with no god necessary. Evolution can explain from there how extremely simple replicating chemicals can turn into fish, bears, foxes, germs, dogs and even people.
This makes the story of Genesis, based on current evidence wrong. To twist it to suit your needs is fine, but if you want to have a detailed explanation, I would just stick to one book, rather than to one that also has stuff in it about slavery being ok.
Im very sure that if you took some time to search for that inconsistency you would find an answer. Besides how does that make the message of the bible inconsistent? In reality it doesnt affect the overall message of the bible? Judas dies and thats all there is to it.
"Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem..."
You just need to go find in history when did King Herod live. Although I'm sure you can find it elsewhere, Wikipedia is a very reliable source, so if you look it up, you can find that Herod the Great died in 4 BCE (although other sources point to 1 BCE, but this shouldn't make a big difference since Jesus was born when Herod was still alive, which means his birth happened before 4 BCE). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herod_the_Great
Luke 2:1-2
"1 And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed.
2 (And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.)"
And we all know that this Census was the reason for Joseph and Mary to go to Bethlehem where Jesus was born. So, let's apply the same criteria here and go to history to figure out when this Census happened. And Luke clearly gives hints about this by mentioning that this happened "when Cyrenius was governor of Syria". So, let's go to Wikipedia one more time, and we can find that this census happened in the year 6 or 7 CE. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Census_of_Quirinius
So, clearly these two gospels are contradicting each other.
Ezekiel 26 is prophecy about Tyre, Lebanon. In verse 14 it says
"And I will make thee a bare rock; thou shalt be a place for the spreading of nets; thou shalt be built no more: for I Jehovah have spoken it, saith the Lord Jehovah."
However Tyre was rebuilt and is alive a city today.
More failure in Ezekiel
Ezekiel 30:10-11
"This is what the Sovereign LORD says: I will put an end to the hordes of Egypt by the hand of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon. He and his army—the most ruthless of nations— will be brought in to destroy the land. They will draw their swords against Egypt and fill the land with the slain."
However, Nebuchadnezzar was defeated in his only attempt to invade Egypt.
I dont have time to research everything being said here but for now, heres a little on the mustard seed references.
Matthew 13:31; Mark 4:30; and Luke 13:19
“The kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed, which a man took and sowed in his field; and this is smaller than all other seeds; but when it is full grown, it is larger than the garden plants, and becomes a tree, so that the birds of the air come and nest in its branches,” (Matt. 13:31; see also Mark 4:30; Luke 13:19).
No, the mustard seed is not the smallest of all seeds. Jesus was speaking proverbially. That is, he wasn't making a statement of absolute fact but using a proverbial style of communication.
There are different kinds of mustard trees in Israel and the mustard seed was the smallest of all the seeds known there and used by those in Israel. Also, notice that Jesus says that when it is full grown it is larger than the garden plants and becomes a tree so that the birds nest in it. There were many gardens in Israel with many types of plants, many of which were larger than the mustard plant. The olive tree for example, can grow to 20 feet or more. The mustard tree known as Salvadora persica has extremely small seeds and grows into a small bush. Brassica nigra is a mustard plant that grows to about 8 to 10 feet when mature and is probably the one Jesus was using for his illustration. Jesus would have known that it wasn't the largest of garden plants because of the prevalence of larger plants. Therefore, he was not making a botanical statement of fact. Instead, he was drawing attention to the comparison of the "smallest" to the "largest" and using it to illustrate how the Kingdom of heaven will expand in the world from a very small beginning to a huge presence.
Also, Jesus used the mustard seed elsewhere in a proverbial sense.
"And He said to them, “Because of the littleness of your faith; for truly I say to you, if you have faith as a mustard seed, you shall say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there,’ and it shall move; and nothing shall be impossible to you," (Matt. 17:20; see also Luke 17:6).
So, we see that Jesus used the mustard seed in illustrations in the style of proverbs to illustrate a point and that he was not speaking in a scientifically accurate sense.
Worthless as to what? A literal translation is worth it to try and keep the text as close to the original as possible, which is obviously important for historical reasons.
Of course, the inconsistencies make it hard to use to prove anything, but that is really independent of literal translation.
A literal and exact translation is "OK", but to be honest, if a person knows deeply the history of the area and other religions and historical facts, and is completely unbiased while doing this translation, I think it would be more accurate and likely explain more.
Like with Thomas Jefferson did.
He was smart and saw wisdom in the Bible. All he did was cut out the miracles and supernatural events, keeping the wisdom of Jesus.
Literal translations are impossible, for there is no such thing as a literal reading.
I reject your premise. Every word has at least a slightly different meaning for one person than another, and if it doesn't chances are the next word or two in a sentence does.
Because I try to find truth based on the proof that I see, rather than proof that I don't or can't see.
What I see from Christianity is creationism, cannibalistic rituals, a Bible filled with inaccuracies and strange rules about sacrifice and how to sell your daughter as a slave, beat your kid properly/kill him, and other things like that.
If those were edited in by humans as a way to excuse barbaric actions, then I cannot trust the rest of it over science, when science is based on evidence and observation, and beliefs based on beliefs in ancient books. There are certainly good things in Christianity as well, but there are good things from many religious people and many non-religious people, just as there are bad things from all sides.
However, in the search for truth, I will avoid a book that is plagued by inaccuracies and strange ritual and the complete absence of any sort of monotheistic, personal god as described in the Bible.
"What I see from Christianity is creationism, cannibalistic rituals, a Bible filled with inaccuracies and strange rules about sacrifice and how to sell your daughter as a slave, beat your kid properly/kill him, and other things like that."
Any of these in the New Testament? You know, the Christian part of the Bible?
I could start with sexism; (Aka, negative gender inequality.)
“I praise you for being faithful in remembering me. I also praise you for staying true to all my teachings, just as I gave them to you. Now I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ. The head of the woman is the man. And the head of Christ is God. 4 Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered brings shame on his head. 5 And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered brings shame on her head. It is just as if her head were shaved. What if a woman does not cover her head? She should have her hair cut off. But it is shameful for her to cut her hair or shave it off. So she should cover her head. A man should not cover his head. He is the likeness and glory of God. But the woman is the glory of the man. 8 The man did not come from the woman. The woman came from the man. Also, the man was not created for the woman. The woman was created for the man. 10 That's why a woman should have her head covered. It shows that she is under authority. She should also cover her head because of the angels. “.... I Corinthians 11
Bam, and now you've just proved that Jesus was sexist.
I can already guess an excuse. "The times were different back then."
Well, there ya have it. The Bible is a made up tale written by a culture where the times were simply different. Evil spirits caused illness, strange occurrences were miracles and other such beliefs.
Why should anyone believe in it now? We are no longer so primitive as to believe in magic and gods and whatnot.
Although it is a comforting thought, in the search for truth, if something doesn't add up, then perhaps it should be examined more closely.
Yes, that and the whole "Every jot and tittle", with regards to the OT. That's why the OT is part of it.
If Jesus wasn't Jewish and wasn't called the Son of the Jewish God that he and his culture believed in, perhaps that would make sense, but Jesus certainly supported the OT as well.
I mean, it's back to the "dropped a piece of chocolate in shit"
Why should I believe the NT when the OT is meaningless?
I don't care why YOU believe it. What I care about is what I believe in. Why in the world should I believe something so inconsistent?
I mean, the entire part where Jesus is crucified is about half a page anyways. I just read it now, out of my own bible.
It was total crap. What a bad story. And VERY fishy. Why did they break the legs of the other people who were crucified but not Jesus? But it means little to me.
I have no reason to believe that I will burn forever in horrible hell, just as I have no reason to believe that your god will save me from this hell I don't believe in.
No, they let him down right after because they said he was dead.
They had actually NOT broken his legs because he was already dead.
Also, I read nothing about an earthquake or the sun going black or anything. Perhaps it was added to other people's bible's but my version didn't mention that.
OK, it's been a while since I read it, the breaking of the legs was to speed up their death, so if he was dead they didn't need to break them.
Also, I read nothing about an earthquake or the sun going black or anything. Perhaps it was added to other people's bible's but my version didn't mention that.
I don't remember that either, why are you mentioning it?
Have you read the bible? Do you know what Christians believe. And furthermore its one thing to read the bible and another to have an understanding from a christian perspective( not saying you hace to believe in it.
