Forget Pascal’s Wager, I’ve got one of my own

I like it.

What about Daniel’s Wager (my real name’s Daniel):

1) There are over 2,500 Gods known to man. Also consider the possibility that there is no God, or the possibility that there is a God and He/She/It hasn’t revealed itself to us yet.

2) Presumably, if you worship the wrong God you will go to Hell.

3) If we do not apply reason to this wager, then as far as we can tell the odds of any God (or other possiblity) being true are equal.

4) If all the options are equal, we have a 1/2,500 chance of going to heaven, and a 2,499/2,500 chance of going to hell.

5) Conclusion: Evidence-based reasoning is of prime importance when placing your ‘bet’, and cannot be ignored.

Since my evidence-based reasoning has convinced me that the naturalistic worldview is accurate, Pascal can get stuffed (the snake-oil peddling huckster that he is).

Your reasoning blasphemes my worship of Thor, beware the wrath of his mighty hammer!!

Mjollnir the mighty? Is that before or after my brother Loki went and messed with the handle?

I think the concept of Pascal’s Wager is flawed itself, but you can use the idea - not to show it is best to “bet on God”, but rather to show that it is wise to examine the evidence. Because of the stakes, we should open ourselves up to accepting the truth of the Creator as revealed axiomatically by creation.

I think the concept of Pascal’s Wager is flawed itself, but you can use the idea - not to show it is best to “bet on God”, but rather to show that it is wise to examine the evidence. Because of the stakes, we should open ourselves up to accepting the truth of the nonexistence of a Creator as revealed axiomatically by the natural world.

Derek, This is also assuming that, you, at age 23 are smarter then Pascal.

Bob: Your comment is total bollocks.

Pascal very probably was smarter than Derek. I don’t mean any offence to Derek when I say that - Pascal had a brilliant mathematician’s mind. He was a clever guy. He was very probably smarter than I am too.

However, even if we accept that Pascal was a clever man - even if we accept that he was cleverer than us - that doesn’t mean that he can’t make a bad argument. Intelligent people can still say stupid things, and Pascal’s Wager is one of them.

Pascal’s Wager is an argument, and as such it rests on its own authority - not the authority of Blaise Pascal’s intellect.

so your willing to risk an eternity dying in the lake of fire because you think that God’s an a********** anyhow?!!!

queen:

I am as willing to risk spending an eternity in hellfire in almost the same way you are willing to risk being hit by a meteor every time you walk outside.

I said ‘almost’ on purpose. It is one thing to think that being hit by a meteor is so incredibly unlikely that I can dismiss it as effectively impossible. But I do know for a fact that meteors do exist, and they do fall from the sky, and they do hit things.

I consider that hell even existing is infinitely less likely than being hit by a meteor. I am as certain that there is no such place as hell as I can be of anything. I’m just as certain that there is no hell as I am that gravity won’t suddenly stop working tomorrow morning.

Where do you get your information that Hell does not exist?

When a part of a person’s brain that is functionally related to an aspect of a person’s personality is damaged through accident, that aspect of their personality ceases to exist. All the evidence of neuroscience is that the personality (the ego, the self, the inner me, whatever you want to call it) is produced by the brain.

Since we can be as certain as we need be that the personality is produced by the brain, the logical conclusion when the brain dies the personality dies with it. Therefore, there can be no personality after death and no afterlife.

Additionally, there is evidence to show that the idea of hell was only introduced to Christianity in the first place as a means of scaring people into converting to Christianity. There is much historical evidence for this - but also much modern evidence as well, because that’s exactly what Christians do. You know this well enough, Justin; you’ve done it yourself and unless I’m very much mistaken you’re about to do it again now.

The concept of hell is unfalsifiable. There was a strong historical motive for ancient religious writers to invent the idea of hell in order to proselytize for Christianity. There is a strong argument to be made (see above) that there is no life after death.

There’s more going on than all this, of course. But it’s the basic shape of the argument that hell was an invented idea for the purposes of scaring nonbelievers into converting and controlling the behavior of believers. It’s a mechanisim of control, like telling a child that the bogeyman will get them if they don’t eat their dinner.

In all that, you provided no proof that Hell does not exist.
Your arguments:
“I have not seen a personality apart from a brain, therefore Hell does not exist.”
“Some people, including Christians, have scared people with bringing up Hell, therefore Hell does not exist.”

Neither of these prove Hell does not exist. It’s not even good evidence. God’s jail exists because God is good and will see justice prevail over evil.

Allow me to clarify:

It is not that I have not seen a personality apart from the brain - it is that we have hard evidence to show that personalities are caused by brains. Because of the nature of this evidence, we have good reason to believe that personalities can only be caused by brains (or to be more accurate, highly plastic computational networks that can operate using an asynchronous, massively-parrallel architecture). It’s kind of like how velocity is caused by acceleration. There is no hard evidence that suggests that that personalities could exist in any other way.

Now you can say ‘We don’t have any hard evidence that there never was a personality that existed outside a brain’ and this, strictly speaking, is true - you can’t prove a negative. But neither do we have any hard evidence that there ever was a personality that existed outside a brain, so we have no good reason to think that this could ever happen. Remember: That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Secondly, I was using the fact that Christians use hell as a means of conversion and controll to show that Christian thinkers had a motive to lie in favor of hell’s existence without evidence. This is to lend weight to the analysis that hell is just something that Christians made up for their own cynical purposes.

Once again, nothing can prove that hell doesn’t exist because hell is an unfalsifiable concept. I specifically mentioned that. However, we can show that there is hard evidence to suggest that hell does exist, and that there are some very good reasons as to why the men who wrote the original Christian literatrure would have been motivated to lie in favor of hell’s existence.

Which of these two scenarios is the more likely:
1). That hell exists or;
2). That hell doesn’t exist.

For 1), we have no hard evidence and no good reasons to support it whatsoever.
For 2), we have hard evidence to show that personalities come from brains and good reason to think that personalities can only come from brains, so we have good reason to think that there is no afterlife. We also know that there is a good motive on behalf of the people who originally espoused that hell exists to lie about it.

Based on the evidence, I think it’s pretty clear that the only rational conclusion to be drawn is that hell is a fantasy invented from the mind of man, the result of either misguided delusion or cynicall manipulation.

(Note: I do not mean to suggest that you yourself are lying, Justin. The thing that scares me most about you is that you really do seem to believe the nonsense that you spout is rationally sound. No. I am trying to argue that you have been lied to by the men - yes, men - who wrote the literature upon which your religious tradition is based, and that you’ve uncritically swallowed the bait hook, line, and sinker.)

Bloody typos.

That paragraph should read:

Once again, nothing can prove that hell doesn’t exist because hell is an unfalsifiable concept. I specifically mentioned that. However, we can show that there is no hard evidence to suggest that hell does exist, and that there are some very good reasons as to why the men who wrote the original Christian literatrure would have been motivated to lie in favor of hell’s existence.

1) Obviousy if there is an all knowing all powerful God, there won’t be a problem figuring out the personallity issue.
2) God is the author of the Bible and mentions Hell because he is just. You claim that the writers (the ones holding the pens) used Hell as a motivator even though it doesn’t really exist. Back up your claims please - and I’m only interested in the original writers of the Bible.

You claim that the writers (the ones holding the pens) used Hell as a motivator even though it doesn’t really exist. Back up your claims please - and I’m only interested in the original writers of the Bible.

Firstly, I am not saying that I know they did. I’m saying that they had a good motivation, so there are grounds to think that they may have lied - either through flat-out deciet (it’s okay to lie if it brings people to Jesus) or opportunistically accepting something that they heard as truth without requiring evidence because it was convienient for the cause.

Depending on who you talk to, different people give different dates to when the gospels of the new testament were written.

There is a Christian Apologetics website (http://www.carm.org/questions/written_after.htm) that argues that all the Gospels had to have been full written before 70 C.E. However, it is notable that even the Christian biblical scholars will concede that the gospels were not written until some years after the death and alleged ressurection of Christ. How many years? Well, that’s uncertain. We can be sure that the gospels were written before the death of Christ.

Now, after the death and alleged ressurection of Christ, we have a young Christianity that’s looking to grow in numbers through conversion. They have a motivation to convert people to their religion, and the nature of the new testament gospels reflects this very clearly. The environment was extensively Jewish and the established measure of truth was that the truth must be in line with scripture - so it is hardly surprising that the gospels continually beat us over the head with all the prophecies that Christ allegedly fulfilled. They do this to the point that they actually take a couple of prophecies completely out of their original context and try to fit them to the life of Christ in order to give him an extra air of authority.

I hope I have etablished that there is good reason to assert that one of the motives behind the writing the gospels was to persuade and convert unbelievers.

We are also faced with the fact that hell is not mentioned in the bible until the new testament.

It is plausible that, if hell doesn’t exist, the authors of the gospels would have had good reason to invent it.

It is implausible that, if hell does exist, it never got mentioned until the very moment when the authors of the gospels needed a good persuasive tool. It’s too convinient - I smell bullshit.

Bah! Again!

We can be sure that the gospels were not written before the death of Christ.

The answers to your objections are simple:

You said “Firstly, I am not saying that I know they did. I’m saying that they had a good motivation, so there are grounds to think that they may have lied - either through flat-out deciet (it’s okay to lie if it brings people to Jesus) or opportunistically accepting something that they heard as truth without requiring evidence because it was convienient for the cause.”
Since Christianity forbids lying, they could not “lie for Jesus”. Also, what if Hell is true and you simply say it can’t be true because it happens to be convenient for the cause? Isn’t it possible that something can be both (helps the cause of Christ AND is true)? You can’t simply say something is convenient and therefore not true - it’s bad logic.

You said “However, it is notable that even the Christian biblical scholars will concede that the gospels were not written until some years after the death and alleged ressurection of Christ. How many years? Well, that’s uncertain. We can be sure that the gospels were written [after] the death of Christ.”
Of course they were written after the death of Christ - They report of the death and resurrection of Christ! Who cares when God got His writers to pen His words? They are still His words.

You said “Now, after the death and alleged ressurection of Christ, we have a young Christianity that’s looking to grow in numbers through conversion. They have a motivation to convert people to their religion, and the nature of the new testament gospels reflects this very clearly”
Early Christians were stoned, beaten, set fire to at the stake, crucified, etc. They had clear motivation to not lie and say Christ did not rise if it were not true. But it did happen, and this changed their lives. They were willing to die for what they saw. Also, again, Christianity forbids lying, even “for Jesus”.

So basically none of your speculations, none of which can be classified as evidence, holds up.

The only basis for the existence of hell is scriptural.

The honesty of that scripture on the topic of hell is suspect - I don’t buy the ‘God forbids lying so they can’t die for Jesus’ line. God also forbids killing, but that didn’t stop the crusades. God forbids false witness, yet creationists constantly quote scientists out of context to try and make it look like that scientist doubts the evidence for evolution when they do not. Jesus said: Judge not lest ye be judged - yet how often do you find christians passing judgement on others they deem to be sinners?

If history has taught us anything, it is that Christians can’t be counted on to practice what they preach. So no - I reject your weak dodge ‘explanation’ of why the authors of the gospels could not have lied. There’s a difference between the author sittind down and thinking “I know this is false but it’s useful” and thinking “I’m sure this is what Jesus meant - I mean, it makes more sense this way now and it’s just so useful - He must have forseen the need, so the need proves the truth of the matter. Therefore, it’s true.”

You can almost hear an echo in the mind of the rapist priests: “If I just rape one choir-boy in my care and repent sincerely afterwards, God will forgive me and I’ll stay out of hell. Just once won’t hurt.”

If you expect me to believe a christian priest is capable of that line of thought but that no christian in the bronze-age middle east would be capable of stretching the truth of the gospels for the needs of convienience, you’ve got a long battle ahead of you. As you said, they were being persecuted - that just gives them more reason to need the numbers so they could defend themselves.

Since there is NO HARD EVIDENCE for the existence of hell - I notice you haven’t even attempted to address that point - and the only basis for the belief in the first place is scripture that we have good reason to doubt. The evidence for hell ranges from nonexistent to sketchy.

We also have the best possible evidence against the existence of hell that we could ever possibly get given that hell is unfalsifialbe - we have good reason to believe that the personality cannot survive brain-death.

Now, at this point I’m losing interest. I’ve argued with you before - I know that you actually think that stubbornness in the face of criticism is the same thing as a counter-argument.

You asked me why I am so certain that there is no hell. It is because I am certain that there is no eternal soul. I am certain that there is no soul because we know that aspects of the personality are eradicated when the part of the brain associated with them is destroyed through accident. This is evidence that the brain is the cause of personality, and it follows from this that when the brain dies the personality dies too. We have no hard evidence to the contrary - only the anecdotal evidence of scripture that cannot be trusted.

You can trust scripture without any good reason if it gives you pleasure. But it all makes sense if you just accept that there is no God, Justin. Faith has shackled your mind, but you love the shackles so much that you cannot see them for what they are. You consider them a virtue, when in fact they are an abdication of your reason and the very thing that makes us humans what we are: the capacity for reason.

I’m signing out of this argument - I know you’re just going to throw another non-argument at me, and I’m getting tired of it. I can feel how your mind works, and I am saddened by that knowledge.

I leave you with the words of Susan Werner - Probably Not:

Well I’ve travelled far and wide,
Crossed hills and country-side,
To answer the questions troubling me,
When one day out of the blue,
I realized I knew,
And the answer was simple as could be…

Is there a God above?
Is there eternal love?
Probably not! (Probably not!)
Probably not! (Probably not!)

Is there a home up in the sky?
Will we be there by-and-by?
Probably not! (Probably not!)
No - probably not. (Probably not!)

Think of that easter day,
When they rolled the stone away,
And the apostles said they’d seen Jesus by the city wall,
Well Saint Tom, his heart was pure,
And he said “Oh right, yeah sure!”
And that’s why Saint Tom was the grooviest apostle of all!

Is there a God above?
Is there eternal love?
Probably not! (Probably not!)
Probably not! (Probably not!)

Is there a home up in the sky?
Will we be there by-and-by?
Probably not! (Probably not!)
No - probably not. (Probably not!)

But what if I’ve been wrong?
And God’s been up there all along…
All alllloooooonnnnnnng…

And he hands me a heavenly crown,
Would I dare to turn him down?
Probably not! (Probably not!)
Probably not! (Probably not!)

And if he sends me down to hell,
Will I smile and say “Oh, well,”
Probably not! (Probably not!)
No - probably not! (Probably not!)
Probably not! (Probably not!)
No - probably not! (Probably not!)
Probably not! (Probably not!)
No - probably not! (Probably not!)

Oh no, I do not think so.

Notice you didn’t address my actual argument that they wouldn’t die for a lie (the resurrection).

I’m saying they died for a lie they believed, Justin.

That’s the tradgedy of letting faith determine truth instead of wisdom.

Yeah right. Over 500 witnesses saw him and these same people were so sure of it they were willing to die for it? Come on. Plus, if he was not risen, the Roman government would have just dragged out the body.

If the fanatiscism of a crowd is evidence of truth, then Sridi Sai Baba is a living God.

Of course, any rational person knows that Sai Baba’s followers are deluded and irrational.

And yet you’re seriously trying to tell me that somehow, excatly the same sort of fanaticism on behalf of a crowd regarding a man-god suddenly becomes persuasive when it is supplanted into a crowd in the middle-east?

I think not.

Again though, if they were wrong about Christ, the Romans government would have simply presented the body.

Which is more likely:

That a dead man came back to life?

Or that someone arranged to have the body moved?

The Roman government went through all the trouble of having him killed. They wanted to make sure that he was done with. That is why they put soldiers at the tomb to guard it. There was also a huge stone in front of the tomb. They couldn’t have simply moved the body. Add this to the fact that there were over 500 witnesses, including non-Christian historians who wrote about it and the resurrection is pretty convincing.

What non-Christian historians, Justin? Can you name them? Perhaps give us quotes? Or does CARM tell you and so you believe it?

Josephus is one.

That is why they put soldiers at the tomb to guard it. There was also a huge stone in front of the tomb. They couldn’t have simply moved the body.

Hmm… Guards you say?

Well, let’s have a look.

Mark 16:1-4

[1] Saturday evening, when the Sabbath ended, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome went out and purchased burial spices so they could anoint Jesus’ body.

[2] Very early on Sunday morning, just at sunrise, they went to the tomb.

[3] On the way they were asking each other, “Who will roll away the stone for us from the entrance to the tomb?”

[4] But as they arrived, they looked up and saw that the stone, which was very large, had already been rolled aside.

Mark does not mention any guards throughout chapter 16.

Note that the stone was just sitting there, rolled aside. So if there were guards, I take it we are supposed to accept that they were highly undisciplined guards. I mean, if the body of Christ had gone missing, why didn’t the guards just arrange to have the stone rolled back in place and then just deny entrance to any of Jesus’ followers? As far as cover-ups go, leaving the tomb wide open and unguarded seems a bit of a half-measure.

So we cannot see in Mark that any guards were present. And if they were, then they were so superfluous that they couldn’t even guard the thing they were supposed to be guarding.

Mark also raises an interesting point: Why would Mary, Mary, and Salome even bother going to the tomb with their spices if they thought they weren’t going to be able to get in? In my personal experience, only men are that stupid. Women tend to think ahead.

John 20:1

[1] Early on the first day of the week, while it was still dark, Mary Magdalene went to the tomb and saw that the stone had been removed from the entrance.

John is quick and to the point. Mary went there early on Sunday morning, and the stone was rolled back. No mention of guards anywhere in John 20 either. So we can infer from Mark and John that the guards either weren’t present or were so inept that they didn’t deserve a mention.

Luke 24:1-3

[1] On the first day of the week, very early in the morning, the women took the spices they had prepared and went to the tomb.

[2] They found the stone rolled away from the tomb,

[3] but when they entered, they did not find the body of the Lord Jesus.

Again, the women go in early to find the stone rolled back. No Jesus. No mention of guards either.

Wow. These guards must have been really inept.

But wait - Matthew to the rescue?

Matthew 28:1-4

[1] After the Sabbath, at dawn on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to look at the tomb.

[2] There was a violent earthquake, for an angel of the Lord came down from heaven and, going to the tomb, rolled back the stone and sat on it.

[3] His appearance was like lightning, and his clothes were white as snow.

[4] The guards were so afraid of him that they shook and became like dead men.

Also of note is Matthew 28:11-15

[11] While the women were on their way, some of the guards went into the city and reported to the chief priests everything that had happened.

[12] When the chief priests had met with the elders and devised a plan, they gave the soldiers a large sum of money,

[13] telling them, “You are to say, ‘His disciples came during the night and stole him away while we were asleep.’

[14I] If this report gets to the governor, we will satisfy him and keep you out of trouble.”

[15] So the soldiers took the money and did as they were instructed. And this story has been widely circulated among the Jews to this very day.

If this doesn’t strike you as one of the most contrived piece of crap eye-witness testimony third-hand hearsay you’ve ever heard, you clearly haven’t been paying attention.

Mark: Tomb already open when the women got there. No guards. No earthquake.
John: Tomb already open when the women got there. No guards. No earthquake.
Luke: Tomb already open when the women got there. No guards. No earthquake.
Matthew: Tomb opens in amazing display of divine power only after the women got there. There are guards. There is an earthquake. Also, the idea that the guards must have been bribed to lie about the tomb being opened by God is only mentioned here. Even though the tomb is opened after the women arrive, when they look inside Jesus is already gone. Presumably He miraculously teleported away or walked through the rock when no-one was looking.

I think I feel a tui ad coming on.

Okay, presuming that the entire story isn’t one giant fabrication, here are the different ways that Jesus’ followers could have moved His body:

1. There were no guards.
2. While the guards were sleeping (hey, if its good enough for the governor, it’s good enough for me).
3. Bribe the guards.
4. Kill the guards.
5. The guards were followers of Jesus themselves.

All of which are more plausible to me than “An angel did it.”

Firstly, it is by no means implicit that there had to have been guards at the tomb. Why would the Romans and the pharisees even think that Jesus’ followers would try and steal the body, or that it would be important if they did? If they understood how martyrdom worked, they wouldn’t have killed Jesus in the first place. As far as they were concerned, He was dead and that was that.

Secondly, even if they did take the threat seriously enough to post 24/7 guards outside the tomb, I think it seriously overestimates the abilities and incorruptibility of the guards to suggest that only a miracle could have got the body out. The guards in question weren’t going to be officers or the cream of the crop, were they? Guarding a dead body all night is the kind of job any guard captain worth his salt would dish out as punishment.

Thirdly, there’s the simple fact - already established - that the accuracy of the scriptural account of Jesus’ life is questionable at best. Christians bear false witness all the time (Creationists: providing argumentative fodder for atheists since c. 45 C.E.)

Also, regarding your 500 witnesses? Only the gospel of Luke ever mentions the ascension at all, and even then he only speaks of the Eleven (remaining apostles) and ‘those that were assembled with them’. Where did you get the number 500? Special revelation, perchance?

All we get from the gospels is the following four lines from the end of Luke:

[50] When he had led them out to the vicinity of Bethany, he lifted up his hands and blessed them.

[51] While he was blessing them, he left them and was taken up into heaven.

[52] Then they worshiped him and returned to Jerusalem with great joy.

[53] And they stayed continually at the temple, praising God.

That’s it.

That’s all the biblical evidence for the ascension: Four lines at the end of Luke, and no mention of 500 witnesses. You think that something that important would have been covered by all four gospels, wouldn’t you?

The ‘evidence’ that you’re quoting as authoritative just isn’t there.

I know that I’m not the first person to point any of this out, and I’m already familiar with the doges made by believers. The point is this:

Believers like to quote scripture as being an internally consistent revelation of what they claim to be the evidence for Jesus’ life. However, revelation only takes place between God and the person who recieves that revelation. When that person then goes and communicates that alleged revelation to anyone else, it isn’t revelation any more: It is hearsay. And upon being analysed truthfully as hearsay, the internal inconsistencies and sheer absurdity of the truth claims contained within the Old and New Testament are not sufficient to convince anyone but the most credulous of individuals.

That said, you cannot quote from scripture as if it carries any kind of persuasive weight. It isn’t the word of God because it cannot be the word of God. The word of God can only be spoken by God and the bible’s authors were not Him, its translators were not Him, and its proponents (that would be you, Justin) are not Him.

All the authors, translators, and proponents can offer is hearsay - and it just doesn’t stack up. No amount of twisting and contorting can make it stack up, because if you have to twist and contorth the interpretations to even get it all to fit then it wasn’t a particularly good ‘revelation’ in the first place, was it?

Josephus makes two whole references to Jesus. The bit in the Testimonium Flavianum is highly controversial, as we don’t have any copies from before the 10th century, and the use of the word “Christ” to describe Jesus doesn’t make any sense, as he was writing for Greeks and “christos” in that context wouldn’t have a meaning for them.

So one whole historian makes two mentions of a Jesus and therefore it’s externally corroborated? You refute the LDS church’s tenets and they have far more external corroboration than you do.

Ok, I guess the argument is considered over by the blog owner, but I’ll end with this. The accounts are consistent. Different ones take the same events in different ways, but they are the same thing. Read carefully.

The accounts are consistent. Different ones take the same events in different ways, but they are the same thing. Read carefully.

Sorry… I know that now I’m just being petty, but I just can’t let that one slide.

Hope my table HTML works in the comments section.

Ed– No, the HTML didn’t work. Removed for brevity. See the link in a subsequent comment for the table data. It essentially shows that the gospel scriptures are not textually consistent.

No, these accounts are not consistent. They are as inconsistent as can possibly be. Mark mentions the idle chatter between three women, but fogets to mention their account of lightning and earthquakes?

I think not.

My table got parsed out when I submitted the comments. Bugger.

Okay, I’m a touch pedantic. Go here:

http://rhetoricsanspareil.wordpress.com/2008/07/29/temporary-data/

With the password: DereksTheMan

To see the table. It has a bit more impact than if you see it all staggered out like that.

It’s simple. If one account mentions something happening and others do not, then it happened and the other one simply does not bring it up.

So then what about when they directly contradict one another?

Such as the accounts of Judas’s death?

And I still disagree with you.

Lightning and Earthquakes are like bread and butter for religious nutters. You honestly think that that Mark, Luke, and John just don’t think it was worth bringing up?

Please.

I think the fact that they didn’t bring up every detail is a plus for the gospels - it shows you that they didn’t have a meeting and agree on what they were going to say. Pls, God could have left out certain details in certain accounts so you had to give up your pride to believe.

Sara, there are no contradictions in the Bible whatsoever - only things that seem to contradict, but don’t upon further review.

We’re really going to talk about this again? You’re still not going to show that you understand the differences in the accounts of Judas’s death?

One account says he hanged himself, remorseful over betraying Jesus.

Another says he fell down and his guts burst open while he was visiting the plot he purchased with Jesus’s blood money.

Both are very specific as to exactly how Judas died. Either one is wrong or both are wrong, but both are not right. An attempt to reconcile the two accounts ends up 1) calling the apostles stupid or liars or both 2) twisting the words of the Bible, something you should really think twice about or 3) not working.

We’ve already had a whole discussion about this, and you know from that the fact that just throwing out a blanket statement like that is a poor choice.

The double death is the most obvious thing that can’t be reconciled. But here’s another, more interesting one:

Justin, what happened to the money Judas got for betraying Jesus? Did he use it to buy a field, or did the priests use it to buy a field?

This is an example of one of the things that may look like a contradiction, but it isn’t upon further review. It is also something that requires you to give up your pride to believe.

“Matthew 27:5-8 says, “So Judas threw the money into the temple and left. Then he went away and hanged himself.” The chief priests picked up the coins and said, “It is against the law to put this into the treasury, since it is blood money.” So they decided to use the money to buy the potter’s field as a burial place for foreigners. That is why it has been called the Field of Blood to this day.” Acts 1:18-19 says, “With the reward he got for his wickedness, Judas bought a field; there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out. Everyone in Jerusalem heard about this, so they called that field in their language Akeldama, that is, Field of Blood.” Which is correct? Did Judas hang himself or did he fall? Did Judas buy the field or did the priests buy the field?

Judas hung himself in the potters field (Matthew 27:5) and then after his body decayed and bloated, evidently the rope broke and he burst into pieces on the land of the potters field (Acts 1:18-19). Acts 1:18-19 presumes Judas’ hanging…as a man falling down in a field does not result in his body bursting open. Only decomposition and a fall from a height could cause a body to burst open. When Judas threw the thirty pieces of silver down, the priests took the money and used it to buy the potter’s field (Matthew 27:7), not knowing that Judas was going to hang himself there. Judas may not have purchased the field himself, but it was the money Judas received for betraying Jesus that purchased the field.”
- http://www.gotquestions.org

P.S. Sara, the reason I use the statement that there are no contradictions in the Bible is because it forces you to explain what you think the contradiction is rather than just saying there is one. Then hopefully you will realize why it is not a contradiction. Plus, bringing u a “seeming contradiction” tends to give some validity to the supposed contradiction in the first place. I’d rather you try to explain what you think and I will say why it is not a genuine contradiction.

Justin: first and foremost, it’s nice that you’d rather I write differently. I’d rather you answer questions without having me simplify them four times and beg you to respect another person.

Now for interestingness.

Judas either bought the field himself and went out to survey it, as in Acts, or he threw the money at the priests and then killed himself, after which THEY bought the field, as in Matthew.

Which one? There are (as in Genesis) two distinct timelines.

1. Judas gets money for betraying Jesus.
2. Judas throws money at priests.
3. Judas hangs himself somewhere.
4. Priests take money and buy field.
5. Field gets named “Field of Blood” presumably because it was bought with blood money.

OR

1. Judas gets money for betraying Jesus.
2. Judas buys field with money.
3. Judas goes to survey field and falls headlong, bursting open.
4. Field is named “Akeldama” because of Judas’s bloody death.

You can’t have both, Justin; the squishing accounts together method doesn’t work here. GotQuestion’s “fix” doesn’t work and isn’t logically sound, plus you end up changing the meaning of the words in the Bible which, I think, is a sin to you, right?

Judas’ money was used by the priests to buy the field. Judas bought the field in a sense and the priests bought the field in a sense. If you gave someone 10 bucks to buy your lunch, who “bought” the lunch? You in a sense and the person you sent in a sense. I’ll admit, you do have to be humble to accept this way of looking at it, but humility is what God wants so it makes sense. Not being as clear cut is a strength of the Bible - it shows they didn’t get together to try to scam everyone.

My comment won’t go through…

Let me try again.

This is precisely what I would say, but it’s more concise.

“The Greek verb is “ktaomai.” It seems that it means to come into possession of something. So, “acquired” is a reasonable literal translation. When money is the means by which the thing was acquired, as in this case, “bought” seems like a reasonable translation. So, all of the translations are reasonable.

It may be tempting to think that what is meant in Acts 1:18 is that Judas acquired the field in some abstract sense by indirectly giving the money to the priests who then bought the field. But in Matt 27:5 Judas threw the money down in the temple, so we can’t assume that Judas was concerned with what happened with the money after he departed. Also, according to Matthew, Judas died before the priests bought the field. So, in no sense did Judas acquire the field in his lifetime.”

You’re ignring (as always) larger implications of the timelines. In Matthew, Judas is remorseful and sorry for betraying Jesus. In Acts he goes off and purchases a field with it. Doesn’t sound sorry.

Also, let’s look at “headlong.” I’ll again borrow as I don’t feel like typing.

“First, it should be noted that Judas fell headlong. So, an explanation is needed as to why Judas’ body rotated 180 degrees upon the rope breaking. Judas could have hung himself from a tree branch that protruded over a cliff in order to all the fall sufficient distance so that his body could flip, but that seems odd as it would not have contributed to the hanging unless Judas meant for the rope to break. In fact it would have made it needlessly difficult as Judas would have had to climb out onto the protruding branch. It could be that as Judas fell he crashed into something, such as another tree branch, that caused his body to flip. This is possible, but it would make more sense for Judas to simply choose the lowest branch that he could find that was sufficiently high. A branch with a branch underneath it would have only gotten in the way.”

And finally, I’d like to know your thoughts on the “prophecy” mentioned by Matthew. You know, the prophecy of Jeremiah that doesn’t exist?

I have a source for those quotes, but the link won’t go through. Let me know if you’d like to check them.

I feel that my answer was sufficient. I don’t think the quotes were that significant so I don’t really care about the sources, but others might. Nothing in the quotes makes is where my explanation could not work.

As far as the prophesy thing, I don’t know what you are talking about.

Oh, no? The prophecy “of Jeremiah” Matthew mentions that doesn’t exist?

As for your incredibly dismissive words (which translate to, roughly, you didn’t read it), I will address them if no one else does, and only after I get home tonight after work.

Sigh.

Yeah, I don’t know what you are talking about.

Sara, there are no contradictions in the Bible whatsoever - only things that seem to contradict, but don’t upon further review.

Err… Hmm. Mark, Luke and John all say that the stone was already rolled away from the tomb before the women got there. Matthew says that the stone rolled back only after the women got there to witness it (and the appropriately flashy pyrotechnics that went along with it).

They completely contradict one another.

Mark, Luke and John all agree on these two propositions:

a: The stone was rolled back before the women arrived at the tomb.
¬b: The stone was not rolled back after the women arrived at the tomb.

Matthew, on the other hand, asserts the following two propositions:

¬a: The stone was not rolled back before the women arrived at the tomb.
b: The stone was rolled back after the women arrived at the tomb.

So within the same text (the bible) we have two sets of assertions.

1). a and ¬a, and;
2). b and ¬b

THIS IS THE VERY DEFINITION OF A CONTRADICTION! It isn’t something that can be explained ‘upon further review’. A contradiction is a contradiction, and no amount of dressing it up will make it anything else.

Your stubborn refusal to admit that the bible does not contain contradictions does not make it so.

I now pass the floor to Thomas Paine (Age of Reason, Part First):

As it is necessary to affix right ideas to words, I will, before I proceed further into the subject, offer some other observations on the word revelation. Revelation, when applied to religion, means something communicated immediately from God to man.

No one will deny or dispute the power of the Almighty to make such a communication, if he pleases [ed. Thomas Paine was a Deist]. But admitting, for the sake of a case, that something has been revealed to a certain person, and not revealed to any other person, it is revelation to that person only. When he tells it to a second person, a second to a third, a third to a fourth, and so on, it ceases to be a revelation to all those persons. It is revelation to the first person only, and hearsay to every other, and consequently they are not obliged to believe it.

And continued (Age of Reason, Part Second):

It has happend that all the answers which I have seen to the former part of the Age of Reason have been written by priests; and these pious men, like their predecessors, contend and wrangle, and pretend to understand the Bible; each understands it differently, but each understands it best; and they have agreed in nothing but in telling their readers that Thomas Paine understands it not.

Now, instead of wasting their time, and heating themselves in fractious disputations about doctrinal points drawn from the Bible, these men ought to know, and if they do not, it is civility to inform them, that the first thing to be understood is, whether there is sufficient authority for believing the Bible to be the word of God, or whether there is not.

I contend that there is not.

I just read all four accounts and none of them say when the stone was rolled away. You just made an assumption. Read the verses again and if you see any of them say when it happened, put it here for all to see. The only thing we can be certain of is “an angel of the Lord came down from heaven and, going to the tomb, rolled back the stone and sat on it.”

Read the verses again and if you see any of them say when it happened, put it here for all to see.

Okie Dokie. I’d just like to point out that I’ve already covered this topic in this thread - however, I’m starting to get the impression that you don’t actually read the things people write when they disagree with you. I think you just skim through the comments for buzzwords that fit into a pre-prepared list of non-arguments that you only think are convincing.

But since you asked so nicely, just for you, I’m willing to repeat myself.

Mark 16:1-4

[1] When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices so that they might go to anoint Jesus’ body.

[2] Very early on the first day of the week, just after sunrise, they were on their way to the tomb

[3] and they asked each other, “Who will roll the stone away from the entrance of the tomb?”

[4]But when they looked up, they saw that the stone, which was very large, had been rolled away. [my emphasis]

John 20:1

[1] Early on the first day of the week, while it was still dark, Mary Magdalene went to the tomb and saw that the stone had been removed from the entrance. [my emphasis]

Luke 24:1-3

[1] On the first day of the week, very early in the morning, the women took the spices they had prepared and went to the tomb.

[2] They found the stone rolled away from the tomb, [my emphasis]

[3] but when they entered, they did not find the body of the Lord Jesus.

Matthew 28:1-2

[1] After the Sabbath, at dawn on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to look at the tomb.

[2] There was a violent earthquake, for an angel of the Lord came down from heaven and, going to the tomb, rolled back the stone and sat on it. [my emphasis]

So to re-iterate: Mark, Luke and John all report that the stone was rolled back before the women arrived - it was like that when they got there. This is the most explicit in Luke 24:2 “They found the stone rolled away from the tomb.” John 20:1 doesn’t phrase it quite so nicely as I would have preferred, but it is still very clear in John 20:1 “Mary Magdalene went to the tomb and saw that the stone had been removed from the entrance.” Finally we have Mark 16:4 to tell us that “But when they looked up, they saw that the stone, which was very large, had been rolled away.”

Matthew, as you so accurately provide, says otherwise. First, the women arrive on the scene. Then an angel appears and rolls back the stone - so the stone had been in place when the women arrived, and was only rolled back after they got there.

You said:

I just read all four accounts and none of them say when the stone was rolled away. You just made an assumption.

Assumption?

Mark 16:4 - Women found stone already rolled back.
John 20:1 - Women found stone already rolled back.
Luke 24:2 - Women found stone already rolled back.
Matthew 28:2 - Stone rolled back by angel in front of women.

Now, if you wanted to tell me that “Yes, the bible contains some contradictions - but although the words may be corrupted, I still accept that the message is the word of God.” I would still have some good reasons to disagree with you on that, but it would move the discussion into a totally different playing-field.

But to tell me that the bible contains no contradictions whatsoever is just plain old-fashioned wrong.

Just how blind is your faith, Justin?

If the gospels told you that 2 + 2 = 5, would you believe that too?

Justin: You read the Scriptures about as closely as you read anything anyone writes.

“Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet, saying, And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him that was valued, whom they of the children of Israel did value; And gave them for the potter’s field, as the Lord appointed me.” (Matt. 27:9-10, KJV)

That prophecy doesn’t exist. At all. A statement appears in Jeremiah (similar if you’re desperate), recounting a story about a man who bought a field.

“Behold, Hanameel the son of Shallum thine uncle shall come unto thee saying, Buy thee my field that is in Anathoth: for the right of redemption is thine to buy it…So Hanameel mine uncle’s son came…and said unto me, Buy my field, I pray thee, that is in Anathoth, which is in the country of Benjamin: for the right of inheritance is thine, and the redemption is thine; buy it for thyself. Then I knew that this was the word of the LORD. And I bought the field of Hanameel my uncle’s son, that was in Anathoth, and weighed him the money, even seventeen shekels of silver.” (Jer. 32:7-9, KJV)

The closest the Bible gets to anything remotely resembling the “prophecy” Matthew points to is in an entirely different prophetic work.

“And I said unto them, If ye think good, give me my price; and if not, forbear. So they weighed for my price thirty pieces of silver. And the LORD said unto me, Cast it unto the potter: a goodly price that I was prised at of them. And I took the thirty pieces of silver, and cast them to the potter in the house of the LORD.” (Zech. 11:12-13)

So why on Earth would Matthew refer to Zechariah (hereafter referred to as ‘Z’ as Jeremiah (’J')?

Answers Biblical Literalists Like To Give

1. Jeremiah was considered the major prophet of Israel and as such Matthew was colloquially referring to a minor prophet under the umbrella term for a prophet…or something complicated to that a/effect.

No. Makes no sense. Matthew himself always refers to other prophecies very specifically: Isaiah and Daniel, for example. Also, no other gospel uses Jeremiah as a blanket term for a prophet. So, no, that doesn’t work.

2. ……….?

There’s really no other way this can be anything other than a mistake.

Either translators messed up and read “Z” as “J,” or Matthew was wrong, or some other mess-up along the way switched parts of books with other parts of books. No matter how this mistake got in there, it’s there.

Literalism refuses to believe it, but it’s there.

Ubiquitous Che, the first three passages tell us two things
1) That the women arrived and
2) That the stone was rolled away
It does not say that the stone was rolled away before or after they arrived.
The fourth passage (Matthew) says
1) That the stone was rolled away by an angel and
2) That the women arrived to tomb.
It does not say that the stone was rolled away before or after they arrived. Read it carefully again and I hope you will see what I mean this time.

Sara, without doing much research into it, isn’t in possible Jeremiah made the prophesy, but it was not included in God’s Word of the Bible?

Plus, there is Jer. 19:1-13 in addition to the portion you pointed out in Jer. 32:6-9

So the Bible is incomplete, then? That’s the implication and the conclusion of your first answer. An incomplete Bible is hardly a new idea, especially considering the fact that we already know it’s incomplete for several reasons. One, the Bible itself mentions books we don’t include in it. Enoch, etc. Two, a conscious choice was made by early church leaders to include some books and exclude others. Three, it’s logical to assume that the Bible is incomplete, as it’s a pretty old written version of very old oral stories.

As for the Jeremiah passage you mention…um, it mentions a potter in the first verse. Other than that, I’m not seeing any prophecy here about thirty pieces of silver, so, yeah, the verse in Matthew is still a mistake.

The verse in Matthew is not a mistake. Jeremiah could have prophesied it, either in the verses mentioned or out of them. This does not make the Bible incomplete. If that was the case, it would just mean not every single detail is included - which John mentions. It is, however, all that God wanted to say in His scripture.

No, he could not have.

Here’s the problem: if Jeremiah prophesied what Matthew claimed, then it should be in the Bible, as it’s referenced at a later date. If the reference isn’t there, then the claim Matthew makes is false. Having no references doesn’t excuse a claim from the call for them. If Jeremiah prophesied something about Jesus, one would assume it, like the other Messianic prophecies, would be included.

Jeremiah makes no such prophecy.

Neither does Zechariah.

You claim that the Bible is inerrant and makes no mistakes within its borders, but the Matthew prophecy that doesn’t exist is a mistake within the contents of the Bible. It doesn’t even necessitate logical thought to see the mistake.

Matthew says X is prophesied
X is not prophesied
Therefore, Matthew is wrong

Matthew is not wrong, you just don’t accept any potential answers.

So, the Bible is incomplete, but for a reason, not because it’s old and people suck at keeping things? Or because Matthew was confused or making stuff up or silly? You would still blindly swear that the Bible is perfect despite this glaring flaw and/or omission?

I’m prepared to accept logical answers, honey, but I’m not prepared to have you ignore me forever. Oh, wait, I suppose I am prepared to accept it, as you’ve never treated anyone at this site or your own with respect whether they agreed with you or not. I am prepared, I just don’t appreciate it.

The Bible contains all that God wants it to contain and it is completely sufficient.

Sara, I forgive you, but I don’t want to continue taking your belittling me and accusing me of not caring or not reading. I’m out for now.