Info dumps by nerdy folks who are passionate about stuff are my favorite!! ☺️☺️
That’s super interesting, thanks for explaining! And yeah that’s a pretty central contradiction, I can see how that’d drive a lot of theological debate/discussion. Even within the public consciousness it feels like you have the two versions of the christian god, the “turn the other cheek” and the wrathful god you must learn to fear.
I get not wanting to accept the compliment, there’s often a really big difference between a true expert within a field of study and someone with “expertise” in the more coloquial sense of someone having significantly more specialized knowledge than a layman. Regardless, you know a lot more than me or most other folks in this thread and I really appreciate you sharing your knowledge and perspective with us ☺️
In the book of Matthew, Judas goes to return the money that he got for turning in Jesus to the priests. They refuse to take the money back, so he throws it into the temple and walks away. He then goes out and hangs himself. The chief priest doesn’t feel that he can accept the money, so he uses it to buy a field with the “blood money” and it is called the field of blood, which is used to bury foreigners.
In the book of Acts, Judas uses the money he received to pay for a field for himself, and when he walks onto the land, his body bursts open and all of his blood and entrails fall into the field. And that’s how it became the field of blood.
The only way to try to marry these two together is to completely step outside of what the scripture says. That doesn’t stop people from trying, but there are two very separate accounts.
Edit; to clarify, I don’t mean literary contradiction like this thing says it’s ok to do X and this says X is forbidden. I was just pointing out stories with very different resolutions.
I have a background in having been raised by religious nutjobs, but I did the same and was very disappointed by how badly these get it wrong. I’d love a handy meme guide of actual contradictions that I can casually share, but this is not it.
I’d say I am still interested in the philosophy that underpins some religions, I simply reject all mythological supernaturalism. Having been raised by classic Stephen King religious villains, I absolutely reject the entire concept of organized, centralized religion, appeal to authority or deity, and mystical thinking of any kind.
That said, I am a big fan of Jesus’ teaching. I don’t buy the “magical faith healer” nonsense, but I absolutely agree with his teaching, which is deeply humanist. Most religions have a kernel of profound humanism at their center, but all of them have been co-opted by the rich and powerful and metastasized into weapons of oppression, control, and abuse.
Not to mention that the old and new testament are generally viewed as distinct collections of scripture where the new testament is meant to replace the old testament. Any contradictions between the two are easily dismissed as just that, new replacing old.
That’s not to say bigots won’t use the old testament to push their dogma’s though.
Matthew 5:17-18 NRSVUE
[17] “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. [18] For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter, not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law until all is accomplished.
You’re right, I used the term replace where scholars might use fulfil. I was told in many instances where old vs new contradictions come up, that the old testament was fulfilled and that the new testament took precedent in most cases of contradiction. So I shouldn’t have used the word replace. But my understanding hasn’t particularly changed. It may have been colored by the positions of Professors I had spoken to in the past. They tended to be from the Church of the Nazarene Universities.
Every single one? But there are contradictions? And somehow they managed to avoid including the real contradictions?
Edit: retracted text from my comment: You know this because of an image with text too blurry to read?". I forgot the check the high res option. Original point remains.
Thanks for the screenshot. I didn’t think to look for the high res option.
But that still leaves the issue of managing to check every single one, knowing they were dismissible and also knowing they missed the contradictions they know are there. What are the odds that this managed to avoid any that the commenter knows exist?
deleted by creator
Thanks for sharing your expertise with us!
Are there any major contradictions that come to mind off the top of your head?
deleted by creator
Info dumps by nerdy folks who are passionate about stuff are my favorite!! ☺️☺️
That’s super interesting, thanks for explaining! And yeah that’s a pretty central contradiction, I can see how that’d drive a lot of theological debate/discussion. Even within the public consciousness it feels like you have the two versions of the christian god, the “turn the other cheek” and the wrathful god you must learn to fear.
I get not wanting to accept the compliment, there’s often a really big difference between a true expert within a field of study and someone with “expertise” in the more coloquial sense of someone having significantly more specialized knowledge than a layman. Regardless, you know a lot more than me or most other folks in this thread and I really appreciate you sharing your knowledge and perspective with us ☺️
deleted by creator
You can say god on the internet, the fuck?
deleted by creator
He can say whatever he wants, including G-d, this is the fediverse, we accept diversity
Not an expert, but I love the field of blood
In the book of Matthew, Judas goes to return the money that he got for turning in Jesus to the priests. They refuse to take the money back, so he throws it into the temple and walks away. He then goes out and hangs himself. The chief priest doesn’t feel that he can accept the money, so he uses it to buy a field with the “blood money” and it is called the field of blood, which is used to bury foreigners.
In the book of Acts, Judas uses the money he received to pay for a field for himself, and when he walks onto the land, his body bursts open and all of his blood and entrails fall into the field. And that’s how it became the field of blood.
The only way to try to marry these two together is to completely step outside of what the scripture says. That doesn’t stop people from trying, but there are two very separate accounts.
Edit; to clarify, I don’t mean literary contradiction like this thing says it’s ok to do X and this says X is forbidden. I was just pointing out stories with very different resolutions.
I have a background in having been raised by religious nutjobs, but I did the same and was very disappointed by how badly these get it wrong. I’d love a handy meme guide of actual contradictions that I can casually share, but this is not it.
deleted by creator
I’d say I am still interested in the philosophy that underpins some religions, I simply reject all mythological supernaturalism. Having been raised by classic Stephen King religious villains, I absolutely reject the entire concept of organized, centralized religion, appeal to authority or deity, and mystical thinking of any kind.
That said, I am a big fan of Jesus’ teaching. I don’t buy the “magical faith healer” nonsense, but I absolutely agree with his teaching, which is deeply humanist. Most religions have a kernel of profound humanism at their center, but all of them have been co-opted by the rich and powerful and metastasized into weapons of oppression, control, and abuse.
deleted by creator
Not to mention that the old and new testament are generally viewed as distinct collections of scripture where the new testament is meant to replace the old testament. Any contradictions between the two are easily dismissed as just that, new replacing old.
That’s not to say bigots won’t use the old testament to push their dogma’s though.
deleted by creator
Matthew 5:17-18 NRSVUE [17] “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. [18] For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter, not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law until all is accomplished.
Checks out. I’ll allow it.
You’re right, I used the term replace where scholars might use fulfil. I was told in many instances where old vs new contradictions come up, that the old testament was fulfilled and that the new testament took precedent in most cases of contradiction. So I shouldn’t have used the word replace. But my understanding hasn’t particularly changed. It may have been colored by the positions of Professors I had spoken to in the past. They tended to be from the Church of the Nazarene Universities.
Every single one? But there are contradictions? And somehow they managed to avoid including the real contradictions?
Edit: retracted text from my comment: You know this because of an image with text too blurry to read?". I forgot the check the high res option. Original point remains.
deleted by creator
Respectable response.
Why would you assume that the person saying they took 5 random contradictions would use “all of those” to refer to anything other than those 5?
Perfectly legible text for me. Voyager for iOS.
Edit: here a screenshot
Thanks for the screenshot. I didn’t think to look for the high res option.
But that still leaves the issue of managing to check every single one, knowing they were dismissible and also knowing they missed the contradictions they know are there. What are the odds that this managed to avoid any that the commenter knows exist?
He said he took five at random, and the “every single one” was in reference to those five.
As the other person said. They took five.
Also, I like to take positive intent and assume the best in people.