Is the Bible trustworthy

@whodey said
Did Judas Iscariot die by hanging (Matthew 27:5) or did he die by falling and bursting open (Acts 1:18)?

There's little or no credible evidence that there was a "Judas Iscariot", or that there was a betrayal, or that the Romans needed someone to betray "Jesus" in order for them to be able to arrest him, or that "Judas Iscariot" died in some unseemly way, or that he is anything other than a character added to a narrative written decades after the events supposedly took place.

@whodey said
You are more or less agreeing that there was a large flood.

Again, the question is to what extent?

I would imagine there have been hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of thousands of "large floods" during himan history.

@whodey said
The issue of divine retribution has nothing to do with whether a large flood occurred.

It's the only reason you are talking about it.

@fmf said
Is there any reason to believe the gospels are eye witness accounts aside from the fact that believers assert that they are?

Scholars say that the oldest of the gospels is Mark, which was written around 70 AD, some 30 to 40 years after the death of Jesus on the cross.

Scholars also seem to conclude that the author was anonymous, but given the time frame seems reasonable that the author could have easily been an eye witness.

Then you have the other three gospels written later, all with some variation, as if the authors had not read the prior gospel accounts.

It is speculative to who could have written all of them, but they seem to agree more than they disagree. Moreover, why do they seem to agree as closely as they do while not attempting to duplicate one another?

These are questions we all must grapple with, but at the end of the day, to be a Christian means one thing, belief in the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Lee Stroebal in his book "Case for Christ" is one man's attempt at analyzing the facts surrounding the resurrection, and through much study and reasoning, concluded that it occurred and was converted.

@whodey said
The account of a "great flood" is not mutually exclusive to the Hebrew people. All cultures in that region share the story of a great flood.

There are stories of great floods everywhere. There are stories about great volcanoes and great earthquakes and great tsunamis too.

@fmf said
It's the only reason you are talking about it.

The question was, did a great flood occur in the region?

All indications point to yes.

@fmf said
There's little or no credible evidence that there was a "Judas Iscariot", or that there was a betrayal, or that the Romans needed someone to betray "Jesus" in order for them to be able to arrest him, or that "Judas Iscariot" died in some unseemly way, or that he is anything other than a character added to a narrative written decades after the events supposedly took place.

(eyes roll)

The issue at hand is not whether there was an actual Judas, rather, the issue is why the Biblical account seems to contradict each other regarding his demise.

@whodey said
Scholars say that the oldest of the gospels is Mark, which was written around 70 AD, some 30 to 40 years after the death of Jesus on the cross.

So it's a stretch, then, to think that "Mark" was an eye witness.

@fmf said
There are stories of great floods everywhere. There are stories about great volcanoes and great earthquakes and great tsunamis too.

Indeed, but only the Mesopotamia do we have ancient cultures write about a Great Flood.

Do you know of any other ancient cultures who have written about a great flood?

If so, this would provide fodder for evidence of a global flood verses a mere regional great flood.

@whodey said
The issue at hand is not whether there was an actual Judas, rather, the issue is why the Biblical account seems to contradict each other regarding his demise.

The issue at hand is "Is the Bible trustworthy?" Whether there was an actual Judas or not, for example, seems pretty pertinent.

@fmf said
So it's a stretch, then, to think that "Mark" was an eye witness.

It could have been someone who did not see Jesus and who simply heard about him and then others who did not see him wrote similar accounts for which they did not see as well.

Then, just to make it seem believable, disagree on minor points just to throw you off.

Sure, it could happen.

@whodey said
Indeed, but only the Mesopotamia do we have ancient cultures write about a Great Flood.

Do you know of any other ancient cultures who have written about a great flood?

If so, this would provide fodder for evidence of a global flood verses a mere regional great flood.

When there were hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of large scale floods, decade in decade out, century after century, what does it matter that people - thousands of years after the supposed events - wrote down folklore about "a Great Flood"?

@whodey said
It could have been someone who did not see Jesus and who simply heard about him and then others who did not see him wrote similar accounts for which they did not see as well.

This doesn't fit the definition of "eye witness".

@whodey said
Scholars say that the oldest of the gospels is Mark, which was written around 70 AD, some 30 to 40 years after the death of Jesus on the cross.

Scholars also seem to conclude that the author was anonymous, but given the time frame seems reasonable that the author could have easily been an eye witness.

Then you have the other three gospels written later, all with some var ...[text shortened]... he resurrection, and through much study and reasoning, concluded that it occurred and was converted.

Have you watched her speak in the video?

@whodey said
The question was, did a great flood occur in the region?

All indications point to yes.

I think the idea that there was one 'great flood' is preposterous. And for people to be writing about it thousands of years after one 'great flood' supposedly occurred is equally preposterous.