Skepticologist

Why would I bother? Your self-touted "open mind" has rejected any such considerations before you've even seen them.

__________________
"I am an agnostic; I do not pretend to know what many ignorant men are sure of."

Clarence Darrow

trufbetold

right, and your self-deluding "open-mindedness" allows you to accept all sorts of rubbish? Unless the absolute truth can contradict itself, then neither can the bible, anymore than I could convince someone that me slapping them will feel wonderful, why would you give it a second thought? And how many so called "contradictions" do you know of personally, or would have done the copy and paste thing from some other misguided soul? I haven't rejected your notion beforehand, I have disproved it.

trufbetold

The majority of my study of the bible resided mainly in the so called contradictions, rather than to reiterate what I already thought (this is part of the openmindedness I speak about), I simply researched it and compared it with the full context of the bible.


1. what about the fact that there are 4 different versions of jesus' life in the new testiment.

The four Gospel are not four different versions, these are four different perspectives of four men who knew Jesus Christ, in other words it is essentially the same truth as it transpired. The fact that the four gospel differ is not a means for suspicion, rather if they were all identical, with the exact same details, I would immediately be suspicious thinking they were doctored. The fact that they differ proves their authenticity. All revolving around Jesus and his works, which later John explains that if someone where to write about every single act that Jesus did, that "I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written." This is no different than 9/11 when every news reporter was as commenting on the twin towers, some talked about the firefighters and police, some the survivors, some emphasized the tragedy itself and some speculated on the what the attack meant, but the story remains focused on the attack itself. All accounts are true, not different versions, just perspective.

2.otherwise there would only be one needed.

You logic is missing something. How likely would you be to believe that the sky is falling from one person who you'd instantly label as crazy? Exactly, four people telling you the same thing however, would atleast raise your consciousness that these claims maybe true. 4 witnesses guarantees conviction, 1 cannot guarantee anything. However, for some people 100 witnesses won't convince a fool.

3.one example of disagreement is jesus' geneology: Matt and Luke give different versions. abraham to david are the same, but david to joseph list different people.

This is the first one I started with, on the outside (which is as far as most get) this appears to not be consistant, there is no contradiction. True, Mary was pregnant with Jesus while she was only espoused by Joseph, but Joseph is referred to in the bible as the son of Heli who is Mary's father. Ofcourse Heli didn't begat Joseph, the term "son" according to the Hebrew language can also be used to describe a son-in-law. Furthermore, none of this matters, the bottom line is that the purpose of these genealogies according to the Hebrew understanding of prophecy concerning the Messiah is to prove that Jesus is of the lineage of David (physically and legally), and therefore having right to inherit the throne of David. If I give you scripture to reference, will you look it up? In either case, Joseph was already married to Mary when Mary was pregnant with Jesus, and Mary is also of the same blood line of David (Luke 1:30-32), however they uses David also, if you notice, both genealogies are All masculine lines.

3. and what were jesus' last words before he gave up the ghost? i doubt you can answer when there are three different versions of it.

Crucifixion Chronology. Some things were shouted publicly that people still didn't understand like when Jesus said "My God My God" and the crowd said he's calling Elijah...huh (probably because the strikingly similar sound of Eli and Elias which is the transliterated name Elijah), and somethings like only John and Mary his mother who was the closest to the cross when Jesus said "It is finished" which were indeed His last words. The chronology of it is as follows:

greywolf90

i'm not trying to say that different versions of a story makes the story untrue. i agree that the multiple accounts could be evidence of authenticity. i am just pointing out that when one gospel says one thing and another gospel says something different, that it is a contradiction.

putting aside the different people listed, i'll take your word for the son-in-law thing. but where does it say that mary was related to David (in my bible, the reference you gave me just says that jesus was son of david; does not mention mary)? i understand your point that the geneology lists only masculine, so that would make mary's relation to david a possibility, but how can that be proven? and just so we are clear, you are saying that one gospel is tracing joseph's lineage and the other one is tracing mary's lineage? that would make sense.

for the crucifixion, you are putting all the gospels together, but they were written seperately. luke makes no mention that jesus ever said "my god, my god..." or "it is finished" and john also doesn't mention jesus saying "into your hands..." they all say jesus said something different. the way i see it, if person A says jesus says one thing, and person B says jesus said a different thing, then they contradict eachother. even if jesus did say all the things, each gospel states he only said one thing. according to john, jesus never said "my god, my god"

anyways even if you did prove me wrong in all these, my point is that the gospels are different versions. when they are not exactly the same (and you are right, they should not be the same) then they are versions. just like protestant and catholicism are different versions of christianity. because the gospels were different, there could easily have opposing ideas. this depends on how similar or different the writers are.

it is easy to find where the old and new testiment contradict because the people were very different. looking for new testiment contradictions is not as easy, because these writers had similar beliefs. still, is it so hard to think that peter would have different beliefs from paul?

also i don't want you to think that i read the bible looking just for where it is wrong (i don't think i am that bias), i could also point out truths of the bible. but i dont think i need to point these out to you. you asked for contradictions, so that is all that i will mention for now. i am a former christian so i originally read the bible in a christian point of view. i don't believe the bible was all a big lie, but i also don't believe it is perfect and 100% true. i recognise that it is unperfect and has flaws because it was written by men and not by god. why would god say to punish or kill people, and then hundreds of years later, say to love your enemy and not to judge the sins of others.

trufbetold

A contradiction is when two things (in this context, statements) and put put together negate each other. A contradiction is not when two people say something and though they are different the do not negate each other. I just showed you how all these perspectives are true. Also take into consideration that Jesus was Crucified where alot of people could see, therefore atleast some of what He said couldn't be heard by everybody, which I also demonstrated already. This is why the gospels are called synoptic gospels, because they are 4 unique perspectives pertaining to one overall story, they are not the identical gospels. John 21:24 shows that these 4 men recorded what they heard and saw and that they are true. If 4 people claimed all of this is true how can they all be right? Because all of it happened, some wrote it some didn't, some remembered some didn't and some where around when it happened and some were not, but what they knew for a fact they wrote. That is why there is no contradiction, because in no gospel does somebody write "and Jesus said no don't do it" and in another gospel "and Jesus said yes, do it quickly". That would be a contradiction, because the two statements negate each other, in other words, he couldn't have said both. Another contradiction would be if the same Apostle where to say two things in the same context of a statement, that would blatantly negate each other.


Don't take my word for it, research it yourself.

Legal relation has just as much strength as blood relation, in a sense it is the same thing. I think I already demonstrated this aswell.


By your logic, hypothetically speaking, you can have 2 authors who never met before in their life, write the exact same sentence, publish it and even though it is the exact same sentence, it's still two different versions because one author signed his name A and the other B at the bottom of it. This logic wouldn't work for a "perfect" let alone 4 unique examples. The following story was made for your own personal edification (and amusement.)

Who knows what the last words of the first guy was? The truth is they all heard his last word, because it was His last words that they heard before they left. Your logic fails again. It's 1 version from 4 different perspectives, it is 1 version of the truth because all of these things that would be reported of His last words were true. Do you see, none of these men lied they simply recorded only what they themselves witnessed and no more.




The is no contradiction of the old testament and new testament, you are mistaken.


Don't take this the wrong way, but you were never a Christian. Nobody in Christ is sustained in Christendom by their own strength, but by the holy spirit. If you were saved you would know what God is like, and you would know God's love is holy and His hatred for sin is Holy also. If you were saved you would be able to discern scripture like for example the bible says nowhere not to judge other people's sins, you are mistaken. Judge not that ye be not judged, is to say "don't judge hypocritically" and you can read Romans 2 for more detail. If I were you (actually I'm not you and I will do this) I'd ask the Lord to have mercy on you and to show His holiness, truth, mercy and wrath plainly to you so that you can come to know Him and appreciate His son Jesus Christ as the Savior, the One who showed all this characteristics righteously.

neverforever

What kind of atheist were you were just one of those ones that jumped on the atheist boat you said to separate yourself from the ones around you so were just an atheist because your friends were. Thats how im reading that maybe i miss understood. Because i was just a Christian because its what i grew up around but then the more i studied the bible the more i realized that it didn't make much sense.

__________________
If i talk to god i don't know if he is listening ...
I'm talking to myself because no one else is listening..

Geshtinnanna

How do you spot a Christian?
They are always the person telling you you aren't one.

__________________

trufbetold

Interesting! You were raised around Christianity, that's just like saying you were raised in America, it doesn't mean anything for you personally. I was an atheist who was raised in a Christian house, my mother used to say I was possessed, and I always laughed at her. I had agnostic friends, muslim friends too, but the majority of company I kept were atheist who were into some really demonic stuff and materialist friends (all who have disagreeing views on life, but the moment Jesus Christ's name is brought up they altogether strike like piranhas). Are you suggesting I only became an atheist to be cool or more popular, that's just silly. In the mid 90's, you could be ridiculed for being openly atheist, infact I chose atheism because it seemed to fit well with the overall disgust I had towards everybody at some point or another. I could grow up in a field of weeds and turn up a lilly, if that's what God's purpose is for me. I'm living proof.

trufbetold

that was right on time.

greywolf90

i find it interesting that you feel you can tell a person you do not know what his religion is/was. what is your definition of a christian? if it is anything like: a follower of christ who believes jesus is the son of god and accepts jesus as their saviour, then yes, i was a christian. i was baptized, i went to many churches, i read most of the bible, i believed in god and jesus, i was saved, i believed that jesus was my divine saviour and teacher, i repented for my sins, and i was a very religious and spiritual person. i think this meets all the qualifications. if you still believe i was not a christian then you are lying to yourself (or you must have very strict definition).

i think you do not want to believe i was a true christian because you think it is impossible for any true christian to stop believing in christianity. i think i am proof that a true christian can stop believing. back then i believed in the same things you did, and i would have never imagined that i would one day not be a christian. i would like to know what reason do you think i left christianity (remember that i believed in the same things you did, so try thinking of a reason that would make you leave). if god gives christians there faith, then why would i have lost faith in christianity.

(i know im not exactly a bible scholar, but the "do not judge the sins of others" was just misphraising. for the most part, i feel i do understand what i read in the bible)
may god have mercy on you also.