Contradictions,inconsistencies and absurdities within the bible.

[ANDY-J2]

Originally posted by TomSawyer

I repeat: Christianity says that Jesus is God Incarnate.


But is this really what most Christians believe?On the few occasions that I have discussed the matter with Christians they are apt to make statements such as "God sent his only son to wash away our sins".This suggests to me that they imagine Jesus to be the son of God rather than literally God incarnate.If they are one then what is the meaning of the phrase father,son and holy ghost?

[ANDY-J2]

Originally posted by TomSawyer

"A belief that the Bible contains God's revelation to mankind is fundamental to Christianity." (HollyElise)

This is not true. That the Bible is literally true, in every which way, is only 'fundamental' to Fundamentalists. As George MacDonald pointed out, the Bible nowhere claims to be 'the Way, the Truth.' On the contrary, Christianity claims that Jesus was the Way and the Truth. The essence of Christianity is not the Bible: the essence of Christianity is Christ.

But if we take away the bible is there any other source which supports the idea of Christ's divinity?I accept that a man called Jesus Christ lived because I have read contemporary sources from various people,Josephus for example,confirming that he did exist.However holy scripture is the only source that suggests he was the son of God.That scripture contains errors is not in question-I think most Christians would concede that much,but the question is does it contain sufficient serious errors to fundamentally undermine the idea that it is God's revelation to mankind,and I believe that it does.The essence of Christianity is Christ,but without the bible there is nothing to support the idea that Christ was anything other than a mere mortal.

[EnglishRose]

I really wish everyone would stop making blanket statements about Christians. We do not all march to the beat of the same drum. Personally I have no problem with any discrepency in the Bible, it makes no difference to my belief or to my faith.

This is what is lacking when people decide to pull apart the Bible, a basic 'faith'.

So what if it doesn't constantly match up? I honestly don't see that it makes a fundemental difference.

[Fear_nam_Beanntan]

Originally posted by emballantine
I have to say I do not understand how Christians can say not to take the bible literally when you are criticizing it, yet will quote it literally when they are using it to persecute others.

To not take it out of context when criticizing, yet use pieces of it out of context when criticizing others.

Pardon my asking, what the hell are you talking about? When's the last time a Christian persecuted you? From my experience, these days Christians are the object of persecution more often than the persecutors. Just look at this thread. Who's religion is under attack? Who is mocking who's faith? Are the big bad Christians the bad guys here?

And Emballantine, if Christians have actually persecuted you, remember that a few bad Christians do not represent all of Christianity. You should avoid making blanket statements like "you Christians persecute people" about any ethnic or religious group. An Asian guy once punched me, but I don't go around saying "you Asians are a bunch of violent jerk-offs." Same goes for black people.

In fact while comparing the original scripture to any "current" version of the bible. One must admit that the entire bible is out of context, since it has become very evident over the last century that the Roman Catholic church went through and picked and chose as it saw fit. Offering up many edits, as well as simply eliminating books that did not fit their political needs.

Provide evidence for this assertion. You're posting a theory based on no facts.

[Fear_nam_Beanntan]

Originally posted by ANDY-J2

I don't accept this argument.You can't have it both ways -he is either a man or he is a God.The two statements above are very clearly contradictory.Jesus and his father cannot be one if,as Jesus states his father is greater than him.

Christ was God the Son, manifested in human form. He was no less God then before, yet He willingly submitted Himself to the limitations of human flesh that He might endure the same temptations and pains as we do.

I argued that the idea of a God who would sacrifice a son that is blameless of any sin is not compatible with the notion of an all loving God.

But when His Son and He are united and of one substance, it becomes an act of self-sacrificing love, rather than an act of child sacrifice.

I believe the doctrine of substitutionary atonement not only to be flawed but immoral.

I believe the doctrine of karma not only to be flawed but immoral. What's your point? You follow a different religion from me. That doesn't mean you have to constantly attack mine.

The contradictions which I have cited thus far (in due course I will be citing many more) are indisputable evidence that the bible contains flaws and contradictions.If it can be shown that the bible contains even minor flaws then the argument that it can be divinely inspired falls flat on its face,and I intend to show that it is riddled with flaws and contradictions from cover to cover.You can dismiss them as "technicalities" but if the bible is anything less than perfect then it cannot be argued that it contains a divine revelation.If it contains discrepancies how can we know with certainty that what we are reading are in fact the "reported sayings of Christ".

Your evidence is far from indisputable, as evidenced by the fact that I have succesfully disputed much of it. Although you seem to enjoy your arrogance, I would suggest you humble yourself for long enough to read a book relevant to the subject you are attempting to discuss. Maybe even a website.

http://www.ugcs.caltech.edu/~werdna/...ns/cindex.html

[ANDY-J2]

Originally posted by TomSawyer

1. There is the Gospel of Thomas, and the Aquarian Gospel of Jesus the Christ, the Book of Mormon, and alleged 'Christ-encounters' in the twentieth century. Add to this the New Testament which to me seems consistent. In other words, you have 5 different sources saying similar things, though differences appear. You should read Kierkegaard, who explains why Christianity cannot be dismissed just because of the Bible.

But surely the gospel of Thomas was rejected by the Christian church as being suspect,and are the Aquarian gospel of Jesus Christ and the book of Mormon any more acceptable to the church than the book of Thomas?Surely the church is the sole arbiter of what works are valid in upholding Christianity,yet it does not sanction the works you mention.As for alleged "Christ encounters" in the twentieth-century there are literally thousands of people who claim to have encountered Elvis Presley-does this mean I should unquestioningly accept that he is still alive?

[ANDY-J2]

Originally posted by Fear_nam_Beanntan

Your evidence is far from indisputable, as evidenced by the fact that I have succesfully disputed much of it. Although you seem to enjoy your arrogance, I would suggest you humble yourself for long enough to read a book relevant to the subject you are attempting to discuss. Maybe even a website.

http://www.ugcs.caltech.edu/~werdna/...ns/cindex.html [/b]

No,what you have done is engaged in a bit of word play and assigned different meanings to the various religious texts which I cited.But who is to say that your explanation for the discrepancies in Genesis for example has any validity-it is conjecture and the simple straightforward explanation is that the various texts were written at different times by different people.You can twist words to arrive at meanings which conform to your point of view but you cannot prove that your interpretation is the right one.I do not attempt to undermine your beliefs out of arrogance and I don't have any antipathy to Christians in general-only Christian evangelicals who want to ram their views down other people's throats.I believe that your beliefs should be challenged because many of them rely on falsehoods and if you examined scripture objectively instead of reading into it what you wish were true you would come to accept this fact,but that would require honesty and integrity which are qualities which Christian evangelicals are lacking in.