Bible Contradictions!

[vtmarik]

As for your contradiction, Vtmarik, it's pretty simple, actually. It's both. If you ask in His name according to His will, you will receive whatever you ask. How is this a contradiction; am I not seeing it somehow? It's a given, and anyone with eyes can see it. I really can't understand why you don't.

Well, I guess its the semantics.

I mean, when I read "nothing will be impossible" I take it to mean that nothing will be impossible. He didn't say "Nothing will be impossible, as long as your desire matches God's."

I don't know, It's just the whole thing. If Jesus is saying nothing is impossible, then nothing is impossible. By Jesus' logic, you can pray for something that isn't in accordance with God's will, and it'll come to pass.

If that isn't the case, why wouldn't Jesus have said that in the first place? He is perfect, after all. He would've made himself quite clear to start with, or maybe I'm misinterpreting His perfection.

*shrugs* I'm only a novice in terms of biblical rhetoric, so that maybe that's why I don't get why a Perfect Book would have so many strange quirks about it. I don't call them contradictions anymore, I just call them "Evidence of Really Bad Editing."

[jay_a2j]

vtmarik just stop fighting against God. Of course it has to be according to God's will. Otherwise people might pray for a billion dollars, death to all liberals, maybe even for themself to BECOME God. Silly atheist, ignorance is for fools. <<<< that was for fun, please do not take it personally.

[vtmarik]

vtmarik just stop fighting against God. Of course it has to be according to God's will. Otherwise people might pray for a billion dollars, death to all liberals, maybe even for themself to BECOME God. Silly atheist, ignorance is for fools. <<<< that was for fun, please do not take it personally.

I won't take it personally, but why do you keep calling me an athiest?

[jay_a2j]

vtmarik just stop fighting against God. Of course it has to be according to God's will. Otherwise people might pray for a billion dollars, death to all liberals, maybe even for themself to BECOME God. Silly atheist, ignorance is for fools. <<<< that was for fun, please do not take it personally.

I won't take it personally, but why do you keep calling me an athiest?

"HE WHO IS NOT FOR ME, IS AGAINST ME"

[Truman]

I don't know, It's just the whole thing. If Jesus is saying nothing is impossible, then nothing is impossible. By Jesus' logic, you can pray for something that isn't in accordance with God's will, and it'll come to pass.

You've got to remember that when you quote a scripture, you must put it into context. It does not say that nothing is impossible. It doesn't say that. It says,

"If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you."

It says a little more before that in the verse about Jesus talking to the unbeliever, but that's unnecassary to my point.

To answer you, Zuzzio, I'd have to say it's pretty easy to understand. See, Joseph was Jesus' earthly father, not His bioloical one. What do you call a step-father? Is he not the kid's dad considering his sperm was never involved in producing him? He is his dad, nonetheless, and nothing can change that unless it was settled by the court. But with Jesus' situation there is no "step--" anything. Joseph was considered the father of Jesus through his line because Joseph was married to the person who birthed Him. It's really simple to understand, and I thought I explained this above.

As for you, Pilate, empty insults with a little Ad Hominem attacks added will never get you anywhere because your chastizments produce nothing but more laughter from me, since you have absolutely no response at all in any way to counter my answers. And that, to me, is pretty pitiful, and I'm beginning to feel sorry for the way you respond to anyone you dislike because he bashes your religion to the ground and tells you to get down and stay down.

The problem is, you aren't obeying when he tells you to stay down, you're obeying your body's signals to stay down because you know you can't get up. So if you can't get up, give it up, and shut up! Your mindless, rude, and ignorant insults with no premises are just wasting thread space and my time as well. This topic was for my enjoyment to show atheists and other skeptics how stupid (I dare use this word ) they are to even consider that the Bible contains any contradictions. If you don't like it and can't provide one, leave. You're just being a nuisance.

[vtmarik]

"HE WHO IS NOT FOR ME, IS AGAINST ME"

I'll take "Misunderstanding the nature of Free Will" for $200, Alex.

EDIT: I fixed your tag, by the way. I know that some browsers don't really like PHP/bb and don't support the "highlight and apply" part of the whole thing.

EDIT2: Chapter? Verse?

[TheMisterSnake]

Americans and their God. I find it really frightening that the only super power today have a big portion of the population that thinks the creationism is true and that the whole bible should be translated litteraly. It's moments like these that I hope China will become a super power any day soon. A bit of balance would be good. I'm proud of being an atheist, because religion has been a corrupt tool way too long.

[Truman]

Anymore contradictions I can answer? So far I've held up the Bible as having none. I'd like to see some. Really, I would.

[vtmarik]

Anymore contradictions I can answer? So far I've held up the Bible as having none. I'd like to see some. Really, I would.

Doesn't he bible say "Thou Shalt Not Kill" and then later talk about all the people who should be put to death?

If they're being put to death for breaking God's Law then shouldn't God do the killing? He did tell us not to kill.

Is it possible that when God told us not to kill that he was saying "You guys hang back, I'll deal with these sinners?"

[Truman]

Duh. In the Hebrew, the word "kill" in this passage translates to "rashhach" which means "to murder." Simple.

[jay_a2j]

"HE WHO IS NOT FOR ME, IS AGAINST ME"

I'll take "Misunderstanding the nature of Free Will" for $200, Alex.

EDIT: I fixed your tag, by the way. I know that some browsers don't really like PHP/bb and don't support the "highlight and apply" part of the whole thing.

EDIT2: Chapter? Verse?

Matthew 12:30
[ The Unpardonable Sin ] " [Mark 9:40; Luke 9:50; 11:23] He who is not with Me is against Me; and he who does not gather with Me scatters.

[vtmarik]

Duh. In the Hebrew, the word "kill" in this passage translates to "rashhach" which means "to murder." Simple.

Ah, ok.

Does that mean that execution isn't murder? That takes a load off my mind, I live in a family of anti-death penalty peoples, and I believe in the death-penalty. Not as a deterrent, but as a balancing force.

Thanks Truman, I wasn't sure if that was a contradiction or not.

Matthew 12:30
[ The Unpardonable Sin ] " [Mark 9:40; Luke 9:50; 11:23] He who is not with Me is against Me; and he who does not gather with Me scatters.

Hoisted by my own petard! The very apostle who is my namesake.

Well, I guess we'll find out what's what in the Great Beyond, won't we?

I wonder if heaven's like an instance in World of Warcraft. Every group gets their own so the objectives aren't all done by another group who was ahead of you.

[Zuzzio]

your nswer makes sense in todays terms but back then they didnt have step-fathers. jesus is of the line of david because jospeh took jesus as his son like a biblical adoption. it wasnt because jospeh was married to mary.[/quote]

[Daesthai]

<null>

[2dimes]

your nswer makes sense in todays terms but back then they didnt have step-fathers. jesus is of the line of david because jospeh took jesus as his son like a biblical adoption. it wasnt because jospeh was married to mary.

[/quote]Or it could have been because Joseph's cousin is of the line of David.

[Truman]

Whether or not you agree with the Dogma of the Catholic church, how can you say it is not part of the Christian belief system?

The Catholics were not the "first" Christians if you truely consider what happened right after Jesus' death, with the apostles and all.

It isn't part of the Christian belief system because the Catholics don't have a Christian belief. They have a Catholic one. "Eat this cookie and you'll be eating Jesus;" "carry this cross along the supposed path of Jesus when he was to be crucified;" I'll say the magic words and this grape juice will become Jesus' blood...literally;" "repeat your prayers to Mary and not Jesus." For one, Jesus is God, and the Bible forbids prayer to people other than God. Secondly, Jesus condemns repetitive prayer in Matthew 6:7, saying it's heathen to do so.

Gosh, do I have to point out more examples among the thousands of differences between the Catholics and the Christians? The official Catholic Doctrine from "Catechism of the Catholic Church" (Ignatius Press; p. 116) said,

"For the Son of God became man so that we might become God."

The Catholic Church is just a bad spin-off from the real Christians when Constantine corrupted it. The scripture about Peter being the rock does not refer to him as the church, if you were wondering. The scripture says,

"And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."

All Jesus does is acknowledge Peter and then emphasizes upon himself that "upon this rock" (referring to himself) He will establish His church. The Catholics were wrong, Daesthai; very wrong.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Are there to be anymore contradictions posted, or is everyone fresh out?

[Pilate]

Whether or not you agree with the Dogma of the Catholic church, how can you say it is not part of the Christian belief system?

The Catholics were not the "first" Christians if you truely consider what happened right after Jesus' death, with the apostles and all.

It isn't part of the Christian belief system because the Catholics don't have a Christian belief. They have a Catholic one. "Eat this cookie and you'll be eating Jesus;" "carry this cross along the supposed path of Jesus when he was to be crucified;" I'll say the magic words and this grape juice will become Jesus' blood...literally;" "repeat your prayers to Mary and not Jesus." For one, Jesus is God, and the Bible forbids prayer to people other than God. Secondly, Jesus condemns repetitive prayer in Matthew 6:7, saying it's heathen to do so.

Gosh, do I have to point out more examples among the thousands of differences between the Catholics and the Christians? The official Catholic Doctrine from "Catechism of the Catholic Church" (Ignatius Press; p. 116) said,

"For the Son of God became man so that we might become God."

The Catholic Church is just a bad spin-off from the real Christians when Constantine corrupted it. The scripture about Peter being the rock does not refer to him as the church, if you were wondering. The scripture says,

"And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."

All Jesus does is acknowledge Peter and then emphasizes upon himself that "upon this rock" (referring to himself) He will establish His church. The Catholics were wrong, Daesthai; very wrong.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Are there to be anymore contradictions posted, or is everyone fresh out?

True. You can actually go further and say that the Christians Truman refers to are wrong as well. Of course, I doubt he applies the same standard to himself as he does to Catholics. Typical of most fundamentalists.

[Truman]

True. You can actually go further and say that the Christians Truman refers to are wrong as well.

Where does this hatred for every word I post come from? Every time I throw your argument away (and prove you wrong about anything for that matter) you throw out mindless insults at me. Why?

As for referring to Christians, I've never done this, nor will I ever. I'm only saying the Catholics are not Christians. The other denominations of Christianity aren't Catholic either. There are Catholics, and then there are Christians. And if you want to prove otherwise with facts, then do so. But don't come up to me saying that Catholics are Christians because they were the "first ones," because 1) they weren't the first Christians when you consider the followers of the apostles and the corruption of Constantine and 2) they have a completely different belief system, where Mary can forgive sins, etc. etc.

Of course, I doubt he applies the same standard to himself as he does to Catholics. Typical of most fundamentalists.

Again, this statement is completely void of anything to do with the topic at all. I stand by my guns: the Catholics were a spin-off from the real Christian church before them. Your logic of how I apply myself to Catholics is completely idiotic. I'm a Christian, not a Catholic. They are different religions, and will remain that way.

And if you're going to post a contradiction, I'm waiting very impatiently since apparently, whenever you have time to post on Conquer Club, you always find the time to post an insult to me, which is basically trying to shoot me with a gun, but putting a self-immolation bullet in each barrel. Without facts or information, and just rude chastizements, you've got nothing and humiliate yourself completely, showing you don't have any real knowledge about whatever subject you post on or about.

[Lycan]

That whole Val Kilmer thing you got going on is just wrong on so many levels.
and what are doing showcasing your religious insecurities for? getting all aggressive under the pretense of being defensive. Nobody cares what you belive in, anyone who is secure enough and takes comfort in their belief system sees no need to try shove their religion in other peoples faces.
yeah.. the very fact that this thread exists is proof enough that christianity is dying. the only reason it has been around for this long is that anyone who questioned it used to be killed.. and now that's over the superstition is coming to an end.
But relax.. its not the end of the world.

[jay_a2j]

That whole Val Kilmer thing you got going on is just wrong on so many levels.
and what are doing showcasing your religious insecurities for? getting all aggressive under the pretense of being defensive. Nobody cares what you belive in, anyone who is secure enough and takes comfort in their belief system sees no need to try shove their religion in other peoples faces.
yeah.. the very fact that this thread exists is proof enough that christianity is dying. the only reason it has been around for this long is that anyone who questioned it used to be killed.. and now that's over the superstition is coming to an end.
But relax.. its not the end of the world.

Thats gotta be one of the dumbest things I have ever heard.

[Truman]

That whole Val Kilmer thing you got going on is just wrong on so many levels.
and what are doing showcasing your religious insecurities for? getting all aggressive under the pretense of being defensive. Nobody cares what you belive in, anyone who is secure enough and takes comfort in their belief system sees no need to try shove their religion in other peoples faces.
yeah.. the very fact that this thread exists is proof enough that christianity is dying. the only reason it has been around for this long is that anyone who questioned it used to be killed.. and now that's over the superstition is coming to an end.
But relax.. its not the end of the world.

I thought I explained the purpose of this thread before...

This topic is here because I created it, and I created it for 3 reasons, none of them being because I'm trying to shove my religion in other people's faces.

1. I created it because I am very knowledgeable on this particular subject, and I want to show how the Bible is right, no matter how you twist it.

2. I created this topic because I enjoy showing others how ignorant they are in even having the idea that the Bible contains any contradictions.

3. I've also created this topic, in a certain way, to boost Jay's faith, and other Christians here so they might take some of my answers to these contradictions and post them in other places he goes to in case others tell him about stuff like this. They have free access of copy-pasting my answers with no citing given to me at all, beacuse these are answers to claims against a world-wide belief system.

So there you have it.

...

Can I get a contradiction?

[Pilate]

The "Gospel of Matthew" is attributed to the apostle Matthew, but historians (i.e. people, not necessarily non-Christian, who look at it from an unbiased perspective) believe it was written by someone else. They date it a few years after 70 CE, which is the earliest date they believe the gospel of Mark could be written. There's a contradiction there.

You saying the bible has no contradictions shows how ignorant you are. Go to graduate school and write a paper on how anyone who believes the gospels are not authentic are ignorant and wrong, and let's see how far you get. Even someone like you can try to sound intelligent on the internet.

[Truman]

The "Gospel of Matthew" is attributed to the apostle Matthew, but historians (i.e. people, not necessarily non-Christian, who look at it from an unbiased perspective) believe it was written by someone else. They date it a few years after 70 CE, which is the earliest date they believe the gospel of Mark could be written. There's a contradiction there.

You saying the bible has no contradictions shows how ignorant you are. Go to graduate school and write a paper on how anyone who believes the gospels are not authentic are ignorant and wrong, and let's see how far you get. Even someone like you can try to sound intelligent on the internet.

Wow...I guess I can't argue with a guy who can't even cite anything he writes. "Historians" means nothing. For 2000 years, "scientists" taught big rocks fall faster than little rocks. Your generalization of historians and your "data" come from claims, not facts. If there are contradictions in the Bible, SHOW SOME, or SHUT UP!

[heavycola]

Truman this thread is pointless.

Many people believe the bible contradicts itself. You do not. The former will point to the same passages discussed here as proof; you will give them a different reading.

Fundamental xtianity is extremely dogmatic. It's like the creation/evolution debate: your belief - which has nothing to do with science or reason - forces you to shoehorn your observations of the natural world into a paradigm into which they don't really fit. Nobody has offered a defense of creationism - because one does not exist - only attacks on small facets of evolutionary theory.

Similarly, your avowal that the bible is perfect colours every discussion you have, instead of your objective readings informing your belief (this is how science works).

Of course you don't believe the bible contains contradictions - your faith doesn not allow any other possibility. This is dogma.

I believe the bible isn't perfect and can form my own conclusions. Your dogmatic assumptions are never going to convince me otherwise. Arguing with you on this is pointless.

[Pilate]

Even someone like you can try to sound intelligent on the internet.

I do not understand what you are saying. Let us continue this internet debate because I am knowledgable about the subject and everyone who disagrees with me is ignorant

Here are my sources (I bet my sources are more credible than yours).

http://www.amazon.com/New-Testament-His ... 0195154622
http://www.unc.edu/depts/rel_stud/faculty/Ehrman1.html
http://www.westarinstitute.org/Fellows/Funk/funk.html
http://www.westarinstitute.org/Fellows/ ... ossan.html
http://www.religion.utoronto.ca/English/John-W.html
http://www.amazon.com/Historical-Jesus- ... 0060616296
http://www.westarinstitute.org/Polebrid ... spels.html

Bart Ehrman is the James A. Gray Distinguished Professor and Chair of the Department of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. He came to UNC in 1988, after four years of teaching at Rutgers University.

Prof. Ehrman completed his M.Div. and Ph.D. degrees at Princeton Seminary, where his 1985 doctoral dissertation was awarded magna cum laude. Since then he has published extensively in the fields of New Testament and Early Christianity, having written or edited nineteen books, numerous articles, and dozens of book reviews. Among his most recent books are a college-level textbook on the New Testament, two anthologies of early Christian writings, a study of the historical Jesus as an apocalyptic prophet (Oxford Univesity Press), and a Greek-English Edition of the Apostolic Fathers for the Loeb Classical Library (Harvard University Press).

Prof. Ehrman has served as President of the Southeast Region of the Society of Biblical literature, chair of the New Testament textual criticism section of the Society, book review editor of the Journal of Biblical Literature, and editor of the monograph series The New Testament in the Greek Fathers (Scholars Press). He currently serves as co-editor of the series New Testament Tools and Studies (E. J. Brill) and on several other editorial boards for monographs in the field.

Winner of numerous university awards and grants, Prof. Ehrman is the recipient of the 1993 UNC Undergraduate Student Teaching Award, the 1994 Phillip and Ruth Hettleman Prize for Artistic and Scholarly Achievement, and the Bowman and Gordon Gray Award for excellence in teaching.


Truman is the name of a user of a popular online game based on Hasbro's Risk. He came to conquerclub in 2006, after six years of posting on various internet forums.

Prof. Truman did not complete any university degrees but is considered very knowledgable about Christianity. Why? Because he said he is. He has published nothing, written or edited nothing. Among his most recent works is a conquerclub thread in which he proclaimed Catholics to not be Christians. He hasn't received any awards but won an argument against two anonymous evolutions on a christian internet board.