What is the biggest bible contradiction?

Don't forget that Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews. But now my kingdom is from another place." (John 18:36)

OK - and you don't forget that the above is a faith-based assertion: there is little reason to believe that there is a recoverable historical Jesus and absolutely no reason to believe in either the historicity or the fidelity of a dialogue penned 6 to 9 decades after the purported events by an apologist who may well have been an eyewitness to absolutely nothing of relevance.

OK - and you don't forget that the above is a faith-based assertion: there is little reason to believe that there is a recoverable historical Jesus and absolutely no reason to believe in either the historicity or the fidelity of a dialogue penned 6 to 9 decades after the purported events by an apologist who may well have been an eyewitness to absolutely nothing of relevance.

Of course.. I have never forgotten.

My only answer for this is as a witness. It is not admissable in the framework you have restricted it to.

I once thought that these Christian folk were mad and living in some kind of denial. But at the same time I was having personal problems of my own. Mathematically, I can't tell you where guilt comes from; it is a feeling. It is however based on histroical facts and based on the actions and results involved.

All I can tell you is that as rediculous as it was, I thought a grain of it was true, and perhaps more than I knew. So I took that leap of faith and prayed to this God and this Jesus fellow. It was a grain of faith mind you, not a Camel.

To my utter astonishment, I was given some kind of grid, or solution to a puzzle known as reality. It was as though I understood the language or formula. One day, just a confusing book, the next, like I knew it all along. It is what confirms for me the truth in it. And that is how I know it is true. There is more, but you would find it far more offensive. I am keeping this as scientific as posible as just one witness. And then when I read the Bible, it was the same pattern.

Perhaps it is a delusion. Perhpas this Jesus fellow has hypnotized me by some rare and unique method now emplyed by cult leaders.
All I know, is that it is a delusion that makes me as able to understand a man that lived in ancient history as well as I know my best friend today. And I trust Him.

It's something I cannot just set aside. I don't know if you would be willing to be banished or incarcerated for your beliefs, but I am for the first time in my life.

When you meet Him, it's no longer faith. Faith is what it takes to ask to meet Him.

I was also shocked to see that all of this is right there in the Bible. And somehow the religion that I grew up in had all but neglected to mention that it is verifiable in this way.

Not the scientific method as defined today, but a scientific method nonetheless. I don't expect to be accepted within the framework of modern science. I just would like to be allowed to speak. Alternative perspectives are always healthy when searching for answers.

Edited by scottness, : No reason given.

I take that as a sincere and heartfelt response and respect it as such.

I take that as a sincere and heartfelt response and respect it as such.

Thank you.

Yes Brian! You got it!

I wasn’t born until 1963!

All except for Him.

I think Jesus sinned more than the average guy.

The first century con man bit is so fitting...

I know it fits Jesus so well, at least the version of Jesus created in the Gospels anyway.

Apart from God, that is exactly what we are,

I think the majority of mankind have far higher morals that the bloodthirsty Yahweh.

since God is necessary to illuminate reality for us.

If your reality was illuminated then you would know that there is no such thing as God. I can only conclude that you are deluding yourself.

Emanuel (God with us) accomplished everything so that we may become sons of God.

Pity Jesus was never called ‘Emanuel’, it might have at least given Him an outside chance of being a messiah.

You are right about something Brian... If Jesus was not the messiah (the Christ) then he is the antichrist.

I didn’t say that though!

I just said He wasn’t the Messiah, the Bible and history pay testimony to that. I find it difficult to believe that anyone who has studied the Old Testament can possibly consider Jesus as the Messiah.

If He was not telling the truth, then He is a deceiver.

The thing is, we have no idea of what He is quoted as saying is actually what He did say. The Jesus of the first century could be oblivious to all the crap in the NT that is attributed to Him.

He is either a liar, or He is God in the flesh.

Of course these aren’t the only two possibilities.

He could be a liar.

He could be God.

He could have been mad.

He could have been a figment of someone’s imagination.

He could have been misrepresented in the Gospels.

I’m not sure which one I’d go for. I think the only one I could exclude with any certainty is the God option.

The big problem is the poor quality of the sources that we have. The Gospels themselves are hugely unreliable, as they are contradictory, contain obvious impossibilities, are rife with historical inaccuracies, and we have no idea who wrote any of them.

There is only Christ,

Well, there were many Christs in the OT, every Jewish king was a ‘chirst’.

Personally, I think you are the deceiver Brian (and it goes for me as well).

You need to believe this to maintain your delusion, no point in having an open mind is there?

Apart from God we are one head, of a beast in the sea of mankind. We are one snake in a brood of vipers. We are one fish, in the streams of Pharoah; One scale, on the flesh of leviathan. We lie hidden among the vegitation (the Poplars and fig leaves).

Ever tried self esteem classes?

Brian.

I can see that we have a lot of common ground with which to move forward :rolleyes:

Well, at least I have given you other options apart from Lord or lunatic.

There's also the historical inaccuracies to consider, and the obvious impossibilities (such as the dead walking the streets and the impossible three hour eclipse).

Brian.

Obvious impossibilities are that which an omniscient being can describe. Unless you are omniscient, I'm afraid there is nothing you can define as absolute.

Of course these aren’t the only two possibilities.

Yes they are.

He could be a liar. He could be God.

Exactly!

He could have been mad.

In which case he is a liar, but not guilty of wrongdiong and in which case he is not God...

He could have been a figment of someone’s imagination.

Inwhich case he is not God..

He could have been misrepresented in the Gospels.

In which case he was not God...

Perhaps I would have better served the point to say that Jesus is either God, or He is not.

I'm afraid there is nothing you can define as absolute. Obvious impossibilities are that which an omniscient being can describe. Unless you are omniscient, I'm afraid there is nothing you can define as absolute.

Yes, but we need evidence with which to come to conclusions. Take the dead walking the streets after Jesus died. How likely is it that this is true, in the context of historical research?

Brian.

In which case he is a liar, but not guilty of wrongdiong and in which case he is not God...

That doesn't make Him a liar. He could have genuinely thought that He was God. Lying is deliberately decieving someone.

Perhaps I would have better served the point to say that Jesus is either God, or He is not.

Yes, this would have been better.

Of course, any one of us could be God, or not.

Brian.

Yes, but we need evidence with which to come to conclusions. Take the dead walking the streets after Jesus died. How likely is it that this is true, in the context of historical research?

May I suggest C.S. Lewis' book called miracles? It really does address the issue of the 'miraculous' well.

But to answer your question... I think it is very likely, but not necessarily in the context of historical research (whatever that means).

Who writes the history, makes all the difference in the world.

It's funny you know? Even if you witnessed a 'miracle', I wonder if you would attribute it to God? Jesus said that even if someone was raised from the dead, that 'they' (the unbelieing) would still not believe.

Some people think that there must be a natural explanation to everything. If that is true, then the natural world would be absolute! And yet somehow, it is the naturalists who dismiss the absolute.

Of course, any one of us could be God, or not.

Absolutely! I know that I am not.

An interesting extension of this, is that New Agers and other Pantheists believe that that is precisely the case. They believe that we are in fact God.

Genesis 3:5
"For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."

It is also known as humanism.

quote:

---

Some people think that there must be a natural explanation to everything.

---

Some people might. And there are other people who think that a natural explanation is a pretty good bet unless and until they have good reason to believe otherwise.

---

Never believe anything in politics until it has been officially denied. -- Otto von Bismarck

Some people might. And there are other people who think that a natural explanation is a pretty good bet unless and until they have good reason to believe otherwise.

What is a good reason?