inquisitive01

I see what is said in John 20:24 agrees with what you posted above, and it's also likely that this is where the phrase "doubting Thomas" may have originated. Later (I believe in the same Chapter), Thomas is present.

However, I'm not seeing anything in Luke 24:35 that says anything about "all eleven" disciples being present. Are you sure this is the right Chapter and Verse??? :huh:

Madkins007

I'm not sure what difference this all makes.

Rigid fundamentalists will be sure there is an explanation, whether they know it or not, or whether it makes sense or not.

Many of us devout Christians don't hold that the Bible is infallable except in a rather limited sense, if at all.

Using weak contradictions (ie- technically a contradiction, but may be a translator error, specific advice to specific but conflicting needs [i.e.- telling a harsh parent to be gentle with children and a weak parent to show some strength would be technically a contradiction, but both are saying 'raise kids with loving strictness'], etc.) does not help your cause at all.

About the only people you will sway are the wishy-washies, which you probably don't particularly want in your camp anyway!

Lord Emsworth

It does not say "Satan" as it does in verse 9. It does not say "the son of perdition" as does verse 3. And it does not say "the one they believe to be God, but is actually Satan" as you offer either.:huh:

It just says ... "God." Plainly and unambiguously.

Sorry

Magdlyn

2 Thessalonians is a pseudoepigraphical forgery. If you reads verse 2 from the beginning, you can see it was written to obstruct the gnostic idea that the resurrection had already come, which was Paul's actual original teaching. Power hungry bishops did not want people to have this idea. They wanted to control the populace, robbing them of personal power.

2Th 2:1 Now concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our assembling to meet him, we beg you, brothers,
2Th 2:2 not to be quickly shaken in mind or excited, either by spirit or by word, or by letter purporting to be from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come.
2Th 2:3 Let no one deceive you in any way; for that day will not come, unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of perdition,

etc.

The author suggests this idea comes from an evil being. Actually, it comes from Paul himself.

But the author ties himself into knots to explain how it is God's, no, Satan's, no, an unnamed lawless one's idea. That is the source of the confusion and weakness of the argument.

Roland

Sorry, it's 24:33.

inquisitive01

Did you see Verses 3 and 4 in their entirety?
Here they are below:

3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.

Clearly, the word "God" is in these Verses, but is referring to the man of sin/son of perdition attempting to portray himself as God to any who would be deceived (deluded) into believing this, as outlined in red and blue above.

Sorry? Why?

inquisitive01

Yep, that's the one. I don't understand why you posted this, though. Is it supposed to be some sort of "contradiction?" Also, it doesn't say "all eleven," but instead says "the eleven."

Lord Emsworth

I read them.



No it does not clearly refer "to the man of sin/son of perdition ..." If it did it would say something along those lines, no?

Let me ask you a simple question. I will accept no answer other than yes or no.

Is it God who shall send these delusions?



Because I don't accept your mumblemumble answer.

doubtingthomas

One good contradiction, in my opinion, is where Jesus is interrogating Peter, asking him "Lovest thou me more than these?" to which Peter replies "Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee." This of course contradicts with Jesus' statements in Matthew 24 where he professes his own ignorance regarding the timing of his second coming.

Joshua Adams

My favorite one is Jesus' birth narratives.

Quirinius became governor of Syria in about 5 A.D. According to this passage, Jesus was born sometime after 5 A.D.

Contemporary historians say Herod died in 4 B.C. Thus, Jesus must have been born before 4 B.C.

Now, he could not have been born both after 5 A.D. and before 4 B.C. One of the accounts is wrong, indicating either fuzzy memory or outright fabrication. Either of these renders the incorrect book untrustworthy.

There's an essay I just now found on this site dealing with this issue, The Dating of the Nativity in Luke by Richard Carrier, that looks at some of the solutions proposed to the problem. I'll read it soon.

So? It's reporting what Peter said. Peter could've been mistaken.

I agree the Skeptics' Annotated Bible is useful as a sort of topical index, but the contradictions list is rather dubious. I think one has to take into account, though, thematic contradictions. Inerrantists often claim a perfect unity and harmony throughout the Bible, so certain passages present a conflict there that aren't necessarily contradictions per se (as in, mutually exclusive passages), but rather incongruity indicating that the various books have altogether different pictures of God.