Lanakila

The contradictions that led to my deconversion are theological. Does the Bible teach election like Calvinist teach, or freewill like the Arminians teach? I found it teaches both, and that contradiction about exploded my brain. Also, does it teach salvation by faith (Paul), or by works (James, 1 John)? It teaches both, and the rationalizations and explanations don't cut it.

Is God loving, just, and merciful? If so, how can we explain the OT passages where God isn't loving, just, or merciful? There are just too many of those passages, to be explained away. The God of the OT and the NT are different God's IMO. That is the biggest contradiction that I can think of.

Gooch's dad

Lanakila hit that nail right on the head. I wasn't a fundy Christian for very long (less than a year, when I was about 15 or so) but I remember that reading the bible carefully was THE thing that led to me leaving Christianity. The God of the Old Testament is completely different than the God of the New Testament, and as Lanakila said, even in the NT it isn't clear what this God is like.

However, my favorite contradiction is the >10 year difference between Luke and Matthew's dating of the nativity.

Richard Carrier's excellent article on the subject

In this area, the bible conflicts with known history. Both Luke and Matthew cannot be right.

Oh, I'll slip in another one: The bit in Matthew 21 where the disciples put Jesus on TWO donkeys--the mother and foal. This is so clearly a case of the writer misunderstanding the OT verse that was the supposed prophecy. The writer thought that the Hebrew verse

"Tell ye the daughter of Sion, Behold, thy King cometh unto thee, meek, and sitting upon an ass, and a colt the foal of an ass."

referred to two animals. To me, that is a smoking gun for the theory that the gospel writers were just making it up as they went along, writing stories that they thought fit the OT prophecies.

Oh, I know the fundy explanation, which is a fallacy of special pleading--they say that the disciples set Jesus on "their coats", and he was only sitting on one donkey. Nope, that is reading something into the text that simply isn't there. WHY would they put their coats on both beasts, but set Jesus on only one beast?

Kelly

Mageth

An interesting note on this. Elaine Pagels, I believe in The Gnostic Gospels, proposes that John (dated later than Matthew) was written, in part, as a response to Thomas' Gnostic leanings, specifically to the Gospel of Thomas, as John in several places apparently attempts to discredit or discount Thomas (the verse in question being one of them).

The early "orthodox" Church believed in Apostolic Succession, as I understand it that Jesus revealed secrets/bestowed blessings on the Apostles before and after the Resurrection, making them the direct successors to Jesus as unquestionable leaders/teachers of the Church with special revelation and powers bestowed on them through their direct interaction with Jesus. Thomas' alleged absence when Jesus first appeared suggests that John was indicating that Thomas' full Apostleship was in question, that he missed out on at least some of the special revelation and other boons through his absence.

Mageth

"the integrity of the Word of God"

I think you need to clarify this . By integrity, do you mean merely internally consistent, or do you mean literally true in its major parts (e.g. the Genesis Creation account)?

BTW, it would perhaps be better to say "the integrity of the [Christian] Bible" here, as your opponents are not about to concede that the book in question is the "Word of God" right off the bat.

And note that, if you spent a year or so here providing some sort of first-aid for every contradiction in the Bible (of which there are many), you would not have eliminated the contradictions. They would remain contradictions, with your patchwork of band-aids and Ace bandages attempting to cover them up.

Oh, and one more thing: even if the Bible can be demonstrated to contain no unresolvable contradictions, this would not establish it as "the Word of God." Why believers tend to think this would be some kind of slam-dunk proof that God wrote or inspired the thing is beyond me.

As far as contradictions go, I need look no further than the first few chapters of Genesis. The Creation accounts and Noah's flood are contradicted (or at least totally unsupported) by the scientific evidence. Therefore, they must either be accepted as mythical, or if one insists on interpreting them literally they stand in contradiction to what we know about the world. If one accepts these accounts as mythical, of course, you can still attempt to support the "integrity" of the Bible.

But note that, if you want to argue for a literal interpretation of the Genesis accounts, you need to go the the Evolution and Creation forum.

Boro Nut

Jesus : "Stop! Don't bother feeding those starving children of yours madam. The world as we know it is about to end as I speak. And I'm definitely saying this to those listeners here with me now, and not to any future generations reading about it in a book someone made up either"

Woman : " Oh dear. Is it really?"

St. Paul : "Yes definititely. A man told me on the road to Domestos, and he wasn't even there, so it must be true. Ask them blokes who were with me if you don't believe me. They didn't see him either.

Woman : "Oh deary me".

Philistine : "I don't suppose you'll be wanting that pie then".

Boro Nut

Mageth

Hey, long time no see, Boro Nut. It's nice of you to bring your clever wit amongst us again.

Roller

I think this can be "harmonized" although not in a way that an apologist would like.

It seems that Samuel was an older book in which Yahweh was considered to do both good and bad. The later book, Chronicles, shows a Babylonian influence in which Satan is introduced as Yahweh's henchman or an "adversary".

This may help http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_sat2.htm#bce

judge

Judas was there. Judas did not die until later on. We also know this because Paul writes in 1 Corinthians Paul tells us that Jesus appeared to the 12...but this is after the "hanging" of Judas

When we say someone hung themselves we mean that they killed themselves.
This had a figurative meaning to a first century jew IMO and meant he was choked with grief...he hung his head in shame.

The figurative use of the greek word* used here can be found in the writings of aristophanes IIRC Vespae 686 (?)


* different greek translations use different words here, showing that early translators realised the figurative use.

RED DAVE

My personal favorite is the two different geneologies for JC in Matthew and Luke.

RED DAVE

Mageth

Originally posted by judge
Judas was there. Judas did not die until later on. We also know this because Paul writes in 1 Corinthians Paul tells us that Jesus appeared to the 12...but this is after the "hanging" of Judas

(I assume you meant to say before the hanging of Judas).

That doesn't fit with Matthew 27:2-5 (emphasis mine):

"And when they had bound him, they led him away, and delivered him to Pontius Pilate the governor. Then Judas, which had betrayed him, when he saw that he was condemned, repented himself, and brought again the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders, Saying, I have sinned in that I have betrayed the innocent blood. And they said, What is that to us? see thou to that. And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself. "

Further, that verse from 1 Cor. itself contradicts Luke 24:33, which says he appeared to eleven, not twelve.

When we say someone hung themselves we mean that they killed themselves.

Yes, and that's exactly what Matthew meant.

This had a figurative meaning to a first century jew IMO and meant he was choked with grief...he hung his head in shame.

The figurative use of the greek word* used here can be found in the writings of aristophanes IIRC Vespae 686 (?)

* different greek translations use different words here, showing that early translators realised the figurative use.

Look at the lexicon entry here for the term (apagchomai) used in Matthew 27:5. It does not mean to "hang your head in shame." It clearly means to kill yourself by hanging. There's no mention of any figurative usage.

Nice try with the backpedalling apologetics, but no go.