Religions > Bible > CONTRADICTIONS AND IMPROBABILITIES OF THE GOSPELS?
| Topic: |
Religions > Bible |
| User: |
"Read The Bible" |
| Date: |
03 Aug 2007 05:19:11 AM |
| Object: |
CONTRADICTIONS AND IMPROBABILITIES OF THE GOSPELS? |
arah quoted Bucaille on Aug 1, 2:57 am:
Contradictions and Improbabilities
The Gospels teach no contradictions; "All scripture
is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for
doctrine" (2 Timothy 3:16).
The Gospels teach no improbabilities; "With God all
things are possible" (Matthew 19:26).
Bucaille said:
Passover is placed at different times in relation
to Jesus's Last Supper
The Gospels don't place Passover at different times
in relation to Jesus' Last Supper; Jewish days begin
at sundown, and Passover involved a seven-day feast
(Numbers 28:16-17, Luke 22:1).
Bucaille said:
John places the Last Supper 'before the Passover
John doesn't place the Last Supper before the
Passover; John 13:1 is referring to before the Last
Supper, which was the first supper of Passover (Luke
22:15), just as John 13:2 is referring to after the
Last Supper.
Bucaille said:
JOHN'S GOSPEL DOES NOT DESCRIBE THE INSTITUTION OF
THE EUCHARIST
When one Gospel chooses not to describe something
already described in other Gospels, that's in no way
a contradiction, for no Gospel states that something
didn't happen which other Gospels state did happen.
Bucaille said:
John's description is the only one which refers to
Jesus washing his disciples' feet
When one Gospel chooses to describe something not
described in other Gospels, that's in no way a
contradiction, for no Gospels state that something
didn't happen which one Gospel states did happen.
Bucaille said:
The list of women who came to the tomb is not
exactly the same in each of the three Synoptic
Gospels. In John only one woman came: Mary
Magdalene. She speaks in the plural however, as if
she were accompanied: 'we do not know where they
have laid him.'
The references to the women who came to the tomb
don't contradict each other in any of the Gospels,
for none of the references claim to be giving an
exhaustive list of all the women who came to the tomb.
Bucaille said:
In Matthew the Angel predicts to the women that
they will see Jesus in Galilee. A few moments later
however, Jesus joins them beside the tomb.
The angel in Matthew didn't say that the women
wouldn't see Jesus until they saw Him in Galilee.
Bucaille said:
[The Gospel appearances of the resurrected Jesus]
contradict the mention of Jesus's appearances,
contained in Paul's First Letter to the Corinthians
(15,5-7), to more than five hundred people at once,
to James, to all the Apostles and, of course, to
Paul himself.
None of the Gospels contradict Paul's statement that
the resurrected Jesus appeared to more than five
hundred people at once, to James, to all the
apostles, and to Paul himself, for none of the
Gospels state or require that none of these
appearances occurred.
Bucaille said:
...there is a contradiction between Luke's
description, in the Acts of the Apostles, of
Jesus's appearance to Paul and what Paul himself
succinctly tells us of it.
There is no contradiction between any of the
descriptions of Jesus' appearances to Paul in Acts.
Bucaille said:
...the contradictions between Luke and Matthew. The
first situates Jesus's appearances in Judea, the
second in Galilee.
The are no contradictions between Luke and Matthew,
for appearances of the resurrected Jesus in Judea
could have occurred both before and after appearances
in Galilee; Luke nowhere states that Jesus didn't
appear in Galilee, and Matthew nowhere states that
Jesus didn't appear in Judea.
Bucaille said:
...the Luke-John contradiction.
John (21, 1-14) ... Luke (5, 1-11)
There is no contradiction between John 21 and Luke 5,
for one occurred after Jesus' resurrection and the
other occurred before His death; John nowhere states
that no miracle-catch of fish occurred before Jesus'
resurrection, and Luke nowhere states that no
miracle-catch of fish occurred after Jesus'
resurrection.
Bucaille said:
[Luke 24:51, Acts 1:3]
Acts 1:3 doesn't contradict Luke 24:51 because Jesus
could have ascended on the day of His resurrection
and still appeared to the apostles for 40 days
afterward; after His resurrection Jesus could make
Himself suddenly appear (John 20:19) and disappear
(Luke 24:31) at various times and places.
Bucaille said:
[John 16:13] The two Greek verbs 'akou=F4' and
'lale=F4' therefore define concrete actions which can
only be applied to a being with hearing and speech
organs. It is consequently impossible to apply them
to the Holy Spirit.
It isn't imposssible to apply hearing and speech to
the Holy Spirit, for these words even in the Greek
don't require that their meaning be restricted to
physical hearing and speech.
Bucaille said:
Jesus therefore predicts that God will later send
a human being to Earth to take up the role defined
by John, i.e. to be a prophet who hears God's word
and repeats his message to man
Jesus said that the Spirit of truth would come to
instruct believers: "When the Comforter is come, whom
I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit
of truth, which proceedeth from the Father" (John
15:26), "When he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he
will guide you into all truth" (John 16:13). This
Spirit arrived shortly after Jesus' resurrection, at
Pentecost (Acts 2:16-17), and was already instructing
believers in all truth during the lifetime of the
apostle John: "The anointing which ye have received
of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man
teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of
all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as
it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him" (1 John
2:27).
---
Christians must be very wary of any "prophet" who
would deny that God has a Son, for "He that believeth
not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God
abideth on him" (John 3:36); "Whosoever denieth the
Son, the same hath not the Father" (1 John 2:23).
And Christians must be very wary of any "prophet" who
would deny that Jesus died on the cross for our sins
and rose from the dead on the third day: "Brethren,
I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto
you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye
stand; by which also ye are saved, if ye keep in
memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have
believed in vain. For I delivered unto you first of
all that which I also received, how that Christ died
for our sins according to the scriptures; and that he
was buried, and that he rose again the third day"
(1 Corinthians 15:1-4); "Who gave himself for our
sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil
world, according to the will of God and our Father;
to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.
|
I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that
called you into the grace of Christ unto another
gospel: which is not another; but there be some that
trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.
But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any
other gospel unto you than that which we have
preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said
before, so say I now again, If any man preach any
other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let
him be accursed" (Galatians 1:4-9).
Bucaille said:
THE HOLY SCRIPTURES EXAMINED IN THE LIGHT OF MODERN
KNOWLEDGE
"I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled
Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be
corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. For
if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we
have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit,
which ye have not received, or another gospel, which
ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him...
for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of
light" (2 Corinthians 11:3-4,14).
.
|
|
| User: "Provoker" |
|
| Title: Re: CONTRADICTIONS AND IMPROBABILITIES OF THE GOSPELS? |
05 Aug 2007 11:00:24 AM |
|
|
Hello RTB:
What difference does it make?
Since you claim that those with the Holy Spirit naturally understand
scripture, and those without the Holy Spirit are not supposed to
understand scripture anyway, then when you attempt to make a logical
arguement to explain bible inconsistancies, it suggests that you
really believe that bible can be understood logicly.
It would appear that anyone who *reasons* together with others in
bible study, obviously believes in the logical understanding of the
bible, and the doctrine that only those with the Holy Spirit can
understand it, only comes into play when an apparent contradiction, or
inconsistancy, must be explained. When someone presumes to explain
the apparent inconsistancy, he presumes to be the only one with the
Holy Spirit, and that he presumes that the Holy Spirit needs him
explain it.
It is my opinion that the Holy Spirit is the spirit of truth. When
one has the desire for truth in his heart and mind, he will naturally
look for all the available evidence to logicly understand the bible,
and he will ignore the one who offers an illogical exlanation that the
claims to have gotten from the Holy Spirit.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Read The Bible" |
|
| Title: Re: CONTRADICTIONS AND IMPROBABILITIES OF THE GOSPELS? |
06 Aug 2007 08:27:57 AM |
|
|
Provoker said on August 5, 9:00 am:
What difference does it make?
Since you claim that those with the Holy Spirit
naturally understand scripture, and those without
the Holy Spirit are not supposed to understand
scripture anyway, then when you attempt to make a
logical arguement to explain bible inconsistancies,
it suggests that you really believe that bible can
be understood logicly.
It makes a difference whether or not someone believes
that the Bible teaches contradictions for at least
three reasons. First, if they believe that it does
then they are much less likely to ever read the Bible
for themselves, and so will cut themselves off from
the possibility of being granted God's gift of faith
when they read it: "By grace are ye saved through
faith; and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of
God" (Ephesians 2:8); "Faith cometh by hearing, and
hearing by the word of God" (Romans 10:17), "The holy
scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto
salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus"
(2 Timothy 3:15).
Second, if someone begins to read the Bible for
themselves having decided to hold onto the idea that
it teaches contradictions, then they will be reading
it with their wills closed against it as something
which is not to be believed, and so they will cut
themselves off from the possibility of being granted
God's gift of faith when they read it, for God never
takes away our free will. We can actually "resist the
Holy Ghost" (Acts 7:51), and so lose any blessing He
might have brought us.
Third, if someone decides to hold onto the idea that
the Bible teaches contradictions, then he will read
it having already decided that it's fallible, and so
he will have no idea which parts are true and which
are false; the Bible will become utterly useless to
him. And if he decides, like so many, that he's
unwilling to reject it altogether, because he wants
to be able to still consider himself a "Christian",
and because he wants to be able to treat the Bible
like a buffet, keeping the parts he personally likes
and rejecting any parts he personally doesn't like,
then he's in an even worse case than an atheist, for
he has invented his own personal "Christian"
religion, and will invest his will and identity into
it to where he will inoculate himself from ever
coming into the true Christian faith, which rejects
no parts of the Bible, for "All scripture is given
by inspiration of God, and is profitable for
doctrine" (2 Timothy 3:16); "If ye continue in my
word, then are ye my disciples indeed" (John 8:31).
If someone can be shown that all of the purported
contradictions in the Bible are not necessarily
contradictions, then he is much more likely to open
his will to the possibility that the entire Bible
could be infallible, and so he won't resist the Holy
Spirit if He comes to give him faith in the Bible and
understanding of it. It is only through the Holy
Spirit that someone can be brought to truly believe
and understand what the Bible teaches, for the Bible,
God's Word, teaches the things of God, and "the
things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.
Now we have received, not the spirit of the world,
but the spirit which is of God; that we might know
the things that are freely given to us of God. Which
things also we speak, not in the words which man's
wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth;
comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the
natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit
of God: for they are foolishness unto him; neither
can he know them, because they are spiritually
discerned" (1 Corinthians 2:11-14).
Someone who has set their will that they are going
to understand the Bible using only their own natural
human logic, the logic of this world, will reject
what the Bible teaches as foolishness: "For the
preaching of the cross is to them that perish
foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the
power of God. For it is written, I will destroy the
wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the
understanding of the prudent. Where is the wise?
where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this
world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this
world?" (1 Corinthians 1:18-20); "For the wisdom of
this world is foolishness with God. For it is
written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.
And again, The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise,
that they are vain" (1 Corinthians 3:19-20).
Provoker said:
It would appear that anyone who *reasons* together
with others in bible study, obviously believes in
the logical understanding of the bible, and the
doctrine that only those with the Holy Spirit can
understand it, only comes into play when an
apparent contradiction, or inconsistancy, must be
explained.
There are two ways of understanding the Bible. First,
one can understand it as one would naturally
understand any history: one can understand the basic
facts of who the people were, what they said and did,
where their actions took place, etc. Many unbelievers
have a good grasp of the Bible in this sense, but
they will still say things like, "I still don't
understand why God had to murder his son in order to
forgive our sins", or, "I still don't understand what
the purpose of everything is; I mean, what's the
point of all this madness?". It is this second level
of understanding which cannot be obtained through
natural human reasoning, logic, and explanations of
apparent contradictions, but must come through the
Holy Spirit, for it isn't natural understanding, but
"spiritual understanding" (Colossians 1:9).
But this doesn't mean that we are to abandon the
practice of explaining how apparent contradictions
are in fact not contradictions, for this can still
be beneficial to both unbelievers and believers. For
unbelievers, explanations which they are able to
understand at the first, natural level of
understanding, can help them decide to open their
will to the possibility that the Bible could be true,
and doesn't necessarily have to be contradictory. And
for believers who already believe that the Bible is
true and not contradictory, explanations can still be
helpful if those believers don't read the whole Bible
enough and so don't know or don't remember what every
verse of scripture says, and so find some of the
isolated parts they've read "too hard to understand"
at the second, spiritual level. Explanations can show
them how the Bible, when taken as a whole, explains
itself, as a verse from here is compared with a verse
from there: "Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom
shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are
weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts. For
precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept;
line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and
there a little" (Isaiah 28:9-10); "We speak, not in
the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the
Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with
spiritual" (1 Corinthians 2:13).
Provoker said:
When someone presumes to explain the apparent
inconsistancy, he presumes to be the only one with
the Holy Spirit, and that he presumes that the Holy
Spirit needs him explain it.
When someone is led by the Holy Spirit to explain an
apparent inconsistency, he in no way presumes to be
the only one with the Holy Spirit, for if that were
the case then his explanation would be for nought
insofar as it could never be understood by anyone
else at the second, spiritual level. And someone led
by the Holy Spirit to explain something in no way
presumes that the Holy Spirit needs him explain it,
for the Holy Spirit could, anytime He wanted to,
miraculously speak the explanation directly into
everyone's ears or minds. But the Holy Spirit can
lead someone to make an explanation so that he can be
involved in the process whereby the Holy Spirit in
some other believers will give them understanding of
the scriptures. And the Holy Spirit can lead a person
to make an explanation for the benefit of that person
as well, for the effort it takes to write clearly
about a matter will cause one to think clearly about
that matter.
Provoker said:
It is my opinion that the Holy Spirit is the spirit
of truth. When one has the desire for truth in his
heart and mind, he will naturally look for all the
available evidence to logicly understand the bible,
and he will ignore the one who offers an illogical
exlanation that the claims to have gotten from the
Holy Spirit.
Any explanation that one person claims to have gotten
from the Holy Spirit could very well appear illogical
to a second person without the Holy Spirit, if that
second person is unable to understand the explanation
by employing only his natural, human logic. But this
wouldn't be proof that the explanation was in fact
illogical at the higher, spiritual level
(1 Corinthians 2:14). All the available evidence to
logically understand the Bible at the spiritual level
is contained within the Bible itself (2 Timothy
3:16-17), if a Spirit-filled believer (Acts 19:2,6)
would only take the time to read the whole Bible
enough to know and to be able to remember every verse
in it, so that, when he is confronted with a
difficulty in one verse in one place, the Holy Spirit
might be able to bring to his remembrance another
verse in another place which explains it (Isaiah
28:9-10; 1 Corinthians 2:13). No explanation that a
person claims for one verse can ever contradict any
other verse in the Bible; if it does, then it's not
from the Holy Spirit, but from that person's own,
fallible mind.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Provoker" |
|
| Title: Re: CONTRADICTIONS AND IMPROBABILITIES OF THE GOSPELS? |
06 Aug 2007 07:23:16 PM |
|
|
On Aug 6, 9:27 am, Read The Bible <biblever...@yahoo.com< wrote:
< < Provoker said on August 6
Hello RTB:
It does not matter what people think about the bible if they cannot
understand it without the Holy Spirit.
Even if they believe that it is infallible, if they cannot understand
it, their belief means nothing.
Even if it is explained by someone with the Holy Spirit, it still
cannot be understood unless the hearer has the Holy Spirit.
There is just no reason for anyone to prove that the Bible is
infallible, because those who would need to know that, will not
understand the proof anyway, because they do not have the Holy Spirit.
This goes in circles just like a catch 22...LOL
You appear to be suggesting that that a person reading the bible
without first having orthodox preconceptions, would come to the wrong
conclusion, but that is an arguement of an unscrupulous priesthood
which feigns "holier-ness" in order to talk us into the wrong
conclusions.
If God wrote the bible in a logical language, He implies that it can
be understood logicly by anyone who can read that logical language.
If in fact, it cannot be understood logicly, surely you can see that
that would make God a deceiver of those who understand that logical
language, and read as of it meant what it said. If God wrote the
bible in some unknown language, which only the Holy Spirit could
impart the understanding of, then that would be OK, but if God wrote
the bible in a known language, it must be logicly understandable, or
God is a liar, a deceiver, and the author of confusion.
< If someone can be shown that all of the purported
< contradictions in the Bible are not necessarily
< contradictions, then he is much more likely to open
< his will to the possibility that the entire Bible
< could be infallible,
Since there is no scriptural reason to believe that the bible is
infallible, it is not for you or me to pre-judge the bible to be
infallible for someone else. When a reader is started out with
unscriptural preconceptions, he may well come to unscriptural
conclusions. Surely the bible is a book which can be understood
without being indoctrinated first???
Your arguements can be turned right back to you RTB. Someone who has
set their will that they are going to understand the bible according
to the preconceived teachings of one of the thousands of doctrinally
disagreeing denominations, will natually reject any truth which comes
from outside of his doctrinal teaching.
For instance, you have absolutely no intention of ever even
considering anything I write, because it does not comply with any
preconceived dogma of any evangelical denomination...even though
everything I write is based firmly on the story of continuity which
runs through the whole bible.
Let me ask you this; Can you put all the doctrines that you believe
together, so that they tell an understandable story which can be found
running with continuty through the whole bible?
< There are two ways of understanding the Bible. First,
< one can understand it as one would naturally
< understand any history: one can understand the basic
< facts of who the people were, what they said and did,
< where their actions took place, etc. Many unbelievers
< have a good grasp of the Bible in this sense, but
< they will still say things like, "I still don't
< understand why God had to murder his son in order to
< forgive our sins", or, "I still don't understand what
< the purpose of everything is;
Those who you think have an understanding of the bible, but don't
understand such things, simply do not understand the bible. One
cannot understand the bible story and preconceived orthodoxy at the
same time, without being confused and double minded.
There is only one way to understand the story which runs all the way
through the bible, and that is to read it as a continuing story.
Anyone who has a good grasp of the whole story, will either understand
what any particular passage means, or he will understand what it does
not mean. A passage which appears to contradict the whole story of
the bible, should be considered to have been poorly paraphrased, and
should not be used to establish doctrine. When people establish
doctrine on the basis of single verses, without understanding the
story which runs through the bible, we end up with thousands of
doctrinally disagreeing denominations.
Consider this: If God wants you to have a spiritual understanding of
the bible story, I'm sure that He expects you to understand the
logical story of the bible first, so that He can show you the logical
story's spiritual meaning.
I often explain how bible contradictions should be understood, but
there is no denying that there are contradictions.
As an example, scripture says that king Saul was (1) killed by the
Philistines, that he (2) killed himself, that he was (3) killed by his
armour bearer, and that he was (4) killed by a stranger passing
through after a battle.
The four accounts definitely contradict, but since Christians base
their doctrines on single verses, four disagreeing denominations could
possibly result from Saul's death. No one in either of those four
denominations would accept anything the others offered as evidence for
their doctrine, so how likely is it that any of those four
denominations would believe someone who had read and understood the
whole story?
This is exactly the problem with the doctrinally divided church.
"Thousands of doctrinally disagreeing denominations will never agree
with each other because each has it's own special single verse to
prove it's own special doctrine, so why would any of them even listen
to someone who read and understood the bible, for the story it
contains?
< When someone is led by the Holy Spirit to explain an
< apparent inconsistency, he in no way presumes to be
< the only one with the Holy Spirit, for if that were
< the case then his explanation would be for nought
< insofar as it could never be understood by anyone
< else at the second, spiritual level. And someone led
< by the Holy Spirit to explain something in no way
< presumes that the Holy Spirit needs him explain it,
< for the Holy Spirit could, anytime He wanted to,
< miraculously speak the explanation directly into
< everyone's ears or minds.
If that is the case, then God wrote the bible in vain, for the only
purpose it serves is to deceive those who read it without the help of
someone with the Holy Spirit.
< But the Holy Spirit can
< lead someone to make an explanation so that he can be
< involved in the process whereby the Holy Spirit in
< some other believers will give them understanding of
< the scriptures. And the Holy Spirit can lead a person
< to make an explanation for the benefit of that person
< as well, for the effort it takes to write clearly
< about a matter will cause one to think clearly about
< that matter.
Are you now suggesting that even those with the Holy Spirit cannot
understand the bible unless it is explained by someone else with the
Holy Spirit? If one with the Holy Spirit cannot naturally discern the
meaning of scripture, how likely is it that he will be able to discern
if the one explaining scripture to him, has the Holy Spirit?
This Holy Spirit doctrine has too many loop holes.
Don't you think that since God gave us common logic, without which
most of us would have died long ago because of some completely stupid
accident, He would write His book to us so that we could use our God
given logic to understand it? After all, God does not interfere with
anyone's will, and therefore one will only understand the bible if he
wills to do so. If God was to spiritually suggest to someone, the
other logical meaning of scripture, He would be infringing on that
person's free will.
< Any explanation that one person claims to have gotten
< from the Holy Spirit could very well appear illogical
< to a second person without the Holy Spirit, if that
< second person is unable to understand the explanation
< by employing only his natural, human logic. But this
< wouldn't be proof that the explanation was in fact
< illogical at the higher, spiritual level
< (1 Corinthians 2:14). All the available evidence to
< logically understand the Bible at the spiritual level
< is contained within the Bible itself
Catch 22...one cannot receive the Holy Spirit until he knows about it
from the bible, but he cannot understand the bible without it. If he
can receive the Holy Spirit without understanding the bible, then the
bible serves no purpose but to confuse those can read it but not
understand it.
(2 Timothy
< 3:16-17), if a Spirit-filled believer (Acts 19:2,6)
< would only take the time to read the whole Bible
< enough to know and to be able to remember every verse
< in it, so that, when he is confronted with a
< difficulty in one verse in one place, the Holy Spirit
< might be able to bring to his remembrance another
< verse in another place which explains it (Isaiah
< 28:9-10; 1 Corinthians 2:13). No explanation that a
< person claims for one verse can ever contradict any
< other verse in the Bible; if it does, then it's not
< from the Holy Spirit, but from that person's own,
< fallible mind.
The reason that today's Christianity does not represent the apostolic
church, is that it is divided by doctrines based on single verses.
Christians are entirely dependant upon remembering single verses from
the bible. This is proof positive that Christians do not understand
the bible, because it means that they cannot explain bible principles
in their own words, and they quote single verses even though they may
believe that their readers/hearers cannot understand scripture anyway,
because the do not have the Holy Spirit.
I have read hundreds, if not thousands, of books in my 65 years, and I
do not remember one sentence from any of them...but I understood the
story of every one I read. If I was to explain a principle from one
of those books, I would not quote sentences from the book, because
single sentences mean nothing without the context of the whole book,
so I would explain the principle in my own words. However, I could
only do that if I understood the book in the first place. If one
remembered all the words of a book, he would be so overloaded with
impertinant details, that he would not be able to see the
story...Can't see the forest for the trees.
Understanding something, and remembering something, are two
completely different principles.
Leonardo DaVinci said; "those who in debate, appeal to their
qualifications, argue from memory, and not from understanding".
Christians qualify themselves by memorizing, and being able to quote
verses for every situation that arises, even though quoting any single
verse is quoting it outside of it's context, and is doubly quoted in
vain if the quoter believes that the hearer cannot understand
scripture because he does not have the Holy Spirit.
***Understand the story***, and you will have a much better chance of
honestly understanding any particular passage, because you already
understand the greater context in which it was all written.
Virtually all of the preconceived doctrines of today's church,
conflict with the story(the context) which runs with continuity
through the bible. That is why the church does not discuss the whole
story, and as a result, even the most well read Christians are not
familiar with those scriptural principles, and therefore do not/cannot
apply them as context when considering the verses that the church uses
to prove it's preconceived doctrines.
Christians quote NT verses which were already used out of context from
the OT, and they do not realize it because they don't understand the
story which runs with continuity through the bible, which can clarify
all.
If one understands the bible story, the "out of context" quotes will
stand out like a sore thumb.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "arah" |
|
| Title: Re: CONTRADICTIONS AND IMPROBABILITIES OF THE GOSPELS? |
06 Aug 2007 10:43:55 AM |
|
|
Yes, let read the bible and we compare them
Introduction:
We must first of all know that the entire Bible is corrupted and
unreliable and is mostly filled with man-made laws and corruption!
"`How can you say, "We [the Jews] are wise, for we have the law of the
LORD," when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it
falsely?' (From the NIV Bible, Jeremiah 8:8)"
The Revised Standard Version makes it even clearer: "How can you say,
'We are wise, and the law of the LORD is with us'? But, behold, the
false pen of the scribes has made it (i.e., the bible) into a LIE.
(From the RSV Bible, Jeremiah 8:8)"
In either translation, we clearly see that the Jews had so much
corrupted the Bible with their man-made cultural laws, that they had
turned the Bible into a lie!
See Also Deuteronomy 31:25-29 where Moses peace be upon him predicted
the corruption/tampering of the Law (Bible) after his death.
The Book of Moses predicted that the Law (Bible) will get corrupted.
The Book of Jeremiah which came approximately 826 years after did
indeed confirm this corruption.
Also visit:
The bible is a book that contains countless contradictions and
corruptions as ironically the bible's own theologians openly admit!
They even claim that it contains fables and fairy tales:
The Christian and Bible theologians call them "fictions that exist in
the Bible"!
The Christian and Bible theologians say "The original manuscripts had
been lost"!
The Christian and Bible theologians call them "fairy tales and fables
in the Bible"!
Countless contradictions and corruption.
The original authors are "unknown" of almost all of the bible's books
and gospels.
101 Contradictions in the Bible!
1- Just who were the real authors of the Bible?
The quotes in green below are from the NIV Bible's commentary. Before
each Book/Gospel, there are few pages explaining the history of it. I
was shocked to see that most of today's Bible's Books and Gospels are
doubtful and unreliable. I will start with the New Testament first,
and then the Old Testament second. The bibliography of the NIV Bible
that I used is listed at the end of this article.
After thoroughly reading this article, I would like you to answer the
following questions:
1- Is all of the Bible GOD's Divine Revelations?
2- Did the Prophets of GOD really write the Bible of today?
3- Is the Bible perfect?
4- Did man indeed corrupt the Bible?
5- Is the Bible of today reliable?
If your answer is no to most of or all of the above questions except
for #4, then allow me to say that your faith has serious problems!
You be the Judge: After all of the evidence provided in the article,
should I as a non-Christian take the Bible as the word of GOD
Almighty?
Exposing the New Testament's historical corruptions
The Gospel of Mark:
Note: This gospel is the oldest and supposedly the most original one
in the New Testament!
"Although there is no direct internal evidence of authorship, it was
the unanimous testimony of the early church that this Gospel was
written by John Mark. (From the NIV Bible Commentary, page 1488)"
So, in reality, we don't really know whether Mark was the sole author
of this Gospel or not. And since The New Testament wasn't even
documented on paper until 150-300 years (depending on what Christian
you talk to) after Jesus, then how are we to know for sure that the
current "Gospel of Mark" wasn't written by some pro of Mark?
A new captured image of this book's corruption:
(http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark
%2016:9-20;&version=31;)
The above text reads: "The most reliable early manuscript and other
ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20."
Now my concern to this corruption and 'answer-the-problem-away'
statement is that what are those so-called "reliable early
manuscript(s)" and who are the "ancient witnesses"?
According to the early Christians' manuscripts, Jesus never got
crucified, and trinity is a lie. The so-called "gospel of Mark",
along with all of the "gospels" of the NT, were written by third-party
narration, as clearly demonstrated and shown in the sections below.
People wrote on the tongue of Jesus' Disciples those books. They are
neither original nor are the Pure Word of GOD Almighty.
If the "gospel of Mark" was indeed Divine and from GOD Almighty, then
we wouldn't have this corruption, that they're admitting above, in it.
I hope you see the real danger in making these assumptions when you
are willing to DIE for the fact that such Gospel is the actual True
Word of GOD Almighty!
Further regarding this Gospel, we read the following commentary about
Mark 16:9-20:
"Serious doubts exists as to whether these verses belong to the Gospel
of Mark. They are absent from important early manuscripts and display
certain peculiarities of vocabulary, style and theological content
that are unlike the rest of Mark. His Gospel probably ended at 16:8,
or its original ending has been lost. (From the NIV Bible Foot Notes,
page 1528)"
This quote raises a very serious issue here. First of all, as we've
seen above in the first quote, we have no evidence that proves that
John Mark was the sole author of this so called "Gospel". Second of
all, we see that this Gospel has some serious problems/suspicions in
it. The issue of Mark 16:9-20 is a scary one, because many Christian
cults today use poisonous snakes in their worship and end up dying.
Removing Mark 16:9-20 is quite appreciated by me personally (to be
quite honest with you), because it prevents people from dying from
snake bites. But however, the serious issue of man's corruption of
the Bible remains.
We can be absolutely certain now that the above quotes prove without a
doubt that the Bible is doubtful. The quote "or its original ending
has been lost" proves that what we call today "Gospels" were not
written by their original authors such as Mark, John, Matthew, etc...
It proves that the Gospel had been tampered with by man. Let alone
considering it as the True Living Words of GOD Almighty.
If John Mark wasn't the one who wrote Mark 16:9-20, then who did? And
how can you prove the ownership of the other person? Let alone proving
that it was GOD Almighty's Revelation. And as we saw in the first
quote above, we don't even know that John Mark was indeed the one who
wrote the so called "Gospel of Mark".
To say the least in our case here, we now have enough evidence to
discard the entire Gospel of Mark from the Bible, because you can't
take bits and pieces of it and say some of it belongs to him and some
of it doesn't! Let alone considering the entire corrupted Gospel as
the True Living Word of GOD Almighty, which is a complete blasphemy.
Please visit A dangerous forgery was inserted at the end of the so-
called "Gospel of Mark".
Here is an email that I received from a Christian regarding Mark
16:17-18:
From: R. Mercer
To:
Subject: I Totally Agree
Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2001 13:41:57 -0700
"What credibility does Christianity have when it scriptures are
littered
with such dangerous and obvious forgeries?"
You summed it up very well on your web page. That is my question
entirely. Just what are we to believe? If forgeries have been proven
to
exist in the Bible, then how many more must there be? What about the
chapters and verses we all guide our whole life/styles by? Are they
forgeries, too?
This verse in Mark 16:17-18, has always bothered me. I have, and
still do believe the rest of that passage (laying on of hands,
healing
the sick,...), so how can that part of the passage be true when the
serpent part is forged?
I know the part on drinking any poison says "IF", but the part on
taking up serpents says "SHALL", which has always been a problem for
me
to believe. Imagine us all being forced to take up serpents in order
to
serve God.
On the other hand, if this was forged, then that creates an even
bigger concern for me. Not knowing what text in our Bible is
authentic
and what is not.
Thanks for letting me take up so much of your time. Like I said
before, this passage always bothered me, probably more so than any
other.
Thanks, once again. Good Day.
The Book of Acts:
"Although the author does not name himself, evidence outside the
Scriptures and inferences from the book itself lead to the conclusion
that the author was Luke. (From the NIV Bible Commentary, page 1643)"
So based on some conclusion, you're willing to die for defending the
idea that the Book of Acts was the True Word of GOD Almighty? If the
book was inspired by GOD Almighty, then how come it wasn't mentioned
in the book itself to help us filter it out from the many other
"Satanic false books"? Are we sure that this book too is not a man-
made Satanic book?
After all, its just a conclusion, isn't it?
Beside, what evidence are they talking about?! The New Testament
wasn't even documented on paper until 150-300 years (depending on what
Christian you talk to) after Jesus. So unless the Book/Gospel was
signed by its author, there is no way we would know for sure that it
was indeed his book from the first place, let alone considering it as
the True Living Word of GOD.
Please visit: Was Jesus crucified on a tree (according to Peter),
cross (according to others), or never got crucified (according to
Islam)?
None of Jesus' disciples witnessed the crucifixion. They "all fled"
and "deserted" Jesus. This further confirms Islam's claims.
Hebrews 5:7-8 confirm Islam's claim about Jesus never got crucified
and contradicts the Bible! According to the documentary film, "Banned
from the Bible", which I watched on the History Channel, some of Saint
Peter's apocalypse were banned from the current Bible, and these
Epistles contain what Islam claims - that Jesus didn't get crucified
on the cross and it only appeared that he was. This banned part also
says that Jesus was standing next to the cross laughing. These are
the parts of the Bible that only few people in the world know about.
According to the documentary film, the apocalypse was very popular
among Christians during the 2nd century. They believed "it was
spiritually inspired" by GOD Almighty to Saint Peter. They actually
had doubts about "John's apocalypse", which is known today as "the
Book of Revelation". Interestingly also, this apocalypse says that
after GOD Almighty fills both Heaven and Hell with inhabitants from
Mankind, and the people of Hell get tortured for a long period of
time, the People of Heaven will ask and Pray to GOD Almighty to
Forgive the people of Hell. GOD Almighty will then eventually listen
to their Prayers, and will order the "Gates and the Steel Bars of
Hell" to be opened and allow the people of Hell to enter Heaven for
Good. This apocalypse of Peter seems to also perfectly fit Noble
Verse 7:40 in the Noble Quran where Allah Almighty Promised that He
will eventually open the Gates of Heaven to all disbelievers and empty
Hell. Please visit: Hell will eventually be empty according to Islam.
Jesus is a hypocrite for bowing down to GOD only during his desperate
times. See another proof in the Bible that Jesus can not be the
Creator of the Universe.
The Gospel of Luke:
There is a serious forgery about Jesus' "resurrection on the third
day" claiming that it was foretold in the OT when it wasn't! Let us
look at Luke 24:44-48 from the NIV Bible:
Luke 24
44 He said to them, "This is what I told you while I was still with
you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law
of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms."
45 Then he opened their minds so they could understand the
Scriptures.
46 He told them, "This is what is written: The Christ will suffer and
rise from the dead on the third day,
47 and repentance and forgiveness of sins will be preached in his
name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.
48 You are witnesses of these things.
Luke 24:44-48 says that it is written in the Law of Moses (i.e., the
Torah) that Jesus will die and resurrect on the third day. Where in
the entire Old Testament (not just in the 5 books of Moses that make
up the Law of Moses or the Torah) do you have that?! Show me one Old
Testament verse that prophesized about Jesus' third day resurrection?
In fact, in my article Answering Isaiah 53, I clearly proved that the
Old Testament actually confirms the Noble Quran's claims about Jesus
never got crucified! Let alone dying and resurrecting on the third
day!
Anyway, Let us see what the NIV Bible's theologians said about this
book:
"The author's name does not appear in the book, but much unmistakable
evidence points to Luke. (From the NIV Bible Commentary, page 1529)"
Again, we don't know for sure whether it was Luke or not who wrote the
"Gospel of Luke" since his name doesn't appear in the Book. The Gospel
itself seems to be a compromising one to the Word of GOD. Let us look
at the following:
"Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from
the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account
for you, most excellent Theophilus, (Luke 1:3)"
Few problems with this Gospel from the quote above:
1- The author was not inspired, and knew for sure that he was not
inspired by GOD Almighty to write the Book since he didn't mention
about any divine inspiration, and he said "...since I myself have
carefully investigated everything from the beginning..." Where do we
see GOD's inspiration in this?
2- The author wrote it for the purpose of "his most excellent
Theophilus." Since when we compromise GOD Almighty and document His
Holy Words for the purpose of other higher (in rank) human beings?
I say it again, I hope you see the real danger in making these
assumptions when you are willing to DIE for the fact that such Gospel
is the actual True Word of GOD Almighty!
Also, beside, what evidence are they talking about?! The New
Testament wasn't even documented on paper until 150-300 years
(depending on what Christian you talk to) after Jesus. So unless the
Book/Gospel was signed by its author, there is no way we would know
for sure that it was indeed his book from the first place, let alone
considering as the True Living Word of GOD.
Further from brother Vipor Poison; may Allah Almighty always be
pleased with him:
Luke 1:3
Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from
the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account
for you, most excellent Theophilus,
The following is from the Catholic Encyclopedia:
http://newadvent.org/cathen/14625b.htm
http://newadvent.org/cathen/14625a.htm
If Theophilus existed in either the 2nd or the 4th centuries then how
could the writer of this gospel be the same Luke who is supposed to be
with Jesus in the 1st century.
Maybe he lived to about 200 years.. :)
From brother Amir AbdulRahim; may Allah Almighty always be pleased
with him:
The subject of Mankind's Corruption of the Bible has interested me
greatly, and I have taken a closer look at this subject. Its seems
it's not only your site that brings this subject up, but a couple of
Christian sites too.
For example, an article in the Catholic Encyclopaedia that you
mentioned in regard to the 'Theophilus' mentioned in Luke's Gospel
(from your Just Who Are The Real Authors Of The Bible? article)
testifies to this fact (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14530a.htm):
"IV. TRANSMISSION OF THE TEXT
No book of ancient times has come down to us exactly as it left the
hands of its author-- all have been in some way altered. The material
conditions under which a book was spread before the invention of
printing (1440), the little care of the copyists, correctors, and
glossators for the text, so different from the desire of accuracy
exhibited to-day, explain sufficiently the divergences we find between
various manuscripts of the same work. To these causes may be added, in
regard to the Scriptures, exegetical difficulties and dogmatical
controversies. To exempt the sacred writings from ordinary conditions
a very special providence would have been necessary, and it has not
been the will of God to exercise this providence."
Lets just go through that again - "No book of ancient times has come
down to us exactly as it left the hands of its author--all have been
in some way altered." All have been in some way altered! In view of
this blatant admission, how can anyone expect me, or any muslim, to
follow an impure book?
When you compare this to the great lengths taken to preserve the
original Qur'an, there's no contest!
The Book of Hebrews:
"The writer of this letter does not identify himself, but he was
obviously well known to the original recipients. (From the NIV Bible
Commentary, page 1856)"
So because the guy was supposedly "well known (which we don't really
know that for sure anyway)", then would that give us the right to
consider his words as the Words of GOD Almighty?! I am sorry, but I
don't really see the logic behind this! The Book of Hebrews is one of
the highly used Books among Christians. I hear references from it a
lot when listening to Christians preaching. Yet, no one really knows
who wrote it!. This is quite ironic, because Christians use such
highly doubtful books in their teachings as if they were the True
Living Words of GOD Almighty. I don't care what you call this, but I
call it blasphemy, because it is the most ridiculous insult to GOD
Almighty and His Holy Words that I have ever seen.
I just hope you see the real cheap quality in the religion of
Christianity, with all my respect due to every Christian reader.
Please visit: Was Jesus crucified on a tree (according to Peter),
cross (according to others), or never got crucified (according to
Islam)?
None of Jesus' disciples witnessed the crucifixion. They "all fled"
and "deserted" Jesus. This further confirms Islam's claims.
Hebrews 5:7-8 confirm Islam's claim about Jesus never got crucified
and contradicts the Bible! According to the documentary film, "Banned
from the Bible", which I watched on the History Channel, some of Saint
Peter's apocalypse were banned from the current Bible, and these
Epistles contain what Islam claims - that Jesus didn't get crucified
on the cross and it only appeared that he was. This banned part also
says that Jesus was standing next to the cross laughing. These are
the parts of the Bible that only few people in the world know about.
According to the documentary film, the apocalypse was very popular
among Christians during the 2nd century. They believed "it was
spiritually inspired" by GOD Almighty to Saint Peter. They actually
had doubts about "John's apocalypse", which is known today as "the
Book of Revelation". Interestingly also, this apocalypse says that
after GOD Almighty fills both Heaven and Hell with inhabitants from
Mankind, and the people of Hell get tortured for a long period of
time, the People of Heaven will ask and Pray to GOD Almighty to
Forgive the people of Hell. GOD Almighty will then eventually listen
to their Prayers, and will order the "Gates and the Steel Bars of
Hell" to be opened and allow the people of Hell to enter Heaven for
Good. This apocalypse of Peter seems to also perfectly fit Noble
Verse 7:40 in the Noble Quran where Allah Almighty Promised that He
will eventually open the Gates of Heaven to all disbelievers and empty
Hell. Please visit: Hell will eventually be empty according to Islam.
Jesus is a hypocrite for bowing down to GOD only during his desperate
times. See another proof in the Bible that Jesus can not be the
Creator of the Universe.
The Gospel of John:
"The author is the apostle John, 'the disciple whom Jesus
loved' (13:23; 19:26; 20:2; 21:7, 20,24). He was prominent in the
early church but is not mentioned by name in this Gospel--which would
be natural if he wrote it, but hard to explain otherwise. (From the
NIV Bible Commentary, page 1588)"
They claimed that it was John who wrote the Gospel, but yet, his name
was not signed on his Gospel! How is it possible for us to be
absolutely sure that it was indeed John who wrote the so called
"Gospel of John" when "his name is not mentioned in this Gospel" so we
can then take it as a 100% True Error-free Word of GOD Almighty?
When one reads this gospel, he would immediately notice that it was
not written by John himself. Let us look at the following verses from
the gospel:
"And this is the record of John, when the Jews sent priests and
Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, Who art thou? (From the King James
Version Bible, John 1:19)"
"John answered them, saying, I baptize with water: but there standeth
one among you, whom ye know not; (From the King James Version Bible,
John 1:26)"
"For John was not yet cast into prison. (From the King James Version
Bible, John 3:24)"
etc...
Whoever wrote the gospel, was he appointed or inspired by GOD
Almighty? If yes, then who is that man? It can't be John for it is
quite obvious from the above verses and many more throughout the
gospel that John wasn't the original author. One has to be
ridiculously biased and blind in faith to deny that.
So now, what about these most popular verses:
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the
Word was God. (From the King James Version Bible, John 1:1)"
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that
whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting
life. (From the King James Version Bible, John 3:16)"
These verses were obviously written by mysterious men and not by any
of Jesus' original disciples. Therefore, it is blasphemy to consider
such verses as Divine and to try to prove Jesus is the Creator of the
Universe through them. The lie of trinity was born between the years
of 150 to 300. It is quite possible and highly probable that some
church wrote the so-called "Gospel of John" from excerpts that they
found. Notice that there are 24,000 "letters" or papers found that
were not included in today's New Testament, which means that the
excerpts that were used for writing the "Gospel of John" and all of
the other books and gospels of the NT are highly doubtful and contain
no proof what so ever that they were written by any of Jesus' original
disciples. The Gospel of John was written about John but not by the
original "Saint John". Big difference and big corruption! You can't
consider such rubbish as GOD Almighty's Divine Holy Words.
Again, please visit: The Gospel of John, Gospel or gossip? to see
proof about early Christians rejecting the so-called Gospel of John.
They believed it was all man-made.
Was Jesus crucified on a tree (according to Peter), cross (according
to others), or never got crucified (according to Islam)?
None of Jesus' disciples witnessed the crucifixion. They "all fled"
and "deserted" Jesus. This further confirms Islam's claims.
Hebrews 5:7-8 confirm Islam's claim about Jesus never got crucified
and contradicts the Bible! According to the documentary film, "Banned
from the Bible", which I watched on the History Channel, some of Saint
Peter's apocalypse were banned from the current Bible, and these
Epistles contain what Islam claims - that Jesus didn't get crucified
on the cross and it only appeared that he was. This banned part also
says that Jesus was standing next to the cross laughing. These are
the parts of the Bible that only few people in the world know about.
According to the documentary film, the apocalypse was very popular
among Christians during the 2nd century. They believed "it was
spiritually inspired" by GOD Almighty to Saint Peter. They actually
had doubts about "John's apocalypse", which is known today as "the
Book of Revelation". Interestingly also, this apocalypse says that
after GOD Almighty fills both Heaven and Hell with inhabitants from
Mankind, and the people of Hell get tortured for a long period of
time, the People of Heaven will ask and Pray to GOD Almighty to
Forgive the people of Hell. GOD Almighty will then eventually listen
to their Prayers, and will order the "Gates and the Steel Bars of
Hell" to be opened and allow the people of Hell to enter Heaven for
Good. This apocalypse of Peter seems to also perfectly fit Noble
Verse 7:40 in the Noble Quran where Allah Almighty Promised that He
will eventually open the Gates of Heaven to all disbelievers and empty
Hell. Please visit: Hell will eventually be empty according to Islam.
Jesus is a hypocrite for bowing down to GOD only during his desperate
times. See another proof in the Bible that Jesus can not be the
Creator of the Universe.
The Gospel of 1 John:
"....Unlike most NT letters, 1 John does not tell us who its author
is. The earliest identification of him comes from the church
fathers...(From the NIV Bible Commentary, page 1904)"
"The letter is difficult to date with precision....(From the NIV Bible
Commentary, page 1905)"
This is really ironic! with all respect due to Christians. If the
Book's author is not for sure known, then why assume that it was Saint
John who wrote it?
Please visit The lie of 1 John 5:7. This verse was later discovered
to be a Satanic lie. The Roman Catholic Theologians don't believe in
it, and it doesn't exist in their Bibles.
The same case where no author is really known exists in the Gospels of
2 and 3 John.
The Book of Revelation:
"Four times the author identifies himself as John (1:1,4,9;
22:8).....In the third century, however, an African bishop named
Dionysius compared the language, style and thought of the Apocalypse
(Revelation) with that of the other writings of John and decided that
the book could not been written by the apostle of John. He suggested
that the author was a certain John the Presbyter, whose name appears
elsewhere in ancient writings. Although many today follow Dionysius
in his view of authorship, the external evidence seems overwhelmingly
supportive of the traditional view. (From the NIV Bible Commentary,
page 1922)"
Again, we don't know who wrote the Book of Revelation. It is
certainly highly doubtful that it was written by Apostle John. The
Theologians and Historians of the NIV Bible seem to agree with the
invalidity of this book from the above quote. So are you now going to
consider the other John's words as the Words and Inspirations of GOD
Almighty?
As we see, the style of writing in the book of Revelation is different
from the books that are believed to be from John which are the Gospel
of John, 1 John, 2 John and 3 John. The book of Revelation's style
seems to be closer to John the Presbyter's writings. This man is
known in ancient writings. There are also many Christian theologians
today that hold the same view about the falsety of the book of
Revelation.
Isn't this sufficient enough to prove that the book is doubtful?
Notice that in the sections of "Gospel of John" and "Gospels of 1, 2 &
3 John" above, the author did not identify himself and it was ASSUMED
without actual proofs that it was Saint John who wrote them. Notice
how they said that if he were to identify himself, then it would be
hard for them to explain it.
Now, notice the author in the Book of Revelation does identify himself
as John, but he has a complete different language and style of writing
from the other books, which created much uncertainty about its
validity in the Church.
My questions here are: Who wrote the Books? And is or is not Saint
John supposed to identify himself in his books? And where are his
books that have his name on them?
Again, keep in mind that the NT was not even documented on paper until
150 to 300 years after Jesus (depending on what Christian you talk
to). So the dating is way too long for us to be assuming books to
belong to certain people. Let alone considering their nonsense
(contents) as the True Living Words of GOD Almighty.
Please visit: Jesus the "Alpha and Omega". Not only this quote
doesn't prove Jesus as GOD, but it was also written in a book that is
unreliable in later bibles. In the original Bibles, the quote doesn't
even exist!!
False and failed Prophecies about the Hour put in the mouth of Jesus
in the books of Mark, Luke and Revelation in the New Testament.
Arche of the Creation of God as Alpha and Omega. The "Alpha and
Omega" doesn't even exist in the original Bibles! It's a lie that was
later inserted by trinitarians. See the historical proofs in the
article. If their site is down, then you can read the article at this
link ON MY SITE.
Hebrews 5:7-8 confirm Islam's claim about Jesus never got crucified
and contradicts the Bible! According to the documentary film, "Banned
from the Bible", which I watched on the History Channel, some of Saint
Peter's apocalypse were banned from the current Bible, and these
Epistles contain what Islam claims - that Jesus didn't get crucified
on the cross and it only appeared that he was. This banned part also
says that Jesus was standing next to the cross laughing. These are
the parts of the Bible that only few people in the world know about.
According to the documentary film, the apocalypse was very popular
among Christians during the 2nd century. They believed "it was
spiritually inspired" by GOD Almighty to Saint Peter. They actually
had doubts about "John's apocalypse", which is known today as "the
Book of Revelation". Interestingly also, this apocalypse says that
after GOD Almighty fills both Heaven and Hell with inhabitants from
Mankind, and the people of Hell get tortured for a long period of
time, the People of Heaven will ask and Pray to GOD Almighty to
Forgive the people of Hell. GOD Almighty will then eventually listen
to their Prayers, and will order the "Gates and the Steel Bars of
Hell" to be opened and allow the people of Hell to enter Heaven for
Good. This apocalypse of Peter seems to also perfectly fit Noble
Verse 7:40 in the Noble Quran where Allah Almighty Promised that He
will eventually open the Gates of Heaven to all disbelievers and empty
Hell. Please visit: Hell will eventually be empty according to Islam.
The Book of Revelation is a very important, probably the most
important Book in the Bible today, because it has prophecies in it of
what Christians believe is for our future today, even though it has
nothing to do with our current world. It talks about Jesus soon (1800
to 2000 years ago) will return (Revelation 22:7). I don't know how
soon is 2000 years to the Bible. All the people that this book was
told to had died.
It also talks about the great battle of Gog and Magog fighting the
righteous; "and will go out to deceive the nations in the four corners
of the earth [The earth DOES NOT have four corners and no the earth
is not a square or rectangle. It is round almost like an egg!!]--Gog
and Magog--to gather them for battle. In number they are like the sand
on the seashore. (From the NIV Bible, Revelation 20:8)"
The thing that we need to notice here beside the grave error about the
shape of the earth in this false book (sorry to say that), is that the
Gog and Magog existed before. Gog, the chief prince of Meshech and
Tubal (Ezekiel 39:1), is the name of the leader and Magog is the name
of his nation (Ezekiel 38 and 39). The Gog and Magog army had already
been defeated and the Noble Quran confirms their story. There had
been historical discoveries that perfectly match the Noble Quran's
claims regarding the Gog and Magog, such as the discovery of the "Iron
Gates", and other literature that mentions the Gog and Magog army and
location. There is even historical documentation about them which
matches the Noble Quran in London, England.
Please visit The story of Gog and Magog and the Iron Gates in the
Noble Quran and the Bible to see the references and proofs of these
historical discoveries and several more.
The Bible says: The earth is flat! See all the verses in the Bible
that claim the earth is flat.
It is a common Christian answer to say "We support Israel because it
is God's promised land to the Jews, and He will prevail them against
the army of Gog and Magog who seems to be mainly an Islamic army
today." They mostly rely on the Book of Revelation from the Bible to
support this claim.
The story of the Gog and Magog army attacking the Jews exists in both
the Book of Ezekiel and the Book of Revelation in the Bible. The Book
of Ezekiel which came literally thousands of years before the Book of
Revelation predicted the attack and defeat of the army of Gog and
Magog.
The Noble Quran (The Muslims' Holy Scripture) talks about the army of
Gog and Magog in details and explains the events that ALREADY took
place. As I mentioned above, there had been historical discoveries
that perfectly match the Noble Quran's claims regarding the Gog and
Magog, such as the discovery of the "Iron Gates", and other literature
that mentions the Gog and Magog army and location.
Please visit The army of Gog and Magog and the Iron Gates in the Noble
Quran and the Bible.
The lie (sorry to say that) of the Book of Revelation, however, also
predicts the coming of the army of Gog and Magog. But as I said, the
army of Gog and Magog were ALREADY predicted in the Bible thousands of
years before the Book of Revelation.
So, the prediction in the Book of Revelation proves that the writer of
the book, lacked a great deal of knowledge about history, because as I
said, the event of the Gog and Magog battle (i.e., the battle of
Armageddon) already happened!
The point is that the Book of Revelation, however, like most of the
Bible today seems to be nothing but a big hoax (sorry to say that).
It is very doubtful, but yet ironically, very important to the
Christians of today.
Would you honestly deep inside yourself call nonsense of this kind the
True Living Words of GOD Almighty, especially after knowing that very
important early Christian resources thought "the book could not been
written by the apostle of John"?
Please visit What parts of the Bible do Muslims believe in?
http://www.answering-christianity.com/authors_gospels.htm
On Aug 6, 9:27 pm, Read The Bible <biblever...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Provoker said on August 5, 9:00 am:
What difference does it make?
Since you claim that those with the Holy Spirit
naturally understand scripture, and those without
the Holy Spirit are not supposed to understand
scripture anyway, then when you attempt to make a
logical arguement to explain bible inconsistancies,
it suggests that you really believe that bible can
be understood logicly.
It makes a difference whether or not someone believes
that the Bible teaches contradictions for at least
three reasons. First, if they believe that it does
then they are much less likely to ever read the Bible
for themselves, and so will cut themselves off from
the possibility of being granted God's gift of faith
when they read it: "By grace are ye saved through
faith; and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of
God" (Ephesians 2:8); "Faith cometh by hearing, and
hearing by the word of God" (Romans 10:17), "The holy
scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto
salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus"
(2 Timothy 3:15).
Second, if someone begins to read the Bible for
themselves having decided to hold onto the idea that
it teaches contradictions, then they will be reading
it with their wills closed against it as something
which is not to be believed, and so they will cut
themselves off from the possibility of being granted
God's gift of faith when they read it, for God never
takes away our free will. We can actually "resist the
Holy Ghost" (Acts 7:51), and so lose any blessing He
might have brought us.
Third, if someone decides to hold onto the idea that
the Bible teaches contradictions, then he will read
it having already decided that it's fallible, and so
he will have no idea which parts are true and which
are false; the Bible will become utterly useless to
him. And if he decides, like so many, that he's
unwilling to reject it altogether, because he wants
to be able to still consider himself a "Christian",
and because he wants to be able to treat the Bible
like a buffet, keeping the parts he personally likes
and rejecting any parts he personally doesn't like,
then he's in an even worse case than an atheist, for
he has invented his own personal "Christian"
religion, and will invest his will and identity into
it to where he will inoculate himself from ever
coming into the true Christian faith, which rejects
no parts of the Bible, for "All scripture is given
by inspiration of God, and is profitable for
doctrine" (2 Timothy 3:16); "If ye continue in my
word, then are ye my disciples indeed" (John 8:31).
If someone can be shown that all of the purported
contradictions in the Bible are not necessarily
contradictions, then he is much more likely to open
his will to the possibility that the entire Bible
could be infallible, and so he won't resist the Holy
Spirit if He comes to give him faith in the Bible and
understanding of it. It is only through the Holy
Spirit that someone can be brought to truly believe
and understand what the Bible teaches, for the Bible,
God's Word, teaches the things of God, and "the
things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.
Now we have received, not the spirit of the world,
but the spirit which is of God; that we might know
the things that are freely given to us of God. Which
things also we speak, not in the words which man's
wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth;
comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the
natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit
of God: for they are foolishness unto him; neither
can he know them, because they are spiritually
discerned" (1 Corinthians 2:11-14).
Someone who has set their will that they are going
to understand the Bible using only their own natural
human logic, the logic of this world, will reject
what the Bible teaches as foolishness: "For the
preaching of the cross is to them that perish
foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the
power of God. For it is written, I will destroy the
wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the
understanding of the prudent. Where is the wise?
where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this
world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this
world?" (1 Corinthians 1:18-20); "For the wisdom of
this world is foolishness with God. For it is
written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.
And again, The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise,
that they are vain" (1 Corinthians 3:19-20).
Provoker said:
It would appear that anyone who *reasons* together
with others in bible study, obviously believes in
the logical understanding of the bible, and the
doctrine that only those with the Holy Spirit can
understand it, only comes into play when an
apparent contradiction, or inconsistancy, must be
explained.
There are two ways of understanding the Bible. First,
one can understand it as one would naturally
understand any history: one can understand the basic
facts of who the people were, what they said and did,
where their actions took place, etc. Many unbelievers
have a good grasp of the Bible in this sense, but
they will still say things like, "I still don't
understand why God had to murder his son in order to
forgive our sins", or, "I still don't understand what
the purpose of everything is; I mean, what's the
point of all this madness?". It is this second level
of understanding which cannot be obtained through
natural human reasoning, logic, and explanations of
apparent contradictions, but must come through the
Holy Spirit, for it isn't natural understanding, but
"spiritual understanding" (Colossians 1:9).
But this doesn't mean that we are to abandon the
practice of explaining how apparent contradictions
are in fact not contradictions, for this can still
be beneficial to both unbelievers and believers. For
unbelievers, explanations which they are able to
understand at the first, natural level of
understanding, can help them decide to open their
will to the possibility that the Bible could be true,
and doesn't necessarily have to be contradictory. And
for believers who already believe that the Bible is
true and not contradictory, explanations can still be
helpful if those believers don't read the whole Bible
enough and so don't know or don't remember what every
verse of scripture says, and so find some of the
isolated parts they've read "too hard to understand"
at the second, spiritual level. Explanations can show
them how the Bible, when taken as a whole, explains
itself, as a verse from here is compared with a verse
from there: "Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom
shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are
weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts. For
precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept;
line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and
there a little" (Isaiah 28:9-10); "We speak, not in
the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the
Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with
spiritual" (1 Corinthians 2:13).
Provoker said:
When someone presumes to explain the apparent
inconsistancy, he presumes to be the only one with
the Holy Spirit, and that he presumes that the Holy
Spirit needs him explain it.
When someone is led by the Holy Spirit to explain an
apparent inconsistency, he in no way presumes to be
the only one with the Holy Spirit, for if that were
the case then his explanation would be for nought
insofar as it could never be understood by anyone
else at the second, spiritual level. And someone led
by the Holy Spirit to explain something in no way
presumes that the Holy Spirit needs him explain it,
for the Holy Spirit could, anytime He wanted to,
miraculously speak the explanation directly into
everyone's ears or minds. But the Holy Spirit can
lead someone to make an explanation so that he can be
involved in the process whereby the Holy Spirit in
some other believers will give them understanding of
the scriptures. And the Holy Spirit can lead a person
to make an explanation for the benefit of that person
as well, for the effort it takes to write clearly
about a matter will cause one to think clearly about
that matter.
Provoker said:
It is my opinion that the Holy Spirit is the spirit
of truth. When one has the desire for truth in his
heart and mind, he will naturally look for all the
available evidence to logicly understand the bible,
and he will ignore the one who offers an illogical
exlanation that the claims to have gotten from the
Holy Spirit.
Any explanation that one person claims to have gotten
from the Holy Spirit could very well appear illogical
to a second person without the Holy Spirit, if that
second person is unable to understand the explanation
by employing only his natural, human logic. But this
wouldn't be proof that the explanation was in fact
illogical at the higher, spiritual level
(1 Corinthians 2:14). All the available evidence to
logically understand the Bible at the spiritual level
is contained within the Bible itself (2 Timothy
3:16-17), if a Spirit-filled believer (Acts 19:2,6)
would only take the time to read the whole Bible
enough to know and to be able to remember every verse
in it, so that, when he is confronted with a
difficulty in one verse in one place, the Holy Spirit
might be able to bring to his remembrance another
verse in another place which explains it (Isaiah
28:9-10; 1 Corinthians 2:13). No explanation that a
person claims for one verse can ever contradict any
other verse in the Bible; if it does, then it's not
from the Holy Spirit, but from that person's own,
fallible mind.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Read The Bible" |
|
| Title: Re: CONTRADICTIONS AND IMPROBABILITIES OF THE GOSPELS? |
07 Aug 2007 07:41:14 AM |
|
|
arah said on August 6, 8:43 am:
...the entire Bible is corrupted and unreliable
There's no proof that the Bible is corrupted or
unreliable.
arah said: Jeremiah 8:8
Jeremiah 8:8 means that God made the law in vain and
the scribes' perfect copying of the law was in vain
because Israel wasn't obeying it: "How do ye say, We
are wise, and the law of the LORD is with us? Lo,
certainly in vain made he it; the pen of the scribes
is in vain" (Jeremiah 8:8).
arah said: Deuteronomy 31:25-29
Deuteronomy 31:29 means that after Moses' death
Israel would turn away from obeying God's law: "For I
know that after my death ye will utterly corrupt
yourselves, and turn aside from the way which I have
commanded you".
arah said: The bible is a book that contains
countless contradictions
The Bible teaches no contradictions (2 Timothy 3:16).
arah said: The most reliable early manuscript and
other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20
There's no proof that the original manuscript didn't
have Mark 16:9-20.
arah said: According to the early Christians'
manuscripts, Jesus never got crucified, and trinity
is a lie
There's no proof that any manuscript which denied the
Crucifixion or the Trinity was based on the teachings
of Jesus or His apostles.
arah said: The so-called "gospel of Mark", along
with all of the "gospels" of the NT, were written
by third-party narration
There's no proof that any book of the New Testament
wasn't based on the teachings of Jesus and His
apostles.
arah said: [Re: Mark 16:9-20] ...vocabulary, style
and theological content that are unlike the rest of
Mark
Nothing in the vocabulary, style, or theological
content of Mark 16:9-20 proves that it was't written
by Mark.
arah said: ...many Christian cults today use
poisonous snakes in their worship and end up dying
Paul's accidental taking up of a serpent (Acts
28:3-6) is an example of what was meant by Mark
16:18, not people intentionally tempting God (Luke
4:9-12).
arah said: ...forgeries have been proven to exist
in the Bible
No Biblical doctrine has ever been proven to be a
forgery.
arah said: Was Jesus crucified on a tree (according
to Peter), cross (according to others)
The upright portion of the cross could have been a
tree, onto which the horizontal beam was affixed.
arah said: None of Jesus' disciples witnessed the
crucifixion
Jesus' disciples did witness His crucifixion (John
19:35; 1 Peter 5:1).
arah said: They "all fled" and "deserted" Jesus
The disciples deserted Jesus at His arrest (Mark
14:50), not at His crucifixion.
arah said: Hebrews 5:7-8 confirm... claim about
Jesus never got crucified and contradicts the Bible
Hebrews 5:7-8 in no way confirms any claim that Jesus
never got crucified, nor does it in any way
contradict any other part of the Bible. Jesus knew
that the Father was able to save Him from death, but
Jesus chose to be obedient and suffer death (Matthew
26:53-54,28, Luke 22:42).
arah said: Jesus is a hypocrite for bowing down to
GOD only during his desperate times
There's no proof that Jesus bowed down to the Father
only during His desperate times.
arah said: Jesus can not be the Creator of the
Universe
There's no proof that Jesus cannot be the Creator of
the Universe (John 1:3).
arah said: There is a serious forgery about Jesus'
"resurrection on the third day" claiming that it
was foretold in the OT when it wasn't
There's no proof that Luke 24:46 or 1 Corinthians
15:4 are forgeries. They're referring to Hosea 6:2,
just as Jesus' death for our sins was foretold in
Isaiah 53.
arah said: Theophilus existed in either the 2nd or
the 4th centuries
There's no proof that Theophilus (Luke 1:3) existed
in either the 2nd or the 4th century.
arah said: [Re: Hebrews] ...consider his words as
the Words of GOD Almighty?
Hebrews was based on the teachings of the apostles of
Jesus Christ (Hebrews 2:3), just as Luke was (Luke
1:2).
arah said: [Re: John] ...take it as a 100% True
Error-free Word of GOD Almighty?
John was written by the apostle of Jesus Christ
(John 21:24).
arah said: ...it is quite obvious from the above
verses [John 1:19,26, 3:24] and many more
throughout the gospel that John wasn't the original
author
John 1:19,26, 3:24 refers to John the Baptist, not
John the apostle. No verse in John requires that John
the apostle wasn't its author.
arah said: ...early Christians rejecting the so-
called Gospel of John
There's no proof that any people who rejected the
Gospel of John were following the teachings of Jesus
or His apostles.
arah said: 1 John does not tell us who its author
is.
1 John tells us its author was an eyewitness of
Jesus (1 John 1:1-3); there's no proof that its
author wasn't the apostle John.
arah said: The lie of 1 John 5:7
The doctrine which 1 John 5:7 teaches isn't a lie,
for it's taught by the Bible (Matthew 28:19, John
10:30; Matthew 10:20 & Mark 13:11).
arah said: ...the style of writing in the book of
Revelation is different from the books that are
believed to be from John
Nothing in the style of Revelation proves that it
wasn't written by the apostle John.
arah said: ...the "Alpha and Omega"... In the
original Bibles, the quote doesn't even exist
There's no proof that Revelation 1:8,11, 21:6, 22:13
didn't exist in the original manuscript.
arah said: False and failed Prophecies
The Bible teaches no false or failed prophecies.
arah said: [Re: Revelation 22:7]
...how soon is 2000 years
2,000 years can be soon to God, for whom 1,000 years
are as one day (2 Peter 3:8).
arah said: [Re: Revelation 20:8]
The earth DOES NOT have four corners
Revelation 20:8 refers to four "quarters" of the
earth.
arah said: [Re: Revelation 20:8]
Gog and Magog existed before [Ezekiel 38-39]
Ezekiel 38-39 only prophesied about Gog and Magog
before Revelation 20:8. Gog and Magog won't exist
until the millennium after Jesus' second coming
(Revelation 19:11-20:8).
arah said: The Gog and Magog army had already been
defeated
There's no proof that the Gog and Magog army of
Ezekiel 38-39, Revelation 20:8 has yet existed.
arah said: The Bible says: The earth is flat
The Bible nowhere says that the earth is flat.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kaldrenon" |
|
| Title: Re: CONTRADICTIONS AND IMPROBABILITIES OF THE GOSPELS? |
06 Aug 2007 12:37:50 PM |
|
|
IMHO:
The Bible was written by men*. The Bible was compiled by men. The
Bible is a collection of records, rules, letters that read like
sermons, and from-memory accounts of events. It contains many parables
and stories for the sake of teaching. It does not HAVE to be 100%
true, 100% free of contradiction to have real, deep meaning in the
lives of those who read it.
I am a Christian. I believe that Christ rose from the dead and that I
have received the grace He offered me through that sacrifice. But I do
NOT believe that Bible has to be 100% factually true to be exactly
what God meant it to be. The Bible's purpose is to guide us in a
search, but it is NOT to take us by the hand and walk us there. Why do
you think most Christians no longer observe all the strict minutia
imposed in the earlier books of the Bible regarding dress, diet, and
other nit-picky things? Because we've realized that those things
AREN'T from God. God isn't a nit-picky jerk! The Pharisees were, but
God isn't.
I admit that I'm not exactly a biblical scholar, having never read it
in its entirety. But I think there's an important level of perspective
that it getting missed by the OP of this thread and by a large number
of people, Christian and otherwise.
I suspect a mass of folk will disagree with me, but I'm okay with
that.
-Kaldrenon
*Men as in homo sapiens, not men as in males.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Read The Bible" |
|
| Title: Re: CONTRADICTIONS AND IMPROBABILITIES OF THE GOSPELS? |
07 Aug 2007 07:57:31 AM |
|
|
Kaldrenon said on August 6, 10:37 am:
The Bible was written by men
The Bible is infallible because it was written by men
under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit of God
(2 Peter 1:21; 2 Timothy 3:16).
Kaldrenon said: It does not HAVE to be 100% true,
100% free of contradiction to have real, deep
meaning in the lives of those who read it
The Bible does have to be 100% true and 100% free of
contradiction if it is to be of any use at all, for
if it were fallible then there would be no way of
knowing which parts were true and which were false.
Kaldrenon said: Why do you think most Christians no
longer observe all the strict minutia imposed in
the earlier books of the Bible
The Bible says that Christians aren't under the
Mosaic law (Hebrews 7:18-19; Galatians 3:23-25).
Kaldrenon said: ...those things AREN'T from God
The Mosaic law is from God (Romans 7:12).
Kaldrenon said: I'm not exactly a biblical scholar,
having never read it in its entirety. But I think
there's an important level of perspective that it
getting missed...
Anyone who hasn't read the entire Bible is missing
the crucial level of perspective from which each
verse in the Bible must be understood.
*******
(A Subsequent Poster)
Provoker said on August 6, 5:23 pm:
There is just no reason for anyone to prove that
the Bible is infallible, because those who would
need to know that, will not understand the proof
anyway, because they do not have the Holy Spirit
There's no way to prove that the Bible is infallible
to someone who has set his will to reject it (Luke
16:31). The most one can do is show that there's no
proof that the Bible is fallible, and hope that this
will help to soften someone's will toward the Bible.
Someone can understand the fact that there's no proof
that the Bible is fallible even without the Holy
Spirit.
Provoker said:
...an unscrupulous priesthood which feigns "holier-
ness" in order to talk us into the wrong
conclusions
Wrong conclusions can be recognized as wrong by their
not being supported by any verses in the Bible, and
by their contradicting verses in the Bible.
Provoker said:
...if God wrote the bible in a known language, it
must be logicly understandable...
The fact that God wrote the Bible in a known language
in no way requires that its doctrines must be
understandable to the natural, human logic of this
world (1 Corinthians 1:18-20, 2:11-14).
Provoker said:
A passage which appears to contradict the whole
story of the bible, should be considered to have
been poorly paraphrased, and should not be used to
establish doctrine
No passage of the Bible contradicts the Bible taken
as a whole, nor is there any proof that any passage
of the Bible has been paraphrased or doesn't teach
true doctrine.
Provoker said:
...scripture says that king Saul was (1) killed by
the Philistines, that he (2) killed himself, that
he was (3) killed by his armour bearer, and that he
was (4) killed by a stranger passing through after
a battle
1 Samuel 31:3-5 says that Saul was mortally wounded
by the Philistines, and then hastened the onset of
his death by falling on his sword, after which his
armor bearer fell on his sword. 2 Samuel 1:6-10 shows
what the stranger passing by later claimed; he could
have been lying to David, hoping for a reward.
Provoker said:
...even those with the Holy Spirit cannot
understand the bible unless it is explained by
someone else with the Holy Spirit?
Even those with the Holy Spirit sometimes can't
understand a verse of the Bible because they haven't
yet read every verse in the Bible, and so the Holy
Spirit can't bring to their remembrance another verse
which explains the first verse (Isaiah 28:9-10); but
He can choose to bring people to them who can point
out the explaining verse (Ephesians 4:11).
Provoker said:
...Catch 22...one cannot receive the Holy Spirit
until he knows about it from the bible, but he
cannot understand the bible without it
The Holy Spirit can move upon someone who has not
set his will against the Bible, so that that person
will gain faith and understanding as he reads it
(Romans 10:17, Ephesians 2:8), without that person
even yet knowing about the Holy Spirit. But once that
person has become a believer, then he needs to
receive the Holy Spirit (Acts 19:2,6).
Provoker said:
If one remembered all the words of a book, he would
be so overloaded with impertinant details, that he
would not be able to see the story
In the Bible there are no impertinent details
(Matthew 4:4; 2 Timothy 3:16-17). Knowing all of
the verses in the Bible will keep us from being led
astray by false doctrines which contradict the Bible
(2 Timothy 4:2-4).
Provoker said:
Understanding something, and remembering
something, are two completely different principles
Understanding and remembering are connected when
remembering one thing is necessary in order to
understand something else.
Provoker said:
...quoting any single verse is quoting it outside
of it's context
The context by which any single verse must be
understood is the entire Bible. If one person
disagrees with a second person's interpretation of
what a single verse by itself says, then the first
person will have to prove that the second person's
interpretation is contradicted by another verse in
the Bible; and then the first person can proceed to
show how his own interpretation of the single verse
is supported by another verse in the Bible.
Provoker said:
***Understand the story***, and you will have a
much better chance of honestly understanding any
particular passage
If we define the story too narrowly, then there is
the danger that we will reject the true meaning of
many passages as we try to squeeze them all into a
mold of our own making. This is why it's much safer
to let all the passages themselves define the story
in all its fullness.
.
|
|
|
| User: "L.T. David" |
|
| Title: Re: CONTRADICTIONS AND IMPROBABILITIES OF THE GOSPELS? |
07 Aug 2007 10:10:25 AM |
|
|
"Read The Bible" <bibleverse2@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1186491451.105146.66120@z24g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
Kaldrenon said on August 6, 10:37 am:
The Bible was written by men
The Bible is infallible because it was written by men
under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit of God
(2 Peter 1:21; 2 Timothy 3:16).
Infallible; unable to err, Inerrant; without error.
Of course we all know that the Bible is infallible in matters of faith and
morals, in matters of faith and practice. (2 Peter 1:21; 2 Timothy 3:16).
We all know that the whole Bible is without error in historical details and
in matters of science and so on. (e.g. natural science). Evidence is there
for all to see. God created the universe in just six days. Eve popped up
from a rib. God sits above a rigid dome suspended by four columns. Samson's
strenght was in his hair and David carried Goliath's one ton sword in one
hand. What else is knew. 3000 Protestant denominations and counting.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Read The Bible" |
|
| Title: Re: CONTRADICTIONS AND IMPROBABILITIES OF THE GOSPELS? |
08 Aug 2007 02:14:33 AM |
|
|
L.T. David said on August 7, 8:10 am:
We all know that the whole Bible is without error
in historical details and in matters of science and
so on. (e.g. natural science)
There's no proof that any of the historical details
in the Bible are wrong. And science has no proof
against anything taught by the Bible.
L.T. David said:
God created the universe in just six days
The Bible doesn't say or require that God created the
universe in six days. What it says is: "In the
beginning God created the heaven and the earth"
(Genesis 1:1). "The beginning" could refer to only
the beginning of the planet earth (possibly some five
billion years ago), and not to the beginning of the
whole universe (possibly some fourteen billion years
ago). "God created the heaven and the earth" would
then refer to God's creation of the atmosphere, or
sky, and the earth, for "heaven" can refer to only
the first heaven, the place where the birds fly;
"Fowl that may fly above the earth in the open
firmament of heaven" (Genesis 1:20).
Where it says: "And the earth was without form, and
void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep"
(Genesis 1:2), this could refer to the earth billions
of years after it was created, after some sort of
cataclysm had occurred on the earth which had
rendered extinct all evolved life. It's at this point
that the six literal days of Genesis 1:3-31 begin,
and they could describe God's miraculous restoration
of a ruined earth, which He could certainly have done
in only six days, "For with God all things are
possible" (Mark 10:27). If Genesis 1:27 describes the
miraculous creation of homo sapiens, then the six
days could have occurred some 40,000 years ago.
L.T. David said:
Eve popped up from a rib.
The Bible doesn't say that Eve "popped up" from a
rib, but that God "made" Eve from one of Adam's
ribs (Genesis 2:22).
L.T. David said:
God sits above a rigid dome suspended by four
columns.
What scriptures are you thinking of here, so we can
see what they themselves say?
L.T. David said:
Samson's strenght was in his hair
The Bible doesn't say that Samson's strength was in
his hair, but that Samson performed great feats of
strength when "The Spirit of the LORD came mightily
upon him" (Judges 14:6). When Samson became weak it
wasn't because his hair was gone but because "The
LORD was departed from him" (Judges 16:20). The LORD
departed from him because the holiness imparted to
him by his lifelong Nazarite vow was broken by the
removal of his hair (Numbers 6:5, Judges 16:17).
L.T. David said:
David carried Goliath's one ton sword in one hand
The Bible doesn't say that Goliath's sword weighed
one ton.
L.T. David said:
3000 Protestant denominations and counting
The number of Protestant denominations is totally
irrelevant to whether or not the Bible itself is
infallible. The only denomination in the Bible is
"Christian"; "The disciples were called Christians"
(Acts 11:26). The Bible says that Christians should
not divide themselves into different groups with
different names: "That there be no divisions among
you; but that ye be perfectly joined together...
every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of
Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ. Is Christ
divided?" (1 Corinthians 1:10,12-13). Christians are
to be "Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit
in the bond of peace. There is one body, and one
Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your
calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God
and Father of all, who is above all, and through all,
and in you all" (Ephesians 4:3-6).
*******
(A Subsequent Poster)
Mark Fox said on August 7, 11:56 am:
[Re: 3000 Protestant denominations and counting]
Just another example of how the behavior of
Christians is the best proof Atheists have that
there is no God
The number of Protestant denominations is totally
irrelevant to whether or not God exists, just as
any disobedience to the Bible by anyone calling
himself a Christian is totally irrelevant to whether
or not God exists. Atheists have no excuse for their
denial of God's existence: "Because that which may be
known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed
it unto them. For the invisible things of him from
the creation of the world are clearly seen, being
understood by the things that are made, even his
eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without
excuse: because that, when they knew God, they
glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but
became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish
heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise,
they became fools" (Romans 1:19-22); "The fool hath
said in his heart, There is no God" (Psalms 14:1).
"The heavens declare the glory of God; and the
firmament sheweth his handywork. Day unto day
uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth
knowledge. There is no speech nor language, where
their voice is not heard. Their line is gone out
through all the earth, and their words to the end of
the world" (Psalms 19:1-4).
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jude Alexander" |
|
| Title: Re: CONTRADICTIONS AND IMPROBABILITIES OF THE GOSPELS? |
08 Aug 2007 10:38:28 AM |
|
|
"Read The Bible" <bibleverse2@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1186557273.625045.101590@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
L.T. David said on August 7, 8:10 am:
We all know that the whole Bible is without error
in historical details and in matters of science and
so on. (e.g. natural science)
There's no proof that any of the historical details
in the Bible are wrong. And science has no proof
against anything taught by the Bible.
Wrong. The earth is NOT flat, God doesn't abide just above the DOME sky
that God supposedly wrapped like a tent over the earth. The earth is not
God's footstool. "Heaven" as God's abode was not in the least bit in danger
of being encroached by Nimrod, et al., stars are NOT tiny lights that God
hung up for signs and seasons, the earth was NOT created in 6 solar days,
there were NEVER just two people who started the planet's population (as
supported by genetic findings) and which is supported also by the fact that
the son of "Adam & Eve" went out and got himself a woman AND BUILT a
city!~(you don't built cities for just yourself and your children), there is
NO hell BELOW us, there is NO heaven ABOVE us, there are NO edges to the
earth that God shakes for earthquakes, rain is NOT stored in sisterns in
heaven and loosed at God | | | | | | | | |
