Are there any contradictions in the Bible?

[JoStories]

You follow for the most part a literal translation on the NT blindly accepting traditions without any credible historical study on each book.

You do understand your following more of Johns teachings then that of Jesus?

That is the part that never fails to fascinate me. Most people don't even follow the teachings of Christ, never mind know what they are. And in particular, when one reads the extraneous gospels, such as Mary magdalene, Thomas, Simon, and Christ himself, there is much more of a true understanding of what Christ was trying to impart. Instead, they stick to ones that proporgate the development of the Church and the various rules that the Church wanted it's followers to adhere to. Most of which Christ did not teach at all. It's mind boggling to me that they actually think that this is what Christ taught.

 

[JoStories]

You believe whatever you want. What you've stated here isn't factual. I prefer the truth myself. I've done my research. Decades of it. And you?

What have you stated that is factual? Instead, you, just like your compatriot here, throw up your hands, or rather blinders should I say, and act as a petulant teen, insulting people who are trying to have a rationale and civil debate.

 

[outhouse]

That is the part that never fails to fascinate me. Most people don't evne follow the teachings of Christ, never mind know wha they are. And in particular, when one reads the extraneous gospels, such as Mary magdalene, Thomas, Simon, and Christ himself, the is much more of a true understanding of what Christ was trying to impart. Instead, they stick to one's that proporgate the development of the Church and the various rules that the Church wanted it's followers to adhere to. Most of which Christ did not teach at all. It's mind boggling to me that they actually think that this is what Christ taught.

YES!

To study the people of the time, not just the narrow biblical view, but the cultural anthropology of all the people in a specific geographic location, for a hew hundred years before and after.


Only gives the text more beauty.

To claim man could not do this on their own ruins the beauty, and its obvious it was only mans creations.

 

[JoStories]

YES!

To study the people of the time, not just the narrow biblical view, but the cultural anthropology of all the people in a specific geographic location, for a hew hundred years before and after.


Only gives the text more beauty.

To claim man could not do this on their own ruins the beauty, and its obvious it was only mans creations.

Agree and disagree outhouse, I believe and this is just my belief, that God or some thing like this concept, had a hand in inspiring the men and/ or women. But I obviously agree men put their own spin on the subject. But you are so correct. One has to study all the details of the time to even begin to get a handle on what was written. In no way am I trying to say your view is wrong, just that we see it from different POV.

 

[truthofscripture]

No but it is followed by most credible historians, and taught in the best universities.

Why did the text attributed to Matthew and Luke have to copy the text attributed to Mark????



No you don't.

You refuse credible education due to your theistic blinders limiting what you will accept.

Gospel of Luke - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The author is not named in either volume


"a critical consensus emphasizes the countless contradictions between the account in Acts and the authentic Pauline letters."


Gospel of Matthew - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Gospel of Matthew is anonymous


The consensus is that Papias does not describe the Gospel of Matthew as we know it, and it is generally accepted that Matthew was written in Greek, not Aramaic or Hebrew

Those "scholars" have a filter of their particular religion, and that of modern society to taint their teachings. They aren't guided by holy spirit either, therefore their teachings aren't to be trusted, if one is interested in truth. Wikipedia is also not a trusted source as regards God's word. A concensus of non holy spirit inspired people isn't trustworthy as regards the scriptures either. Matthew is not anonymous. Many things point to Matthew as being the author. Not studying carefully the scriptures is how one comes to such a false belief. It is your privilege to believe as you wish though. For myself though, contrary to your claim, I prefer the truth that is found in God's word. It's not possible for you to change what I know to be truth. It's possible for others to be swayed, but not me. I haven't any faith in anything Papias said either. He was thoroughly influenced by the pagan society in which he was a part, and his dictionary reflected the same. He's not a credible source either. One should go to the scriptures, study them, compare them to all other scriptures, and do God's will. In doing God's will, He uses holy spirit to make the meaning of the scriptures available. Without it, no one can understand them. They may claim they do, but they do so falsely.

 

[sojourner]

Those "scholars" have a filter of their particular religion, and that of modern society to taint their teachings.

As do you. The difference between you and a scholar is that the scholars have been educated to recognize, minimize and move beyond their biases. It's obvious that you haven't been.

They aren't guided by holy spirit either, therefore their teachings aren't to be trusted, if one is interested in truth.

One doesn't need "spirit guidance" in order to exegete the texts. Apologetics is another issue completely.

Wikipedia is also not a trusted source as regards God's word. A concensus of non holy spirit inspired people isn't trustworthy as regards the scriptures either.

It's fairly reliable, but not heavily scholastic.

Matthew is not anonymous. Many things point to Matthew as being the author.

The name "Matthew" does not appear on the earliest manuscripts. In order to get to "Matthew," one has to rely on non-eyewitness account from people who are biased by their culture and time.

 

[outhouse]

, that God or some thing like this concept, had a hand in inspiring the men and/ or women

Im not discounting that. Just defining it differently, but the end results are identical.



I see positive thinking and holy thoughts as the divine inspiration. These people had no concept of what the conscious mind even was.

In social anthropology we find they literally thought every single thought they had was spiritually influenced by positive and negative forces.

 

[outhouse]

Those "scholars" have a filter of their particular religion

Unsubstantiated rhetoric.

and that of modern society to taint their teachings

I would say this is nothing but a lack of education on the topic speaking. Had you had a credible education, you then would see your errors

They aren't guided by holy spirit either

How do you know? many of these scholars are religious. So what your really saying is the holy spirit only works for you and no one else

therefore their teachings aren't to be trusted, if one is interested in truth

People who hate modern education and knowledge like this, is known as severe fanaticism and fundamentalism.

You are literally against education because it goes against faith.

I prefer the truth that is found in God's word.

God has written nothing down. So you don't know what gods words are. You just interpret them how ever you please regardless of right or wrong.

The text themselves did not indicate an author. Only later people named these gospel far removed from their composition.

SO ITS NOT GODS WORDS that named them.

Im sorry you hate most universities and learning institutions.

 

[outhouse]

He uses holy spirit to make the meaning of the scriptures available. Without it, no one can understand them

This is a factual error on your part.

We understand these text fine. We will never know everything because some context is lost in time, and no spirit will ever give you the credible information needed.


Parable of the mustard seed.

Does your spirit guide tell you what the context is behind this parable? You better phone a friend in on this one.

What does it really mean?

 

[truthofscripture]

Unsubstantiated rhetoric.



I would say this is nothing but a lack of education on the topic speaking. Had you had a credible education, you then would see your errors



How do you know? many of these scholars are religious. So what your really saying is the holy spirit only works for you and no one else



People who hate modern education and knowledge like this, is known as severe fanaticism and fundamentalism.

You are literally against education because it goes against faith.




God has written nothing down. So you don't know what gods words are. You just interpret them how ever you please regardless of right or wrong.

The text themselves did not indicate an author. Only later people named these gospel far removed from their composition.

SO ITS NOT GODS WORDS that named them.

Im sorry you hate most universities and learning institutions.

Unsubstantiated rhetoric.. I would say that anyone part of a religion is the wrong source for information regarding the scriptures, as the scriptures say those religions are false, and Revelation says they will be destroyed. Your claim about the names given to books of scripture is not correct. Even Jesus referred to the scrolls of Isaiah. Are you saying he just randomly came up with that name for the scrolls he was teaching and reading in the temple? I think that's impossible.

 

[outhouse]

Your claim about the names given to books of scripture is not correct.

I am very accurate in claiming the authors of the NT are unknown. I did not state all the bible.

But you did bring up Isaiah. Lets look at authorship. Each book is different.

Book of Isaiah - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

it is also widely accepted that this prophet did not write the entire book of Isaiah


can you comprehend what widely accepted is?


These observations led scholars to the conclusion that the book can be conveniently divided into three sections, labelled Proto-Isaiah, Deutero-Isaiah, and Trito-Isaiah.[20] Early modern-period scholars treated Isaiah as independent collections of sayings by three individual prophets, brought together at a much later period, about 70 BCE, to form the present book.[21] The second half of the 20th century saw a marked change in approach, and scholars have begun to detect a deliberate arrangement of materials to give the book an overarching theological message.[22]

The composition history of Isaiah reflects a major difference in the way authorship was regarded in ancient Israel and in modern societies: the ancients did not regard it as inappropriate to supplement an existing work while remaining anonymous.[23] While the authors are anonymous, it is plausible that all of them were priests, and the book may thus reflect Priestly concerns, in opposition to the increasingly successful reform movement of the Deuteronomists.[24]


Without education your blind and unarmed in a debate.

 

[outhouse]

Parable of the mustard seed.

Does your spirit guide tell you what the context is behind this parable? You better phone a friend in on this one.

What does it really mean?

Take a bite out of this!


Here is your chance to prove spirit over education!

 

[truthofscripture]

I am very accurate in claiming the authors of the NT are unknown. I did not state all the bible.

But you did bring up Isaiah. Lets look at authorship. Each book is different.

Book of Isaiah - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

it is also widely accepted that this prophet did not write the entire book of Isaiah


can you comprehend what widely accepted is?


These observations led scholars to the conclusion that the book can be conveniently divided into three sections, labelled Proto-Isaiah, Deutero-Isaiah, and Trito-Isaiah.[20] Early modern-period scholars treated Isaiah as independent collections of sayings by three individual prophets, brought together at a much later period, about 70 BCE, to form the present book.[21] The second half of the 20th century saw a marked change in approach, and scholars have begun to detect a deliberate arrangement of materials to give the book an overarching theological message.[22]

The composition history of Isaiah reflects a major difference in the way authorship was regarded in ancient Israel and in modern societies: the ancients did not regard it as inappropriate to supplement an existing work while remaining anonymous.[23] While the authors are anonymous, it is plausible that all of them were priests, and the book may thus reflect Priestly concerns, in opposition to the increasingly successful reform movement of the Deuteronomists.[24]


Without education your blind and unarmed in a debate.

Sorry, but Wikipedia isn't a trustworthy source for anything. Nor are your so called scholars. War is widely accepted, does that make it right? Greed and hatred are widely accepted, does that make them right? Muslims widely kill those of Christendom, does that make it right? The use of the term "good luck" is widely accepted. Does that make it not pagan? No. Widely accepted, the term, is meaningless.

 

[sojourner]

Sorry, but Wikipedia isn't a trustworthy source for anything.

Actually, it's fairly trustworthy. But Wikipedia's not the only source that has this information.

Nor are your so called scholars.

These "untrustworthy scholars" are the same people who've translated the texts into English for you. Therefore, you cannot trust what the English versions say. I guess "the spirit" will just have to guide you in magically reading the Hebrew and Greek texts...

Widely accepted, the term, is meaningless.

The bible is widely accepted as God's word, too. But since the term is meaningless, then I suppose it could just as easily be said that the bible isn't God's word.

 

[outhouse]

Sorry, but Wikipedia isn't a trustworthy source for anything.

The people listed below are a thousand times more trustworthy then you, and the quotes I posted came from them.

1. ^ Lemche & 2008 p-18.
2. Jump up ^Sweeney 1998, p. 76-77.
3. Jump up ^Sweeney 1998, p. 77.
4. Jump up ^Stromberg 2011, p. 4.
5. Jump up ^Barker 2003, p. 494.

Who are you to denounce the brightest minds in the world on these topics??????????????

These are professors, what education do you possess????????????

 

[truthofscripture]

The people listed below are a thousand times more trustworthy then you, and the quotes I posted came from them.

1. ^ Lemche & 2008 p-18.
2. Jump up ^Sweeney 1998, p. 76-77.
3. Jump up ^Sweeney 1998, p. 77.
4. Jump up ^Stromberg 2011, p. 4.
5. Jump up ^Barker 2003, p. 494.

Who are you to denounce the brightest minds in the world on these topics??????????????

These are professors, what education do you possess????????????

Actually, none of those assertions are correct. And it's not "then you", it's "than you". Showing your level of education?

 

[outhouse]

Showing your level of education?

My level of education overall is much less then my biblical education. Grammar is my weak link thank you I know and accept my errors.

Actually, none of those assertions are correct

False. It is what is known and accepted

can you comprehend what widely accepted is?

 

[truthofscripture]

My level of education overall is much less then my biblical education. Grammar is my weak link thank you I know and accept my errors.




False. It is what is known and accepted

can you comprehend what widely accepted is?

It is what is widely accepted, but it is not what is true. Since I am not seeing any intelligent conversation, and not seeing any competent references, I see no value in continuing this. It's off to the ignore list for you.

 

[outhouse]

It is what is widely accepted, but it is not what is true

YOU MEAN

It is widely accepted by those with education.

But since I don't have any on this topic, it is not the truth to me?

 

[outhouse]

Parable of the mustard seed.

Does your spirit guide tell you what the context is behind this parable? You better phone a friend in on this one.

What does it really mean?


Lucky you didn't try this. You might have embarrassed that spirit.