contradictions in the bible???

[Autodidact]

well autodidact it is possible that neither one is correct...there are about a billion christians in the world and most if not all of them contradict each other. This means that there must be about a billion different jesus all informed by about a billion different spirits. The entire world must see something wrong with christians by now. The old church under the original apostles didn't have all of this dissension and if they did disagree they discussed it and came to one understanding. Oh but now you have christians spread out amongst 100 religions. Why don't people just stop trying to be christians and follow the jewish jesus

Oh certainly. They can both be wrong. They just can't both be right.

 

[crystalonyx]

My question is not complicated, and has not yet been answered, or rather has been answered in two contradictory ways. It is this: If two Christians, both informed by the Spirit, come to two opposite contradictory conclusions about what part of the Bible to believe, are they both right?

.

This is an extremely common situation in Christianity, which is why so many denominations and church splits have happened.

Of course, from my viewpoint, they are all wrong.

 

[sojourner]

The old church under the original apostles didn't have all of this dissension and if they did disagree they discussed it and came to one understanding. Oh but now you have christians spread out amongst 100 religions. Why don't people just stop trying to be christians and follow the jewish jesus

Yes, there was lots of dissention. Read the NT sometime and see. If they all "came to one understanding," then why do we have the Ethiopian Church with a huge canon of scripture, the Orthodox with another, the Roman Catholics with another, the Anglicans with another? If they all "came to one understanding," why do we have four different gospels? (And several that are not canonical, that are different from the canonicals? You're dreaming if you think that the Church has ever "agreed" on much of anything. The best examples of agreement are the Orthodox and Roman branches, and I'd be willing to bet you don't think they're right.

 

[2 Timothy 2:15]

Yes, there was lots of dissention. Read the NT sometime and see. If they all "came to one understanding," then why do we have the Ethiopian Church with a huge canon of scripture, the Orthodox with another, the Roman Catholics with another, the Anglicans with another? If they all "came to one understanding," why do we have four different gospels? (And several that are not canonical, that are different from the canonicals? You're dreaming if you think that the Church has ever "agreed" on much of anything. The best examples of agreement are the Orthodox and Roman branches, and I'd be willing to bet you don't think they're right.

I know there was dissension, but I bet there's more now than there was under the original 12 apostles. The arguing and disagreements among different religions don't get resolved and why do you think that is? It is because those who came after the apostles didn't stick to the apostle's doctrine. Everybody today gets these divine revelations from God himself which are never in accordance with the apostle's doctrine. Every disagreement I recall reading about in the NT was resolved ( Acts 11 , Acts 15) just to name a couple. But keep in mind I said the original apostles not the apostolic fathers or anybody after them even though under the apostolic fathers the church was pretty much kept in tact. Paul did say in Acts 20:29 For I know this that "after" my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you not sparing the flock.

 

[Autodidact]

I know there was dissension, but I bet there's more now than there was under the original 12 apostles. The arguing and disagreements among different religions don't get resolved and why do you think that is? It is because those who came after the apostles didn't stick to the apostle's doctrine. Everybody today gets these divine revelations from God himself which are never in accordance with the apostle's doctrine. Every disagreement I recall reading about in the NT was resolved ( Acts 11 , Acts 15) just to name a couple. But keep in mind I said the original apostles not the apostolic fathers or anybody after them even though under the apostolic fathers the church was pretty much kept in tact. Paul did say in Acts 20:29 For I know this that "after" my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you not sparing the flock.

Have you read much about the early history of the Christian Church, say from 100 C.E. to 600 C.E. or so?

 

[2 Timothy 2:15]

Have you read much about the early history of the Christian Church, say from 100 C.E. to 600 C.E. or so?

YES SIR/MA'AM I HAVE READ A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE CHURCHES HISTORY . I'M NOT A SCHOLAR ON THE MATTER, BUT I AM FAMILIAR WITH SOME OF IT.

I'VE ALREADY MENTIONED THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS WHICH WERE IN EXISTENCE FROM ABOUT 100 TO 200 IN WHICH TIME AROSE GNOSTICISM AND MONTANISM'S (DOCTRINAL DISPUTE). OUT OF THIS DISPUTE CAME THE APOSTLE'S CREED AND THE CANON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT ALSO RECOGNIZED AS THE GLUE WHICH HELD THE CHURCHES TOGETHER. ANNNND AROUND 300 CAME GOOD OLE MITHRA WORSHIPING CONSTANTINE WHO DEFEATED MAXENTIUS BY WHAT HE BELIEVED WAS SIGN FROM God. THEN HIS GREAT CONVERSION TO CHRISTIANITY AND THE ISSUING OF THE "EDICT OF MILAN" WHICH PRETTY MUCH OPENED THE DOOR FOR ANYBODY TO BE A CHRISTIAN WITHOUT REALLY UNDERSTANDING DOCTRINE (AS IS TODAY WHICH IS WHY I'M NOT A CHRISTIAN) JUST TO BUMP THEIR STATUS UP IN SOCIETY. THEN A WHILE LATER THERE AROSE A FEW COUNCILS (TO TRY AND UNDERSTAND THE PERSON OF CHRIST) AND A FEW CREEDS (DECIDING THE PERSON OF CHRIST) A FEW REVELATIONS AND SO ON.

SO YES I KNOW A LITTLE NOT MUCH BUT I'M STILL STUDYING HENCE THE NAME I CHOSE (2 TIMOTHY 2:15) BUT WHAT IS YOUR POINT? DID I SAY SOMETHING THAT DIDN'T HAPPEN IN THE PREVIOUS POST?

 

[Autodidact]

YES SIR/MA'AM I HAVE READ A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE CHURCHES HISTORY . I'M NOT A SCHOLAR ON THE MATTER, BUT I AM FAMILIAR WITH SOME OF IT.

I'VE ALREADY MENTIONED THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS WHICH WERE IN EXISTENCE FROM ABOUT 100 TO 200 IN WHICH TIME AROSE GNOSTICISM AND MONTANISM'S (DOCTRINAL DISPUTE). OUT OF THIS DISPUTE CAME THE APOSTLE'S CREED AND THE CANON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT ALSO RECOGNIZED AS THE GLUE WHICH HELD THE CHURCHES TOGETHER. ANNNND AROUND 300 CAME GOOD OLE MITHRA WORSHIPING CONSTANTINE WHO DEFEATED MAXENTIUS BY WHAT HE BELIEVED WAS SIGN FROM God. THEN HIS GREAT CONVERSION TO CHRISTIANITY AND THE ISSUING OF THE "EDICT OF MILAN" WHICH PRETTY MUCH OPENED THE DOOR FOR ANYBODY TO BE A CHRISTIAN WITHOUT REALLY UNDERSTANDING DOCTRINE (AS IS TODAY WHICH IS WHY I'M NOT A CHRISTIAN) JUST TO BUMP THEIR STATUS UP IN SOCIETY. THEN A WHILE LATER THERE AROSE A FEW COUNCILS (TO TRY AND UNDERSTAND THE PERSON OF CHRIST) AND A FEW CREEDS (DECIDING THE PERSON OF CHRIST) A FEW REVELATIONS AND SO ON.

SO YES I KNOW A LITTLE NOT MUCH BUT I'M STILL STUDYING HENCE THE NAME I CHOSE (2 TIMOTHY 2:15) BUT WHAT IS YOUR POINT? DID I SAY SOMETHING THAT DIDN'T HAPPEN IN THE PREVIOUS POST?

My understanding is that the early years of the Christian Church were marked by division and strife, particularly between the doctrine that eventually prevailed and became orthodoxy, and those doctrines we now regard as heresy, especially Arianism, Ebionites, Gnosticism, Montanism and Marcionism. Leaders were expelled, banished, persecuted and sometimes killed. Evantually Paulist Christianity prevailed, and the religion practiced by most Christians today is Paulist Christianity.

 

[2 Timothy 2:15]

My understanding is that the early years of the Christian Church were marked by division and strife, particularly between the doctrine that eventually prevailed and became orthodoxy, and those doctrines we now regard as heresy, especially Arianism, Ebionites, Gnosticism, Montanism and Marcionism. Leaders were expelled, banished, persecuted and sometimes killed. Evantually Paulist Christianity prevailed, and the religion practiced by most Christians today is Paulist Christianity.

You got me on that one i've never heard of Paulist Christianity but still what is your point in all this ... I was simply saying that when the church was under the original 12 apostles (while they were alive) the dissension was resolved unlike today. You take any 2 of those Paulist Christians that attend different church buildings and ask a question about doctrine... I bet they won't come to an agreement based on scripture because they all divide the scripture differently yet they serve the same Jesus

 

[gnostic]

You got me on that one i've never heard of Paulist Christianity but still what is your point in all this ... I was simply saying that when the church was under the original 12 apostles (while they were alive) the dissension was resolved unlike today. You take any 2 of those Paulist Christians that attend different church buildings and ask a question about doctrine... I bet they won't come to an agreement based on scripture because they all divide the scripture differently yet they serve the same Jesus

The "Apostolic Fathers" that you have mentioned, are the leaders of the Pauline Christians. The Pauline Christians are the "mainstream" orthodox Christians that which Constantine had converted, and which later divided into East and West.

 

[Scott1]

The "Apostolic Fathers" that you have mentioned, are the leaders of the Pauline Christians. The Pauline Christians are the "mainstream" orthodox Christians that which Constantine had converted, and which later divided into East and West.

Just FYI: the Apostolic Fathers (for example St. Clement of Rome, St. Ignatius of Antioch, St. Polycarp of Smyrna) lived more than a HUNDRED years before Constantine was even born.

 

[gnostic]

Sorry, I didn't make myself clear, Scott.

I wasn't referring to the Apostolic Fathers, in regarding to Constantine. I know that the Apostolic Fathers lived before Constantine's time. I was referring to Constantine joining and accepting the Pauline sects as opposed to all other sects.

If you read what I have written, I didn't write Constantine joining the "Apostolic Fathers", but to the Pauline Christianity. And the Apostolic Fathers also belonged to the Pauline group.

 

[sojourner]

those who came after the apostles didn't stick to the apostle's doctrine.

Just what is "the apostles' doctrine?"

I was simply saying that when the church was under the original 12 apostles (while they were alive) the dissension was resolved unlike today.

that's because they simply kicked them out and turned their backs on them...unlike today(?).

 

[logician]

YES SIR/MA'AM I HAVE READ A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE CHURCHES HISTORY . I'M NOT A SCHOLAR ON THE MATTER, BUT I AM FAMILIAR WITH SOME OF IT.

I'VE ALREADY MENTIONED THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS WHICH WERE IN EXISTENCE FROM ABOUT 100 TO 200 IN WHICH TIME AROSE GNOSTICISM AND MONTANISM'S (DOCTRINAL DISPUTE). OUT OF THIS DISPUTE CAME THE APOSTLE'S CREED AND THE CANON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT ALSO RECOGNIZED AS THE GLUE WHICH HELD THE CHURCHES TOGETHER. ANNNND AROUND 300 CAME GOOD OLE MITHRA WORSHIPING CONSTANTINE WHO DEFEATED MAXENTIUS BY WHAT HE BELIEVED WAS SIGN FROM God. THEN HIS GREAT CONVERSION TO CHRISTIANITY AND THE ISSUING OF THE "EDICT OF MILAN" WHICH PRETTY MUCH OPENED THE DOOR FOR ANYBODY TO BE A CHRISTIAN WITHOUT REALLY UNDERSTANDING DOCTRINE (AS IS TODAY WHICH IS WHY I'M NOT A CHRISTIAN) JUST TO BUMP THEIR STATUS UP IN SOCIETY. THEN A WHILE LATER THERE AROSE A FEW COUNCILS (TO TRY AND UNDERSTAND THE PERSON OF CHRIST) AND A FEW CREEDS (DECIDING THE PERSON OF CHRIST) A FEW REVELATIONS AND SO ON.

SO YES I KNOW A LITTLE NOT MUCH BUT I'M STILL STUDYING HENCE THE NAME I CHOSE (2 TIMOTHY 2:15) BUT WHAT IS YOUR POINT? DID I SAY SOMETHING THAT DIDN'T HAPPEN IN THE PREVIOUS POST?

Actually, "The First Council of Nicaea, the first ecumenical council held by the church, is best known for its formulation of the Nicene Creed, the earliest dogmatic statement of Christian orthodoxy. The council was convened in 325 by the Roman emperor Constantine I in an attempt to settle the controversy raised by Arianism over the nature of the Trinity. Nearly all those who attended came from the eastern Mediterranean region."

Council of Nicaea, Nicea

Thus the literalists won the day, and only included books in the bible to support their newly stated religion.

History is written by the winners.

 

[Autodidact]

You got me on that one i've never heard of Paulist Christianity

If you are a Christian, you are probably a Paulist Christian.

but still what is your point in all this ... I was simply saying that when the church was under the original 12 apostles (while they were alive) the dissension was resolved unlike today.

How would you know> We have no writings from that period.

You take any 2 of those Paulist Christians that attend different church buildings and ask a question about doctrine... I bet they won't come to an agreement based on scripture because they all divide the scripture differently yet they serve the same Jesus

That is and has been the case at every period of Christian history.

 

[uss_bigd]

after refering to original greek translations, I found out that Judas hanged himself upside down, that is why he fell headlong ....

no contradiction...

 

[crystalonyx]

after refering to original greek translations, I found out that Judas hanged himself upside down, that is why he fell headlong ....

no contradiction...

So he strangled his ankles?

 

[McBell]

So he strangled his ankles?

Bet that took a while to die.....

 

[Dirty Penguin]

So he strangled his ankles?

:biglaugh:.........

 

[Autodidact]

How did Judas die?

 

[crystalonyx]

How did Judas die?

He didn't, except in mythology. I think there is a book supposedly written by Judas.