Is it possible that Christianity is true, yet the Bible contains errors?

[Subduction Zone]

No, the Bible clearly says what it says, if you know how to read it (with God's help). Christians are taught by the Holy Spirit, others are not.

Why do you think that Jesus spoke in parables, and said "This is why I speak to them in parables: “Though seeing, they do not see; though hearing, they do not hear or understand. In them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah: “‘You will be ever hearing but never understanding; you will be ever seeing but never perceiving. For this people’s heart has become calloused; they hardly hear with their ears, and they have closed their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts and turn, and I would heal them.’" Matthew 13:13-16

The message is not clear to everyone.

And that is just nonsense that contradicts key parts of the Bible. What we actually see is that Christians often have the worst understanding of their own holy book due to the demands that they place upon it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Read the previous post.

You mean this one? It is the previous post to hers:

"I get so tired of this dog and pony show. I'm so sick of people saying "You don't understand the Bible" when what they really mean is "You don't accept my interpretation.""

Wow! It is a breakthrough! For once we agree.

 

[jimb]

The largest Christian denomination in the world is the Catholic Church, which has no problem with"contradictions". I believe this is only of interest to Protestants, who having ditched the main plank of Christianity, true tradition, has to try to explain 'contradictions"

Are you serious? Unfortunately, the Catholic denomination is loaded with all kinds extra-Biblical doctrine and rituals, but they see no "contradictions".

 

[shunyadragon]

No, the Bible clearly says what it says, if you know how to read it (with God's help). Christians are taught by the Holy Spirit, others are not.

Why do you think that Jesus spoke in parables, and said "This is why I speak to them in parables: “Though seeing, they do not see; though hearing, they do not hear or understand. In them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah: “‘You will be ever hearing but never understanding; you will be ever seeing but never perceiving. For this people’s heart has become calloused; they hardly hear with their ears, and they have closed their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts and turn, and I would heal them.’" Matthew 13:13-16

The message is not clear to everyone. And before you say that this is about "hearing", don't forget that Jesus was communicating truths to a basically illiterate society.

There remains the problem of many conflicting interpretations of the Bible that all claim being taught the "truth" by the Holy Spirit and accuse others of being wrong and not understanding the Bible. The result, of course, is many different churches and divisions in Christianity each saying they are the only right interpretation.

Yes, "Suffice to say" your view is one of many "dog and pony shows," each considering the others do not understand.

 

[jimb]

This is not to diminish your very well written post, but simply to add to it.

While Jewish identity is matrilineal, tribal affiliation and things like the line of David are patrilineal, and go only through the biological father. As long as Christians continue to insist that Jesus was born of a virgin (meaning he has no biological father) then he has NO tribal affiliation (Judah or otherwise), and NO claim to be the line of David.

Wrong. Jesus is of the tribe of Judah and of the line of David.

Matthew 2:6, “‘But you, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, are by no means least among the rulers of Judah; for out of you will come a ruler who will shepherd my people Israel.’”

Matthew 1:1, "This is the genealogy of Jesus the Messiah the son of David, the son of Abraham".
Matthew 1:17, "Thus there were fourteen generations in all from Abraham to David, fourteen from David to the exile to Babylon, and fourteen from the exile to the Messiah."

Even the Pharisees, Jesus' severe critics, knew the truth. "While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, “What do you think about the Messiah? Whose son is he?” “The son of David,” they replied." Matthew 22:41-42

Why don't you consult the Bible before posting???

 

[jimb]

Sorry, I think that is not necessary a contradiction, because Matthew is speaking of book of generation, which is not necessary the same as direct genealogy of Jesus.

I think the main reason is that Matthew is not speaking of direct family tree, but about the book of the generation of Jesus. However, it is also possible that people had more than one name. This means that for example there could have been Heli Jacob. In Biblical times it was common to give same name that was already used in the family. To somehow distinguish what Jacob or Joseph, they could have had other names in addition.

It is also possible that due to original texts being fragmented, not all lists are necessary complete. That is why there is not necessary error, only missing parts that are because of the old age and conditions.

By what I know, this seems to be a copy error, which is why it is missing from some translations.

It was about being born to the house of David, not about being direct descendant.

The problem is, the contradictions depend on your interpretation.

Read the previous post.

 

[jimb]

There is absolutely no evidence of this. You may hold it as a religious belief, an item of blind faith if you like. But don't expect others to take you seriously.

John 16:13, "But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come."

Should I believe the clear Biblical evidence or your misinformation?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Wrong. Jesus is of the tribe of Judah and of the line of David.

Matthew 2:6, “‘But you, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, are by no means least among the rulers of Judah; for out of you will come a ruler who will shepherd my people Israel.’”

Matthew 1:1, "This is the genealogy of Jesus the Messiah the son of David, the son of Abraham".
Matthew 1:17, "Thus there were fourteen generations in all from Abraham to David, fourteen from David to the exile to Babylon, and fourteen from the exile to the Messiah."

Even the Pharisees, Jesus' severe critics, knew the truth. "While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, “What do you think about the Messiah? Whose son is he?” “The son of David,” they replied." Matthew 22:41-42

Why don't you consult the Bible before posting???

The priests, who did not think that Jesus was the Son of God, would have thought that Joseph was the father. Joseph was of the line of David. But if he was the Son of God he could not be the son of David. You can't have it both ways. Was God the father or was Joseph the father?

 

[Kenny]

And that is just nonsense that contradicts key parts of the Bible. What we actually see is that Christians often have the worst understanding of their own holy book due to the demands that they place upon it.

Tell us how your really feel.

 

[jimb]

There remains the problem of many conflicting interpretations of the Bible that all claim being taught the "truth" by the Holy Spirit and accuse others of being wrong and not understanding the Bible. The result, of course, is many different churches and divisions in Christianity each saying they are the only right interpretation.

Yes, "Suffice to say" your view is one of many "dog and pony shows," each considering the others do not understand.

Clearly, you lack understanding. The various Protestant denominations agree 99.9% of the time. The 0.1% differences are irrelevant.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Tell us how your really feel.

Don't be butt hurt. Fix your fallacies instead.

 

[Kenny]

The priests, who did not think that Jesus was the Son of God, would have thought that Joseph was the father. Joseph was of the line of David. But if he was the Son of God he could not be the son of David. You can't have it both ways. Was God the father or was Joseph the father?

Actually, if you understand customs and laws, you can.

Who is the actual father of the adopted child?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Clearly, you lack understanding. The various denominations agree 99.9% of the time. The 0.1% differences are irrelevant.

Says the man that just recently was bashing the Catholics.

 

[Kenny]

Don't be butt hurt. Fix your fallacies instead.

LOL - it isn’t me that has an issue.

 

[Kenny]

Says the man that just recently was bashing the Catholics.

Says the man who bashes Christianity

 

[Subduction Zone]

Actually, if you understand customs and laws, you can.

Who is the actual father of the adopted child?

Adopted? Really? When and where did that occur? The meaning of that verse is rather clear. Of course the flaws in the nativity myths are endless as you know. It is another part of the Bible that should never be taken literally. You only end up in demonstrating that your beliefs are contradicted by reality. I need to remind you that you never found historic sources that supported you when it came to the ten year difference between the date of birth in the two Gospels.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Says the man who bashes Christianity

No, only certain Christians that abuse their own holy book.

 

[Kenny]

No, only certain Christians that abuse their own holy book.

You seem to do fine without them.

 

[Kenny]

Adopted? Really? When and where did that occur? The meaning of that verse is rather clear. Of course the flaws in the nativity myths are endless as you know. It is another part of the Bible that should never be taken literally. You only end up in demonstrating that your beliefs are contradicted by reality. I need to remind you that you never found historic sources that supported you when it came to the ten year difference between the date of birth in the two Gospels.

Yes… really. Apparently you don’t understand.

And here we go with the bashing again.

And irrelevant statements.

 

[Kenny]

No, only certain Christians that abuse their own holy book.

Makes me wonder….. why do you hate God so much?