Alleged Contradictions in the Bible

"If you believe, then God did come down and say it."

So anything you believe becomes true? Did the Son of Sam's dog actually talk to him? We can't prove that it didn't...

"Actually, that is the thing about his love. He provides a new standard we can meet if we accept it from him. And this new standard is free."

If you're falling off a cliff, and I refuse to give you my hand unless you swear that you love me, it's neither loving nor free.

 

I indicated I can't prove it to you anymore that you can disprove it. Stalemate.

It's free, but not cheap.

 

If you're falling off a cliff, and I refuse to give you my hand unless you swear that you love me, it's neither loving nor free.

God holds out His hand to us. It's free. Some choose to accept it, others choose to slap it away. Nonetheless, the offer is there. If we reject it, whose fault is it?

 

I would say the person who slaps it away, but what do I know?

 

My little sister once had a childhood fear that the Joker from Batman was coming to kidnap her. She was utterly convinced of this, and try as I might, I couldn't prove otherwise. I would contend that the burden of proof falls on the affirmative side of the argument.

You say that God's gift is free, but also expensive. Regardless of the seeming contradiction, demanding a person's love in exchange for help they may desperately need is an act of pettiness and cruelty, no matter how much power you may hold over that person.

 

You say that God's gift is free, but also expensive. Regardless of the seeming contradiction, demanding a person's love in exchange for help they may desperately need is an act of pettiness and cruelty, no matter how much power you may hold over that person.

There's not really a contradiction, you just need to look at it from two perspectives. To God it was the ultimate sacrafice...expensive indeed, yet to us it is given freely if we want it. As far as demanding love from someone, that isn't even required. According to John 3:16 all we need to do is believe. No where in the bible do I find anyone stating that God demands anything from us. We are free to leave him or be with him as we please.

 

One side of this debate is wrong. Both are convinced in the truth of their position. Like I said, stalemate. That debate is over.

On the other hand, if I am presented a choice, and the only one who can help me offers to, it is not their fault if I choose to do it myself. Ever done that, Geist? Ever refused someone's help to pursue your own way? What happened those times you fell? Was your fall their fault?

 

"According to John 3:16 all we need to do is believe. No where in the bible do I find anyone stating that God demands anything from us."

The Biblical God makes demands of humanity constantly. He demands that Abraham sacrifice his son. He demands that the Israelites slaughter their neighbors. He compels Pharaoh to keep the Jews in bondage. And even today, if you believe it, He demands that we believe in Him and Jesus, or perish. By no means is His "gift" free.

 

now you get to the very point, Geist. It is free. You just have to accept. But once you accept it, there is a cost. It is sort of like the Price Is Right. You can win a car and it is free, but it will cost you in taxes.

 

The Biblical God makes demands of humanity constantly. He demands that Abraham sacrifice his son. He demands that the Israelites slaughter their neighbors. He compels Pharaoh to keep the Jews in bondage. And even today, if you believe it, He demands that we believe in Him and Jesus, or perish. By no means is His "gift" free.

God often gives challenges and tests to those who believe in his son. These are meant to strengthen the will, cause an increase in spiritual realiance upon him, and on occasion punish those who stand against the people who have made the choice to become his children. Yet the offer of eternal life is given freely to those who want it. I beg to differ, it is free.

 

Back when I was still in school, I briefly held a job taking orders for auction listings over the phone. Our trainers instructed us to tell callers that the only fee for the 30-day free trial (again, "free") was a $6.95 shipping and handling charge, payable over the phone via credit card or check. What they didn't tell us--and, consequently, what the customers never found out--was that once the company had the callers' credit card or check numbers, they would slowly but surely charge additional fees not mentioned in the original bargain.

I quit within a week. The practice was utterly dishonest, and I refused to be a part of it.

Now imagine those same principles this company used being applied to a life-or-death situation, which the subject is only in because of the rules God set up from the beginning.

 

you quit because it was dishonest to not tell of the hidden charges. God doesn't hide the fact that you have to submit yourself to him. There are no hidden charges with him. And you have to give up nothing to join him. Now after that, you do submit your life. But you do not have to submit it first which makes it free.

 

"And you have to give up nothing to join him."

Now we get to it. So God doesn't care what kind of person you are--naughty or nice, saint or psycho--as long as you fervently believe that he and Jesus exist. He accepts Christian serial killers like Jeffrey Dahmer, and boots peace-loving heroes like Gandhi down to Hell or oblivion. Yes? No?

 

It's not a fair situation that we are in. I'll admit that. However, it is our situation. What can I say? You see it all as unfair, I see it as an opportunity to get to know the creator! He cared enough for me that he died so that I could live. I'll do what he asks of me. It's the least I can do in return. I don't really see it as unfair. It is infinetly fair. God could have just said, "Oh well, there's rebellion in my Kingdom. I'll unmake humanity and all of the fallen angels and as for Lucifer... we'll I'll wipe him from memory. He never was." God didn't do that. Rather, he's giving Lucifer (satan) his fair shake at running his system on our world so that all the Universe can see what the result will be. Adam and Eve really screwed up and we're caught in the middle. God recognized this and gave us a way out. I see it as completely fair Geist. He has the right to require whatever he wants from us.

EDIT: Regarding your question on rehabilitation and Ghandi. I believe Ghandi will be in heaven. I also believe that God is the ultimate advocate for rehabilitation.

 

Wylding, you're the originator of the "Taoist and Zen Wisdom" thread, aren't you? Do you think that God sent the originators of those stories and proverbs to Hell, just for being born to the wrong people? I certainly don't, and I don't think you do either.

EDIT: "I believe Ghandi will be in heaven." Glad we agree.

I have no problem with the idea that God loves us, and wants us to love Him back. However, I disagree when any single group claims His grace for themselves alone.

 

God grants mercy to those who ask and THEN serve him. Anyone who repents is granted it yes.

 

Wylding, you're the originator of the "Taoist and Zen Wisdom" thread, aren't you?

Yes I am.

Do you think that God sent the originators of those stories and proverbs to Hell, just for being born to the wrong people?

I believe that we are judged according to the amount of knowledge that we have of God. I think that in the case of people to whom the word of God has been presented in the wrong way, God will be merciful with. I also believe that there are many ways to know Christ. That one can meet him in a quiet moment of contemplation, in deep meditation, or through His word in the bible.
So yes, I do think they'll be in heaven

I certainly don't, and I don't think you do either.

I hope I was clear. I think true spiritual seekers, not someone who is just doing what is popular, but true seekers will be there. Those who have a powerful spiritual belief and came to know Christ in a different way will also be in heaven. This is my very humble opinion and it isn't shared by the majority of my brothers and sisters.

Nowhere in the bible does it state that there is a single method of coming to know Christ...that it has to be from the bible.

I have no problem with the idea that God loves us, and wants us to love Him back. However, I take exception whenever any single group claims His grace for themselves alone.

Yeah, I do too.

 

Right... the belief that humanity will solve all of its problems through sheer willpower. To me, that seems even more idealistic than believing in heaven. Why not accept the fact that things are the way they are, corruption, crime, and all that other bad stuff included, and rely on something (Someone) higher than humanity? This isn't to say that we're supposed to do nothing, but we shouldn't believe that we can do everything.

Perhaps the problems of this world will never be solved. But they will certainly not be solved by appealling to a nonexistent God! One of the Founding Fathers (I can't quite recall which) said: This would be the best of all worlds, if there was no religion in it!

If you believe, then God did come down and say it. Sadly, you cannot disprove this to us anymore than we can 'prove' it to you.

According to science, a non-disprovable argument is worthless. There are infinite possibilities for statements that could be made with no evidence either way; does that mean we count any statement as being true because it's immune to being disproved?

Nobody can disprove Christianity (well, we can deal with false prophecies and false histories, I suppose) but we can shred any evidence that may be put forward in its favour.

So anything you believe becomes true? Did the Son of Sam's dog actually talk to him? We can't prove that it didn't...

Exactly. Couldn't put it better myself.

God holds out His hand to us. It's free. Some choose to accept it, others choose to slap it away. Nonetheless, the offer is there. If we reject it, whose fault is it?

No-one has bothered to answer my earlier analogy with the false and real $100 notes. Nobody has rejected any offer of salvation; they have simply come to the wrong conclusion as to truth (if Christianity is true).

Suppose someone falls off a cliff. There are nine holographic false hands and one real hand (yours). He only has time to grasp one hand. If he grasps a holographic one, and falls, he has by no means rejected your hand of help. He's simply made an error as to which hand is the real one.

I would say the person who slaps it away, but what do I know?

They've simply chosen the holographic false hand (made a factual error). They haven't slappped the real hand away.

My little sister once had a childhood fear that the Joker from Batman was coming to kidnap her. She was utterly convinced of this, and try as I might, I couldn't prove otherwise. I would contend that the burden of proof falls on the affirmative side of the argument.

Bow down to the wisdom of Geist!

Supposing a robber comes up to you (and he's actually your long-lost biological father). He asks for $100, and will kill you if you don't provide it. Do you thank him for offering to "save" you from the bullet, or do you hold a less complimentary opinion because he's only offering to save you from himself in the first place?

Similarly, it's God who would send us to Hell, so who are we being saved from? God!

According to John 3:16 all we need to do is believe.

John is nothing more than an interpretation of Jesus' life (if he existed at all) written more than a century after when the events are supposed to have taken place and selected - among many, many other such writings - for inclusion in the canon by early church fathers.

It certainly wasn't written by John the apostle. Just like none of the Gospels were written by the apostles they are attributed to.

We are free to leave him or be with him as we please.

No, because we don't know which religion - if any - is true. We aren't sufficiently informed to make that decision.

If there is a real, universal God, he's probably extremely irritated now by all the religions, especially Christianity, who think they know all

 

"Suppose someone falls off a cliff. There are nine holographic false hands and one real hand (yours). He only has time to grasp one hand. If he grasps a holographic one, and falls, he has by no means rejected your hand of help. He's simply made an error as to which hand is the real one."

That's a very good way to put it.

 

"It certainly wasn't written by John the apostle. Just like none of the Gospels were written by the apostles they are attributed to."


Says who? Got any proof for that?

 

Let's see...

There is not the smallest fragment of trustworthy evidence to show that any of the Gospels were in existence, in their present form, earlier than a hundred years after the time at which Christ is supposed to have died. Christian scholars, having no reliable means by which to fix the date of their composition, assign them to as early an age as their calculations and their guesses will allow; but the dates thus arrived at are far removed from the age of Christ or his apostles. We are told that Mark was written some time after the year 70, Luke about 110, Matthew about 130, and John not earlier than 140 A.D. Let me impress upon you that these dates are conjectural, and that they are made as early as possible. The first historical mention of the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke, was made by the Christian Father, St. Irenaeus, about the year 190 A.D. The only earlier mention of any of the Gospels was made by Theopholis of Antioch, who mentioned the Gospel of John in 180 A.D.

Considering that the average lifespan in that day and age was 30, the apostles would, in all likelihood, have had to live to a ridiculously old age in order to write the books.

More evidence...

Christ is supposed to have been a Jew, and his disciples are said to have been Jewish fishermen. His language, and the language of his followers must, therefore, have been Aramaic -- the popular language of Palestine in that age. But the Gospels are written in Greek -- every one of them. Nor were they translated from some other language. Every leading Christian scholar since Erasmus, four hundred years ago, has maintained that they were originally written in Greek. This proves that they were not written by Christ's disciples, or by any of the early Christians. Foreign Gospels, written by unknown men, in a foreign tongue, several generations after the death of those who are supposed to have known the facts...

The burden of proof is on the affirmative side, yet I have just produced two strong pieces of evidence that the apostles did not write the Gospels.

There were many Gospels in circulation in the early centuries, and a large number of them were forgeries. Among these were the "Gospel of Paul," the Gospel of Bartholomew," the "Gospel of Judas Iscariot," the "Gospel of the Egyptians," the "Gospel or Recollections of Peter," the "Oracles or Sayings of Christ," and scores of other pious productions, a collection of which may still be read in "The Apocryphal New Testament." Obscure men wrote Gospels and attached the names of prominent Christian characters to them, to give them the appearance of importance. Works were forged in the names of the apostles, and even in the name of Christ. The greatest Christian teachers taught that it was a virtue to deceive and lie for the glory of the faith. Dean Milman, the standard Christian historian, says: "Pious fraud was admitted and avowed." The Rev. Dr. Giles writes: "There can be no doubt that great numbers of books were then written with no other view than to deceive." Professor Robertson Smith says: "There was an enormous floating mass of spurious literature created to suit party views." The early church was flooded with spurious religious writings. From this mass of literature, our Gospels were selected by priests and called the inspired word of God. Were these Gospels also forged? There is no certainty that they were not.

We really have very little idea of where the Gospels came from. This is the reference for the above quotes.

 

There is not the smallest fragment of trustworthy evidence to show that any of the Gospels were in existence, in their present form, earlier than a hundred years after the time at which Christ is supposed to have died.


The following is an excerpt from Lee Strobel's The Case for Christ

"Acts ends apparently unfinished - Paul is a central figure of the book, and he's under house arrest in Rome. With that, the book abruptly halts. What happens to Paul? We don't find out from Acts, probably because the book was written before Paul was put to death. That means Acts cannot be dated any later than A.D. 62. Having established that, we can then move backward from there. Since Acts is the second of a two-part work, we know the first part - the gospel of Luke - must have been written earlier than that. And since Luke incorporates parts of the gospel of Mark, that means Mark is even earlier."


The first historical mention of the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke, was made by the Christian Father, St. Irenaeus, about the year 190 A.D.

Actually, it comes from the testimony of a Christian writer named Papais, who wrote about Mark's gospel in A.D. 125. He also mentions that Matthew accurately preserved the teachings of Jesus.


This proves that they were not written by Christ's disciples, or by any of the early Christians. Foreign Gospels, written by unknown men, in a foreign tongue, several generations after the death of those who are supposed to have known the facts...

Oh please. And since Jesus and His gospels were Jews, the could ONLY have known Aramaic? There's no way they could have known Greek, which happened to be the English of that day? By this, I mean that while every region had its own dialects, most people knew Greek. I know Chinese, but I also speak English fluently. I speak Chinese at home, but my friends don't speak Chinese, so I speak to them in English. Same idea. I wouldn't write to my friends in Chinese - that would be stupid.


Obscure men wrote Gospels and attached the names of prominent Christian characters to them, to give them the appearance of importance. Works were forged in the names of the apostles, and even in the name of Christ.

You've touched on something very important here. Once again, I quote The Case for Christ

"Mark and Luke weren't even among the twelve disciples. Matthew was, but as a former hated tax collector, he would have been the most infamous character next to Judas Iscariot, who betrayed Jesus!"


From this mass of literature, our Gospels were selected by priests and called the inspired word of God.

And not because they had well-known names attached, but because they were carefully evaluated and put to rigorous testing, and they passed. Doesn't it say something that out of all these writings, only four were chosen?

 

We don't find out from Acts, probably because the book was written before Paul was put to death. That means Acts cannot be dated any later than A.D. 62.

Whoa...big leap of logic here! Just because Acts ends before Paul is put to death, no way means it must have been written in a similar timescale (assuming that the death of Paul in AD 62 did actually take place).

Actually, it comes from the testimony of a Christian writer named Papais, who wrote about Mark's gospel in A.D. 125. He also mentions that Matthew accurately preserved the teachings of Jesus.

That website doesn't argue that Mark was written before AD 125. However, it doesn't need to. A dating of one hundred and twenty-five years after the events are supposed to have taken place is ample refutation of Mark as reliable evidence.

Oh please. And since Jesus and His gospels were Jews, the could ONLY have known Aramaic? There's no way they could have known Greek, which happened to be the English of that day? By this, I mean that while every region had its own dialects, most people knew Greek. I know Chinese, but I also speak English fluently. I speak Chinese at home, but my friends don't speak Chinese, so I speak to them in English. Same idea. I wouldn't write to my friends in Chinese - that would be stupid.

Of course. You live in a modern country with a modern education system, where multiple languages are the norm. I personally find it hard to believe that Jesus' followers, apparently humble, working men, would have been educated in another dialect.

And not because they had well-known names attached, but because they were carefully evaluated and put to rigorous testing, and they passed. Doesn't it say something that out of all these writings, only four were chosen?

Put to rigorous testing were they? Oh, the early Church fathers had a time machine! Seriously, I'll be surprised if you can substantiate this claim of "rigorous testing." We have only copies of copies of copies of a selection of works that were chosen by early Church fathers for incorporation into canon. We have no way of knowing what criteria they used, or where they got the original texts from.

 

woah... I forgot about this one. Anyway, I'll respond to you probably sometime next weekend, D_S (assuming someone else doesn't first), but right now I have a history test coming up. [shwarzenegger]I'll be bach[/shwarzenegger]

 

apologetics time!