For every who sees this thread please post your conclusion/summary-of-feeling, whatever it may be...

Oh wow, you guys really got me

lol

...

It's an interesting, albeit unreliable account of very localized issues concerning a small group of humans thousands of years ago.

The amount of painstaking detail put into the description of petty squabbles over land and ownership rights demonstrates without question the man-made nature of the text. The internal inconsistencies are not as numerous as some would claim, but still are quite enough to say one thing for certain.

It is not the work of a god.

Let’s hear some internal inconsistencies

You're kidding, right? It's a book written by dozens of authors over thousands of years and edited numerous times. You can't really pretend like it's consistent from start to finish.

I refuse to put that much effort into a dying thread to appease one person who couldn't give a shit what I have to say anyway.

Read your book, then get back to me.

>this volume
The prots literally removed books

its the literal word of god.... but not as good as the texts of the other abrahamic faiths

Summary of what I got from the text: 1) Jesus is the Messiah. 2) Christ is risen. 3) We can be saved as a result.

Conclusion/summary-of-feeling: Lord Jesus Christ Son of God have mercy on me the sinner.

>quite enough inconsistencies
>heh, you don't expect me to name one do you?
>tips fedora

I didn't ask for a comprehensive list of these "inconsistencies," I asked for one and you went full Ignatius J. Reilly.

Great example of a fantasy epic

Ignore the baits, you do exactly what they want when you answer them.

It's a New Atheist talking point. Most of them don't know any of the actual "inconsistencies". Imagine simultaneously believing that the Bible was heavily edited throughout history and that contradictory verses were left in. Atheists have made good arguments for atheism in the past, but New Atheist plebs have been told that they don't need to justify their beliefs, so they're not even familiar with the philosophical side of atheism.

P h o n y

I believe in God, the Father Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth.
And in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord:
who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried.
He descended to hell. On the third day he rose again from the dead. He ascended into the heavens. He is seated at the right hand of God, the Father Almighty. From there he weil come to judge the living and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic Church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the flesh, and the life everlasting. Amen

1: According to Matthew, Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the Great (Matthew 2:1). According to Luke, Jesus was born during the first census in Israel, while Quirinius was governor of Syria (Luke 2:2). This is impossible because Herod died in March of 4 BC and the census took place in 6 and 7 AD, about 10 years after Herod's death.

2: Both Matthew and Luke say that Jesus was born in Bethlehem. Matthew quotes Micah 5:2 to show that this was in fulfillment of prophecy. Actually, Matthew misquotes Micah (compare Micah 5:2 to Matthew 2:6). Although this misquote is rather insignificant, Matthew's poor understanding of Hebrew will have great significance later in his gospel.

Luke has Mary and Joseph travelling from their home in Nazareth in Galilee to Bethlehem in Judea for the birth of Jesus (Luke 2:4). Matthew, in contradiction to Luke, says that it was only after the birth of Jesus that Mary and Joseph resided in Nazareth, and then only because they were afraid to return to Judea (Matthew 2:21-23).

The Bible is enormous, stop sperging.

So the absurdity of a roman census requiring everyone to return to their place of birth (one that no evidence suggests ever occurred) that was shoehorned into the bible so contrive Jesus being born in Bethlehem in accordance with some prophecy is nonexistent?

How about the death of Judas? completely different from Acts and Matthews. Look i'm not saying the entire book is jumbled up, but it's massive, and man made.

John the Baptist is the prophet Elijah, but also he isn't

>Matthew 11:7-14
>For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John came; and if you are willing to accept it, he is Elijah who is to come.

>John 1:21
>And they asked him, ‘What then? Are you Elijah?’ He said, ‘I am not.’ ‘Are you the prophet?’ He answered, ‘No.’

David paid Araunah or Ornan 50 shekels of silver or 600 shekels of gold for his threshing-floor

>2 Samuel 24:24
>But the king said to Araunah, ‘No, but I will buy them from you for a price; I will not offer burnt-offerings to the LORD my God that cost me nothing.’ So David bought the threshing-floor and the oxen for fifty shekels of silver.

>1 Chronicles 21:25
>So David paid Ornan six hundred shekels of gold by weight for the site.

Ahaziah died of arrow wounds in Megiddo or was slain in Samaria

>2 Kings 9:27
>When King Ahaziah of Judah saw this, he fled in the direction of Beth-haggan. Jehu pursued him, saying, ‘Shoot him also!’ And they shot him in the chariot at the ascent to Gur, which is by Ibleam. Then he fled to Megiddo, and died there.

>2 Chronicles 22:9
>He searched for Ahaziah, who was captured while hiding in Samaria and was brought to Jehu, and put to death. They buried him, for they said, ‘He is the grandson of Jehoshaphat, who sought the Lord with all his heart.’ And the house of Ahaziah had no one able to rule the kingdom.

High Priest Jehoiada didn't make temple utensils from offerings, but also he did

>2 Kings 12:13
>But for the house of the LORD no basins of silver, snuffers, bowls, trumpets, or any vessels of gold, or of silver, were made from the money that was brought into the house of the LORD.

>2 Chronicles 24:14
>When they had finished, they brought the rest of the money to the king and Jehoiada, and with it were made utensils for the house of the LORD, utensils for the service and for the burnt-offerings, and ladles, and vessels of gold and silver. They offered burnt-offerings in the house of the LORD regularly all the days of Jehoiada.

God didn't reveal the divine name to the patriarchs, even though he did

>Exodus 6:2-3
>God also spoke to Moses and said to him: ‘I am YHWH. I appeared to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as El Shaddai, but by my name “YHWH” I did not make myself known to them.

>Genesis 12:8 (Moses knew the divine name)
>From there he moved on to the hill country on the east of Bethel, and pitched his tent, with Bethel on the west and Ai on the east; and there he built an altar to YHWH and invoked the name of YHWH.

>Genesis 26:25 (Isaac knew the divine name)
>So he built an altar there, called on the name of the Lord, and pitched his tent there. And there Isaac’s servants dug a well.

>Genesis 28:13 (God revealed the divine name to Jacob)
>And YHWH stood beside him [Jacob] and said, ‘I am YHWH, the God of Abraham your father and the God of Isaac; the land on which you lie I will give to you and to your offspring;

I've only really read the Gospels, but they have to be some of the strangest books I've ever read. On the surface they seem so poorly written and non-sensical that I struggle to take them seriously, yet if I look below the surface I get a sense of this strange, barely perceptible spirit that the Gospels are trying to communicate.

What if I told you the first half was an agrarian oral history, written down?

I would tell you that you're probably correct, and therefore the book is unlikely the word of god.

>THE CONTRADICTIONS OF HTE BIBLBE MAKE IT IMPOSSIBLE TO BELIEVE
>lists the most inconsequential inconsistencies that the even council of trent thought was irrelevant

@10310846
Ignore the troll, guys, otherwise he won't leave and will keep shitting on the thread seeking for some attention.

Loved the original, not a fan of the sequels.

cringe

>u aactualy believe theres a guy in teh cloud+s?? xdd

>So the absurdity of a roman census requiring everyone to return to their place of birth (one that no evidence suggests ever occurred)
The gospel account is evidence that is occurred. You're saying there's no evidence while directly referring to the evidence. But that's how the "scholarly criticism" game is played, right?

Reading the Bible slowly and currently on Deuteronomy. I read it as a historical text and literature, so far it is pretty interesting, and I honestly don't find the inconsistencies that big of a deal. Overall, up until Deuteronomy it was all about making a race of people surviving the brutal age they were living in, and in this regard it certainly succeeded.

If you need a bit of context, I grew up in asia and had some exposure to Christianity during school, and it didn't manage to convert me.

>John the Baptist is the prophet Elijah, but also he isn't
>>Matthew 11:7-14
>>For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John came; and if you are willing to accept it, he is Elijah who is to come.
>>John 1:21
>>And they asked him, ‘What then? Are you Elijah?’ He said, ‘I am not.’ ‘Are you the prophet?’ He answered, ‘No.’
How stupid do you have to be to think this is a contradiction? Read a Bible commentary for once in your life.

a collection of ancient texts that should be of interest only to niche scholars, but instead managed to recreate innumerable copies of itself even before the printing press.
it's a virus that reproduces through it's human host.

What would you say are the things that keep you from converting?

>John 10:9 I am the door
>Revelation 3:20 Behold, I stand at the door, and knock
So is Jesus the door or is he knocking at the door? Is he knocking on himself?
Checkmate, theists. *tips fedora*

Some great wisdom to be found and live your life by.

999 flipped = 666. Get behind me Satan.

Jesus isn't God, he is literally God's son. The Holy Trinity isn't a real thing. When you realize this, you can then discover the truth.

>he is literally God's son
That means he's God desu.

Have you read the Bible?

God is good and trying to make his people good.
Jesus is the culmination and apex of virtues and enforcer of God, enforcer as in an example - his instance of becoming angry was out of his love for his father.
Satan is the apex and culmination of a corrupted absolute being, or an absolutely corrupted being and all vices that drag you down to oblivion.
Hell as far as I know isn’t an endless fire, but at the time that’s the best comparison they could make to the absence of God.

The Bible is most definitely not wrong and may be the word of God, I believe it is - how can one say that kindness, generosity, patience and all those characteristics within love are wrong?
It’s a dark heart that says they are.

If you look at absolutes - the absolutes The Bible encourages would definitely lead others alike to fortify you. Christianity.

An analogy I’ve come across is: If an infinite loving being exists with the power to grant immortality and two people have died, one generally altruistic, the other generally egotistical, who would He let sink into nothingness, which is the absence of Him and who would he raise up and grant immortality to?

Back then I was an atheist who read Dawkins and shit like that. Now it is more like I don't care if god exists, though I respect anyone who chooses a religious life, provided that they are authentic, as most "believers" I've encountered were almost never true to their belief.

Very rarely I might pray for my friends who are in desperate situations just to make myself feel better, knowing clearly that it wouldn't make a discernible difference, or even if it did I wouldn't be able to tell. I never pray for myself. I try to live my life according to my personal aesthetic vision. I don't think I want god's help on that, it would devalue my effort (if it's not futile to begin with). I think I was brought up to have an intense fear about not being able to be self-reliant, which probably stops me from following any god.

>Hell as far as I know isn’t an endless fire, but at the time that’s the best comparison they could make to the absence of God.
2 Thessalonians 1:9 Says that they “shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power.” It’s the opposite of an absence of God.

The majority of it is boring and irrelevant to the modern reader. Only good parts are
>Genesis
>Judges
>1 Samuel
>Job
>Ecclesiastes
>the Gospels
>Revelation

One idea is that Hell and Heaven are the same thing, i.e. the presence of God, but it is experienced differently depending upon the state of the person in question. The man who has reconciled himself with God is not burned by the fire and experiences eternal bliss. I think it's possible that God's fire may be purgative in nature, but that's another issue.

>I don't think I want god's help on that, it would devalue my effort (if it's not futile to begin with). I think I was brought up to have an intense fear about not being able to be self-reliant, which probably stops me from following any god.
Made me think of pic related. I don't think any of us are able to truly be self-reliant at all times, even if we think we are; but that's just my opinion.

That’s more or less the Orthodox view.

41 The Son of Man will send out His angels, and they will gather out of His kingdom all things that offend, and those who practice lawlessness, 42 and will cast them into the furnace of fire. There will be wailing and gnashing of teeth. 43 Then the righteous will shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. He who has ears to hear, let him hear!

The fire that consumes sinners is the same fire that shines in the saints, and that fire is God in his energies.

>God's fire may be purgative in nature.
This is heresy though.

>using "heresy" unironically

Of course, we are social animals, can't do without reliance on something else. But if I spent two decades making the greatest artwork of all time than just to have god telling me that no, child, I helped you much on that, like 70% without you knowing, I would probably just immediately commit suicide.

I remember researching the issue (whether hell as purgation has been ruled heretical) some time back but I unfortunately don't remember the exact results. I can't remember the Orthodox positions, at the least. But be that as it may, the idea of Hell as an eternal punishment bothers me because it would mean that evil has an eternal existence, right? That doesn't seem right to me somehow.

What of the past? Using the example of art, an artist is born with whatever talent he is to have, in a position in which he is capable of learning his art, with access to the tools and education necessary to get him to where he arrives. He likewise didn't have accidents to render his hands unworkable or his eyes blind, or whatever it may be that would prevent him. That is to a large degree outside of his control. Perhaps something like that is too trifling to be concerned with, but I think the providence of God is something akin to that kind of circumstance. That is, it's something beyond our control which we work within the confines of. It doesn't negate our effort.

I think that mindset is too prideful. Yes, your personal will, hard work and talent does count, but to feel elevated from these things ignores the many things that were out of your control that also helped you, and there's no way of knowing to what degree the things out of your control contributed. Thinking of it as God working through you and your surroundings humbles and uplifts you; on one hand, it wasn't all you, but on the other hand you were still able to do it . The will of the person is not supposed to be trivialized, which can happen with materialistic, deterministic idea of will.

It’s one of the things Origen taught which the Church rejected. I don’t know if it has a label as its own heresy, but it’s unacceptable in Christianity.

Evil won’t exist. I see what you’re getting at, and it’s an interesting question. I’m not able to answer it off the top of my head. It’s one I’m sure has been answered, I’m just not knowledgeable enough.

It just comes down the difference in how we value human effort, the only thing that is completely within our control. Using the same instance, do I blame God for my inability to produce the truly greatest artwork in human history because He chooses to provide me the vision but not the skill nor environment nor upbringing that are often necessary for the immense task? No of course, as I have already tried everything I could in my miserable human endeavor, and even my effort comes out futile, like most artists would be in their limited lifetime, what matters, to me at least, is that we truly put forth out best in the given circumstance, provided that this effort is not being navigated carefully in the guide of some providence. You might smell in my attitude some Pynchon tier of paranoia, but I enjoy it in a Masochism way.

>Evil won’t exist. I see what you’re getting at, and it’s an interesting question. I’m not able to answer it off the top of my head. It’s one I’m sure has been answered, I’m just not knowledgeable enough.
I'm sure it's been addressed as well (I'd be very surprised if it hadn't been) but I also don't know where. I think the first time I read of the issue was in something by George MacDonald.

My favorite contradiction in the Bible. 2 Samuel 24:1
>And again the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah.

The same story in 1 Chronicles 21
>And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel.

>Name some contradictions
>Ok
>NO THOSE ARE INCONSEQUENTIAL
They're just some genuine contradictions, I didn't say they stopped people believing.

But they're not inconsequential in the slightest. John the Baptist being an Old Testament prophet isn't important? H how David saved Jerusalem from the destroying angel isn't important? The death of a king of Judah isn't important? How the instruments for the Temple, the most holy site in the world, were made isn't important? WHEN GOD REVEALED HIS DIVINE NAME isn't important? Did you even read them?

Yes I have, and the explanations are ridiculous
>John fulfilled Elijah's role of coming before the messiah but wasn't literally Elijah himself so he was totally Elijah but also wasn't
>John didn't know he was Elijah or he did know but didn't want to tell the pharisees because reasons

I think eternal destruction (i.e. annihilationism) makes the most sense of what the Bible says while explaining how evil is destroyed at the end. But you still have the story of the rich man and Lazarus which does imply suffering in the afterlife, so it's not perfect.

indifference

Yes, have you? The Holy Trinity is a Catholic creation.

The holy trinity is absolutely NOT a Catholic creation. The idea of man in 3 parts, the physical body, the spirit, which is of god, and the "soul" which draws the two together, is an old idea.

The father/son/holy spirit idea was God engaging in all 3 parts. The importance of Christ was that God experienced what it was to be a flawed man. He lived bodily as Christ and knew what it was to want to fuck your neighbor's wife. That's why we are forgiven. The idea of Christ as the SON of God is sort of missing the point. He was born to a woman because that is the start of all men. An essential part of the experience.

But anyway, the trinity isn't a Catholic invention. It's an idea that existed long before that. Christianity and Catholicism in particular carries a lot of Hermetic ideas. Remember as well that the Greeks were fascinated with Egyptian mysticism and religion, and had their own thing going.

Remember also that one of the great works of Saint Thomas Aquinas was the integration of Aristotilian philosophy with Christianity. Catholicism in particular has a great foundation of Western philosophy within it. It is part of a chain of association that started with shamanic traditions and grew and refined and researched. And I don't mean to imply that that makes it less valid. More so, really.

Transformative text to anyone who reads it. It will affect you.

KJV is best in regards to beauty and ringing true with the reader.

Maybe because the Bible only mentions Heaven and Hell in passing and barely even describes them?

nice arborial thinking there PLEB A=/=A it is both a historical document and a theological one and a literary one STOP POSTING AND KILL YOURSELF

Ok, but it is still an idea and not taught in the Bible. Jesus is not powerful like his Father, he is the first born of all creation but not all powerful. All creation is "through" him, not by him.

John 14:28
You heard me say to you, ‘I am going away, and I will come to you.’ If you loved me, you would have rejoiced, because I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I.

Matthew 24:36
“But concerning that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only.

>John 14:28
"Greater" doesn't imply greater in nature or essence. It means that the Father is the eternal cause of the Son.

>Matthew 24:36
St John Chrysostom says that this should be understood as a figure of speech. Basically, "There's no way I'm revealing this, so don't even ask." The Scriptures aren't a legal document (except in the parts where it's literally codes of law (lol)).

>[The Trinity] is still an idea and not taught in the Bible
Here are some Old Testament scriptures that Christians see the Trinity in. I don't offer these as proof of the Trinity, just to help explain what Christians believe. I've only described or quoted a snippet to show what's in them.

Genesis 1:1-3
1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

Genesis 1:26
26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness (...)

Psalm 2:7
7 The Lord said to Me, 'You are My Son, today have I begotten You;

Isaiah 44:3
For I will give water to the thirsty who walk in a waterless place. I will put My Spirit upon your seed and My blessings upon your children.

Isaiah 48:16-17 (The Lord is speaking here)

16 Come near to Me, hear this: I have not spoken in secret from the beginning, nor did I speak in a dark place of the earth. When it took place, I was there, and now the Lord and His Spirit have sent Me.17 Thus says the Lord who delivers you, the Holy One of Israel: I am your God, who showed you how to find the way wherein you should walk.

>I've only described or quoted a snippet to show what's in them.
Forgot to delete this after I decided to go back and just quote them in full (except the one).

>St John Chrysostom says that this should be understood as a figure of speech.

Well that's just his opinion, I take it literally. The rest are too vague. Jesus prayed to his father, not to himself. I cannot be convinced otherwise.

Well, Christ was God living as a human. A man is limited. Doesn't have full understanding of everything. That limited experience is a part of it. So of course as a man he prayed to God. They aren't separate, but, the experience made it so. Again, the Father thing is.... it's a way of understand the relationship but it's also not a perfect description.

>I cannot be convinced otherwise.
I said in my post I wasn't trying to convince you.

The Revelations is the best drug.

>Revelations
Revelation, just the one

In the trinitarian view, he's praying to the Father as a separate person, though obviously they're both God in substance.

Personally I do think the early Christians saw Jesus as beneath the Father, even if they believed he was God in some sense. It's been called the "two powers in heaven", I see it as similar to how Wisdom is understood in Proverbs and Wisdom of Solomon, as God's first creation which is second only to God and is deeply connected to Him.

>not reading the other Revelations

I think we should all call it the Apocalypse of St John.

Truth.

Douay Rheims Version.

catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/do-the-infancy-narratives-of-matthew-and-luke-contradict-each-other