Post apparent contradictions in the bible and I'll explain how they aren't

god makes them this way
punishes them for eternity for being this way
lol

He doesn't. Physics is true too and since evil came into the world, isn't God's fault that it's not perfect.

Ehrman is the type to read read read but never actually understand a single thing. He was never a Christian.
>physics is true
nah

put it this way plebbio. two guys write about a pair of shorts. One says they are blue shorts. The other says they are baggy shorts. Are they contradicting one another?

John 10:30
Jesus and God are one and the same

John 14:28
God is greater than Jesus

In the second one he means heaven instead of God and he specifically means that living in heaven is greater than living on earth. A rich tradition of literature implies that "I" is a very selfish and power concerned meaning.

>Year of Our Lord 2016
>retards still trust english translations of Greek and Hebrew

In other words, Ehrman over-analyzes and thereby both becomes too assured in himself while also missing everything that matters. Surely, you have at one point over-analyzed something -- perhaps in physics or mathematics or literature -- and missed the simplicity of the truth and instead synthesizing something convoluted and incorrect. I would even go as far as say Ehrman is a sophist, in that he deliberately looks for controversy and then attempts to 'prove' it.

There have been many unnecessarily convoluted and shaky ontological arguments as well, when in truth there exists very simple arguments, and since these put up less of a front they are thought to be 'too simple' to be correct.

Similarly, Ehrman comes up with a whole lot of historical reasonings that 'prove' Christ was a fraud; or just a prophet; or does not exist. etc. Since these are convoluted, like many Sophist arguments are, they seem to be correct. Ehrman getting praise for being 'creative' (a massive contrarian riding on New Atheism) only helps to give him this artificial authority.
Exact quotations, please. Not your perversions.

There exist early translations of the Bible that resemble our modern translations. From there it is assumed that if over a millennia it has not changed radically, then it did not change radically in centuries or decades.

Nice appeal to authority there.

the trinity

all those things you listed aren't explicitly stated as "evil" or the worst thing in the bible
where does it say specifically those crimes would give you the greatest of punishments

He's an American that believes the law of the State must be divinely inspired or some Enlightenment bullshit.

>Exact quotations, please. Not your perversions.

No need to be rude. I included the verses and didn't want to quote so you could use whatever version of the Bible you want. Here are those verses from the KJV:

John 10:30
I and the Father are one.

John 14:28
Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.

I don't see how you get that interpretation. He is talking about going to the heavenly kingdom, but he specifically states that his Father is greater than him. See the quote above.

There are multiple interpretations of the trinity, at least some (if not all) of which are themselves contradictory.

Then the answer is: You seem to think 'contradiction' means 'incorrect'. Typical Western obsession with one mode of thought.

>He is talking about going to the heavenly kingdom, but he specifically states that his Father is greater than him.

That doesn't make sense grammatically. So it must be the case that the whole statement is about heaven. If you give the bible the benefit of the doubt then it's much easier to believe in it.

Also, the 'Father' is not God, the Father is an element of God. God is composed of the Father the Son and the Holy Spirit, the Father can perfectly well be greater than the Son while still being one as God.

This is not even a contradiction, it's just an example of your extremely poor comprehension.

Where do you get this idea from that I am confusing those terms? What would be "incorrect" and not "contradictory" in those verses? How is it not contradictory to say that another entity is equal to myself and greater than myself at the same time?

What? I'm genuinely confused by your response. Jesus clearly states that his disciples should rejoice that he is going to be with his Father BECAUSE his Father is greater than himself. What am I missing here?

Seriously, guys. Do you understand basic English vocabulary and grammar? Is English your first language?

hurr durr why isnt everything rational this ultimate being shud follow my rules

>I and the Father are one
>my Father is greater than I

The first statement indicates that they are two manifestations of the same entity. The second statement indicates that one is greater than the other.

This is not an example of my poor comprehension, it is rather an example of how the concept of the trinity is untenable. And please spare me the response about how I just don't understand the trinity, or how God works in ways that are beyond our comprehension/does not have to conform to our sense of logic, etc. This is nothing but dodging the question.

Please just stick to explaining how it is not a contradiction to equate oneself with another entity while simultaneously asserting that the other entity is greater than oneself.

Oh wuddya know, I was too late.

Seriously, fuck off. This bullshit copout response defeats the entire purpose of this thread.

bibviz.com/

/thread

Whether divorce should never be acceptable and that divorce is only acceptable for adultery

>copout

Educate yourself, please.

The Father and Son are not manifestations of an entity, they are ELEMENTS of an entity and themselves are SEPARATE entities.

This is fault of your poor comprehension, since I've had to explain this to you TWICE already.

Its sort of sad to see someone try to lay the intellectual smackdown on someone for getting the rules of their imaginary friend wrong.

Or, to put it in a way that you understand.

You are WASTING your TIME arguing OVER total fucking NONSENSE.

Please user, don't waste energy trying to explain things to someone who clearly wishes to not understand him for the sake of his superiority complex

Explain the entire New Testament. I've yet to hear an explanation reconciling it with the old one that makes any coherent sense.

>imaginary friend
Nice presupposition, intellectual deadweight.

>y-y-yeah? well it d-d-doesn't matter anyway!

intellectual integrity

The New Testament is a fraud.
The only true word of god is within the Tanach

>All Snarks are blue. Greg is green. Greg is not a Snark.
>YEAH WELL SNARKS DON'T EXIST LMAO

The Bible is a reminder that people, like Abraham, who listen to the voices in their head while planning to murder their children as a sacrifice, exist. If we can identify those people and lock them in a safe place for their lifetime, then the rest of us can get on with the business of living happy human lives.

Go back to [r9k] with your bait please.

>i can't tell the difference between the old testament and the new testament

Whatever. Even using your terminology, you still have yet to explain away the inherent contradiction of two entities being equal to one another while one is simultaneously greater than the other. It's pretty fucking simple. One thing (entity, element, manifestation, whatever) simply cannot be equal to another while also being greater than it.

Also, Jesus is quite frequently referred to as God's physical manifestation, or image, or embodiment, etc. on Earth. This includes references by any number of theologians and others with undoubtedly more authority on the subject than yourself. Still, this is not the point. Please explain how one thing can simulatenously be equal to something else and greater than that something else.

What's that story where a bunch of guys try and build a tower to heaven and god is like fuck this and knocks the tower down. The splits them all up and makes it so they can't talk to each other created the different languages. Also why is God such a dick?

Actually fuck it, I'm tired of this conversation. You have no ability to actually form an argument, apparently. I have really just been playing devil's advocate with this. I do understand there is not necessarily a contradiction here, but you are clearly unable to actually articulate why. Don't bother responding to me anymore unless you have finally figured out how to put together a coherent and relevant argument instead of throwing around baseless and inaccurate ad hominems rooted in your own lack of understanding of biblical doctrine, as well as ignorance of rudimentary English.

It is not bait. The Bible has a bunch of reminders of just how awful people can be to one another because they listen to the imaginary voices of "gods" who tell them what to do.
>Tanach

What counts as a contradiction?

Would historical things like the events in exordus count for instance?

OP what of the points in the link in

>Seriously, guys. Do you understand basic English vocabulary and grammar? Is English your first language?
>trying to analyse the Bible in its English translation
Veeky Forums sure is full of pseuds today

So I can still do minor sins without punishment?

The story of how we lost pur telepathic link to one another.
He didn't create languages, he removed or blocked the part of our brain that allowed us to communicate and send thoughts without the use of languages.
With absolute understanding and virtually no barriers in between us, humanity would have toppled what passed to us as God, and God was afraid of this.

>inb4 back to /x/

I agree. Plus telling everyone they should be circumcised. Plus that fact that we all inbred from Adam and eve then again from Noah and 3 sons. Bitch please we should all be 3 headed gimps by now

Benevolent means all good, not space pussy.

1) The contradiction between roman slaveholder's ideology and popular messianic slave ideology.

2) God becomes human, therefore humans become like god

you sir have wasted your time on a traitors book. gg.

The idea that God is all knowing, including your destiny and future, does that mean that we don't have free will? As he knows already? Or do we have free will, which means he doesn't know everything.

>I and the Father are one
>my Father is greater than I

The first does not necessarily imply equality, it can be interpreted to mean that they are apart of the trinity whereas the other implies that the Father is greater than his Son in said trinity.

>Year of our Lord 2016
>retards still think reading MT and Nestle-Aland in original languages is sufficient

He knows every choice you're going to freely make, as well as every time you're gonna change your mind out of your own free will :)

>Mary was a virgin
>Parthenogenesis is not possible in humans

>Parthenogenesis is not possible in humans
Not on their own, it isn't. Except when impregnated by God.

>people being tortured in hell for all eternity

Yes, those who deserve it. That's how you know He is benevolent: you don't want those people roaming about heaven.

not true, you've ruined the thread already
the natural destination of all humans born into sin is hell
only through accepting God's mercy and repentance can one enter into the kingdom of Heaven

>Enter by the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is easy,[a] that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. 14 For the gate is narrow and the way is hard, that leads to life, and those who find it are few.
Matthew 7:13-14

t. non-christian

Not necessarily. He is outside of time, and is aware of everything that happens in time simultaneously. He is not predicting the future, he is existing in it.

That's why it's miraculous. It requires intervention from a power greater than the laws governing the universe.

kek

b8st of b8st
rate 8/88

The answer is: grow a brain.
And Im not even Christian.

Do YOU know the future? No. Then you're free.
God knows but doesn't tell you, and that is what gives you freedom: not knowing shit.
But then again, freedom is a fucking meme depending who you ask.

>That's why it's miraculous. It requires intervention from a power greater than the laws governing the universe.

>What is Causality in a philosophical sense?
>Who is Schopenhauer?
>Why am I here?

>Implying 'miracles' are a POSSIBLE thing

Go read, user. Seriously.
Not being edgy. You have good intention. But fucks sake, read eh. Read.

I don't understand. I'm not saying it happened, I just don't see how it makes any sense to deny that something is possible in the context of it being caused by something unrestricted by the possibilities of material reality.

Direct me to what part of Schopenhauer's writings would correct my error

The World As Will And Representation.
Im sorry I don't know the exact pages. But I don't think you would understand the sense of the concept by just reading a few pages..
Its Schopenhauer, you know.
The reason why such thing as a miracle cannot happen at all is cause and effect (basically). Like the butterfly effect. Something like that.
In a deep philosophical sense there are not 'things', 'causes', 'consequences'.. theres just causality, which can be pathetically summarized in the words: "shit happens". Not one shit, not pieces of shit that push each other, just shit in general, abstract shit.

Im obviously posting out of boredom, dont give me too much credit. But Im serious about Schopenhauer, you should read it if youre interested in that kind of stuff. His philosophy is.. 'christian'.. as oppossed to Nietzsches philosophy which is antichristian.
Again hyper-summarizing things that cant be summarized out of boredom.
Enjoy the read!

Thank you for the suggestion user, I've been meaning to read Schoppie. I'll try and wrap my head around it.

>God is just
>humans deserve eternal punishment because of the fact they exist

Two millenia of theology haven't solved this lunacy, only sidestepped it. God, having perfect knowledge that the universe he was creating will bring about eternal suffering for at least some human beings, cannot be characterised as perfectly good in any conception.

In a way, Protestantism is the most genius joke of the West, because it almost completely ignored the virtue-attaining aspect of religion. Taving "salvation by faith alone" as its guiding principle, protestant nations could merrily expand their empires, industrialize and achieve dominance through capitalism. God was going to save who he was going to save, and focusing on good works will only fail the game. Protestant Christianity, brought to its conclusion in Calvinism is the final step on the purely legalistic view of religion - what matters is the minimal steps necessary to be granted grace, namely "accepting Christ into your heart".

citation needed plox.

created sick; demanded to be well
>upon eternal misery, horror, anguish, and separation.
>seems legit

My pleasure

brutal post.
that shit hit me.

Not exactly referred to the Bible, but
How do you justify to yourself following one religion instead of any other?
Your god is not the only one invented by human beings. Why is yours 'the only one'?
I always thought that being Christian implies necessarily the voluntary ignorance of every other religion...
For example, If you had serious knowledge (including practice) of Buddhism, all Christian dogma would appear to you as extremely superficial. Because Christianism IS superficial. It lacks introspection

The idea is that because the Christian Church is the one founded by God made manifest in the world, it is the true church that holds the wholeness of God's revelation. The religious impulse exists in mankind and has been displayed in many ways, but it is tainted by sin just like every other desire of humanity. It, too, required the intervention of God to create the universal religion.

Also read some of the saints works and mysticism before writing Christianity off as lacking introspection.

The introspection Im talking about goes beyond the level of words. Words are always superficial. To reach full awareness of existence you have to stop the continuous act of thinking and that way realise your inner void fully. As a life experience, not a theory. Not a dogma. Not a belief. Not a thought.

or at least thats what buddhists say, right.

>void
>something that can be experienced
hmm

Just try meditation and you will know too well what im talking about.
Or even better, dont try it. Just keep walking. Its safer

How do you mongs not understand the difference between quality and quantity?

>greater but equal
>greater as far as quantity but equal as far as quality
>entry-level stuff that most spiritual people have always intuitively known
>BUT HOW CAN EVEN?!?1111

Materialists are toilet tier I swear.

Still waiting, op.

Those people are wrong, dont get me wrong, but why eternity? They only sinned for like sixty years

This is the most fundamental point of the Christian religion. Jesus came to fulfill the law, there are supposedly prophecies that he fulfilled. The Law is for Jews and is God's covenant with Jews.

What is your issue, exactly?

That the Mosaic law requires stoning adulterers and things like that?

That's what God wanted. God kills people all the time, every second of every day, and God wanted some things punishable by death that you, 3500 years later, find insensitive.

>arrested on passover
>executed on passover
In your example it would be more accurate to say the pants were straight in one and baggy in the other.

If you were really aware of your own void, and understood the implications of that, maybe you wouldn't be such a pretentious cryptic asshole.

Here's a question that is probably caused by a misunderstanding on my side... >sinners in hell will be tortured forever
>during the Revelation they will be absolved from their sins, and they won't suffer anymore
So the Revelation will never actually happen or the sinners won't be tortured forever?

Pls no bully I haven't even read the Bible.

You don't need to go far from the beginning to find some. Genesis:

>So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.

This line presents god creating the first humans as male and female in the begnning. However, the creation of Eve from Adam's side actually only comes a great deal later! The inconsistency probably comes from how Lilith was originally created at the same time as Adam, but was then omitted from the canonical texts to present Eve as the first woman.

user, that verse is a description of what God did in broad terms, whereas the story of Eve is the specifics.

No, the text makes clear distinction that they were created male and female, and both were in the image of God, while Eve's creation and the whole "you were made from man so you must be subservient to him" punchline contradict this.

The first is a spiritual creation in God's likeness. The second is a bodily creation from the dust.

When the book(s) were written, they didn't have the cultural and historical context that they have now.

In a world without the mass education about public sanitation and disease that we have today, limitations on human-human fluid swapping behavior and the cropping of some unnecessary folds of skin that could keep the penis as a moist breeding ground for disease. This would keep the plebs healthier even when they are fucking around. All of the commandments are great social rules that have definitely stood the test of time.

Anyway, I have a suspicion that the idea of Hell, a hot place full of monsters that will torment you, is somehow an allusion to Hellas and the Hellenes... a reminder about the filthy Grecian pirate slavers of antiquity.

>21st century man tries to justify Iron Age document in light of late Second Temple period Judaism religious innovations
>tfw bible scholar and can't believe people believe Mosaic authorship
JEDP wrote the Torah dude it's so obvious it hurts

what

Light of reason.

Hmm... How do you know it's god doing the killing?

What is a spiritual creation and how is it different from a physical creation?

Founded by god (citation pls) or by decree of the Roman emperor Constantine and by way of the sword?

Founded by God in the sense that it's founded by Jesus. Don't ask me for a citation, I'm no Christian. I'm just explaining the logic of the religion.