The most significant contradiction or inconcistency?

[shnarkle]

There are no shortage of online sites providing numerous examples of contradictions and inconsistencies from the biblical texts. While some of these are quite simply the result of poor reading comprehension skills or an unfamiliarity with the texts, others seem legitimate. Many of those that are legitimate are inconsequential, but some could be quite controversial and may have significant ramifications.

Of all the contradictions found in scripture, which ones could prove to be most disturbing, or have the most serious ramifications for "believers"?


One that I think fits this bill is Paul's view on eating food sacrificed to false gods. He doesn't seem to have a problem with it if it doesn't have a negative effect over a fellow believer's faith. While I can see his point, and also agree that none of those pagan deities are real, I do wonder how he is able to disregard the law which he upholds; a law that forbids eating anything that is sacrificed to idols.

The reason this could be looked at as disturbing is because it indicates to me that Paul has attributed capriciousness to Paul's God.

[benchwarmer]

Are you also claiming that 1 John 2:19 is 'proof' I was also not a believer when I went to Japan as a missionary? Are you seriously claiming that all Christians who discover they were wrong never believed in the first place?

1 JOHN 2:19
They went out from us, but they were not of our sort; for if they had been of our sort, they would have remained with us. But they went out so that it might be shown that not all are of our sort.

I think that John is simply saying that true believers are those that stick to the truth to the end and that those that for whatever reason abandon the truth are not by definition part of the group that "endure to the end" because they didn't.

Yes, and clearly John thinks he knows the truth, whether he actually does or not.

In other words, after making that statement, John was no longer open to new evidence that may change his 'truth'. He decided to denigrate those who where open to it and changed their minds when they realized the 'truth' wasn't so true.

Imagine if one were to make this statement about everything we think is true. Sammy, at the age of 5, claims Santa is the 'truth' and anyone who stops believing never really believed. This is exactly what John did only John decided to do it with Jesus instead of Santa.

Do we wander around claiming those who once believed in Santa never really believed?

[JehovahsWitness]

Yes, and clearly John thinks he knows the truth, whether he actually does or not.

Yes, I think that is a reasonable deduction from his writings.

... after making that statement, John was no longer open to new evidence that may change his 'truth'.

I cannot imagine (without mind reading capacities) you could possibly be in a position to know this. At most it thus remains an unsubstantiated presumption. I suppose another possibility for your conviction is that you have invented a time travel machine, travelled back in time and interviewed him and/or his close associates that provided you with the relevant information.

In any case remaining within a position (whether that be atheism, anti-abortion, or believing the earth is indeed a globe rather than flat) is not in itself evidence of being close minded, it may also be evidence of possessing critical thinking skills.

He decided to denigrate those who where open to it and changed their minds ...

I don't think it is "denigrating" to make a statement of fact. If he's effectively saying "ex-Christians" do not belong in the same group as those that "continue to be Christians" then its simply a matter of of opinion which (if any) of the two it would be ill viewed to leave. Another way of putting his words is "those that have changed their minds" do not belong in the group of "those that have not changed their minds" again, simply a statement of fact. If certain members of the Christian community came to believe that their former beliefs were untrue and chose to leave, one would presume they would view it as a compliment to be viewed as "ex-believers".

...when they realized the 'truth' wasn't so true.

What religious truth is remains a matter of opinion. In any case, it seems rather than John denying people their right to find what they believe to be an "alternative truth" he is encouraging those that remain not to be overly concerned about those that leave. He is, in my opinion saying you "earn" your place in the group of true believers if you stay and those that leave evidently didn't "belong" in a group dedicated to those that would stay for the long haul.


"GENUINE" BUT WITHOUT STAYING POWER



I don't believe (as some have proposed) John was saying those former associates were not genuine believers (although there is of course the possibility that some were indeed not genuine in their devotion), but rather that they evidently lacked "staying power". Jesus himself spoke about the word of God taking root in some people's hearts, but like a seed in shallow soil, that "genuine" belief not having the depth to withstand the "sun" or the difficult tests that come upon a Christians faith. The metaphor wasn't sayting that the "plant" (faith) was fake (as if it were somehow plastic or imitation) but that that kind of faith evenually dies or is subverted because it lacks depth. So while the implication is indeed that John is making a comment about the quality of their faith, it is not necessarily that their motives were suspect or they were "play acting" their devotion but more likely that their conversion was not profound enough to count among those that would "endure to the end" as Jesus put it.

JUST DOING HIS JOB

As a first century leader of that community, an Apostle and at the time of writing, one of its oldest and most respected members, John is simply doing what someone of that authority would be qualified to do, namely encourage the flock and not to pay too much mind to (not to be unduly disturbed by) those that choose for whatever reason to abandon the Christian course.

JW

[shnarkle]

Let's distinguish between a contradiction within the text (or between two different passages of text) and a contradiction between a text and reality as it can be observed directly and objectively.

No, let's not. This isn't a scientific endeavor. This isn't about comparing what the textts state with what we observe in the world around us. This is about contradictions within the bible.

BOTH matter,

Perhaps they both matter to you, but that is beside the point of this topic.

[shnarkle]

1 John 2.19 is refuted by real world experience, as alexx, Danmark, myself and others could attest.

Could you elaborate on this? What are you talking about, and how does it relate to this topic? In other words, where is the contradiction?

The contradiction is between the epistle writer John, and reality. Observable, experiential reality.

But OK, you are looking only for the most significant internal Bible contradiction? If that was clear in the OP, I missed it. Seems many of us missed it as well.

Yes, it would seem that many can't help but see contradictions between realitiy and a work of fiction. Fiction isn't reality. To define fiction as reality is in itself a contradiction. Why isn't this obvious to more people? Truth be told, even a work of non fiction isn't reality, and if we're honest can't be in any way equivalent to reality.

Science isn't even comparible with realiy. Scientists have long known that we as observers can't help but influence what we are observing. We change the evidence. Not by our own intent, but simply by our unbiased observation. Add our interpretatioin and there's very little chance of not seeing contradictions just between reality and our observations. The same goes with any work of liturature. It is pointless to compare one set of contradictions with another.

Add to this the fact that we're attempting to discuss a work of liturature that is almost completely foreign to our culture, language, and mode of thinking; it's should come as no surprise that people are going to become confused. quite rapidly. When we then add into the mix, the preconceived ideas of a few thousand years of religious instruction, again from people who are foreigners to the texts, no wonder people can't agree what it says, or see contradictions everywhere.

So have you considered why Jesus' statement is conditional, and what it could possibly be conditioned upon? I can see why no one wants to answer this question given that the basic idea is that he will be coming in glory within the lifetime of those who are around listening to him speak, yet everyone decides that the condition must have been met, therefore it's a contradiction. Well, what was the condition that was met? It couldn't have been conditioned upon them dying as eveyone dies. That's a certainty. Was he speaking of a glory prior to his own death, or after? Why? I don't think it had anything to do with his transfiguration on the mountain, but one can't rule out the possibility given that it happens in the next scene. It seems more like a sneak peak, and it doesn't tell us what the condition is that was met.

[Bust Nak]

Of all the contradictions found in scripture, which ones could prove to be most disturbing, or have the most serious ramifications for "believers"?

"Grace alone" versus "work + grace" seems like the most obvious candidate. Believers of one camp point to certain verses (A) to support one set of teachings; while believers of the other camp point to other verses (B) to support the other. Believer of the first camp come up with a less than intuitive interpretation of (B) and maintain those verses are consistent with grace alone; while believers of the latter camp come up with a less than intuitive interpretation of (A) and maintain those verses are consistent with work + grace.

From the outside (A) is clearly inconsistent with (B) if not an out right contradiction. Christian can't accuse us of bias against the Bible because their own peers, all but from the other camp, came to the same interpretation as those of us without a horse in the race.

[shnarkle]

Of all the contradictions found in scripture, which ones could prove to be most disturbing, or have the most serious ramifications for "believers"?

"Grace alone" versus "work + grace" seems like the most obvious candidate. Believers of one camp point to certain verses (A) to support one set of teachings; while believers of the other camp point to other verses (B) to support the other. Believer of the first camp come up with a less than intuitive interpretation of (B) and maintain those verses are consistent with grace alone; while believers of the latter camp come up with a less than intuitive interpretation of (A) and maintain those verses are consistent with work + grace.

From the outside (A) is clearly inconsistent with (B) if not an out right contradiction. Christian can't accuse us of bias against the Bible because their own peers, all but from the other camp, came to the same interpretation as those of us without a horse in the race.

Perhaps, but anyone else may make the accusation as the bible isn't being used to show that there is no contradiction. What is silly isn't the blatant contradiction within the texts themselves, but the Christians who argue these differing positions as if Paul were arguing with James.

The problem lies within the inability of the "believers" to notice one of the fundamental ideas of salvation, i.e. that it is only by God's grace,mercy, faith, power and will that anyone may be saved. This is Paul's position while James isn't even addressing that fact, but the fact that when one is already saved, they will produce evidence of that fact.

Where people get sidetracked is in thinking that works are necessarily evidence of salvation; they're not as is evidenced by Jesus' comments to the scribes and Pharisees. This means that one cannot look to their own works as evidence of salvation. Salvation is a systemic process. It is something that happens to the "believer", not something they do. There is nothing to do. Christ does it all through the beliver. This is where many drop the ball as well. They think that Christ did it all when the reality is that Christ does it all.

Christ doesn't live in some grand mansion up in the sky. He lives in and with and through the reflection of his own image shining into the world, (e.g. "You are the light of the world"). Most of the world can't begin to comprehend what this means. They're not adapted to that kind of light. Those who are get it, those who don't, don't. This is what the texts state. e.g. John chapter 1; matthew 13:10,11; etc.

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 134 by shnarkle]

So have you considered why Jesus' statement is conditional, and what it could possibly be conditioned upon? I can see why no one wants to answer this question given that the basic idea is that he will be coming in glory within the lifetime of those who are around listening to him speak, yet everyone decides that the condition must have been met, therefore it's a contradiction. Well, what was the condition that was met? It couldn't have been conditioned upon them dying as eveyone dies. That's a certainty. Was he speaking of a glory prior to his own death, or after? Why? I don't think it had anything to do with his transfiguration on the mountain, but one can't rule out the possibility given that it happens in the next scene. It seems more like a sneak peak, and it doesn't tell us what the condition is that was met.

Or does it?

The explicitly articulated reason Jesus gives when he begins his ministry is to call Israel to repentance. If they had heeded his message, the kingdom would have come into being; that glorious kingdom of messiah that is described in such glowing detail throughout the Old Testament. That didn't happen. It didn't happen when Jesus announced it, and it didn't happen when his own disciples made the same announcement after he had died.

To repent and make one's way straight was the message of the forerunner who came in the spirit of Elijah. To repent is to turn from transgressing God's law (personified by Moses). That didn't happen so the conditions weren't met, therefore there can be no contradiction.

Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord.
20 And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you:
21 Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.
22 For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you.
23 And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people.
24 Yea, and all the prophets from Samuel and those that follow after, as many as have spoken, have likewise foretold of these days.
25 Ye are the children of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed.
26 Unto you first God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities. Acts 3:19-26

So when is it going to happen? The texts plainly point out that it will be when "every knee will bend and every head bow" to their king. How can any knee bend or head bow without repentance?

Within the texts, the only knee to bend or head that bowed without repentance was Christ's.

[Willum]

[Replying to shnarkle]

You are incorrect, Israel has cried penetance a few times in history. Mostly during the Crusades.

[Bust Nak]

[Replying to post 1 by shnarkle]

Second candidate, the whole Trinity business. Trinitians have to make up new words to explain it re: consubstantial. Any analogy that tries to explain the relationship ends up being a heresy. Also related is the idea that Jesus is fully God and fully man.

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 1 by shnarkle]

Second candidate, the whole Trinity business. Trinitians have to make up new words to explain it re: consubstantial. Any analogy that tries to explain the relationship ends up being a heresy. Also related is the idea that Jesus is fully God and fully man.

I agree, the notion of the Trinity is an absurdity compelled by the box the early Christians built for themselves. They had to remain monotheist, yet one of their factions insisted Jesus of Nazareth was also God, so rather than admit to this heresy they came up with the idea they were both one and two. They also had to fit together the contradiction that this God was still fully human. This is the tangled web that is woven of fairy dust and contradiction that is required when one starts with lies and piles on more of them. Then they sit back and call it 'mystery.' And of course if you object to this obvious nonsense, they you are a heretic incapable of understanding. They strain gnats and swallow camels.