Contradictions in the N.T.

[liamconnor]

I apologize, for I am sure this is a hackneyed topic.


Now, though discrepancies and even contradictions in the Bible do not automatically threaten my beliefs (there are some which, if they could be shown, would make me abandon Christianity) still, the mention of "contradictions in Scripture" is made so often, I have forgotten which ones we have in mind.

Let's narrow this down to the N.T. since that is an explicitly Christian compilation.

What are they. Are there ways of reconciling them?

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 36 by Divine Insight]

This thread is about contradictions.

If "Jehovah is righteous in all His ways, and kind in all His works" then why did he ever command men to stone sinners to death in the first place?

First, he implemented the death sentence in a few situations; so let's be specific.

Second, How do you interpret "righteousness"? What should the penalty have been for adultery?

Does righteousness mean in the case of adultery "Hey, you made a promise to Sarah. You got Sarah pregnant and she lost her figure; you saw another hot girl years younger. You scratched an itch. So what! You're only human. Dump Sarah and join with the hot girl. After all, we all know these vows of fidelity are just romantic words, intended to spice up the ceremony, and not supposed to be taken seriously."

There are major problems with the whole shebang Liamconnor.

You ask, "How do you interpret "righteousness"? What should the penalty have been for adultery?"

Well according to Jesus in the New Testament there should be no penalty at all. Instead of stoning the the adulteress to death he simply forgave her and set her free.

What would you suggest? To go back to stoning her to death again like the God of the Old Testament saw as being "righteous"?

If that's your sense of "righteousness" you should revert to the original Judaism and tell Jesus to take a hike.

Actually I would employ the behavior of Jesus. Not because I "follow" Jesus sense of morality, but rather in this case he actually expressed my sense of morality. Let the adulterers do whatever they want. If there is a God let God deal with them as he sees fit.

In my own personal case it's not a problem. I don't personally commit adultery. I never have and I've never even been tempted to do so. Unless you accept JLB's definition of being "tempted". I have had married women ask me to have sex with them. But I turned them down because I genuinely have no interest in having sex with another man's wife. So there was not even any "temptation" there even though I was being "asked" to participate in the act. And I'm even a single man, so I wouldn't have even been cheating on my own wife since I don't have one.

Also, had I ever married I can be certain that I would have never cheated in my wife. How can I be so certain? Well, because I never married and I still have cheated on the wife I don't have yet.

So if I can be celibate without a wife, surely I could be monogamous with a wife.

Also, if I were married and my wife cheated on me I would naturally do the same thing Jesus did, again, not to follow his lead, but simply because he just happened to do the same thing I would have done. I would simply tell her to go on her way. Although I wouldn't have even bothered to instruct her to "sin no more" because it's not my place to tell other people what to do.

The only "punishment" my cheating wife would need to endure is the fact, that she can no longer have a meaningful relationship with me. She would be more than free to go have a relationship with the man she was cheating with.

I don't see the point to "punishments". Especially physically violent punishments. What's the point in that?

What I can see are "consequences" for actions. And if these consequences are going to be dictated by a supremely intelligent God then they should be supremely intelligent consequences. And in my mind this means that they would be productive and constructive, not violent, barbaric, and destructive.

Had the Biblical God been a God of intelligent consequences that would have been far more believable. But the Biblical God is not this. The Biblical God is a God associated with ignorant barbaric destructive punishment that serve no one any good.

And you call that "righteousness"?

I don't.

So apparently this is the point on which we part ways.

I just don't see violent barbaric physical punishments that serve no constructive or productive purpose as being "righteous".

And this is especially true when Jesus speaks of "Everlasting Punishment". What's the point in that? Who benefits from an "Everlasting Punishment"? The only person who could possibly benefit from this would be a person who thrives on the sadistic pleasure of having obtained everlasting vengeance.

The Lake of Fire = Everlasting Vengeance.

I see no "righteousness" in that.

[JLB32168]

I am not against him.

You kinda are. I mean, you call yourself an atheist and former Christian. That doesn’t really sound like a ringing endorsement for Christ. Just sayin’. \

One must accept Jesus Christ to be cleansed of sin and thus saved from Hell.

What does “accept Jesus� mean?

[1213]

If "Jehovah is righteous in all His ways, and kind in all His works" then why did he ever command men to stone sinners to death in the first place?

Because when person who is charged to be judge sees that one doesn’t repent and is guilty, he can give judgment that is good in that situation. (Good for example because it protects other people)

[1213]

…
Matt 12:30
"Whoever is not with me is against me"

Luke 9:50
"for whoever is not against you is for you."

I am not with him.
I am not against him.
So going by these verses, what am I?

Actually you should have said:
“I am not with him.
I am not against them.�

That would have represented more accurately what the scriptures say.

But still if you are not with him you are against him. But if you are not really against him, you are really with him.

2) (on God being love)
1st John 4:8 God is love
1st Cor 13:5 Love does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs.
Rev 20:12 And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life. The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books.

So is God love or not?

Interesting thing is that in Finnish translation 1st Cor 13:5 has meaning “…Doesn’t remember the evil that he has suffered�, If person doesn’t remember the evil that has happened to him, it doesn’t mean there would not be book with records that people have done to other people.

…
A small child under the age of understanding and those who have mental disabilities will be automatically saved from Hell because they are incapable of understanding that they need Jesus.
…

Is that said in the Bible?

[OnceConvinced]

I am not against him.

You kinda are. I mean, you call yourself an atheist and former Christian. That doesn’t really sound like a ringing endorsement for Christ. Just sayin’. \

Are you trying to say that if I am not against something I should be endorsing it? That doesn't make any sense. Why would I endorse something unless I was passionate about it?

Not endorsing something is clearly not the same as being against it. There are many things I am not for, but it doesn't mean I rally against them in anyway. And there are many things I am not against. That doesn't mean I should promote or endorse them. I am simply neutral to them.

I simply don't believe in Jesus anymore. That is not saying I'm against him. I used to believe in Santa Claus as a kid. Does the fact that I no longer believe in Santa mean that I now am against Santa Claus? Of course not. That would be ludicrous. It would be completely irrational to make such a claim.

If Jesus could be shown he is real I would be for him.

One must accept Jesus Christ to be cleansed of sin and thus saved from Hell.

What does “accept Jesus� mean?

From my perspective as a Christian it was accepting Jesus as the son of God. Accepting that his sacrifice paid for my sins. Accepting him as my lord and saviour.

I'm sure we could come up with a big list of things explaining what "accept Jesus" means. Would you like to start a new thread on it?

[OnceConvinced]

…
Matt 12:30
"Whoever is not with me is against me"

Luke 9:50
"for whoever is not against you is for you."

I am not with him.
I am not against him.
So going by these verses, what am I?

Actually you should have said:
“I am not with him.
I am not against them.�

That would have represented more accurately what the scriptures say.

It seems Jesus was stating a general rule when he said "Whoever is not against you is for you." I don't think we need to apply it to just the people he was talking to for that specific job. The logic of Jesus seems to be very contradictory here.

If we wanted to say that 2nd scripture was specific to the people he was talking to then this would be my stance:

I am not with him
I am not against him.
I am not with them
I am not against them

But still if you are not with him you are against him.

No, I'm am not against him at all. That would be a complete lie. I take a neutral stance. If it could be shown he is real and alive, then I would most definitely be for him. I would be a Christian right now.

But if you are not really against him, you are really with him.

So according to that one scripture then I am for him. Well whadaya know. I'm a believer! I endorse Jesus!

2) (on God being love)
1st John 4:8 God is love
1st Cor 13:5 Love does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs.
Rev 20:12 And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life. The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books.

So is God love or not?

Interesting thing is that in Finnish translation 1st Cor 13:5 has meaning “…Doesn’t remember the evil that he has suffered�, If person doesn’t remember the evil that has happened to him, it doesn’t mean there would not be book with records that people have done to other people.

And why would we go with the Finnish translation? Is that the one true version of the bible we can trust?

The thing is the bible also states that whatever we do for others, we do for God. So if we are doing good deeds to others, then we are doing those good deeds for God. So the opposite must surely apply to. If we commit evil against another person, we are committing evil towards God. So EVERYTHING we do is going to affect god. So as soon as God records these acts of hurt towards people, he is recording acts of hurt towards himself. ie the evil he has suffered.

…
A small child under the age of understanding and those who have mental disabilities will be automatically saved from Hell because they are incapable of understanding that they need Jesus.
…

Is that said in the Bible?

Note that I made this clarification:

"(Standard doctrinal beliefs based on NT teachings) "

ie it's a standard belief amongst Christianity. If you disagree with those beliefs and teachings, then you and I have nothing to debate on that one.

[JLB32168]

Are you trying to say that if I am not against something I should be endorsing it? That doesn't make any sense.

When I say, “Christianity is bunk� then I’m chucking Christ. Chucking Christ would generally be interpreted by a sample size of reasonable people as being against Christ. It sounds logical to me.

Not endorsing something is clearly not the same as being against it.

And I’d agree with you in other circumstances but clearly Christ meant that a failure to endorse his Gospel as an either/or, black/white thing. You can’t be “not necessarily� pregnant.

I simply don't believe in Jesus anymore.

Yeah – that pretty much means that you’re against Him. There’s not a middle road in this case. Sorry.

[Willum]

My favorite contradiction is one I may have discovered.

Caesar Augustus was divine. There were temples in Palestine, definitely shrines where Jesus preached.

Jesus allegedly stated "render to Caesar what is Caesar, to God (as Theos) what is Gods."

But this has a completely different meaning when you are standing OUTSIDE a temple dedicated to Caesar.

Imagine Jesus, gesturing to the new built temple of Caesar, and saying; "Render to Caesar what is Caesars," then gesturing to the run down temple to Jove and saying "rendering God what is Gods."

Imagine you were a Greek or Roman listening to this. Imagine now, you were a Sadducee.
Now imagine you were Christian. Ho, ho, you CAN'T: There were no Christians.

It means, render to (the divine) Caesar, his tithes, render to the other god what is his. Caesar was responsible for food in winter, sanitation, protection, and was the god of water, harvest and war respectively. God was what he always was, doing what he always did (nothing).

So what was Jesus saying?

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 48 by Willum]

My favorite contradiction is one I may have discovered.

Caesar Augustus was divine. There were temples in Palestine, definitely shrines where Jesus preached.

Jesus allegedly stated "render to Caesar what is Caesar, to God (as Theos) what is Gods."

But this has a completely different meaning when you are standing OUTSIDE a temple dedicated to Caesar.

Imagine Jesus, gesturing to the new built temple of Caesar, and saying; "Render to Caesar what is Caesars," then gesturing to the run down temple to Jove and saying "rendering God what is Gods."

Imagine you were a Greek or Roman listening to this. Imagine now, you were a Sadducee.
Now imagine you were Christian. Ho, ho, you CAN'T: There were no Christians.

It means, render to (the divine) Caesar, his tithes, render to the other god what is his. Caesar was responsible for food in winter, sanitation, protection, and was the god of water, harvest and war respectively. God was what he always was, doing what he always did (nothing).

I found an even better one.

Jesus called Herod a fox; but Herod didn't have a tail!!!!

Ha, silly Jesus.

But in all seriousness. "There were definitely temples to Caesar in Palestine". I don't know how "definite that is", and would love some evidence for this statement.

but Jesus spoke those words in Jerusalem.

Are you arguing there were "definitely" an imperial temple in Jerusalem! Do you have any evidence for this? Have you read Josephus? Do you know what a temple to any other than YHWH would do to that city? Do you remember what happened when Pilate tried to bring in Roman images?

I am very interested in the history behind this statement.

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 31 by Elijah John]

What doesn't add up is the idea of God sacrificing Himself to Himself, or that three Gods are One God, and One God is three Gods.

But pure montheism and simple repentance makes sense.

I don't think you quite comprehend Pauline theology.

Repentance is most certainly a major feature in the N.T.; and God most surely is gracious to forgive. But does that fix the problem? Will I not continue to sin? Does this not pose an endless cycle?

You are attacking a scholastic doctrine of atonement, not the Bible.