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.

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 169 by Bust Nak]

You do see the difference between coming up with a significant contradiction and coming up with a significant contradictory interpretation acceptable to Christians, right?

You can come up with all the contradictory interpretations you please that are acceptable or unacceptable to anyone you please and it will still have nothing to do with this topic.

The fact that there are sizable camp of inconsistent doctrines shows we've achieved the former.

Not even close. All it shows is inconsistent doctrines which again has nothing to do with this topic. As I've already addressed the fact that texts which explain the meaning of other texts immediately spotlights the fact that there is no contradiction within the texts themselves. I don't think anyone is denying the existence of contradictory doctrines here, and they simply can't be used to prove a text is contradictory any more than a baseless assertion could.

[Bust Nak]

Really? did he say the word "one" did he say the word "true"? I think not. Do you realize that when you say your understanding and that understanding doesn not refer to the exact the words in the text, you are interpreting?

You asked me what I thought Paul was trying to communicate. I thought you might have wanted to know what John was trying to communicate. Without adding anything words there, Paul says the Father is God; while Thomas, according to John, said Jesus is God.

Once there is room for your interpretation at least intellectually, surely you can see there is also room for an alternative interpretation.

Sure. And surely you can see one interpretation require less argument to justify than the other.

Thomas did not say "You Jesus are the one true God" he did not say "I will not be worshipping the Father" is there even the word "worship" in the text?

But he did say Jesus is God.

And even if all those words were in the second text, how is one man saying one thing that another states he doesn't believe a contradiction rather than two individuals making different choices?

Let me stop you there quickly, why would you think I would interpet that text as Thomas wanting to stop worshipping the Father?

If a private investigator reports one woman slept with her husband while her neighbour slept with the milkman, is the report contradictory?

No, I don't see where you are going with this.

In short, one will have to interpret ones way into a "contradiction", which you have demonstrated is possible, if one is willing to "add" words and conclusions not explicitly stated therein. Left as is, the two texts may raise some questions but no more, they certainly don't qualify as "blantant contradictions" "significant" contradictions or if we're being brutally honest "contradctions" at all.

So stick to the plain reading and not add any words.

[Bust Nak]

You can come up with all the contradictory interpretations you please that are acceptable or unacceptable to anyone you please and it will still have nothing to do with this topic.

So who made you the ulitmate judge of what is and isn't acceptable? What makes your interpetation better than that of other Christians?

Not even close. All it shows is inconsistent doctrines which again has nothing to do with this topic.

Where do you think the doctrine came from, if not from the text?

As I've already addressed the fact that texts which explain the meaning of other texts immediately spotlights the fact that there is no contradiction within the texts themselves.

Why doesn't "you can come up with all the consistent alternative interpretations you please that are acceptable or unacceptable to anyone and it will still have nothing to do with this topic" apply to this?

I don't think anyone is denying the existence of contradictory doctrines here, and they simply can't be used to prove a text is contradictory any more than a baseless assertion could.

Would you accept the lesser claim that the existence of contradictory doctrines is evidence that a text is contradictory?

[JehovahsWitness]

Thomas did not say "You Jesus are the one true God" he did not say "I will not be worshipping the Father" is there even the word "worship" in the text?

But he did say Jesus is God.

No, he didn't even say that! he said "My Lord and My God". My (being a possessive adjective) conveying you are God to ME, you are Lord to Me.

• In the original language God theos/(Hebrew El) simply means powerful one, and is a recognition of that which we recognize as more powerful/superior to ourselves. He made no statement about Jesus being the established object of worship, nor of Jesus' supremacy, nor of his relative position to The Father, nor of who Christians in general or even (if we are contrasting with Paul) the Corinthians should or should not worship,... All such statements were absent. He simply made an exclamation that reconized Jesus as (at the very least "his God")

You are of course free to presume/interpret/interject/imply, impose, suppose... as many ideas as you wish but were we or were we not "plain reading"?

So stick to the plain reading and not add any words.

• So Paul said there are many gods people worship, and affirmed he and the Corinthians worship the Father.
  
  Thomas exclaimed on an occassion, addressing Jesus "My Lord and My God"

- Did Thomas contradict (in plain reading) ANYTHING Paul said? No

- What did Thomas mean? It's not clear.

- Is it a "contradiction"? It's not clear.

- Can we interject a contradiction? If you wish.

- Can we explain the two without concluding they are contradictions? Certainly.

THAT is the plain reading.

[Goose]

There is a third possibility, both are correct and the text is contradictory.

False. They can't both be correct interpretations if the text itself is contradictory. If the text is contradictory then at least one interpretation is still incorrect - the interpretation that follows the incorrect text.

Again, what's stopping you from reading plain old A&~A as not necessarily contradictory?

Whether I acknowledge a contradiction is irrelevant. There either is one or there isnt. And Ive already acknowledged (A) and ~(A) is necessarily contradictory. Whats stopping you from showing this in the text itself?

How would you suggest I go about doing that without interpretations?

Why are you asking me how to prove your argument? Perhaps start by quoting the texts themselves? I suggest you do it in Greek to help remove one layer of interpretation from the translators. If there is an explicit contradiction it will be self evident.

You do see the difference between coming up with a significant contradiction and coming up with a significant contradictory interpretation acceptable to Christians, right? The fact that there are sizable camp of inconsistent doctrines shows we've achieved the former.

Non-sequitur. It just shows something we already know, Christians can disagree amongst themselves. What it doesnt show is a contradiction in the text itself.

[shnarkle]

Thanks for providing two texts, but again the point isn't to just provide two texts. The point is to provide two texts that contradict each other. There is no contradiction here.

The first one says the Father is God, while the latter says Jesus is God. How is that not a contradiction?

Because the texts themselves point out that when one sees the Son (Jesus) they are effectively looking at the Father (God) Paul says he "is the fullness of the godhead in bodily form" He is the form and image of God. It is by and through Christ that the Father is seen.

The first text actually explains what is meant by the second text. Thomas is speaking to Christ who is the lord through whom all things came including Christ's own revelation of God, the Father. He explicitly states this

no one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him. Matthew 11:27

So Christ has revealed God to Thomas, and there is only one way to see the Father and that is through Christ the Lord. e.g.

Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. John 14:9

Merely revealing God to Thomas is quite the different claim to Thomas saying Jesus is God.[/quote]

Jesus is standing there in "the fullness of the godhead in bodily form". He is looking at God. He is looking at the image of God. He admits that Christ is the lord "through whom" is the only way to see the Father "from whom" the Son came.

Not at all. I'm pointing out that the doctrine of the trinity isn't relevant The only thing that is relevant are the significant contradictions within the texts themselves.

Then why make a big fuss over the lack of example

I'm not making a fuss. I'm pointing out that you are ignoring the topic which is explicitly asking for examples from the texts.

when you do know what text I was referring to?

I don't even know what texts you're referring to now. If you're going to refer to a text that you feel is significant, then provide the texts, preferably each and every time you refer to them so we can all know what you're referring to.

What about it?

Those are further verses that expresses the idea of the Trinity.

That's quite a claim, and evidence as well as some sort of context would be a great place to start with these extraordinary claims.

No, there's no acknowledgment of a blatant contradiction. Blatant contradictions are silly, especially when they're assumed from concepts outsidse the texts themselves, but this isn't what is silly in the sentence. Blatant contradictions can be serious especially when they are infrerred from concepts that are outside the texts themselves. This is what is silly.

Ok, but why would you think the Trinity is anything other than a concept prescribed by the Bible?

Because it is nowhere to be found in the bible. The term is nowhere to be found and the concept is nowhere to be found. The doctrine of the Trinity suggests that there are three persons in one God. A person is defined as "a man, woman or child, etc.". The Father doesn't fit any of those criteria, nor does the Spirit, therefore it isn't in the texts. If there is anyplace where God the Father , or his holy spirit is described as a man woman or child, please enlighten us to this text.

I'm not a mind reader. Evidently I am the one who expected too much as no one seems able to provide even one set of contradictory texts; at least not one that is self evidently contradictory.

Would just any old contradiction do,

Of course not. The whole point of this topic is to present significant contradictions that have latsing ramifications for the faithful believer.

even if not significant doctinally?

If the contradiction impacts the doctrines that could be significant to that particular faith, but this in and of itself wouldn't make the contradiction necessarily significant. For example, if the texts stated that Thomas preached the gospel in Asia Minor while those churches in Asia Minor believed that their church was started by Stephen, then they mignt find this a significant contradiction whereas the texts themselve aren't contradicing themselves at all.

What's wrong with the typical examples like whether you can see God or not?

Nothing if you can show how this has significantly affected the faithful. Then again, I've never see you, yet some could claim to have seen you as well, and this is clearly not a contradiction now is it? Some see him, some don't. Some are aware of God, and this is usually referred to as "seeing" which means they have an awareness that doesn't rely on one's eyes. This is common in mysticism or wisdom lituature. It's even cross cultural, e.g. the bible, the Quran, Sufi literature, modern day "new age" liturature, etc. The seer "sees" the meaning of the vibrating entrails. The meaning isn't seen with the eyes, the eyes see only the vibrating entrails.

[shnarkle]

You can come up with all the contradictory interpretations you please that are acceptable or unacceptable to anyone you please and it will still have nothing to do with this topic.

So who made you the ulitmate judge of what is and isn't acceptable? What makes your interpetation better than that of other Christians?

I don't know what you're referring to specifically? Provide an example.

Not even close. All it shows is inconsistent doctrines which again has nothing to do with this topic.

Where do you think the doctrine came from, if not from the text?

Well given that the term 'trinity' is nowhere to be found in the text, and much of the doctrine can't be found in the text either, at the very least it leaves us with those who are reading the texts and those who came up with the doctrine as good sources for the doctrine.

As I've already addressed the fact that texts which explain the meaning of other texts immediately spotlights the fact that there is no contradiction within the texts themselves.

Why doesn't "you can come up with all the consistent alternative interpretations you please that are acceptable or unacceptable to anyone and it will still have nothing to do with this topic" apply to this?

Because as I just stated:

the fact that texts which explain the meaning

The texts interpret themselves, and to ignore the texts only creates a contradiction in someone's mind, not the texts themselves.

I don't think anyone is denying the existence of contradictory doctrines here, and they simply can't be used to prove a text is contradictory any more than a baseless assertion could.

Would you accept the lesser claim that the existence of contradictory doctrines is evidence that a text is contradictory?

No, the reason being that it doesn't follow. The existence of contradictory doctrines is evidence of contradictory doctrines. Posting the two contradictory texts and pointing out just what you think is contradictory is about the best way to proceed if one wants to find contradictory texts within the bible. It's also probably the quickest way as well. This doesn't seem to be of much interest to most people posting on this topic.

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 172 by Bust Nak]

Quote:
Thomas did not say "You Jesus are the one true God" he did not say "I will not be worshipping the Father" is there even the word "worship" in the text?

But he did say Jesus is God.

That is your inference. Thomas is articulating these words without actually saying Jesus' name. He did not say "Jesus is God". What he said was "My lord and my God", and the texts themselves inform us just who is the lord and who is God, as well as explicitly articulating the fact that God cannot be seen except through the lord, the father cannot be seen except through the son. When you have seen the son you have seen the father. Has Thomas seen the son? Yep. Therefore he has seen the father who the texts all agree is God It really doesn't get much more simple than that.

Here's another example. Look in a mirror. What do you see? You can only see what is reflected in that mirror, right? One could say, "My mirror and my reflection". Most aren't going to look at that statement as a contradiction because it is so blatantly obvious, yet when Thomas articulates what the texts have been articulating all along, people become baffled.

[Bust Nak]

No, he didn't even say that! he said "My Lord and My God". My (being a possessive adjective) conveying you are God to ME, you are Lord to Me.

Meh, Jesus is God to Thomas, that's the same thing as Thomas said Jesus is God.

He made no statement about Jesus being the established object of worship, nor of Jesus' supremacy, nor of his relative position to The Father, nor of who Christians in general or even (if we are contrasting with Paul) the Corinthians should or should not worship,... All such statements were absent.

Right, so stick to the claim that Jesus is God.

He simply made an exclamation that reconized Jesus as (at the very least "his God")

Well there you go.

You are of course free to presume/interpret/interject/imply, impose, suppose... as many ideas as you wish but were we or were we not "plain reading"?

You added those, not I.

Did Thomas contradict (in plain reading) ANYTHING Paul said?

Depends if the Father can be the same stuff as Jesus re: consubstantial.

What did Thomas mean?

Jesus is his God.

Can we explain the two without concluding they are contradictions? Certainly.

By introducing the Trinity, but you don't like that.

[Bust Nak]

False. They can't both be correct interpretations if the text itself is contradictory. If the text is contradictory then at least one interpretation is still incorrect - the interpretation that follows the incorrect text.

What do you mean. "A is X and A is not X" There is one interpretation that says A is X and another that says A is not X. Both fits the text and the text is contradictory.

Whether I acknowledge a contradiction is irrelevant. There either is one or there isnt. And Ive already acknowledged (A) and ~(A) is necessarily contradictory. Whats stopping you from showing this in the text itself?

Nothing.

Why are you asking me how to prove your argument?

Becauase you've along with shnarkle made yourself judge of what is and isn't a contradiction?

If there is an explicit contradiction it will be self evident.

Evidence says otherwise.

Non-sequitur. It just shows something we already know, Christians can disagree amongst themselves. What it doesnt show is a contradiction in the text itself.

You do see the difference between show there is a contradiction in the text and getting Christians to accept there is a contradiction in the text, right?