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.

[Bust Nak]

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.

That's not what the text says. It says Father is God, it says Jesus is God.

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.

"I see God through you, Jesus" is quite the different claim to "you are my God, Jesus."

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.

But you do know what text I would give for examples.

I don't even know what texts you're referring to now.

We have been talking about it just 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.

It's not that long between posts.

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.

That's what those examples are there for.

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.

But I gave you examples of where the concept is 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.

That's a matter of semantics, don't like the word "person?" How about three beings in one God?

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

Just checking, you did say not even one set of contradiction as opposed to not even one set of significant contradiction.

Nothing if you can show how this has significantly affected the faithful...

Doesn't matter now that you've clarified your earlier statment.

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.

You are introducing your interpetation.

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

What makes your non-Trinitian interpretation better than Trinitian interpretation?

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...

Woah, are you accepting that some of the concept of the Trinity can be found in the text?

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.

What are you saying? Trinitians are good sources for the doctrine?

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.

So says the guy who ignore the text that says Jesus is God only create a consistent narrative in someone's mind, not the texts themselves?

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.

Evidence says otherwise - posting contradictory texts within the bible doesn't work.

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

Yes, the texts themselves inform us Jesus is God. What's seems to be the probelm with my paraphrase?

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.

Apart from the bit where it says Jesus is God?

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.

That's because "My mirror and my reflection" isn't paired with something along the lines of "I don't have a reflection."

[Goose]

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.

False. In your example here (if A is meant to represent the text) the text is consistent, it is always A. It is the interpretation, in your example here, which is contradictory (X) and ~(X). Either one interpretation is false or they both are. But they cant both be true.

Nothing.

Then why dont you go ahead and show the text is contradictory?

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

What on earth is going on here? You agree with me that (A) and ~(A) is necessarily contradictory. And you have answered that nothing is stopping you from showing this in the text. Im getting the impression you are stalling here.

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?

Its irrelevant who accepts it. Either there is a contradiction in the text or there isnt. When do we get to see it?

[Bust Nak]

False. In your example here (if A is meant to represent the text)...

No, "A is X and A is not X" is meant to represent the text.

It is the interpretation, in your example here, which is contradictory (X) and ~(X). Either one interpretation is false or they both are. But they cant both be true.

Does "A is X" qualify as a false interpretation of "A is X and A is not X", when it clearly says A is X as bolded?

Then why dont you go ahead and show the text is contradictory?

Loaded question cannot be answered. I provide them here. It's kinda hard to miss, the last few pages were all about them.

Its irrelevant who accepts it. Either there is a contradiction in the text or there isnt. When do we get to see it?

About 24 hours ago.

[shnarkle]

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.

That's not what the text says. It says Father is God, it says Jesus is God.

No, it doesn't. It literally says, "The Lord of me, the God of me", and as was already pointed out earlier, there is all the difference in the world between the origin and the mediator. My mirror and my reflection is not a contradiction. I can see my reflection and I can also see that it is because of the existence of the mirror that I can see my reflection. There is the origin of all things from God the father, and there is the means by which all things come into being which is the son, the lord, the word, Christ.

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.

"I see God through you, Jesus" is quite the different claim to "you are my God, Jesus."[/quote]

Despite the presence of quotation marks, neither of those statements is found in the texts.

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.

But you do know what text I would give for examples.[/quote]

Paul's elaboration of the Shema in his letter to the Corinthians?

I don't even know what texts you're referring to now.

We have been talking about it just now.[/quote]

Well then I don't see why you think there's a contradiction when the text plainly points out that God is the origin of all that exists while Christ is the means by which all comes into being. Pretty simple. You can't have one without the other. If one didn't exist, we'd have "turtles all the way down". Lo and behold, we don't have that problem now either.

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.

But I gave you examples of where the concept is found.

And there are plenty of people who can find Intelligent Design in the theory of evolution, would you then conclude that the theory of evolution is contradictory?

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.

That's a matter of semantics, don't like the word "person?" How about three beings in one God?[/quote]

Don't like Intelligent Design? How about we just show that it works coherently, therefore the theory of evolution is contradictory and inconsistent.

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

Just checking, you did say not even one set of contradiction as opposed to not even one set of significant contradiction.

If you're having trouble understanding the topic, just refer to the OP.

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.

You are introducing your interpetation.

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

What makes your non-Trinitian interpretation better than Trinitian interpretation?[/quote]

The words "trinity"; "Trinitarian" etc. aren't in 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...

Woah, are you accepting that some of the concept of the Trinity can be found in the text?[/quote]
No. I'm simply pointing out the distinction between what is in the text and what is in the doctrine. More importantly, it makes no difference if anyone congers up a doctrine that contradicts the texts because the topic isn't about contradictions with the texts, but contradictions within the texts.

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.

What are you saying? Trinitians are good sources for the doctrine?[/quote]

Yep, they're the one who came up with these ideas. They're the one's who coined these terms. They're the one's who are only too happy to take credit for it as well.

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.

So says the guy who ignore the text that says Jesus is God only create a consistent narrative in someone's mind, not the texts themselves?[/quote]

The fact is that you can't produce one single verse that says, "Jesus is God" The fact is that there are no verses that say this. I've posted the verses that tell the reader who and what Jesus is, and they all point to him as "the image"; "form" etc. of God. If anyone looks at their image in a mirror and believes that the image is who they are, the psychiatric community would conclude that they have lost touch with reality. The same holds true with these texts. The image is a reflection, not what is reflected.

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.

Evidence says otherwise - posting contradictory texts within the bible doesn't work.[/quote]

So far you've only posted contradictory doctrines, ideas, interpretations which for what they're worth, are still appreciated.

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

Yes, the texts themselves inform us Jesus is God. What's seems to be the probelm with my paraphrase?[/quote]

You aren't paraphrasing the text. The texts point out that God is "incomparable", that "there is none like him" etc. God is essentially transcendent. Transcendence, by definition cannot be seen. Only the word which is a symbol for transcendence can be seen. This is simple logic using nothing but the plain definition of words. Jumping to false conclusions based upon faulty logic and redefining words doesn't constituted a contradiction within the texts.

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.

Apart from the bit where it says Jesus is God?[/quote]

Your imagination notwithstanding, no.

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.

That's because "My mirror and my reflection" isn't paired with something along the lines of "I don't have a reflection."[/quote]

Right, it's paired with "My lord and my God" or "created in the image of God". The image is paired with 'lord" while what is reflected is paired with God. The lord is the mirror, the means by which the reflection is allowed to reflect God. So what are we looking at? We're looking at God's image reflected in the mirror of "the lord".

Here's a great example of what I 'm talking about. Hopefully this will alleviate your confusion.

[Goose]

No, "A is X and A is not X" is meant to represent the text.

...

Does "A is X" qualify as a false interpretation of "A is X and A is not X", when it clearly says A is X as bolded?

But thats not an interpretation of the text then. Thats the text itself asserting an explicit contradiction. So where is that in the text?

Loaded question cannot be answered. I provide them here. It's kinda hard to miss, the last few pages were all about them.

But where are the texts that support your assertion (made here) that, "Grace alone" versus "work + grace" seems like the most obvious candidate? This was the alleged contradiction I responded to because I think, that if it is a contradiction, it would be a significant one. Where are those contradictory texts?

As for 1 Corinthians 8:6 and John 20:28. I think others have kept you busy on those but I dont see an explicit contradiction here either.

1 Corinthians 8:6 yet for us there is but one god the father from whom all things came and for whom we live and there is but one lord Jesus Christ through whom all things came and through whom we live.

John 20:28 Thomas said to him my lord and my god

(Ive removed the punctuation. There is no such punctuation in the Greek. Punctuation is added by the translators and can significantly alter the meaning of a text. Ive also removed the capitals)

I think post 166 summarized your argument when you said, The first one says the Father is God, while the latter says Jesus is God. How is that not a contradiction?

Its not a contradiction because Paul implies in 1 Cor 8:6, and elsewhere (Philippians 2, Romans 9:5), Jesus is equal to God as well. Notice in the bold Paul attributes to both God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ similar characteristics " whom all things came, whom we live. God the Father and Lord Jesus Christ are equal in power and purpose according to Paul. John is trying to make a particular theological point about Jesus divine status and has Thomas declare Jesus is his Lord and God. Consistent with Pauls words.

[alexxcJRO]

"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.

But thats not a contradiction within the texts themselves. Those are conflicting doctrinal positions derived from different interpretations of the text. And besides, this isnt a contradiction anyway. At least it isnt an explicit contradiction of (A) and ~(A). Its more like (A) and (A+B), where (A+B) is adding to (A) not directly contradicting it.

From the outside (A) is clearly inconsistent with (B) if not an out right contradiction.

Inconsistent doctrines perhaps but not an explicit contradiction in the texts. And if either (A) or (A+B) is a false doctrinal position based on an incorrect interpretation then of course there is no contradiction at all even between the doctrines.

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.

Fair enough, but entirely irrelevant to whether or not the texts are contradictory.

Here some contradictions for you:

Contradiction1: None is innocent vs some are innocent.

"No One Is Righteous
9 What shall we conclude then? Do we have any advantage? Not at all! For we have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under the power of sin. 10 As it is written: There is no one righteous, not even one;

"they have burned incense in it to gods that neither they nor their ancestors nor the kings of Judah ever knew, and they have filled this place with the blood of the innocent. 5 They have built the high places of Baal to burn their children in the fire as offerings to Baal"something I did not command or mention, nor did it enter my mind."

P1. Bible says none is righteous, innocent.
P2. Bible says some are righteous, innocent.
C: Therefore we have a contradiction in the bible.


Contradiction2: Nobody saw God vs some saw God.

On one hand we have some verses say no human has ever seen God or God's face:

"But He said, You cannot see My face; for no man shall see Me, and live."(Exodus 33:20)

"No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him."(John 1:18)

"No one has seen God at any time. If we love one another, God abides in us, and His love has been perfected in us."(1 John 4:12)



On the other hand we have other verses that say several humans have seen God or God's face:

Abraham saw God:
Now when Abram was ninety-nine years old, the LORD appeared to Abram and said to him, "I am God Almighty; Walk before Me, and be blameless; (Gen. 17:1)
"Now the LORD appeared to him by the oaks of Mamre, while he was sitting at the tent door in the heat of the day. (Gen. 18:1)

Moses saw God:
"The LORD would speak to Moses face to face, as one speaks to a friend."(Exodus 33:11)


Jacob saw God:
" And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: For I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved. " ( Genesis 32:30)

Angel hypothesis refuted: "2 God spoke further to Moses and said to him, I am the Lord;
3 and I appeared to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as Almighty, but by My name, Lord, I did not make Myself known to them."(Exodus 6:2-3).

Contradiction3:

Bible says

1. God is an omnipotent, omniscient, perfectly good/morally perfect(benevolent and loving towards all, does not do evil), super wise, just and merciful being.

Bible says

2. God is a malevolent, capricious, unwise, unjust, unloving, genocidal, infanticidal bully
(
-orders some humans to inflict countless suffering and pain to countless non-moral agents(infants, severely mentally impaired people, non-human animals); to not show mercy and compassion to non-moral agents(infants, severely mentally impaired people, non-human animals);

-promises to to inflict countless suffering and pain to countless non-moral agents(infants, severely mentally impaired people, non-human animals);

-inflicts countless suffering and pain to countless non-moral agents(infants, severely mentally impaired people, non-human animals). He burns alive, drowns countless of them. He kills countless of them by plagues, sword either directly or by proxy. He has no mercy for non-moral agents(infants, severely mentally impaired people, non-human animals), he punishes them together with the moral agents;
).

1 is suported by A and 2 is suported by B.

A.
Omnipotence:
"And looking at them Jesus said to them, "With people this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.""
" For nothing will be impossible with God."
"Behold, I am the LORD, the God of all flesh; is anything too difficult for Me?"

Omniscient:
"Great is our Lord and abundant in strength; His understanding is infinite."
"in whatever our heart condemns us; for God is greater than our heart and knows all things."
" Even before there is a word on my tongue, Behold, O LORD, You know it all.'
"For I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is no one like Me, Declaring the end from the beginning, And from ancient times things which have not been done"

God is benevolent and loving towards all. His love is everlasting.
"9 The Lord is good to all
he has compassion on all he has made.;"
" For God so loved the world", that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life."
"Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love.""
"Give thanks to the God of heaven, for his steadfast love endures forever.""

God is perfectly good/morally perfect
"To declare that the LORD is upright; He is my rock, and there is no unrighteousness in Him.""
"Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.."
" His work is perfect, For all His ways are just;."
"As for God, His way is blameless;"""
" For God cannot be tempted by evil"", nor does he tempt anyone;"

God is super wise and just:
"Great is our Lord and abundant in strength; His understanding is infinite.;"
"13 With Him are wisdom and might; To Him belong counsel and understanding"
"20 Daniel answered and said, Let the name of God be blessed forever and ever, for wisdom and power belong to Him""
" His work is perfect, For all His ways are just;"

God is super merciful:
"14 David said to Gad, I am in deep distress. Let us fall into the hands of the Lord, for his mercy is great."
"4 But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy."


B.
"15 So the LORD sent a plague on Israel" from that morning until the end of the time designated, and seventy thousand of the people from Dan to Beersheba died. "

" Thus says the Lord", About amidnight I am going out into the midst of Egypt,
5 and all the firstborn in the land of Egypt shall die, from the firstborn of the Pharaoh who sits on his throne, even to the firstborn of the slave girl who is behind the millstones; all the firstborn of the cattle as well. "

See, I will stir up against them the Medes ,
who do not care for silver
and have no delight in gold.
18 Their bows will strike down the young men;
they will have no mercy on infants,
nor will they look with compassion on children.

I will make Mount Seir utterly desolate, killing off all who try to escape and any who return. I will fill your mountains with the dead. Your hills, your valleys, and your streams will be filled with people slaughtered by the sword. I will make you desolate forever. Your cities will never be rebuilt. Then you will know that I am the LORD.

"This is what the Lord of hosts has to say : I will punish what Amalek did to Israel when he barred his way as he was coming up from Egypt. Go, now, attack Amalek, and deal with him and all that he has under the ban. Do not spare him, but kill men and women, children and infants, oxen and sheep, camels and asses.

"Let the offspring of the wicked never be mentioned again.
21 Prepare a place to slaughter his children for the sins of their ancestors; they are not to rise to inherit the land and cover the earth with their cities.
22 I will rise up against them, declares the Lord Almighty.
I will wipe out Babylons name and survivors, her offspring and descendants, " declares the Lord."

" The LORD says , All their wickedness began at Gilgal; there I began to hate them. I will drive them from my land because of their evil actions. I will love them no more because all their leaders are rebels. The people of Israel are stricken. Their roots are dried up; they will bear no more fruit. And if they give birth, I will slaughter their beloved children. "

Then I heard the LORD say to the other men , Follow him through the city and kill everyone whose forehead is not marked. Show no mercy; have no pity! Kill them all " old and young, girls and women and little children. But do not touch anyone with the mark. Begin your task right here at the Temple. So they began by killing the seventy leaders. Defile the Temple! the LORD commanded.Fill its courtyards with the bodies of those you kill! Go! So they went throughout the city and did as they were told.

" I will release wild animals that will kill your children and destroy your cattle , so your numbers will dwindle and your roads will be deserted."

" My angel will go before you and bring you to the Amorites, Hittites, Perizzites, Canaanites, Hivites, and Jebusites; and I will wipe them out."

" They completely destroyed everything in it " men and women, young and old, cattle, sheep, donkeys " everything.

"And the men of Israel turned back against the people of Benjamin and struck them with the edge of the sword, the city, men and beasts and all that they found. And all the towns that they found they set on fire."

"You shall surely put the inhabitants of that city to the sword, devoting it to destruction, all who are in it and its cattle , with the edge of the sword."

"So Joshua struck the whole land, the hill country and the Negeb and the lowland and the slopes, and all their kings. He left none remaining, but devoted to destruction all that breathed, just as the Lord God of Israel commanded."

"And the Lord gave it also and its king into the hand of Israel. And he struck it with the edge of the sword, and every person in it; he left none remaining in it. "

"And the others came out from the city against them, so they were in the midst of Israel, some on this side, and some on that side.And Israel struck them down, until there was left none that survived or escaped. But the king of Ai they took alive, and brought him near to Joshua. When Israel had finished killing all the inhabitants of Ai in the open wilderness where they pursued them, and all of them to the very last had fallen by the edge of the sword, all Israel returned to Ai and struck it down with the edge of the sword. And all who fell that day, both men and women, were 12,000, all the people of Ai"

[Bust Nak]

No, it doesn't. It literally says, "The Lord of me, the God of me", and as was already pointed out earlier, there is all the difference in the world between the origin and the mediator.

That's your interjection. It says Jesus is the God of Thomas.

My mirror and my reflection is not a contradiction.

And it's a red herring, because it was not paired with something that contradicts it.

Despite the presence of quotation marks, neither of those statements is found in the texts.

The text is right there, I am paraphrasing what it says. "The God of me" when referring to Jesus means "Jesus is my God." Do you have a problem with that?

Paul's elaboration of the Shema in his letter to the Corinthians?

Yes, as well as the four gospels.

Well then I don't see why you think there's a contradiction when the text plainly points out that God is the origin of all that exists while Christ is the means by which all comes into being. Pretty simple. You can't have one without the other. If one didn't exist, we'd have "turtles all the way down". Lo and behold, we don't have that problem now either.

That much is simple, I don't know why you think that resolves the contradiction. Is the following a contradiction: F=G & S=G & F!=S?

And there are plenty of people who can find Intelligent Design in the theory of evolution, would you then conclude that the theory of evolution is contradictory?

No, why would I?

Don't like Intelligent Design? How about we just show that it works coherently, therefore the theory of evolution is contradictory and inconsistent.

That doesn't follow.

If you're having trouble understanding the topic, just refer to the OP.

Hey, don't blame me for forgetting the significant bit in.

The words "trinity"; "Trinitarian" etc. aren't in the text.

So? Neither is "omnipotence" yet I don't see Christians objecting to its use.

No. I'm simply pointing out the distinction between what is in the text and what is in the doctrine. More importantly, it makes no difference if anyone congers up a doctrine that contradicts the texts because the topic isn't about contradictions with the texts, but contradictions within the texts.

And my point was, the concept trinity is in the text even if the word isn't.

Yep, they're the one who came up with these ideas. They're the one's who coined these terms. They're the one's who are only too happy to take credit for it as well.

So what's wrong with appealing to a good source?

The fact is that you can't produce one single verse that says, "Jesus is God"

What's wrong with "The Lord of me, the God of me?"

I've posted the verses that tell the reader who and what Jesus is, and they all point to him as "the image"; "form" etc. of God.

Hang on, "image" I get, surely Jesus is the "form" of God helps the case of the Trinitians and undermines yours?

So far you've only posted contradictory doctrines, ideas, interpretations which for what they're worth, are still appreciated.

I present exhibit B - posting contradictory texts within the bible doesn't work.

You aren't paraphrasing the text. The texts point out that God is "incomparable", that "there is none like him" etc...

The paraphrasing point is addressed above. As for the rest of that paragraph, well there you go, that contradict with the text that says that Jesus is God. All you can do is interpret those specific text with an "oh, it doesn't mean Jesus is literally God, it means Jesus is the reflection of God."

Right, it's paired with "My lord and my God" or "created in the image of God".

Don't forget it's also paired with Jesus is God.

The image is paired with 'lord" while what is reflected is paired with God...

Look, pointing where the text says Jesus is a reflection of the father doesn't help you one bit. It won't make the text not say Jesus is God.

[Bust Nak]

But thats not an interpretation of the text then. Thats the text itself asserting an explicit contradiction. So where is that in the text?

"The text" being referred to here, is literally this: "A is X and A is not X", not the Bible. I am asking you a question on that text: Does "A is X" qualify as a false interpretation of that text, when the first clause clearly says A is X?

But where are the texts that support your assertion (made here) that, "Grace alone" versus "work + grace" seems like the most obvious candidate? This was the alleged contradiction I responded to because I think, that if it is a contradiction, it would be a significant one. Where are those contradictory texts?

Is this really necessarily? Surely you are familiar with the debate between the two camps. Start with this:

James 2:24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.
Romans 3:28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.

(Ive removed the punctuation. There is no such punctuation in the Greek. Punctuation is added by the translators and can significantly alter the meaning of a text. Ive also removed the capitals)

A side point, suppose I can provide a clear contradiction to your satisifion in an English translation, how significant would that be?

Its not a contradiction because Paul implies in 1 Cor 8:6, and elsewhere (Philippians 2, Romans 9:5), Jesus is equal to God as well.

You say equal to, is Jesus God? Do you believe the Bible teaches the Trinity?

[Goose]

"The text" being referred to here, is literally this: "A is X and A is not X", not the Bible. I am asking you a question on that text: Does "A is X" qualify as a false interpretation of that text, when the first clause clearly says A is X?

Oh, okay. In that case, then, the answer is no. It would not be a false interpretation of A is X to say A is X if the text we are looking at is "A is X and A is not X". But you do agree with me that, "A is X and A is not X" is logically incoherent, right? Either one is false or they both are. But it cant logically be the case that both A is X and A is not X are true, right? I sure hope you agree here. If not, we may as well stop talking with one another.

And then, I have to ask, how does this example translate over to your contention that both interpretations can be correct but the text is contradictory if A doesn't represent the text of the Bible? What are the values for A and X in your example then?

Is this really necessarily?

Yes, its necessary to look at the primary text. Ive learned to be cautious of arguments that dont.

Surely you are familiar with the debate between the two camps. Start with this:

James 2:24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.
Romans 3:28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.

Firstly, right off the bat your contention has problems. Your contention was that there is a contradiction between: "Grace alone" versus "work + grace. Yet, the word grace doesnt even appear in either of these passages and they are pertaining to justification which your contention doesnt mention at all. Did you just make a mistake here or did you mean something else?

All one need do is read the entire chapter of James 2 and it becomes quite apparent that the context is that James is addressing a kind of faith. The kind of dead faith which produces no good works (2:17, 26). That kind of faith is no different than the mere belief the demons have (2:19). And thats a problem because the demons arent justified.

And thats where your arguments continually fail. They dont address context. And thats what you need for a contradiction to stick. It has to be (X) and ~(X) at the same time in the same sense. You are just ripping pithy verses out of their context, juxtaposing them, and declaring a contradiction without building a contextual case for why its a contradiction. That may work on the uninitiated of the internet, but its not a scholarly way to approach the subject.

As for the contradiction between these two verses as stand alone verses. Its not even necessary for me to build a contextual back ground anyway. Youve failed to show how these verses contradict. Both James and Paul, here, affirm that faith is required in order to be justified. The works James is referring to here are good works like feeding and clothing the poor (James 2:15-17). The deeds Paul is talking about which we are not justified by are the works of keeping the law, or ~(C). In other words, these arent the same works. What we have then in these two verses is something like James asserting: justification is achieved by faith and good deeds or (A) and (B). Where Paul appears to affirm (A), is silent on (B), and asserts ~(C) in this passage. In other words, we have (A) and (B), (A) and ~(C). Thats not a contradiction.

A side point, suppose I can provide a clear contradiction to your satisifion in an English translation, how significant would that be?

The significance is the impact it has on Christianity. So an inconsequential contradiction on something like where did Jesus land his boat might be useful as an argument against inerrancy for example. But big whoop.

A contradiction on how one enters heaven, however, has eternal consequences and is therefore highly significant. In other words, in my opinion, the significance of the contradiction is the impact of it on Christianity, not whether or not there simply is one.

As for Greek. It carries nuances that English doesnt. Translators may be inadvertently creating the appearance of a contradiction with a poor rendering or may be attempting to smooth out a contradiction for theological reasons. Its always a safer bet to look at the original language. My suspicion is, though, you dont know Greek. Which would explain why you wish to focus on the English translations.

You say equal to, is Jesus God?

According to Paul, yes, Jesus is equal to God. Therefore, theres no contradiction between Paul and John.

Do you believe the Bible teaches the Trinity?

Irrelevant to my counter argument.

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 187 by Bust Nak]

It literally says, "The Lord of me, the God of me", and as was already pointed out earlier, there is all the difference in the world between the origin and the mediator.

That's your interjection. It says Jesus is the God of Thomas.

It is not my interjection. It is what the texts state. Here it is again:

"But to us there is but one God, the Father, OF WHOM all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, BY WHOM are all things, and we BY him. 1 Corinthians 8:6";

"For IN Him all the fulness of Deity dwells IN bodily form, Col.2:9";

"For there is ONE God, and one MEDIATOR between God and men, the man Christ Jesus. 1 Tim. 2:5"

My mirror and my reflection is not a contradiction.

And it's a red herring, because it was not paired with something that contradicts it.

Of course it isn't paired with something that contradicts it. It's paired with the texts under discussion. That doesn't make it a red herring. Intentionally pairing it with something that is irrelevant is a red herring.

Despite the presence of quotation marks, neither of those statements is found in the texts.

The text is right there, I am paraphrasing what it says. "The God of me" when referring to Jesus means "Jesus is my God." Do you have a problem with that?

No, you're the one who has the problem in that you don't see the rest of the quote which is what is explicitly refering to Jesus. Again, I include the example of the mirror for your benefit. Ignoring it will only increase your confusion. My mirror and my reflection spotlights the fact that you can't have one without the other. You insist on ignoring the fact that Thomas says: "My lord". This is explicitly articulated throughout the texts as referring to Christ. Why do you have a problem with that? Why do you feel the need to repeatedly ignore the abundant references from the texts(including this one) which repeatedly point out that Jesus is lord? Jesus is the mirror that produces the image. It is "through" him that the "image" of God is seen. The image doesn't originate from him. It orinates from God. Thomas didn't just say "MY God", he said "My lord AND my God". You can't have a reflection without the mirror, and it isn't a mirror if it doesn't reflect an image, and most importantly, the mirror is NOT the image it reflects. This doesn't negate the fact that the mirror is there. Conflating the two is a problem for those who can't tell the difference. It isn't a problem with the mirror or the image.

Well then I don't see why you think there's a contradiction when the text plainly points out that God is the origin of all that exists while Christ is the means by which all comes into being. Pretty simple. You can't have one without the other. If one didn't exist, we'd have "turtles all the way down". Lo and behold, we don't have that problem now either.

That much is simple, I don't know why you think that resolves the contradiction.

Because you think that conflating the origin with the means is a contradiction within the texts. It isn't. It's a contradiction in your method. Pointing out that the origin is not the means resolves the contradiction. The mirror is not the image it reflects. It is a mirror. If someone looks at a picture of a person and says "that's a person", they've lost touch with reality as that is quite simply not a person at all. It is a picture of a person. Conflating the two creates a contradiction in terms. Pointing to the fact that a picture is not a person resolves the confusion, at least for those who are able to grasp reality. This is the whole point of ink blot tests. The subject's statements are observed to see if they are able to articulate exactly what they're looking at. When they say, "this is a..." they're crazy. When they say, "this looks like..." they're sane or they know how to cheat the test. Let's not pretend that we're having an honest discussion when you repeatedly choose to ignore what all of these texts consistently articulate.

And there are plenty of people who can find Intelligent Design in the theory of evolution, would you then conclude that the theory of evolution is contradictory?

No, why would I?

Obviously for the exact same reason you choose to conclude that external false doctrines, interpretations, etc. can create contradictions in a work of fictional literature.

Don't like Intelligent Design? How about we just show that it works coherently, therefore the theory of evolution is contradictory and inconsistent.

That doesn't follow.

Yes, and it doesn't follow when the exact same methodology is employed with fictional liturature as well. Case in point: your argument.

If you're having trouble understanding the topic, just refer to the OP.

Hey, don't blame me for forgetting the significant bit in.

It isn't blame, it's just a simple observation, and a helpful suggestion.

The words "trinity"; "Trinitarian" etc. aren't in the text.

So? Neither is "omnipotence" yet I don't see Christians objecting to its use.

Well, in point of fact they aren't objecting to its use because it is in the text. "Omni" means "All" and "potent;potence" means power, might, force, etc. Hence "Allmighty" which is used repeatedly at least over a dozen times.

No. I'm simply pointing out the distinction between what is in the text and what is in the doctrine. More importantly, it makes no difference if anyone congers up a doctrine that contradicts the texts because the topic isn't about contradictions with the texts, but contradictions within the texts.

And my point was, the concept trinity is in the text even if the word isn't.

The concept is in your head. Concepts don't exist as anything other than concepts. But hey, everyone knows this is beside the point. The point here is to present the contradictions within the texts themselves. So all you have to do is present the contradictory concepts within the texts themselves. When I or anyone else points out that the texts define their terms and provide those texts to support the actual definition of these terms, the burden of proof is upon you to address and refute those definitions. Ignoring them doesn't relieve you of that burden.

Yep, they're the ones who came up with these ideas. They're the ones who coined these terms. They're the ones who are only too happy to take credit for it as well.

So what's wrong with appealing to a good source?

Again the burden of proof is upon you to prove that they are good sources, but even the texts themselves point out that "only god is good", so good luck presenting us with that source. Once again, the authors have thought of everything. You simply can't win when the dice are loaded. They've insured that the dice cannot be contradictory.

The fact is that you can't produce one single verse that says, "Jesus is God"

What's wrong with "The Lord of me, the God of me?"

The Lord of me, the God of me" doesn't mean "Jesus is God". It means Jesus is his lord. The proof texts have already been provided. Are you going to address those texts and/or refute them?

I've posted the verses that tell the reader who and what Jesus is, and they all point to him as "the image"; "form" etc. of God.

Hang on, "image" I get, surely Jesus is the "form" of God helps the case of the Trinitians and undermines yours?

You can obsess over Trinitarian doctrine all you please, it has nothing to do with this topic. Trinitarians beleive that there are three persons in one God. I only see one person; Jesus Christ. People aren't transcendent, therefore the transcendent father cannot be a person except of course "through" the lord. The image cannot be seen except "through" the mirror itself.

The reflected image is not what it reflects. It is the reflected image of what it reflects.
The reflected image is not what it reflects. It is the reflected image of what it reflects.
The reflected image is not what it reflects. It is the reflected image of what it reflects.

The image is paired with 'lord" while what is reflected is paired with God...

Look, pointing where the text says Jesus is a reflection of the father doesn't help you one bit.

Actually it doesn't help you one bit. It does support the fact that there is no contradiction.

It won't make the text not say Jesus is God.

Right, but then the fact remains that the text doesn't say "Jesus is God". The texts repeatedly state that Jesus is lord. To falsely assume for no apparant reason that Jesus is now God when Thomas includes "my lord" is to simply ignore the text.

The texts say "When you have seen the son you have seen the father". When you have seen the mirror, you have seen the image.

The texts say, "I and the father are one". There is one mirror and one image, and they are the same single image of God. Again it is imperative not to forget:

The reflected image is not what it reflects. It is the reflected image of what it reflects.
The reflected image is not what it reflects. It is the reflected image of what it reflects.
The reflected image is not what it reflects. It is the reflected image of what it reflects.

Look in a mirror. You will see your mirror, and your reflection, and neither one of them is who or what you are. You are not a mirror nor are you a reflection. This doesn't negate the fact that it is your mirror and your reflection.

Thomas says that Jesus is his lord through whom his God is seen. Thomas doesn't need to conflate the two. You must conflate the two and ignore the rest of the bible in order to come up with your contradiction. Again, the topic isn't about contradictions in your own ways of thinking, but contradictions within the texts.