GoodK please give your top 5 biblical contradictions

[_richardMdBorn]

Richard,

The significance of doctrine controversy lies in the various notions of what it means as Christianity has evolved.

Second, none of the doctrine was officially defined until Pope Pius IX did so in 1854. Yet before this it was generally accepted by Roman Catholic hierarchy.

My conclusion was this for GoodK:

The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is interpreted differently by various Protestant groups.
Some accept the RCC doctrine, other reject it. Still others construct a different interpretation or doctrine.

It is fair to recognize that various interpretations are claims or articles of faith.

Keep in mind that the writing of these scripts took place long after the alleged specific words were to have been spoken.
Hence, problematic interpretations.

You offer no refutation to the conclusion.

The World Book Encyclopedia Library Edition quoted Bishop Fulton J. Sheen and the Luke 1:34-38 as “articles of faith” and in support of this statement as it appears in that encyclopedia:

“Immaculate Conception is a doctrine of the Roman Catholic church. It means that the Virgin Mary, in order to be pure enough to become the mother of Christ, was conceived free from the burden of original sin (miracle one). Her soul was created in the purest holiness of innocence.

“The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was defined by Pope Pius IX on December 8, 1854.

“The term is often confused among non-Catholics with Virgin Birth. But this term has no connection with the Immaculate Conception. Mary had two human parents.

“The virgin Birth implies a miracle, namely that Christ was ‘conceived by the Holy Ghost and born of the Virgin Mary’ (miracle two). She had asked the Angel Gabriel how she, a virgin, should become the mother of the promised Messiah, and she was told this would be by the power of God. (Luke 1: 34-38)” –World Book Encyclopedia

So if you disagree, Richard, your disagreement is not with me, but rather with the World Book Encyclopedia, various Roman Catholic websites, and the Encyclopedia Britannica.

Third, the various possible interpretations are about doctrinal claims or “articles of faith.”

There are two articles of faith in the Roman Catholic doctrine. One refers to the purity of Mary’s soul and the other refers to the doctrine that Christ was conceived by the Holy Ghost.

JAK

Now JAK you're arguing with yourself! The verses you cited in your previous post support the virgin birth not the immaculate conception!

You stated on Fri Apr 04, 2008 4:33 pm

According to the doctrine of “Immaculate Conception” (Christianity), Joseph was not the father of the claimed “Messiah” in Jesus.

Now you correctly state

“Immaculate Conception is a doctrine of the Roman Catholic church. It means that the Virgin Mary, in order to be pure enough to become the mother of Christ, was conceived free from the burden of original sin (miracle one). Her soul was created in the purest holiness of innocence.

Don't you realize that this contradicts the post you just made. Jeeze. In the same previous post you stated Fri Apr 04, 2008 4:33 pm:

The doctrine is that neither Mary nor Joseph were biologically connected to Jesus. Mary was a “virgin.” The doctrinal claim is that the whole of Jesus was immaculate Conception and birth. Mary was merely the carrier of God’s creation.

which is complete nonsense as I pointed out to you.

[_haleray]

I do not think there is disagreement. Only different points of view. As another post said, each gospel writer had a different point of view. Not only that, I may be wrong, but also there is no indication that each writer read what the other one said. As has been seen time and time again, people remember things differently. That shows their human, not that they disagree with each other.

[_GoodK]

I do not think there is disagreement. Only different points of view. As another post said, each gospel writer had a different point of view. Not only that, I may be wrong, but also there is no indication that each writer read what the other one said. As has been seen time and time again, people remember things differently. That shows their human, not that they disagree with each other.

How is the quote below demonstrative of a different point of view rather than a disagreement (mistake)?

1 Sam 7:13: "So the Philistines were subdued and they came no more unto the coast of Israel; and the hand of the Lord was against the Philistines all the days of Samuel."

The great Biblical commentator Dummelow writes: "This must be understood as the optimistic notice of a later writer. The narrative of [chapter 14] shows that Israel did not succeed in recovering from the Phillistine oppression."

Two chapters later:

1 Sam 9:16: (Samuel is talking): To morrow about this time I will send thee a man out of the land of Benjamin, and thou shalt anoint him to be captain over my people Israel, that he may save my people out of the hand of the Philistines; for I have looked upon my people, because their cry has come unto me."

and

1 Samuel 13:5
And the Philistines gathered themselves together to fight with Israel, thirty thousand chariots, and six thousand horsemen, and people as the sand which is on the sea shore in multitude: and they came up, and pitched in Michmash, eastward from Bethaven.

[_guy sajer]

Many of these are not contradictions per se, but rather different versions told by different witnesses.

This is exactly what we would expect if the Jesus narrative were based on real people and real events. So it only works against the Christ mythers. I mean how does any of these discrepancies serve their theory that the entire thing was made up? The conspiracy by Christian scribes ... they were smart enough to pull off this massive hoax, and somehow get thousands of people from great distances to believe it, yet they were too dumb to notice the apparent discrepancies in scripture? While they were doctoring the texts, why didn't they remove the discrepancies?

The Bible is a compilation of books written by different authors. What we are witnessing is exactly what one would expect.

Now if the entire thing were perfect without a hint of discrepancy or variation, then that would present a problem for Christians, as it would point to a single author - redactor.

IF these events actually happened and were recounted by different persons, then I'd expect there to be varying depictions of events. I have no problem with this, and I think Dart is correct.

This is a side issue, however. The real question is whether these events ever actually happened. If Dart can point to one other example of someone rising from the dead, then maybe all these other issues might become relevant. And without evidence of the sort, I think we can comfortably chalk all this up to yet more religious myth making.

Let me add also that the characters in the New Testament appear to take literally the mythological events and persons described in the Old Testament that portrays a murderous bastard of a God who, after committing genocide worse than Hitler could even have imagined in his fondest wet dream, now suddenly loves all human kind so much he sends his son to save them.

I mean, c'mon.

Debating whether errors in the New Testament are indicative of the truthfulness of the Bible is akin to debating whether plot holes in Attack of the Clones tells us whether the events told therein are factually true.