GoodK please give your top 5 biblical contradictions

[_Jersey Girl]

With extensive Internet documentation, no one appears to have addressed any of the separate sources demonstrating the extensive list of biblical contradictions which far exceeds “5.”

Why is that?

The research has already been done on contradictions. It has already been documented. There are numerous books on the subject in addition to the links on the Internet.

Why not take even one.

How about this one dealing with numerical discrepancies in the Bible.

There are 13 others.

See THIS POST

The various links provide organized, easy-access to details of biblical contradictions and discrepancies.

JAK

JAK,

As stated in the OP:

GoodK please give your top 5 biblical contradictions

This thread is for GoodK, if he agrees, to list his top five biblical contradictions and then we can discuss them (though I should warn that I may be posting a bit less in the next couple of weeks).

richard has asked for 5 biblical contradictions and specifically from GoodK for discussion. Those 5 Bible contradictions as listed by GoodK are the only biblical contradictions on the table for discussion.

[_GoodK]

Before this thread dies, is the contention that none of the stated contradictions exist, or are they acceptable because ______ , or what?

[_Jersey Girl]

Before this thread dies, is the contention that none of the stated contradictions exist, or are they acceptable because ______ , or what?

Please don't let this thread die, GoodK. It is one of the more "manageable" threads that I've seen here of late. I attempted to address those contradictions that I thought were arguable, though my time here has been redirected to board functioning issues and I haven't been able to stay on it as I had hoped.

I'm don't think that all of the contradictions you listed are explainable infact, I think there are explanations available for both "sides" and each is speculation based. I would have to say though, with regards to acceptability, that I think the contradictions fall under the heading of minutia and are irrelevant to the accounts in general.

When one takes the position that the gospels are either first hand or second hand eye witness accounts, there are going to be inconsistencies in each account and I think Kevin addressed this previously. Even our judicial system cannot arrive at absolute truth. I don't see how or why anyone would think that we, 2,000 years later, could arrive at absolute truth regarding ancient documents that were written by and for an ancient culture that makes the interpretation of such out of our reach so far as complete understanding.

One of the main reasons I choose to participate on threads such as this, is for the resource material that is presented. I can see no other reachable goal than that.

[_JAK]

With extensive Internet documentation, no one appears to have addressed any of the separate sources demonstrating the extensive list of biblical contradictions which far exceeds “5.”

Why is that?

The research has already been done on contradictions. It has already been documented. There are numerous books on the subject in addition to the links on the Internet.

Why not take even one.

How about this one dealing with numerical discrepancies in the Bible.

There are 13 others.

See THIS POST

The various links provide organized, easy-access to details of biblical contradictions and discrepancies.

JAK

JAK,

As stated in the OP:

GoodK please give your top 5 biblical contradictions

This thread is for GoodK, if he agrees, to list his top five biblical contradictions and then we can discuss them (though I should warn that I may be posting a bit less in the next couple of weeks).

richard has asked for 5 biblical contradictions and specifically from GoodK for discussion. Those 5 Bible contradictions as listed by GoodK are the only biblical contradictions on the table for discussion.

Jersey Girl,

Jersey Girl states here:

“richard has asked for 5 biblical contradictions and specifically from GoodK for discussion. Those 5 Bible contradictions as listed by GoodK are the only biblical contradictions on the table for discussion.”

In the same thread Jersey Girl states here:

“One of the main reasons I choose to participate on threads such as this, is for the resource material that is presented. I can see no other reachable goal than that.”

Precisely in harmony with your last statement, my links to “biblical contradictions” are resource material which I presented via links to websites which give full and complete discussions of the very issue on the topic biblical contradictions.

Within consecutive posts by you on this thread, you contradict yourself. All the references which I presented by links are relevant to “biblical contradictions” which are “resource material” (in which you state you have interest).

If you’re genuinely interested in the issue and the topic of “biblical contradictions,” each of the resources in this post are relevant to this discussion. By no means are “biblical contradictions” limited to “5.” And “resource material”, your term in the above linked post, is presented in each of those 14 sources which I made easily available to any reader.

If you don’t want any research, then you don’t want any “resource material” such as were in each of those websites.

Your statement which I reference above states that you are interested in “resource material.”

My research post is exactly on topic of “biblical contradictions” and exactly on “resource material” (your phrase).

I see the personal attacks I cited and which you as moderator agreed were personal attacks remain on the “Celestial” division. They were entirely off the topic of that discussion. My references on the post of sources in this thread are detailed and on the topic of “biblical contradictions.” Of course they can be ignored. They are not personal attacks.

JAK

[_Jersey Girl]

With extensive Internet documentation, no one appears to have addressed any of the separate sources demonstrating the extensive list of biblical contradictions which far exceeds “5.”

Why is that?

The research has already been done on contradictions. It has already been documented. There are numerous books on the subject in addition to the links on the Internet.

Why not take even one.

How about this one dealing with numerical discrepancies in the Bible.

There are 13 others.

See THIS POST

The various links provide organized, easy-access to details of biblical contradictions and discrepancies.

JAK

JAK,

As stated in the OP:

GoodK please give your top 5 biblical contradictions

This thread is for GoodK, if he agrees, to list his top five biblical contradictions and then we can discuss them (though I should warn that I may be posting a bit less in the next couple of weeks).

richard has asked for 5 biblical contradictions and specifically from GoodK for discussion. Those 5 Bible contradictions as listed by GoodK are the only biblical contradictions on the table for discussion.

Jersey Girl,

Jersey Girl states here:

“richard has asked for 5 biblical contradictions and specifically from GoodK for discussion. Those 5 Bible contradictions as listed by GoodK are the only biblical contradictions on the table for discussion.”

In the same thread Jersey Girl states here:

“One of the main reasons I choose to participate on threads such as this, is for the resource material that is presented. I can see no other reachable goal than that.”

Precisely in harmony with your last statement, my links to “biblical contradictions” are resource material which I presented via links to websites which give full and complete discussions of the very issue on the topic biblical contradictions.

Within consecutive posts by you on this thread, you contradict yourself. All the references which I presented by links are relevant to “biblical contradictions” which are “resource material” (in which you state you have interest).

If you’re genuinely interested in the issue and the topic of “biblical contradictions,” each of the resources in this post are relevant to this discussion. By no means are “biblical contradictions” limited to “5.” And “resource material”, your term in the above linked post, is presented in each of those 14 sources which I made easily available to any reader.

If you don’t want any research, then you don’t want any “resource material” such as were in each of those websites.

Your statement which I reference above states that you are interested in “resource material.”

My research post is exactly on topic of “biblical contradictions” and exactly on “resource material” (your phrase).

I see the personal attacks I cited and which you as moderator agreed were personal attacks remain on the “Celestial” division. They were entirely off the topic of that discussion. My references on the post of sources in this thread are detailed and on the topic of “biblical contradictions.” Of course they can be ignored. They are not personal attacks.

JAK

The topic of this thread is 5 biblical contradictions from GoodK as per richard's request in the OP.

[_harmony]

Ok. So you said that many assert Mary was a descendant of David. Can you help with a link to why this may be the case? Or a passage that implies this?

Here's a link.
http://www.abideinchrist.com/messages/o ... ssiah.html

The “abideinchrist” link is a biased link which upholds a version of Christian mythology. It lacks objectivity and skeptical review (as do all religiously biased links which are pundits for Christianity).

However, Christian dogma as never claimed that Mary was not of natural childbirth.

JAK

There you go again, JAK, trying to change the subject to your favorite subject of "God does not exist".

Why should a Christian source present a skeptical review? The discussion is about Christian beliefs, so of course a Christian souce would be acceptable. It's not like someone is going to ask an atheist about a Christian belief.

Good grief. If you can't discuss the subject of the thread don't bother to add your comments.

As for the relationship between Mary and King David, the source documents it. We all know Jesus was part human; heckafire! His mother was human!

[_harmony]

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

Agreed.

Your claim that Jesus was of “man” is incorrect according to Roman Catholic Doctrine.

And if we were all Catholics here, you might have a good argument. But we're not. So try again.

[_GoodK]

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

Agreed.

Your claim that Jesus was of “man” is incorrect according to Roman Catholic Doctrine.

And if we were all Catholics here, you might have a good argument. But we're not. So try again.

With over a 1,000 different flavors of Christianity, how can we possibly know/address each individual interpretation.

Is there a non-Catholic piece of doctrine that clears this up for those other forms of Christianity?

Nope.

[_richardMdBorn]

JAK:

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

This is incorrect. The immaculate conception has to do with the alleged sinlessness of Mary. You're confusing it with the Virgin birth (or more properly, virgin conception).

The doctrine is that neither Mary nor Joseph were biologically connected to Jesus. Mary was a “virgin.”

The Virgin birth states that Joseph was not the biological father but Mary was the mother of Jesus.

The doctrinal claim is that the whole of Jesus was immaculate Conception and birth. Mary was merely the carrier of God’s creation

You're wrong. See for example

Fundamentalists are sometimes horrified when the Virgin Mary is referred to as the Mother of God. However, their reaction often rests upon a misapprehension of not only what this particular title of Mary signifies but also who Jesus was, and what their own theological forebears, the Protestant Reformers, had to say regarding this doctrine.

A woman is a man’s mother either if she carried him in her womb or if she was the woman contributing half of his genetic matter or both. Mary was the mother of Jesus in both of these senses; because she not only carried Jesus in her womb but also supplied all of the genetic matter for his human body, since it was through her—not Joseph—that Jesus "was descended from David according to the flesh" (Rom. 1:3).

http://www.catholic.com/library/Mary_Mother_of_God.asp

[_Jersey Girl]

]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.

Mary was the Immaculate Conception. The link you provided states so. Here it is:

Immaculate Conception

The doctrine
In the Constitution Ineffabilis Deus of 8 December, 1854, Pius IX pronounced and defined that the Blessed Virgin Mary "in the first instance of her conception, by a singular privilege and grace granted by God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the human race, was preserved exempt from all stain of original sin."

"The Blessed Virgin Mary..."
The subject of this immunity from original sin is the person of Mary at the moment of the creation of her soul and its infusion into her body.

"...in the first instance of her conception..."
The term conception does not mean the active or generative conception by her parents. Her body was formed in the womb of the mother, and the father had the usual share in its formation. The question does not concern the immaculateness of the generative activity of her parents. Neither does it concern the passive conception absolutely and simply (conceptio seminis carnis, inchoata), which, according to the order of nature, precedes the infusion of the rational soul. The person is truly conceived when the soul is created and infused into the body. Mary was preserved exempt from all stain of original sin at the first moment of her animation, and sanctifying grace was given to her before sin could have taken effect in her soul.

"...was preserved exempt from all stain of original sin..."
The formal active essence of original sin was not removed from her soul, as it is removed from others by baptism; it was excluded, it never was in her soul. Simultaneously with the exclusion of sin. The state of original sanctity, innocence, and justice, as opposed to original sin, was conferred upon her, by which gift every stain and fault, all depraved emotions, passions, and debilities, essentially pertaining to original sin, were excluded. But she was not made exempt from the temporal penalties of Adam -- from sorrow, bodily infirmities, and death.

"...by a singular privilege and grace granted by God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the human race."
The immunity from original sin was given to Mary by a singular exemption from a universal law through the same merits of Christ, by which other men are cleansed from sin by baptism. Mary needed the redeeming Saviour to obtain this exemption, and to be delivered from the universal necessity and debt (debitum) of being subject to original sin. The person of Mary, in consequence of her origin from Adam, should have been subject to sin, but, being the new Eve who was to be the mother of the new Adam, she was, by the eternal counsel of God and by the merits of Christ, withdrawn from the general law of original sin. Her redemption was the very masterpiece of Christ's redeeming wisdom. He is a greater redeemer who pays the debt that it may not be incurred than he who pays after it has fallen on the debtor.

Such is the meaning of the term "Immaculate Conception."

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm