What is the biggest bible contradiction?

Anastasia wrote:

quote:

---

These religions are considered heretical even by protestant standards

---

Is this a surprise? Catholics consider the Baptists heretical, Baptists consider the Episcopals and pentecostals heretical, the penetcostals consider the Catholics heretical, and on and on. Christians consider religions with different beliefs to be heretical, that's nothing new and goes back as far as far back as there were Christians. It's even in the books of the new testament, where one group of Christians calls another group heretical, says that they aren't Christian (or "True ChristiansTM"), and goes on to attack them.It's nothing new today - Christians, even 1,900 years later, still call other Christians "not Christian" unless the approve of their beliefs. We see that even here at EvC here:

quote:

---

BTW, they are also not considered christians anymore by christians.

---

*****************************************And of course, the same arguments between Christians about who is Christian and who is a heretic extend to what "scripture" is and isn't. When the dozens of Christianities sprang up after Jesus, they all had different scripture, and all said their stuff was scripture and the "heretics" scripture was stuff.So the Protestants have "butchered" the Catholic Bible (if you are Catholic), or vice versa if you are protestant. If you are Mormon, the Catholics have an incomplete Bible, or if you are Protestant the Mormons have added a book. All say that the others mistranslate and/or misinterpret various passages, and in doing so "butcher" the Bible. The Coptics have yet another canon of scripture. This invariably leads to people saying things like this:

quote:

---

They have done their own butchering of the Bible like the JW's, and those darn Mormon's went and found their own book! Not one of these can be said to have taken an honest look at the Bible and created a theology based on it. Instead, they have changed the Bible to suit their viewpoints, and there is absoutely no ifs about it.

---

*****************************************

quote:

---

The truth of the matter is, by denying the Trinity doctrine, Mormon's have become polytheistic

---

I can imagine a 2nd century Jew saying:"The truth of the matter is, by denying the oneness of Yahweh, these, what are they called? "Christians" have become polytheistic!

quote:

---

This means that when Jesus left the godhead and came to earth as man, he actually left His divinity behind!

---

And that makes more sense than 3=1=3=1=3=1=3?

quote:

---

JW's have skirted around this by inventing their own Bible

---

Rabbi 2nd Cent again:Christians have skirted around this by inventing their own scripture, they even call it the "new" testament!

quote:

---

and the Oneness Pentecostals have gone into complete heresy ... with their own extra-biblical interpretations and terms.

---

Rabbi 2nd again:
and the "Christians" have gone into complete heresy ... with their own extra-biblical interpretations and terms, like saying that "Holy, Holy, Holy" means the trinity, or that Moses' arm mean Jesus, or that Isaiah says that a virgin will bear a child.I may not be in the "right" religion, but at least I can respect these various Christianities equally, without saying that one (hey, it just happens to be my own) has the absolute lock on the truth, while in the same breath insulting scriptures and interpretations that have as much authority as the ones I was told to believe.

---

-Equinox_ _ _ ___ _ _ _
You know, it's probably already answered at An Index to Creationist Claims...
(Equinox is a Naturalistic Pagan -  Naturalistic Paganism Home)

Anastasia wrote:

quote:

---

Pretty much since always. The four Biblically supported elements for recognizing the true church of Christ are that it be One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic. Since the earliest days,

---

Um, by "since always", do you mean the fourth century? That looks like a quote from the 4th century nicene creed. Besides, and more importantly, all Christianities, even from back then, claimed to be the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church. Are you saying that whoever has the most members is by definition what a "True Christian" is?Those for criteria are useless, since they apply to every Christianity - let's look at them one at a time:One - so who is the right one if there is a split? Both (or all) claim to be the "one true church", and the other one is "real" reason for the split.Holy - what religion doesn't claim to be holy?Catholic - (meaning of course universal, not Roman) - again, all claim to be the Universally true church. Or this can be interpreted to mean "only", but as we've seen, there have been very few times in history when there was only one Christian church.Apostolic - Again, all of them claim this. The protestants claim to be following the true and uncorrupted teachings of Paul, the Ebionites rejected Paul and instead claimed to be the true church of Peter, the Gnostics said that Paul had taught someone else, preserving their apostolic claim, etc, etc....We are again left with no distinction between the many Christianities.

---

-Equinox_ _ _ ___ _ _ _
You know, it's probably already answered at An Index to Creationist Claims...
(Equinox is a Naturalistic Pagan -  Naturalistic Paganism Home)

Anastasia wrote:

quote:

---

I was going to agree with you, till this came up;

---

We may agree on that point. I'm familiar with those kinds of tactics, by Christians of all stripes aimed at "how to witness to" (insert religion here). I agree that they are generally not ethical. The reason I think is the honesty factor. The practice seems OK with me if both people are open about where they stand. It seems not OK with me if the "witnesser" really tries to convince the other person that they are something they are not.So I think we agree on that point. The "special indulgency" is not OK, and the protestant/catholic Mary thing is not OK if the protestant is doing it with the Catholic thinking he's another Catholic. (btw, I intended it as an example where the catholic knew the protestant was protestant, and was as such OK - the Protestant wasn't going against his religion any more than I am when I tell my mother not to worry about going to Hell since Jesus wouldn't send her to Hell (my mom knows I don't believe in Hell, nor Jesus).Do we agree on that? That it comes down to whether or not the position of the speaker is known?

---

-Equinox_ _ _ ___ _ _ _
You know, it's probably already answered at An Index to Creationist Claims...
(Equinox is a Naturalistic Pagan -  Naturalistic Paganism Home)

Anastasia wrote:

quote:

---

Actual, personal sin is not, but we are terribly predisposed to it because of original sin. ....
How do you know there hasn't been a person who has not sinned?

---

So people are terribly disposed to it, and thus are almost certain to sin and thus damn themselves? I don't think that's the Catholic doctrine. It sounds an awful lot like the heretical Pelagian Christians.Instead, I think the catholic doctrine is a permanent stain of sin, present before birth, before we can do anything that would be a sin, that damns everyone regardless of what they do. Otherwise, there would be no point in bapizing a baby, since a baby certainly can't sin until he or she can make choices. Infant Baptism is to remove the stain of original sin, like the quicker-picker-upper.CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Original Sin

Anastasia wrote:

quote:

---

I believe in respecting people equally, but not doctrines.

---

I agree. I think that the right seems to miss the first part of your sentence often, and the left seems to miss the second part often.I agree that all doctrines are not equally valid. It seems that we have come to different conclusions as far as which ones are sound enough to be followed and obeyed. I was rasied Catholic and have found that people often mollycoddle the faith they were raised with, and often don't even know what the other faiths say (including other Christianities). If you indeed have investigated the others, and compared the reasons to think each could be true (including the history of how we got the Bible and the full history of Christianity), and still have come to a different conclusion than I, so be it.I too find a gradient of credibility between the different Christianities, though that gradient probably seems much flatter to me that it does to you. Similarly, I would find it a funny coincidence if the best supported religion happened to be the one I was born into. It's possible, but it would seem more likely to be that I just had incorporated it, and hadn't really done my homework yet. To each his own.Take care-P. S. I'll likely be out for a couple days, and since this thread is at 230, it'll probably be closed when I get back. I'm sure we'll talk on some other thread.Edited by Equinox, : added note.

---

-Equinox_ _ _ ___ _ _ _
You know, it's probably already answered at An Index to Creationist Claims...
(Equinox is a Naturalistic Pagan -  Naturalistic Paganism Home)

Hey, I did manage to get back before the thread closed!

quote:

---

quote:

---

I was rasied Catholic and have found that people often mollycoddle the faith they were raised with, and often don't even know what the other faiths say (including other Christianities).

---

​

Anastasia wrote:
Yes, but just as often they neglect their own faith and don't even study what it teaches before they go and decide it doesn't make sense.

---

Yes, both happen. However, in my case I did very thoroughly investigate the Catholic doctrines, and found less and less sense the more time I spent at it. Even with that, I’ve still spent more time studying Catholic doctrine than I have on any other single faith system, showing that I’ve biased my search in favor of Catholicism, and it still didn’t do very well.

quote:

---

quote:

---

If you indeed have investigated the others, and compared the reasons to think each could be true (including the history of how we got the Bible and the full history of Christianity), and still have come to a different conclusion than I, so be it.

---

That's a lot there. I could study the Bible and christian history for a lifetime and still not know everything, so I could not possibly leave my beliefs open-ended till I was finished. When it comes to faith, there may not be an 'educated' guess.

---

“knowing everything” is an unreasonably high bar, and of course not what I’m saying. I’m talking about getting at least an equal amount of understanding of several faiths, as well as their histories. So I have a solid understanding of Catholicism, a solid understading of Calvinism, a solid understanding of Islam, a solid understanding of Buddhism, Hinduism, etc. Of those and more I do have a decent understanding, and it only took around 6 years. I think one can very well make an educated guess, but first one must shed the preconceived notion that one is already right and everyone else is wrong.More importantly, it seems like an educated guess is an absolute necessity of anyone who thinks there could really be a Hell, and is honest about their beliefs. If there is even a low chance of Hell, then knowing about these religions, many of which claim a Hell for people in the other religions is more important than any earthly concern. If I honestly think there could be a Hell, then blithely guessing that the religion that my parents happen to have is the one that’s correct (and being content with that) suggests that I don’t really believe in Hell.Avoiding spending an eternity in Hell is certainly more important than movies, sitcoms, card games, birthday parties, driving to work, and most things we spend time on. Out of all that, saying that we just don’t have time to examine our religion and the religions of others is the same as saying that we really don’t think there is a hell, or at least that we, without bothering to question it, think lucky chance caused us to be born into the one true path that will save us from Hell.For me, now, I don’t think there is a Hell, and as such can excuse myself from not reading the Qu’ran or Calvin’s reasons why the Catholic Church is the wrong path. Of course, I’ve already studied those, and that’s been good. I learn out a desire to learn - but if I honestly believed in Hell, then I’d learn out of logical necessity.In short, I think a belief in Hell requires a belief that a decently educated guess is infinitely better than guessing our parents already had it right.Have a fun day-Edited by Equinox, : minor change

---

-Equinox_ _ _ ___ _ _ _
You know, it's probably already answered at An Index to Creationist Claims...
(Equinox is a Naturalistic Pagan -  Naturalistic Paganism Home)

Ok, here we go again.

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Scottness wrote:
quote:
________________________________________
There is only Christ, and one antichrist.
________________________________________

---

And you replied:
Scottness, do you regularly claim things that are contradicted by the Bible? Or do you pick and choose which parts of the Bible to believe, cafeteria style? 2John 1:7 says that there were already many antichrists, even 1,800 years ago. From the King James Version:

---

​

My point exactly! The Antichrist is not a person Equinox. It is a spirit. There is a true prophet; the Holy Spirit of Truth that is of God, and the false prophet (the Spirit of antichrist).
A Holy Trinity, and an unholy trinity.

---

OK, now it sounds like we are playing fast and loose with the Bible, and just saying whatever we like. It looks like our conversation went like this:
Scottness says that “there is only Christ, and one antichrist.”I show where the author of 2John talks about many antichrists, even 1,800 years ago.Scottness then says there are many antichrists, each incarnations of the unholy ghost, and then goes on to claim an unholy trinity.Two thoughts come to mind. First, that Scottness makes it clear that for some, the actual text of the Bible is less important than making it fit with other ideas.Second, the satanic trinity seems even less well biblically supported than the holy trinity, which is saying a lot, since we’ve been discussing for a while whether or not even the holy trinity can be supported by the Bible.Third, if Scottness’ “one Christ, one antichrist” claim actually means “many incarnations of the single antichrist spirit in many antichrists”, then doesn’t it seem that he’s also implying many incarnations of Christ, like Krishna? This is starting to sound like the Book of Mormon.It seems clear to me that other new testament authors did clearly imagine a single antichrist, while the author of 2 John thought of many (notice that 2Jn said "many antichrists" NOT "many prophets of the single antichrist". It seems that again, the actual text is less important than the preconceived belief).Different people often have different ideas on any topic, so finding differences between books is hardly surprising. I don’t see a need to try to make 2Jn’s many antichrists into one antichrist, unless one feels that we have to make all the books of the Bible agree with each other, no matter whether they do or not.

Anastasia wrote:

quote:

---

The sole intent of my post was to point out that these denominations have not used the Bible in the way inerrantists do. Instead, they use personal revelation, or 'God showed me what the Bible should have said' or 'God only tells an elite group what the bible means'. Any conclusions reached via this means can not be regarded to be equal in authority to those which are based on what the Bible actually says.

---

But isn’t the whole basis of the Bible belief that God does reveal things to people? And doesn’t the Catholic church itself claim it’s interpretations (at least the infallible ones) are guided by God? Many of them certainly do go by what the Bible itself says, and use logical, open apologetics. I may not agree with their apologetics, but then again I don’t agree with many from bigger churches either. As we’ve noted before on this thread, there really is only one word that’s translated differently in the JW bible, and that’s a lot less than the documented changes to the Bible made by the early Christian church in support of their doctrinal views, including the trinity.I agree that I personally discount a claim to private revelation, but am posting to say that:1. Discounting revelations seems to invalidate the whole idea of the Bible.2. I don’t see all of these newer Christianities rely mostly on private revelation anyway. The Mormons do in getting their 3rd testament, yes, but is a 200 year old revelation wrong because it isn’t 1,950 years old? Will the book of Mormon be Kosher : ) in another 1,700 years? What about the apologetics, it doesn’t seem much different from Calvinist or Catholic apologetics.Have a fun day-

---

-Equinox_ _ _ ___ _ _ _
You know, it's probably already answered at An Index to Creationist Claims...
(Equinox is a Naturalistic Pagan -  Naturalistic Paganism Home)

anastasia writes:

quote:

---

The universal description of christianity is a monotheistic Trinitarian view.

---

It sure wasn’t when Christianity started. There were all kinds of different views, and it seems like the Trinitarian view wasn’t spelled out for decades at least, even centuries, and probably wasn’t the majority for a similar length of time. Today, yes, 99.9% of Christians are Trinitarian (of course, that’s ignoring the protestants who claim that Mary makes the Catholics polytheistic, etc.)I prefer to define a Christian as someone who says that their religion is based on Jesus Christ, however they interpret or define him. That’s a little loose, but at least it avoids the “christianer than thou” nastiness, and allows for Christians with an Ebionite, Marcionite, or Gnostic view, all of which are around the same age or older than the Trinitarian view. It also fits well with what the dictionary says:Chris”tian
-adjective
of, pertaining to, or derived from Jesus Christ or His teachings: a Christian faith.
-noun
a person who believes in Jesus Christ; adherent of Christianity.Take care-

---

-Equinox_ _ _ ___ _ _ _
You know, it's probably already answered at An Index to Creationist Claims...
(Equinox is a Naturalistic Pagan -  Naturalistic Paganism Home)

quote:

---

In deference to you and the dictionary, Equinox; the Marcionites and such were not held in esteem at their time, and their disciples in spirit are not today.

---

Well, not by the proto-orthodox, who became the Catholic church. Most people back then weren’t any kind of Christian, and didn’t care. All of the early forms of Christianity disagreed with each other and called each other heretics. You could say the same you said in reverse as well, that the proto-orthodox (the Trinitarians) were not held in esteem (by the marcionites) early on either. It’s like saying that Lutheranism is wrong because the Calvinists disagreed with them, etc. Different religions disagree with each other, and we can all see today that Christianities are little different on that score.

quote:

---

Sheer age does not produce validity, and there are much older religions than christianity.

---

I agree. I mentioned age because you sounded like you were using age to weigh the Trinitarian revelations as more important than, say, the Mormon revelations. (in keeping with our honesty discussion, I'm not mormon, I just don't buy either set of revelations).

quote:

---

I can only say that the teachings of christ may be somewhat open to interpretation, but if a christian is supposedly a follower of Christ and is not following what we know of Him, how can they be called a christian?

---

And what do we know of him? The gospels are written decades later by people who never saw him, and the same goes for the rest of the New Testament. We do know some things better than others (like Jesus was probably a monotheist and a Jew, and not a Buddhist or Hindu), but the best supported historical reconstruction is that of an apocalyptic Jew, not a messiah.So if you are calling someone a non-Christian because they aren’t in line with our best guess based on the evidence, then you’ve called nearly all of the “Christians” not Christian. A good place to start on learning about the different ideas of who Jesus was is here: Historical Jesus Theories

quote:

---

I Further, if a person claims to have personally revealed and privy knowledge of Jesus, how does that work with the Biblical claim that Jesus will save all men?

---

Well, it could work a lot of ways. Their revelation may say that all men (women too?) are saved, even if they don’t get the knowledge, or any number of other ways (you sound almost Gnostic in saying that they need the saving knowlege to be saved).Not that I doubt you, but where does Jesus say all men will be saved? Is that another contradiction, since in Mt 7 Jesus seems to say that most people will end up in Hell, and further that most churches (including the Catholic church) have as part of their doctrine that all people *won’t* be saved, based on the Bible? That’s the heresy called Universalism.Take care-