What is the biggest bible contradiction?

OK - and you don't forget that the above is a faith-based assertion: there is little reason to believe that there is a recoverable historical Jesus and absolutely no reason to believe in either the historicity or the fidelity of a dialogue penned 6 to 9 decades after the purported events by an apologist who may well have been an eyewitness to absolutely nothing of relevance.

Of course.. I have never forgotten.My only answer for this is as a witness. It is not admissable in the framework you have restricted it to.I once thought that these Christian folk were mad and living in some kind of denial. But at the same time I was having personal problems of my own. Mathematically, I can't tell you where guilt comes from; it is a feeling. It is however based on histroical facts and based on the actions and results involved.All I can tell you is that as rediculous as it was, I thought a grain of it was true, and perhaps more than I knew. So I took that leap of faith and prayed to this God and this Jesus fellow. It was a grain of faith mind you, not a Camel.To my utter astonishment, I was given some kind of grid, or solution to a puzzle known as reality. It was as though I understood the language or formula. One day, just a confusing book, the next, like I knew it all along. It is what confirms for me the truth in it. And that is how I know it is true. There is more, but you would find it far more offensive. I am keeping this as scientific as posible as just one witness. And then when I read the Bible, it was the same pattern.Perhaps it is a delusion. Perhpas this Jesus fellow has hypnotized me by some rare and unique method now emplyed by cult leaders.
All I know, is that it is a delusion that makes me as able to understand a man that lived in ancient history as well as I know my best friend today. And I trust Him.It's something I cannot just set aside. I don't know if you would be willing to be banished or incarcerated for your beliefs, but I am for the first time in my life.When you meet Him, it's no longer faith. Faith is what it takes to ask to meet Him.I was also shocked to see that all of this is right there in the Bible. And somehow the religion that I grew up in had all but neglected to mention that it is verifiable in this way.Not the scientific method as defined today, but a scientific method nonetheless. I don't expect to be accepted within the framework of modern science. I just would like to be allowed to speak. Alternative perspectives are always healthy when searching for answers.Edited by scottness, : No reason given.

I take that as a sincere and heartfelt response and respect it as such.

Thank you.

I wasn’t born until 1963! I think Jesus sinned more than the average guy. I know it fits Jesus so well, at least the version of Jesus created in the Gospels anyway. I think the majority of mankind have far higher morals that the bloodthirsty Yahweh. If your reality was illuminated then you would know that there is no such thing as God. I can only conclude that you are deluding yourself. Pity Jesus was never called ”Emanuel’, it might have at least given Him an outside chance of being a messiah. I didn’t say that though!I just said He wasn’t the Messiah, the Bible and history pay testimony to that. I find it difficult to believe that anyone who has studied the Old Testament can possibly consider Jesus as the Messiah. The thing is, we have no idea of what He is quoted as saying is actually what He did say. The Jesus of the first century could be oblivious to all the crap in the NT that is attributed to Him. Of course these aren’t the only two possibilities.He could be a liar.He could be God.He could have been mad.He could have been a figment of someone’s imagination.He could have been misrepresented in the Gospels.I’m not sure which one I’d go for. I think the only one I could exclude with any certainty is the God option.The big problem is the poor quality of the sources that we have. The Gospels themselves are hugely unreliable, as they are contradictory, contain obvious impossibilities, are rife with historical inaccuracies, and we have no idea who wrote any of them. Well, there were many Christs in the OT, every Jewish king was a ”chirst’. You need to believe this to maintain your delusion, no point in having an open mind is there? Ever tried self esteem classes?Brian.

I can see that we have a lot of common ground with which to move forward

Well, at least I have given you other options apart from Lord or lunatic.There's also the historical inaccuracies to consider, and the obvious impossibilities (such as the dead walking the streets and the impossible three hour eclipse).Brian.

Obvious impossibilities are that which an omniscient being can describe. Unless you are omniscient, I'm afraid there is nothing you can define as absolute.

Yes they are. Exactly! In which case he is a liar, but not guilty of wrongdiong and in which case he is not God... Inwhich case he is not God.. In which case he was not God...Perhaps I would have better served the point to say that Jesus is either God, or He is not.

Yes, but we need evidence with which to come to conclusions. Take the dead walking the streets after Jesus died. How likely is it that this is true, in the context of historical research?Brian.

That doesn't make Him a liar. He could have genuinely thought that He was God. Lying is deliberately decieving someone. Yes, this would have been better.Of course, any one of us could be God, or not.Brian.

May I suggest C.S. Lewis' book called miracles? It really does address the issue of the 'miraculous' well.But to answer your question... I think it is very likely, but not necessarily in the context of historical research (whatever that means).Who writes the history, makes all the difference in the world.It's funny you know? Even if you witnessed a 'miracle', I wonder if you would attribute it to God? Jesus said that even if someone was raised from the dead, that 'they' (the unbelieing) would still not believe.Some people think that there must be a natural explanation to everything. If that is true, then the natural world would be absolute! And yet somehow, it is the naturalists who dismiss the absolute.

Absolutely! I know that I am not.An interesting extension of this, is that New Agers and other Pantheists believe that that is precisely the case. They believe that we are in fact God.Genesis 3:5
"For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."It is also known as humanism.

quote:

---

Some people think that there must be a natural explanation to everything.

---

Some people might. And there are other people who think that a natural explanation is a pretty good bet unless and until they have good reason to believe otherwise.

---

Never believe anything in politics until it has been officially denied. -- Otto von Bismarck

What is a good reason?