Biblical Contradictions
- Thread starter HitchSlap
- Start date
Upvote
0
GenemZ
Well-Known Member
- Mar 1, 2004
- 22,141
- 1,372
- 73
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Private
Could it be demonstrated and identified with, if you never truly found love? You could only feel longing if it were demonstrated, not the experience of true love. Likewise.. those who know God are like meeting another person who also has found true love.
The world is filled with people who have never found true love. They can not know it is real for themselves. Now... the envious will do everything it can to deny it, and try to make true love to appear to be as only as a gullible illusion.
As far as demonstrated? True love can be presented. But it can not be demonstrated as to have another learn to have true love for themselves. Its a gift. Just like knowing God is a gift from God.
Some try to emulate the outward manifestation of true love... But, their inward experience will be empty. That attempted emulation is analogous to religious people trying to work their way into knowing God. Yet, one does not work for it. For, its a gift from God.
Upvote
0
So, it’s your claim that you can be in love, but your lover is invisible, and we’ll never be able to meet them. Sounds legit.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
My claim is that you cannot prove your imaginary lover exists, anywhere other than in your mind... And, you just proved it to me.
Now what?
Upvote
0
Uber Genius
"Super Genius"
- Aug 13, 2016
- 2,919
- 1,243
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Libertarian
Ehrman and Metzger state in that book that we can have a high degree of confidence that we can reconstruct the original text of the New Testament, the text that is in the Bibles we use, because of the abundance of textual evidence we have to compare. The variations are largely minor and don’t obscure our ability to construct an accurate text. The 4th edition of this work was published in 2005 – the same year Ehrman published Misquoting Jesus, which relies on the same body of information and offers no new or different evidence to state the opposite conclusion. (Melinda prenner, Stand to Reason article)
Here’s what Ehrman says in an interview found in the appendix of Misquoting Jesus (p. 252):
"Bruce Metzger is one of the great scholars of modern times, and I dedicated the book to him because he was both my inspiration for going into textual criticism and the person who trained me in the field. I have nothing but respect and admiration for him. And even though we may disagree on important religious questions – he is a firmly committed Christian and I am not – we are in complete agreement on a number of very important historical and textual questions. If he and I were put in a room and asked to hammer out a consensus statement on what we think the original text of the New Testament probably looked like, there would be very few points of disagreement – maybe one or two dozen places out of many thousands. The position I argue for in ‘Misquoting Jesus’ does not actually stand at odds with Prof. Metzger’s position that the essential Christian beliefs are not affected by textual variants in the manuscript tradition of the New Testament."
That is a stunning statement that NO ESSENTIAL CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES ARE EFFECTED!
For more see my source:
https://crossexamined.org/is-the-new-testament-reliable-erhman-refutes-ehrman/
Besides this is a faulty line of attack trying to undermine the credibility of the Biblical accounts anyways.
The Bible is a collection of ancient writings that have in no way need to comport to modern historical standards or modern biographical standards to be valuable! The very examination is anachronistic!
There are over 40 authors, spanning 1500 years from many diffwrong cultures. Followed by hundreds of editors, books lost for centuries, ending of books (such as the Gospel of Mark) still lost by most scholarly accounts.
Yet even atheists scholars look at the accounts and agree that Jesus existed, claimed to be the Jewish messiah, was crucified, buried, disappeared from that tomb, and appeared to over 500 people postmortem.
The case for Christianity in no way requires anything that is being discussed on this thread. Bart Erhman made that clear in his Book misquoting Jesus. The Biblical text is incredibly reliable and where the text is dubious in no way impacts any essential elements of Christian belief!
Here’s what Ehrman says in an interview found in the appendix of Misquoting Jesus (p. 252):
"Bruce Metzger is one of the great scholars of modern times, and I dedicated the book to him because he was both my inspiration for going into textual criticism and the person who trained me in the field. I have nothing but respect and admiration for him. And even though we may disagree on important religious questions – he is a firmly committed Christian and I am not – we are in complete agreement on a number of very important historical and textual questions. If he and I were put in a room and asked to hammer out a consensus statement on what we think the original text of the New Testament probably looked like, there would be very few points of disagreement – maybe one or two dozen places out of many thousands. The position I argue for in ‘Misquoting Jesus’ does not actually stand at odds with Prof. Metzger’s position that the essential Christian beliefs are not affected by textual variants in the manuscript tradition of the New Testament."
That is a stunning statement that NO ESSENTIAL CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES ARE EFFECTED!
For more see my source:
https://crossexamined.org/is-the-new-testament-reliable-erhman-refutes-ehrman/
Besides this is a faulty line of attack trying to undermine the credibility of the Biblical accounts anyways.
The Bible is a collection of ancient writings that have in no way need to comport to modern historical standards or modern biographical standards to be valuable! The very examination is anachronistic!
There are over 40 authors, spanning 1500 years from many diffwrong cultures. Followed by hundreds of editors, books lost for centuries, ending of books (such as the Gospel of Mark) still lost by most scholarly accounts.
Yet even atheists scholars look at the accounts and agree that Jesus existed, claimed to be the Jewish messiah, was crucified, buried, disappeared from that tomb, and appeared to over 500 people postmortem.
The case for Christianity in no way requires anything that is being discussed on this thread. Bart Erhman made that clear in his Book misquoting Jesus. The Biblical text is incredibly reliable and where the text is dubious in no way impacts any essential elements of Christian belief!
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Bart Ehrman doesn't really understand anything about Jewish tradition or understand the history of what they did in those times and really has no credibility.
Only a bible rookie doesn't know that the genonalagies are in matt and luke are of Joseph and Mary.
Luke's genealogy
Based on the previous facts, Luke's genealogy must list Jesus' ancestors through his mother:
Jesus was the natural son of Mary, who conceived by the Holy Ghost and therefore He becomes the Son of God (Luk 1:34-35). Considering the fact that by the Jewish tradition women are never listed in the genealogical links, it is acceptable that Luke lists Joseph instead of Mary (as he was the "father" of Jesus) and thus Luke names Joseph as son of Heli. Further, since Heli had no sons but only daughters, we can find a precedent of the same type of name substitution in Num 27:1-11 and Num 36:1-12.
Reading through Luke's genealogy, we can see how Jesus, through his blood relationship with his mother and her ancestors, becomes the true son of God.
Genealogy of Jesus, Jesus family tree - Complete Bible Genealogy
Oh and please don't waste my time with saying Joseph isn't the father. Because in Jewish tradition and examples in the OT the adopted son can inherit the title of fathers line. That is david's kingship.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Well you put that rubbish video up there full of holes and misunderstandings. Do you even understand what I was saying in the last post ?
3:16 New International Version (NIV)
16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Similar threads
