Hello everyone. I’m an atheist interested in counter-apologetics. Are there any Jews or Christians (or ex-Jews or ex-Christians) visiting here who have come across any Biblical contradictions or inconsistencies for which you have not found a satisfying answer? If so, could you please post them here for discussion?

Hi.

"If any man be in Christ, he is a new creature" + "For you have been born again, not of perishable seed, but of imperishable, through the living and enduring word of God." + "He that began a good work in you shall continue it till the day of Christ" <> "By their fruits you shall know them" + "He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also so to walk, even as he walked." + 'Mature'* Christians.

* Actually this is used as a No True Scotsman specification, so can be left out. For all intents and purposes, I added it because a 'New' --- born-again, convert, child --- Christian is often excused from acts as 'they are struggling with the flesh'. I'm happy to give 'new' or young Christians a free pass (within reason; i.e. the law of the nation they exist under.)

This is only, strictly speaking, half-biblical:
"God is not a man, that he would lie"
"Put not your trust in princes, nor in the son of man, in whom there is no help."
+ the entire Jesus thing (half-biblical on account of "God is not a man" vs. trinity)

Thanks for the start, sennekuyl and Zwaarddijk.

The trinity does make scripture a little problematic when it says Jesus, aka God, is a man and also the Prince of Peace.

Mantiki Mjadili wrote:Hello everyone. I’m an atheist interested in counter-apologetics. Are there any Jews or Christians (or ex-Jews or ex-Christians) visiting here who have come across any Biblical contradictions or inconsistencies for which you have not found a satisfying answer? If so, could you please post them here for discussion?

Counter-apologetics? So you want the inconsistencies to use against Christians or Jews in debates?

Also my bold: what do you mean by satisfying answer. By all means if I asked why the sky was blue, you told me it was because of the refraction of light, can I tell you that is not a satisfying answer? Is there a criteria to meat this satisfying answer objectively or is it purely subjective?

sennekuyl wrote:Hi.

"If any man be in Christ, he is a new creature" + "For you have been born again, not of perishable seed, but of imperishable, through the living and enduring word of God." + "He that began a good work in you shall continue it till the day of Christ" <> "By their fruits you shall know them" + "He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also so to walk, even as he walked." + 'Mature'* Christians.

* Actually this is used as a No True Scotsman specification, so can be left out. For all intents and purposes, I added it because a 'New' --- born-again, convert, child --- Christian is often excused from acts as 'they are struggling with the flesh'. I'm happy to give 'new' or young Christians a free pass (within reason; i.e. the law of the nation they exist under.)

This is easy sennekuyl. The Book of Galatians mentions walking by the Spirit and walking by the flesh. Paul gives a list of what goes by the flesh, which if one truly looks into it that list mentions everything the Mosaic Law prohibited. He then gives a list of the Fruit of the Spirit: love, joy, peace, kindness, etc. The Christian walk is two-fold, yes Christ is supposed to work through the Christian, but only if the Christians allows himself to be used and worked through. By constantly putting stumbling blocks in a Christians life (i.e. by living by the flesh) the Christian cannot be used fully by Christ. However, if the Christian walks by the Spirit than Christ is fully revealed in that person.

Zwaarddijk wrote:This is only, strictly speaking, half-biblical:
"God is not a man, that he would lie"
"Put not your trust in princes, nor in the son of man, in whom there is no help."
+ the entire Jesus thing (half-biblical on account of "God is not a man" vs. trinity)

The second verse is tricky since Jesus calls himself the Son of Man. However, other English renditions translate the Hebrew phrase as mortal men.

Next, it gets all theological in considering whether Jesus could be God in the flesh incarnate therefore not wholly a man, or whether Jesus was a man but God incarnate therefore not wholly God. This line of thought leads to the Gnostic heresy and other early church doctrines. I do not have any answers since I never really put much effort into trinitarianism.

willhud9 wrote:

Zwaarddijk wrote:This is only, strictly speaking, half-biblical:
"God is not a man, that he would lie"
"Put not your trust in princes, nor in the son of man, in whom there is no help."
+ the entire Jesus thing (half-biblical on account of "God is not a man" vs. trinity)

The second verse is tricky since Jesus calls himself the Son of Man. However, other English renditions translate the Hebrew phrase as mortal men.

If we are to believe John, Jesus consciously used the phrase bar-enosh or somesuch - a phrase that we are pretty sure in Aramaic was used to mark a meaning along the lines of 'just a man'. In Hebrew, ben ish is used similarly. So, we have the OT saying 'Don't put your trust in just humans', and you have this guy going around making a point out of us having to put our trust in him, and yeah, btw, I'm totally just a man.

A lot of how the normal reader perceives what Jesus says about himself in John really comes from centuries of Christian eisegesis being repeated at them from childhood onwards.

willhud9 wrote:

sennekuyl wrote:Hi.

"If any man be in Christ, he is a new creature" + "For you have been born again, not of perishable seed, but of imperishable, through the living and enduring word of God." + "He that began a good work in you shall continue it till the day of Christ" <> "By their fruits you shall know them" + "He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also so to walk, even as he walked." + 'Mature'* Christians.

* Actually this is used as a No True Scotsman specification, so can be left out. For all intents and purposes, I added it because a 'New' --- born-again, convert, child --- Christian is often excused from acts as 'they are struggling with the flesh'. I'm happy to give 'new' or young Christians a free pass (within reason; i.e. the law of the nation they exist under.)

This is easy sennekuyl. The Book of Galatians mentions walking by the Spirit and walking by the flesh. Paul gives a list of what goes by the flesh, which if one truly looks into it that list mentions everything the Mosaic Law prohibited. He then gives a list of the Fruit of the Spirit: love, joy, peace, kindness, etc. The Christian walk is two-fold, yes Christ is supposed to work through the Christian, but only if the Christians allows himself to be used and worked through. By constantly putting stumbling blocks in a Christians life (i.e. by living by the flesh) the Christian cannot be used fully by Christ. However, if the Christian walks by the Spirit than Christ is fully revealed in that person.

Keep thinking about it. I know where you are coming from, but think it through as it goes further than what you have answered.

Animavore wrote:Did Judas hang himself right after Jesus' death, dropping the money the Romans gave him at his feet or did he buy some land with that money and have a nasty fall in a field which caused him to burst open like a (how do you spell pin-ya-ta? ) issuing entrails?

piñata

at least it isn't a heavy-metal umlaut, just imagine pin̈ata