Continued:

G. CONCLUSIONS REACHED SO FAR

From looking at just the birth accounts several conclusions can be reached, all of which will be further reinforced by examining other parts of the New Testament:

1. The gospel writers contradict each other.

2. The gospel writers rewrote history when it suited their purposes.

3. The gospels were extensively edited to accommodate the evolving dogma of the church.

4. The gospel writers misused the Old Testament to provide prophecies for Jesus to fulfill.

From the birth accounts alone, it is obvious that in no way can the New Testament be considered "the inerrant Word of God," or even "the Word of God, inerrant regarding matters important to faith and practice."
II. JESUS AND JOHN THE BAPTIST
A. WHAT DID JOHN THE BAPTIST KNOW ABOUT JESUS AND WHEN DID HE KNOW IT?

John's first encounter with Jesus was while both of them were still in their mothers' wombs, at which time John, apparently recognizing his Saviour, leaped for joy (Luke 1:44). Much later, while John is baptizing, he refers to Jesus as "the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world", and "the Son of God" (John 1:29,36). Later still, John is thrown in prison from which he does not return alive. John's definite knowledge of Jesus as the son of God and saviour of the world is explicitly contradicted by Luke 7:18-23 in which the imprisoned John sends two of his disciples to ask Jesus, "Are you the one who is coming, or do we look for someone else?"
B. WHY DID JOHN BAPTIZE JESUS?

John baptized for repentance (Matthew 3:11). Since Jesus was supposedly without sin, he had nothing to repent of. The fact that he was baptized by John has always been an embarrassment to the church. The gospels offer no explanation for Jesus' baptism, apart from the meaningless explanation given in Matthew 3:14-15 "to fulfill all righteousness." Other passages, which indicate that Jesus did not consider himself sinless, are also an embarrassment to the church (Mark 10:18, Luke 18:19).

Luke, who claims to be chronological (Luke 1:3), tries to give the impression that John did not baptize Jesus. Luke's account of Jesus' baptism occurs after the account of John's imprisonment (Luke 3:20-21).
C. WHY DIDN'T JOHN THE BAPTIST BECOME A FOLLOWER OF JESUS?

If John knew that Jesus was the son of God, why didn't he become a disciple of Jesus? And why didn't all, or even most, of John's disciples become Jesus' disciples? Most of John's disciples remained loyal to him, even after his death, and a sect of his followers persisted for centuries.

The gospel writers were forced to include Jesus' baptism in their gospels so that they could play it down. They could not ignore it because John's followers and other Jews who knew of Jesus' baptism were using the fact of his baptism to challenge the idea that Jesus was the sinless son of God. The gospel writers went to great pains to invent events that showed John as being subordinate to Jesus.
III. THE LAST SUPPER
A. WHEN - BEFORE OR DURING PASSOVER?

In Matthew, Mark and Luke the last supper takes place on the first day of the Passover (Matthew 26:17, Mark 14:12, Luke 22:7). In John's gospel it takes place a day earlier and Jesus is crucified on the first day of the Passover (John 19:14).
B. THE LORD'S SUPPER - INSTITUTED BY JESUS OR PAUL?

In Matthew, Mark and Luke, Jesus institutes the Lord's Supper during the Passover meal (in John's gospel the Lord's Supper is not instituted - Jesus was dead by the time of the Passover meal).

In 1 Corinthians 11:23 the apostle Paul writes, "For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took bread..." Here Paul claims that he got the instructions for the Lord's Supper directly from Jesus (evidently from one of his many revelations). Paul writes these words about twenty years after Jesus' death, and had the church already been celebrating the Lord's Supper he certainly would have been aware of it and would have had no need to receive it from the Lord. Some apologists try to play games with the text to make it seem like Paul actually received the instructions from the other apostles, but one thing Paul stresses is that what he teaches he receives from no man (Galatians 1:11-12).

The Lord's supper was not invented by Paul, but was borrowed by him from Mithraism, the mystery religion that existed long before Christianity and was Christianity's chief competitor up until the time of Constantine. In Mithraism, the central figure is the mythical Mithras, who died for the sins of mankind and was resurrected. Believers in Mithras were rewarded with eternal life. Part of the Mithraic communion liturgy included the words, "He who will not eat of my body and drink of my blood, so that he will be made one with me and I with him, the same shall not know salvation."[*].

The early Church Fathers Justin Martyr and Tertullian tried to say that Mithraism copied the Lord's Supper from Christianity, but they were forced to say that demons had copied it since only demons could copy an event in advance of its happening! They could not say that the followers of Mithras had copied it - it was a known fact that Mithraism had included the ritual a long time before Christ was born.

Where did Mithraism come from? The ancient historian Plutarch mentioned Mithraism in connection with the pirates of Cilicia in Asia Minor encountering the Roman general Pompey in 67 BC. More recently, in 1989 Mithraic scholar David Ulansey wrote a book, The Origins of the Mithraic Mysteries, in which he convincingly shows that Mithraism originated in the city of Tarsus in Cilicia. That this is also the home town of the apostle Paul cannot be a coincidence.

Paul admits that he did not know Jesus during Jesus' lifetime. He also says that his gospel was not taught to him by any man (Galatians 1:11-12). All of Paul's theology is based on his own revelations, or visions. Like dreams, visions or hallucinations do not come from nowhere, but reveal what is already in a person's subconscious. It is very likely that the source of most of Paul's visions, and therefore most of his theology, is to be found in Mithraism. That we find Jesus at the Last Supper saying more or less the same thing Paul said to the Corinthians many years later is another example of the church modifying the gospels to incorporate the theology of Paul, which eventually won out over the theology of Jesus' original disciples.
C. JUDAS ISCARIOT

It is very unclear in the gospels just what Judas Iscariot's betrayal consisted of, probably because there was absolutely no need for a betrayal. Jesus could have been arrested any number of times without the general populace knowing about it. It would have been simple to keep tabs on his whereabouts. The religious authorities did not need a betrayal - only the gospel writers needed a betrayal, so that a few more "prophecies" could be fulfilled. The whole episode is pure fiction - and, as might be expected, it is riddled with contradictions.
1. The prophecy

Matthew says that Judas' payment and death were prophesied by Jeremiah, and then he quotes Zechariah 11:12-13 as proof!
2. Thirty pieces of silver

According to Matthew 26:15, the chief priests "weighed out thirty pieces of silver" to give to Judas. There are two things wrong with this:

a. There were no "pieces of silver" used as currency in Jesus' time - they had gone out of circulation about 300 years before.

b. In Jesus' time, minted coins were used - currency was not "weighed out."

By using phrases that made sense in Zechariah's time but not in Jesus' time Matthew once again gives away the fact that he creates events in his gospel to match "prophecies" he finds in the Old Testament.
3. Who bought the Field of Blood?

a. In Matthew 27:7 the chief priests buy the field.

b. In Acts 1:18 Judas buys the field.
4. How did Judas die?

a. In Matthew 27:5 Judas hangs himself.

b. In Acts 1:18 he bursts open and his insides spill out.

c. According to the apostle Paul, neither of the above is true. Paul says Jesus appeared to "the twelve" after his resurrection. Mark 14:20 makes it clear that Judas was one of the twelve.

In Matthew 19:28, Jesus tells the twelve disciples, including Judas, that when Jesus rules from his throne, they will sit on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
5. How did the Field of Blood get its name?

a. Matthew says because it was purchased with blood money (Matthew 27:6-8).

b. Acts says because of the bloody mess caused by Judas' bursting open (Acts 1:18-19).

Continued:

IV. JESUS' TRIALS, DEATH AND RESURRECTION
A. THE TRIALS

Before listing the contradictions regarding the trials of Jesus, it should be stated that the whole episode is quite obviously a fabrication. Anyone familiar with Jewish law recognizes the impossibility of the chief priests and scribes arresting Jesus and assembling to question him during the most holy of Jewish festivals.
1. Where was Jesus taken immediately after his arrest?

a. Matthew, Mark and Luke say that Jesus was taken directly to the high priest (Matthew 26:57, Mark 14:53 and Luke 22:54).

b. John says that Jesus was taken first to Annas, the father-in-law of the high priest (John 18:13) who, after an indeterminate period of time, sent Jesus to the high priest (John 18:24).
2. When did the priests and scribes gather together to question Jesus?

a. Matthew 26:57 says that on the night Jesus was arrested the priests and scribes were gathered together prior to Jesus being brought to the high priest.

b. Mark 14:53 says the priests and scribes gathered together on the night of Jesus' arrest after Jesus was brought to the high priest.

c. Luke 22:66 says the priests and scribes assembled the day after Jesus was arrested.

d. John mentions only the high priest - no other priests or scribes play a role in questioning Jesus.
3. Was Jesus questioned by Herod?

a. Luke says that Pilate sent Jesus to Herod who questioned Jesus at length and then returned Jesus to Pilate (Luke 23:7-11).

b. Matthew, Mark and John make no mention of Herod. This, in itself, means nothing, but it brings about another contradiction later.
4. Who was responsible for Jesus' death, Pilate or the Jews?

The gospel writers go to every conceivable length to absolve the Romans in general, and Pilate in particular, of Jesus' crucifixion and to blame it on the Jews. The reason, of course, was that Christianity was going to have to exist under Roman rule for many years, which is why the New Testament contains nothing critical of the Romans, even though they were hated for their heavy taxation, and Pilate was hated for his brutality.

For the church, the Jews made an appropriate scapegoat because the Jews were a thorn in side of the early church. The Jews, of course, had far greater knowledge of Jewish laws and traditions than the largely gentile church, and were able to call attention to some of the errors being taught by the church.

The Biblical account of Pilate's offer to release Jesus but the Jews demanding the release of Barabbas is pure fiction, containing both contradictions and historical inaccuracies.

a. What had Barabbas done?

1. Mark 15:7 and Luke 23:19 say that Barabbas was guilty of insurrection and murder.

2. John 18:40 says that Barabbas was a robber.

b. Pilate's "custom" of releasing a prisoner at Passover.

This is pure invention - the only authority given by Rome to a Roman governor in situations like this was postponement of execution until after the religious festival. Release was out of the question. It is included in the gospels for the sole purpose of further removing blame for Jesus' death from Pilate and placing it on the Jews.

c. Pilate gives in to the mob.

The gospels have Pilate giving in to an unruly mob. This is ridiculous in light of Pilate's previous and subsequent history. Josephus tells us that Pilate's method of crowd control was to send his soldiers into the mob and beat them (often killing them) into submission. Pilate was eventually recalled to Rome because of his brutality.
5. Who put the robe on Jesus?

a. Matthew 27:28, Mark 15:17 and John 19:2 say that after Pilate had Jesus scourged and turned over to his soldiers to be crucified, the soldiers placed a scarlet or purple robe on Jesus as well as a crown of thorns.

b. Luke 23:11, in contradiction to Matthew, Mark and John, says that the robe was placed on Jesus much earlier by Herod and his soldiers. Luke mentions no crown of thorns.
B. THE CRUCIFIXION
1. Crucified between two robbers

Matthew 27:38 and Mark 15:27 say that Jesus was crucified between two robbers (Luke just calls them criminals; John simply calls them men). It is a historical fact that the Romans did not crucify robbers. Crucifixion was reserved for insurrectionists and rebellious slaves.
2. Peter and Mary near the cross

When the gospel writers mention Jesus talking to his mother and to Peter from the cross, they run afoul of another historical fact - the Roman soldiers closely guarded the places of execution, and nobody was allowed near (least of all friends and family who might attempt to help the condemned person).
3. The opened tombs

According to Matthew 27:51-53, at the moment Jesus died there was an earthquake that opened tombs and many people were raised from the dead. For some reason they stayed in their tombs until after Jesus was resurrected, at which time they went into Jerusalem and were seen by many people.

Here Matthew gets too dramatic for his own good. If many people came back to life and were seen by many people, it must have created quite a stir (even if the corpses were in pretty good shape!). Yet Matthew seems to be the only person aware of this happening - historians of that time certainly know nothing of it - neither do the other gospel writers.

Continued:

C. THE RESURRECTION
1. Who found the empty tomb?

a. According to Matthew 28:1, only "Mary Magdalene and the other Mary."

b. According to Mark 16:1, "Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome."

c. According to Luke 23:55, 24:1 and 24:10, "the women who had come with him out of Galilee." Among these women were "Mary Magdalene and Joanna and Mary the mother of James." Luke indicates in verse 24:10 that there were at least two others.

d. According to John 20:1-4, Mary Magdalene went to the tomb alone, saw the stone removed, ran to find Peter, and returned to the tomb with Peter and another disciple.
2. Who did they find at the tomb?

a. According to Matthew 28:2-4, an angel of the Lord with an appearance like lightning was sitting on the stone that had been rolled away. Also present were the guards that Pilate had contributed. On the way back from the tomb the women meet Jesus (Matthew 28:9).

b. According to Mark 16:5, a young man in a white robe was sitting inside the tomb.

c. According to Luke 24:4, two men in dazzling apparel. It is not clear if the men were inside the tomb or outside of it.

d. According to John 20:4-14, Mary and Peter and the other disciple initially find just an empty tomb. Peter and the other disciple enter the tomb and find only the wrappings. Then Peter and the other disciple leave and Mary looks in the tomb to find two angels in white. After a short conversation with the angels, Mary turns around to find Jesus.
3. Who did the women tell about the empty tomb?

a. According to Mark 16:8, "they said nothing to anyone."

b. According to Matthew 28:8, they "ran to report it to His disciples."

c. According to Luke 24:9, "they reported these things to the eleven and to all the rest."

d. According to John 20:18, Mary Magdalene announces to the disciples that she has seen the Lord.
V. THE ASCENSION

According to Luke 24:51, Jesus' ascension took place in Bethany, on the same day as his resurrection.

According to Acts 1:9-12, Jesus' ascension took place at Mount Olivet, forty days after his resurrection.
VI. MISCELLANEOUS
A. THE UNCHANGEABLE LAW

According to Matthew 5:18, Jesus said that not the tiniest bit of the Law could be changed. However, in Mark 7:19 Jesus declares that all foods are clean, thereby drastically changing the Law.

The church tries to get around this obvious contradiction by artificially separating the Mosaic Law into the "ceremonial" law and the "moral" law, a separation which would have abhorred the Jews of Jesus' time. The Mark passage and similar ones like Acts 10:9-16 were added to accommodate the teaching of Paul regarding the Law (which was diametrically opposed to the teaching of Jesus on the Law) and to make the gospel palatable to the Gentiles.
B. NO SIGNS, ONE SIGN, OR MANY SIGNS?

At one point the Pharisees come to Jesus and ask him for a sign.

1. In Mark 8:12 Jesus says that "no sign shall be given to this generation."

2. In contradiction to Mark, in Matthew 12:39 Jesus says that only one sign would be given - the sign of Jonah. Jesus says that just as Jonah spent three days and three nights in the belly of the whale, so he will spend three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. Here Jesus makes an incorrect prediction - he only spends two nights in the tomb (Friday and Saturday nights), not three nights.

3. In contradiction to both Mark and Matthew, the gospel of John speaks of many signs that Jesus did:

a. The miracle of turning water into wine at the wedding in Cana is called the beginning (or first) of the signs that Jesus did (John 2:11).

b. The healing at Capernaum is the "second sign" (John 4:54).

c. Many people were following Jesus "because they were seeing the signs He was performing" (John 6:2).
C. SON OF DAVID?

Matthew, Mark and Luke all contain passages which have Jesus quoting Psalm 110:1 to argue that the Messiah does not need to be a son of David (Matthew 22:41-46, Mark 12:35-37 and Luke 20:41-44).

1. This contradicts many Old Testament passages that indicate that the Messiah will be a descendant of David. It also contradicts official church doctrine.

2. In Acts 2:30-36 Peter, in what is regarded as the first Christian sermon, quotes Psalm 110:1 in arguing that Jesus was the Messiah, a descendant of David.
D. THE FIG TREE

After Jesus' triumphant entry into Jerusalem a sees a fig tree and wants some figs from it. He finds none on it so he curses the tree and it withers and dies (Matthew 21:18-20, Mark 11:12-14, 20-21).

1. Since this occurred in the early spring before Passover, it is ridiculous of Jesus to expect figs to be on the tree.

2. Matthew and Mark cannot agree on when the tree withered.

a. In Matthew, the tree withers at once and the disciples comment on this fact (Matthew 21:19-20).

b. In Mark, the tree is not found to be withered until at least the next day (Mark 11:20-21).

Continued, some more:

E. THE GREAT COMMISSION

In Matthew 28:19 Jesus tells the eleven disciples to "go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit."

1. This is obviously a later addition to the gospel, for two reasons:

a. It took the church over two hundred years of fighting (sometimes bloody) over the doctrine of the trinity before this baptismal formula came into use. Had it been in the original gospel, there would have been no fighting.

b. In Acts, when people are baptized, they are baptized just in the name of Jesus (Acts 8:16, 10:48, 19:5). Peter says explicitly that they are to "Repent, and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins" (Acts 2:38).

2. This contradicts Jesus' earlier statement that his message was for the Jews only (Matthew 10:5-6, 15:24). The gospels, and especially Acts, have been edited to play this down, but the contradiction remains. It was the apostle Paul who, against the express wishes of Jesus, extended the gospel (Paul's version) to the gentiles.
F. ENOCH IN THE BOOK OF JUDE

Jude 14 contains a prophecy of Enoch. Thus, if the Book of Jude is the Word of God, then the writings of "Enoch" from which Jude quotes, are also the Word of God. The Book of Enoch was used in the early church until at least the third century - Clement, Irenaeus and Tertullian were familiar with it. However, as church doctrine began to solidify, the Book of Enoch became an embarrassment to the church and in a short period of time it became the Lost Book of Enoch. A complete manuscript of the Book of Enoch was discovered in Ethiopia in 1768. Since then, portions of at least eight separate copies have been found among the Dead Sea scrolls. It is easy to see why the church had to get rid of Enoch - not only does it contain fantastic imagery (some of which was borrowed by the Book of Revelation), but it also contradicts church doctrine on several points (and, since it is obviously the work of several writers, it also contradicts itself).
G. THE APOSTLE PAUL'S CONVERSION

The Book of Acts contains three accounts of Paul's conversion on the road to Damascus. All of three accounts contradict each other regarding what happened to Paul's fellow travelers.

1. Acts 9:7 says they "stood speechless, hearing the voice..."

2. Acts 22:9 says they "did not hear the voice..."

3. Acts 26:14 says "when we had all fallen to the ground..."

Some translations of the Bible (the New International Version and the New American Standard, for example) try to remove the contradiction in Acts 22:9 by translating the phrase quoted above as "did not understand the voice..." However, the Greek word "akouo" is translated 373 times in the New Testament as "hear," "hears," "hearing" or "heard" and only in Acts 22:9 is it translated as "understand." In fact, it is the same word that is translated as "hearing" in Acts 9:7, quoted above. The word "understand" occurs 52 times in the New Testament, but only in Acts 22:9 is it translated from the Greek word "akouo."

This is an example of Bible translators sacrificing intellectual honesty in an attempt to reconcile conflicting passages in the New Testament.
H. JESUS CALLS THE DISCIPLES

1. In Matthew 4:18-22 and Mark 1:16-20, Peter and Andrew are casting nets into the sea. Jesus calls out to them and they leave their nets and follow him. Jesus then goes on a little further and sees James and John mending their nets with their father. He calls to them and they leave their father and follow him.

2. In Luke 5:1-11, Jesus asks Peter to take him out in Peter's boat so Jesus can preach to the multitude. James and John are in another boat. When Jesus finishes preaching, he tells Peter how to catch a great quantity of fish (John 21:3-6 incorporates this story in a post- resurrection appearance). After Peter catches the fish, he and James and John are so impressed that after they bring their boats to shore they leave everything and follow Jesus.

3. In John 1:35-42, Andrew hears John the Baptist call Jesus the Lamb of God. Andrew then stays with Jesus for the remainder of the day and then goes to get his brother Peter and brings him to meet Jesus.
I. SHOULD THE TWELVE DISCIPLES TAKE STAFFS?

When Jesus summons the twelve disciples to send them out to proclaim the kingdom of God, he lists the things the disciples should not take with them.

1. In Matthew 10:9-10 and Luke 9:3-5, a staff is included in the list of things not to take.

2. In contradiction to Matthew and Luke, Mark 6:8 makes a specific exception - the disciples may take a staff.
J. THE APOSTLE PAUL GETS CONFUSED

In Romans 7:1-6 the apostle Paul tries to compare a Christian's "dying to the Law" to a woman who marries again after her husband has died. In doing so, Paul gets hopelessly confused about whether the Christian corresponds to the wife (by being released from the Law), or corresponds to the husband (by having died). One scholar has referred to the passage as "remarkably muddle-headed." This just goes to show that, although a brilliant man, Paul did have his bad days.

Continued, even more:

K. THE SECOND COMING
1. During the disciples' lifetime

There are several passages in the gospels where Jesus says he will return in the disciples' lifetime (Mark 13:30, Matthew 10:23, 16:28, 24:34, Luke 21:32, etc.).

The same expectation held during the period the apostle Paul wrote his letters. In 1 Corinthians 7:29-31 Paul says that the time is so short that believers should drastically change the way that they live. But Paul had a problem - some believers had died, so what would happen to them when Jesus returned?

Paul's answer in 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 shows that Paul expected that at least some of those he was writing to would be alive when Jesus returned - "we who are alive, and remain..." The same passage also indicates that Paul believed that those believers who had died remained "asleep in Jesus" until he returned. However, as the delay in Jesus' return grew longer, the location of Jesus' kingdom shifted from earth to heaven and we later find Paul indicating that when believers die they will immediately "depart and be with Christ" (Philippians 1:23).

It is quite obvious that Jesus never intended to start any type of church structure since he believed he would return very shortly to rule his kingdom in person. It is also quite obvious that Jesus was wrong about when he was coming back.
2. The earth in the Book of Revelation

Revelation 1:7 says that when Jesus comes with the clouds, everybody on earth will see him. Some Christians have said that this will be literally fulfilled because the event will be broadcast by satellite over all the world's TV stations (We interrupt this broadcast...). Actually, the passage reflects the flat-earth cosmology of the time, as does also "the four corners of the earth" in Revelation 7:1 and 20:8.

Here, and in many gospel passages, Jesus is spoken of as coming with or on the clouds. This is because the Bible's view of heaven is "up" and Jesus has to pass through the clouds to get back, just as in Acts 1:9 Jesus ascended up through a cloud.
3. The Book of Daniel

The Book of Daniel is included here because, after the Book of Revelation, Daniel is the book most studied with regard to the second coming. Christians are very impressed with the detailed prophecies in Daniel that have been fulfilled. Anybody would be, if they believed that Daniel was written during the Babylonian exile, as the book of Daniel says.

However, the book itself makes it possible to pinpoint the date of its writing as 167 BC. How? Because up to that year all of Daniel's detailed prophecies came true. After that year none of them did. But how was Daniel to know that shortly after he wrote his book one of the greatest events in Israel's history, the Maccabean revolution that defeated Antiochus Epiphanes, would occur?
VII. THE CAUSES OF THE CONTRADICTIONS

There are four primary causes for most of the contradictions listed above:
A. THE MESSIANIC PROPHECIES

The gospel writers (especially Matthew) tried to show that Jesus was the Messiah by having him fulfill Old Testament "prophecies," sometimes with absurd results (as in the case of the "two donkeys" and the "thirty pieces of silver").
B. THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN JESUS' AND PAUL'S GOSPELS

The gospel that Jesus and his disciples proclaimed to the Jews was in accordance with what the Old Testament predicted about a human Messiah reigning over a restored kingdom of Israel, a kingdom of peace and righteousness. The people of Israel were to repent as personal righteousness was necessary to become a member of the kingdom.

In contrast to Jesus' gospel was the gospel preached to the Jews and gentiles by the apostle Paul, which Paul refers to as "my gospel" and "the gospel that I preach" to differentiate it from what was being proclaimed by the disciples. In Paul's gospel the human Jewish Messiah became a divine saviour of all nations, the restored kingdom of Israel became a heavenly kingdom, and admittance to the kingdom was based on faith rather than personal righteousness.

The two gospels caused great animosity between Paul and the original apostles, an animosity that is played down in the books of Acts and Galatians, but which still shows through in several places. When Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans in 70 AD the Jewish Christians in Jerusalem were scattered or killed, and the opposition to the gospel of Paul was largely eliminated. The gospel of Paul was incorporated into the gospel of Jesus, in many cases supplanting it.
C. THE DELAY IN JESUS' RETURN

As time went by without Jesus returning, the apostle Paul was forced to rethink things he had written about earlier, including the state of dead believers and the nature of the kingdom.
D. CREATING A HISTORY FIT FOR A GOD

When Jesus was changed from a Jewish "son of David" sitting on David's throne to a divine "son of God" sitting on a heavenly throne, it became necessary to invent a godlike biography for him. Thus the troublesome virgin birth, miracles, resurrection, etc.

The list of contradictions in this paper is by no means complete, the examples being chosen primarily from the gospels. The examples given above, however, more than prove the point that the Bible is most definitely not, in any sense, the Word of God. The church has made imaginative (and often absurd) attempts to reconcile these contradictions. None of these attempts have the ring of truth - instead they have the ring of desperation.

Sorry everyone for the amount of posts but I didn't think a simple url link would have the same impact.

again i dont claim to be an expect on the bible but its clear u didnt pick up a bible to make sure all these claims were right

interesting read al right but dont rely on an athesit website, just because its there doesnt make it correct.

another point that would stike me is if all these things are in the bible, all these contradicition why has no1 esle picked up on them? by the sounds of your post they are all still writtian in the bible for all to see

Oh Butter, dude thanks. Gonna print all sit on couch and read....I've got nothing better to do anyways

grab a bible so u can compare lol make sure they all correct

Well shouldn't you, as a Christian, feel you should question that in which you have been led to believe? Maybe you should actually read in depth this book on which your entire religion has been based upon, rather than just accepting that which you are spoon fed. I know that I would question such a thing if i was in your position, rather than having my head in the sand. Infact, that is exactly what i did 3 yrs ago and I am now considerably happier.

andi

Well if you read the entire thread you'd have known that I have read the bible and go and talk to any serious bible scholar and they'll confirm the contradictions. Sophisticated theologians fully accept the contradictions in the bible, as you said they're plainly there for anybody to see so there's not much use in them denying it, they just claim it doesn't take away from the central message. Cherry picking anyone? And lots and lots of people, regardless of their theistic or atheistic beliefs, have picked up on them and highlighted them. This isn't exactly breaking news but if you're rapped up in Catholic blankets your whole life you're only going to hear what they want you to hear.

And why does it matter if it's on an atheist website or a muslim website or a christian website? This was simply pointing out the obvious.

That paper I posted highlights the chapters and verses so just whip out your bible and flick to the appropriate page and compare the two and you'll see they're absolutely correct.

Follow this link and click on any one of the contradictions of the entire bible that is mentioned and it will give you the chapter and verse of each of the conflicting passages.

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_name.html

well nxt time im on i must grab an bible and see if they all match! i know already some of them arent correct.

i'm betting that is a more reliable source (regarding research done) then the bible...

Here's another very interesting fact. Theists claim God is all loving, right? and that the Devil represents all that is evil so you would expect the Devil to have committed significantly more horrific acts then God, right?

Well, let's check out the murder rates for God vs. The Devil:

If you only count up the number of people God killed where it's explicitly stated in the Bible you reach the impressive total of 2,270,365. But that doesn't include some of God's most impressive slaughters. How many did God drown in the flood or burn to death in Sodom and Gomorrah? How many first-born Egyptians did he kill? The Bible doesn't say, so there's no way to know for sure. But it's possible to provide rough estimates in order to get a grand total of 32.9 million!

The Devil? Well he's killed a far less impressive 10. Yep, 10 and those 10 happened in the book of Job where he and God had a bet and God authorized the Devil to kill Job's wife and children. So it seems that both Satan and God share the blame (or the credit) for these killings.

Here's a link to check out these facts which show the chapter and verse where God killed all these people lest anyone says this isn't what's in the bible.

http://dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot....lete-list.html

Wow, impressive counter argument.

"Your honor, the prosecution may present facts and documented evidence for their claims but I know they're false. Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I rest my case."

Yeah, could see which way the jury may go on that trial.

I dont know snow white so I cant possible say..

The same way you acount for love, faith , belief , you feel it, I see and feel how God works in my life everyday.

There are a lot of posts here about contridicting the bible, you can contridict anything .... The bible encourages people to ask questions and it speaks about those who do not hear and chose not to believe.

God is love and will love you, you either believe this or you dont.

Dawn

Yet if I said something like...

There is no such thing as god, you can believe it or not.

You'd say I was being arrogant and ask me to prove how I know this.

Again I edited your quoted post, it still sound sill to me

Anyway as I'm reading yesterday's newspaper I'm reading an article that is saying that the islam is the #1 religion now (most followers), while the christian always were...

Now why do you think after centuries christian isnt #1 religion anymore?

Because people starting to realize...

One possible explanation for that development is that Islam is a religion that contains more structure then Christianity in general. And poor people tend to actually need structure in their lives, someone or something that tells them how keep away from sin and such. And since we today have quite a few poor individuals in the world I’m not surprised that Islam has taken over as the no.1 religion.

Another theory regarding this subject is that Christianity has lost is power in the developed countries, and how should it then be able to indoctrinate new believers? It’s not like the USA is trying to force Christianity up on the people in Iraq as the old imperialist states used to do.

Yeah I can see that. But in development countries as in Africa an whole different sort of Islam is practised then in middle-east. More easy-going, more christian I geuss.

Anyways geuss your answered my question there..

I came across this today, I hadn't seen it in ages and thought it was very appropriate:

http://www.richarddawkins.net/images...yerIMAGINE.jpg

got any of those of the crusades?

Of course, as I said earlier, there's a fair amount of imagery that could work in favour of religion as well ... it's just imagery. And people would still kill each other regardless. You may as well create a big poster saying "Imagine no human nature"

Not really because religion was the direct cause of the 9/11 attacks. If it weren't for religion and religious faith those towers would still be standing, and more importantly all the people who were killed in the attacks and the subsequent retaliations would still be alive.

And of course it's just imagery, but imagery can be very powerful. Ever heard of the old adage, "a picture paints a thousand words"?

see i know religions was used to wind them people up that muh is clear, for me its just shows you how religon can be warped to make it into something bad. you can do that with every form of teaching tho.

anthesim is not a bad teaching, nothing evil in it but it was used to kill many preists in U.S.S.R as well as many number being killed to this day in china.

anything in the hands of an evil person can be evil!

no I wouldnt say that... I would say... I respect your belief or lack of it .
I could understand you choosing not to believe if you had at least read the bible.

I class myself as a christian... if someone said to me why are you a christian rather than a muslim, I could answer. Not because I am brainwashed but because I have read other religions, bibles and studied their lifestyles etc. I have periods in my life where I chosen not to live a christian lifestyle , it is all a choice, but surely our choices should be informed ones.

How can you choose to not believe if you have not looked at what you could believe in..

Dawn

I dont think it sounds silly that you could love me :D

Dawn

now that is a view i would share!

God doesnt create wars, men use relgion as an excuse for war.

Dawn

yes and therefore I don't blame god or jesus but religion in general...

I just wanted to make that point as some people see religion and God as the same thing.

Dawn

so men get away free?

athesits took over a part of france for a while and killed thousands of people for believeing in god? u blame athesim for that?

thousands of people were kill in china and russia under communism and athesim who do we balme for that?

bad people will twist anything to do evil.

i agree with what you are saying here. humans kill each other because they are ****ing stupid. call it evil or whatever you want but in the end its just ****ing stupid. if there is a god he must look at us lot blowing each other to bits and think you ****ing morons. why dont you do something constructive?

My main problem is with organized relgion, and always has been. Its hypocritical bullshit, all of it.

But yes, you say God may have created man, but then man went and created religion. Religion is the source of so many problems. God, who most probably does not exist, is not really where the problems lies- once again its with human nature.

Yes, we may all kill eachother in the name of something else if religion didnt exists - I accept that, but it doesnt change that all religion is absolute nonsense - wether its based on a real god or not.

andi

Well in this instance I find the very idea of a big magic man in the sky to be laughable, so I choose not to read into it any further. Organised religion is just not something that I want to be a part of, none of it. If there really was a god I'm sure it wouldn't want us to follow some silly old rules to live our life by, it would just let us be. Man created the idea of a god out of pure fear and as a way to explain what we could not understand. We then created religion as a political means to control people using that fear. That is how I see it, and I want no part in it. Logic tells me there is no such thing as god, any god, and the fact that different cultures pray to totally different ones with different rules is just, to me, further proof that the idea of such a thing is ludicrous.

If something interests me then I will read up on it, but if the very basis of an idea is, to me, laughable, then I will not waste any of my time on it. It's like me saying I have an idea on how to use a bicycle to reverse time; you know it's a bollocks idea so would you still listen to the rest of it all anyway?

well say for a second we boh believe in god, your handed the new testement as a sense of moral guidence, you wouldnt turn out a killer, terrorist. youd lead a good life though maybe a bit of a homophob but your from dorie(derry) anyway. lol.

leading a religious life will not lead you into conflict anywhere! again religion is a bad thing its just used by bad people. communism isnt an evil thing but put it in the hands of stalin then it is!

Religion, or more appropriately Islam, wasn't just used to wind up the 19 men who committed the 9/11 attacks, it was the main reason, hell it was the only reason why these men carried out the attacks. It was their religious faith, their absolute belief, that flying those planes into those buildings would not end their lives that gave them the courage to do what they did. They really believed what they said they believed. They were 100% sure that when they died they would be fast tracked to a martyrs heaven where 72 virgin brides would be awaiting them. It wasn't political or economic discrimination or lack of education, it was religion and religion only that motivated those men to do what they did.

You simply can't say bad things will be done with all teachings. Consider the differences in world religions alone. Not all religions are created equally. Not all religions teach the same things and when they do teach the same things they don't teach them equally well. You will of course get psychopaths and sociopaths in all walks of life who will do horrible things in the name of whatever it is they believe, or don't believe. However you don't need to be a psychopath or a sociopath to do horrible things in the name of religion because (most) religions give you ample reason to do those things.

If anybody thinks the violence we see in the Muslim world is born of political injustices or Israeli occupation or the British and American excursions into Afghanistan and Iraq then where are the Tibetan Buddhist suicide bombers? If the violence we witness in the Muslim world was born of these reasons we should see Tibetan Buddhist suicide bombers. The Tibetan occupation is every bit as brutal and more cynical then anything imposed on the Muslims in the middle east but we simply don't see Tibetan Buddhist calling for the deaths of non-combative Chinese, you don't see them blowing themselves up on buses or at weddings or in crowds of children. It simply doesn't happen and it's not likely to happen. You would have to work extraordinarily hard to twist the core principles of Buddhism to achieve this. You don't have to work anywhere near as hard as a Muslim, or a Christian either for that matter. The more fundamentalist you become in the Abrahamic religions the more violent and intolerant you become. You become Osama Bin Laden or Jerry Falwell or Ian Paisley for the simple reason that these religions are born of the OT which is arguably the most violent and horrific text ever written. If you are Jain (a religion in India with over 10 million followers) it is simply impossible to become like that however fundamentalist you become. The core principle of Jainism is non-violence. The seriously fundamentalist Jain's walk around with with cheese masks over their mouths so as not to inhale a bug. There is simply no comparing the "peaceful" religions of Islam and Christianity to religions like Jainism and Buddhism.

Christianity is nowhere near as bad as Islam at this moment because Christianity has undergone it's reformation. Millions are still dying every year due to the genocidal stupidity of the Catholic Churches teachings of the sinfulness of condom use. Millions are suffering from horrible illnesses that could be cured through progress in stem cell research yet we have Christians preventing this work from being done on morally and intellectually indefensible grounds so by no means is Christianity harmless or now on the same level as the eastern religions.

Malachy said that if you follow the NT you cannot be violent. Explain the Inquisitions? Jesus is simply not some all peaceful, perfect example of how a human being should be. Read 2 Thessalonian or Revelation and you see a vengeful, hateful, violent, wrathful Jesus. That Jesus is waiting to be discovered. Nowhere in the book does it say "that's bogus". Taken in half his moods though he's wonderful.

Consider the leading lights of the Christian religions who are still taught today, St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas. These guys knew their religion, they were informed. Now in Aquinas' case he thought heretics should be killed outright. Augustine thought they should be tortured. Augustine's arguments for torture laid the foundations for the Inquisition and the men who carried out the horrific acts also knew and followed the NT. This wasn't some departure from reason. We weren't witnessing a departure from reason in to psychopathology when we were burning people alive for five centuries. This was perfectly reasonable behaviour if you read the books and you believed them.

Now of course people would kill each other over other things if it weren't for religion, as I've said previously. The two world wars had practically nothing to do with religion, but religion is such a potent force for overriding our basic moral instincts. It creates divisions in society, it gives people the willingness to gladly end their own lives in order to kill other innocent people and it exacerbates the natural human tendency for in-group loyalty and out-group hostility. It provides labels for who is evil and who is good, who should die and who should be protected. For that reason alone we should do all we can to oppose it. If it were true then we would simply have to put it, however unpleasant it is, but as there is simply not one shred of evidence to back up the claims of religion there exists no good reason at all to put up with it in our world.

"Religion is the greatest insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." - Steven Weinberg, Nobel Prize winning physicist.

Arent you and chuchujesus is some kinda (small) confilct already. Your statement doesn't make sence..