Give Me Your Best Examples of Contradictions in the Bible

Barnardot

@21CenturyIconoclast ;Your outright BIBLE ILLITERACY is excused once again at your expense!

I have to jump in here and explain the truth. What Jesus says when he says he is the father means that he is part of God because God put Jesus down here to represent God in the form of a person so even though Jesus is the son of God technically the thing is that he is God because he is God in the form of a person. But when Jesus says he is not the father then he is technically right because he is the son of God so thats why its important to stay on top of Bible quotes then you will know the truth. 

John_C_87

@Barnardot
What Jesus says when he says he is the father means that he is part of God because God put Jesus down here to represent God in the form of a person so even though Jesus is the son of God technically the thing is that he is God because he is God in the form of a person.

  Yeah, ""Funny thing is Jesus and lucifer have the same interpreter of GOD from the Holy Bible.

Barnardot

@John_C_87 ; Yeah, ""Funny thing is Jesus and lucifer have the same interpreter of GOD from the Holy Bible.

Sure thing but one of them is a froard and it isn't Jesus is it. You always have to be ware in every thing in life because you just need to let your de fences down for a minute and that slimmy devil will get you.

John_C_87

Revelation XII:VII-XII

 Now war arose in heaven, rMichael and shis angels fighting against the dragon. And the dragon and his angels fought back,  but he was defeated, and there was no longer any place for them in heaven. And tthe great dragon was thrown down, uthat ancient serpent, who is called the devil and Satan, vthe deceiver of the whole world—w he was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him.  And I heard a loud voice in heaven, saying, “Now xthe salvation and the power and the kingdom of our God and the authority of his Christ have come, for the accuser of our brothers2 has been thrown down, ywho accuses them day and night before our God.  And zthey have conquered him by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony, for athey loved not their lives beven unto death.Therefore, crejoice, O heavens and you who dwell in them! But dwoe to you, O earth and sea, for the devil has come down to you in great wrath, because e he knows that his time is short!”

Sure thing but one of them is a forward and it isn't Jesus is it.
Hard to tell it looks as though Jesus is forward enough about his taking siding with his father, who very well could be lucifer. Know by him opr not. The warnings had been presented by GOD to Jesus. In Genesis III by eating fruit and not eating the surpent snake women and man the admit they had surcome to the lies of surpent, Eve saying quote " The surpent has decived me." Mary while on earth is only told by "angles" some of which had been banised to earth with lucifer that mary shall be visited by GOD.

Genesis III:I-VII

The Fall
 Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’?
”The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden,  but God did say, ‘You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.’” “You will not certainly die,” the serpent said to the woman. “For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves

ProudToBeCatholic

Argument Topic: Balaam's Mule and Voodoo God

@Phite

Your quote: When Balaam’s (mule) talked to him, Balaam wasn’t the least bit surprised. In fact, Balaam was quick on the draw to explain himself to the mule. That’s not how reality works. When mules talk, we become surprised. We don’t engage the mule, no questions asked. Editors didn’t exist at the time, or they would have surely caught that inconsistency.

Response: Two points I’d like to make. First, read Numbers 22 again and notice that this passage doesn’t give us a detailed description of everything that took place here. All we know is that the donkey spoke and that Balaam replied. The claim that Balaam was not surprised is (A) an argument from silence, and (b) illogical. Thus, my second point: by making the claim that lack of editing resulted in this story not being altered to do away with inconsistency, you are implying this is not an actual historical account of real events; another unfounded claim. We can argue about who the burden of proof falls on to prove the text is reliable, but I’d be more than happy to take the burden of proof upon myself and show you that it is indeed historical and reliable. The offer is there if you’d like to take it and I’ll gladly start a debate on whether the Old Testament is historically reliable or not. Let me know.

Your quote: A god of love would not require the torture, blood, and death of an innocent in order to let us off the hook for our sins. Sounds more like the ingredients of a voodoo spell than the act of a loving god. If pain, suffering, and death are this god’s currency of choice when it comes to what he’ll accept in return for forgiveness, isn’t it obvious that what moves the god is not love?

God did not require the torture, blood, or death of the innocent in order to let us off the hook for our sins. This is false Calvinistic thinking. On the contrary, Christ offered Himself up to God in our place, taking our judgement upon Himself of His own free will. The Father did not pour out His wrath on Christ, but rather Christ drank freely from the cup of wrath and in doing so, appeased the Father’s wrath against us. It is just like me stepping in front of a bullet to save a murderer from the executioner. I may be the one who took the bullet, but that does not mean the shooter fired it with the express intention of shooting me. I stood in the way and took the bullet for them. This is exactly how the atonement of Christ works. God was not punishing Christ on the cross, but rather, Christ stood in between us and the punishment we deserved and took it instead of us of His own volition.

ProudToBeCatholic

Argument Topic: Irrational Contradictions?

@ZeusAres42

Your quote: On the surface, there is nothing irrational about this claim. If there are no contradictions in the bible all that means is that Atheists made a factually incorrect claim; not an irrational one. That being said their motivations as to why they made this claim could be irrational even if what they said was factually correct.

Response: You are correct. However, it is irrational to cite the same age old alleged contradictions that have been debunked over and over again. See, if you claim there is a contradiction, all I have to do is give a possible explanation for your claim. Once I do that, it is up to you whether you accept my explanation. You cannot, however, disregard the explanation simply because you don’t want to to accept it. If I answer the supposed contradiction, I have done my job successfully, regardless of whether you accept it or not. It is irrationality to continue claiming contradiction when the claim has been shown to be unfounded.

ProudToBeCatholic

@Phite Your quote: First, can I assume you put stock in a place called Hell, or do you believe it’s simply metaphor?

Response: Hell is most definitely not a metaphor; on this Sacred Scripture is clear(Rev. 21:8, Matthew 10:28, Matthew 25:46). All throughout the Bible, hell is described as a literal place of punishment all of the wicked will spend eternity suffering in.

Your quote: Do you imagine that the god made Hell to teach sinners a lesson? Can’t be that because no one ever gets out of Hell to apply the learned lesson to their life. That means that the god wants to inflict pain for nothing but the sake of pain. Of what use is such suffering to the god? And of what use is such a god to humans?

Response: Of course God did not create hell to teach sinners a lesson. Hell was created for for the Devil and his angels, not human beings. Unfortunately, when the Devil deceived Adam, the human race fell and if they choose to identify with Satan by rejecting their Creator, they too will share in the same fate as the Devil. But supposing hell was created for the wicked sinners, it still couldn’t be to teach them a lesson, for hell is eternal. As you yourself said, no one ever gets out. Your conclusion is flawed however. God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked (Ezekiel 33:11) so to claim God wants to inflict pain upon sinners is certainly not the proper understanding. This is where a little bit of knowledge if what hell is comes into play. While hell is a literal place sinners will go to, the Scriptures use human terms to describe a spiritual reality. Hell is not a place with physical flames and worms, but rather, the Bible utilizes metaphorical language to express a divine truth. When such terms are used, they are used to describe just how agonizing and painful hell really will be. So what is hell exactly? Hell is total and complete separation from God. God is love and love is from God (1 John 4:7) therefore there will be a total absence of love. The fruits of the spirit (love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, etc.) will not exist, since they too flow forth from God. Therefore, without all these things present in our lives, nothing will remain but sheer agony, hence the strong language God uses to describe hell. So no, hell is not God inflicting pain for nothing but the sake of pain, but rather, hell is the total and complete absence from God and all the blessings that flow forth from Him.

ProudToBeCatholic

Argument Topic: God Does Not Unfairly Punish

@Sargonski Your quote: I have a good one .. a real puzzler. Should we kill/punish children for the sins of their parents .. or should we observe the rule of Law – one person not to be punished for the action of another. God says both so is clear contradiction.

Response: This is not a puzzler at all. First, not once did God command the killing or punishing of children for the sins of the parents. I’m assuming you are referencing passages such as 1 Samuel 15:3, where God commands infants and children to be killed along with the parents. God did not do this directly because of the parents’ sins, but rather as a precautionary measure. See, these cities the Jewish people were commanded to destroy were known as wicked people. After the measure of their iniquity was filled, God commanded them to be destroyed. However, in His foreknowledge, God knew these children could rise up against the people of Israel again once they became inspired by the blood of their fathers and mothers. They would disdain the Israelite people and begin a rebellion that could very well destroy the nation. Foreseeing this, God commanded the Israelites to kill everyone and everything on numerous occasions. God never punished children for their parents sins and, in fact, when the Israelites began to claim this same thing, God commanded them to stop maligning His character (“The word of the Lord came to me: “What do you mean by repeating this proverb concerning the land of Israel, the fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children’s teeth are set on edge’? As I live, declares the Lord God, this proverb shall no more be used by you in Israel. Behold, all souls are mine; the soul of the father as well as the soul of the son is mine: the soul who sins shall die… If a man is righteous and does what is just and right… he is righteous; he shall surely live, declares the Lord God. If he fathers a son who is violent, a shedder of blood, who does any of these things… He shall not live. He has done all these abominations; he shall surely die; his blood shall be upon himself… Now suppose this man fathers a son who sees all the sins that his father has done; he sees, and does not do likewise… he shall not die for his father’s iniquity; he shall surely live. As for his father, because he practiced extortion, robbed his brother, and did what is not good among his people, behold, he shall die for his iniquity. Yet you say, Why should not the son suffer for the iniquity of the father?’ When the son has done what is just and right, and has been careful to observe all my statutes, he shall surely live. The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.”- Ezekiel 18:1-20) This passage clearly refutes the caricature of a God who punishes children for their father’s iniquity.

Maybe you are also referencing passages such as Exodus 20 5-6, but this is where you need to read the entire passage in its context. Here is the full verse: “You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the Lord, your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me, but showing lovingkindness to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments”. Notice there are two qualifiers listed here. One, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on those who hate Him and two, showing loving kindness to those who obey Him. This passage is essentially saying the same thing as Ezekiel 18:1-20, that the soul who sins will die. So no, this is not a contradiction at all and if you read these passages before citing it as such, you would’ve never posted an argument like this in good faith.

ProudToBeCatholic

Argument Topic: I Have Returned

@21CenturyIconoclast Your quote: As shown ad infinitum in this this thread alone, ProudToBeCatholic has had a “plethora” of lame excuses to RUN AWAY from me in easily making him the Catholic fool! IT HAS BEEN 2 MONTHS SINCE HE HAS RAN AWAY FROM THIS THREAD OF HIS! Just checking in to see if he found his “balls” to return so I can continue to make him one of the most Bible pseudo-christians that this Religion Forum as ever seen!

Response: How long will you persist in your lying? Did you not expect I’d actually return once I turned 18? If you thought I ran away from yours or anyone else’s posts, I am pleased to announce that am 18 and, as promised, I am back. I explained to you multiple times the circumstances surrounding my leaving but obviously you didn’t read a word I wrote. My return should be proof enough to you, though

ProudToBeCatholic

Argument Topic: Misrepresentation of Trinitarian Theology

@Sargonski Your quote: The answer to whichh is different depending which question you are asking.. Obviously Jesus claimed to be divine .. son of God. What he didn’t claim is that he was “The Father” .. and in fact goes out of his way to claim otherwise . over and over and over .. referring to “The Father” as someone other than himself .. Including the prayer he suggests you pray --- “Our Father – who art in Heaven . Hallowed be thy name --- which is not Jesus. Aye Mate ? Not Jesus you are praying to when you say that prayer .. you are addressing the God in the Heavens .. as opposed to the Chief God on Earth .. Two different dominions – which although you might mistake .and not understand … . the First Century individual – regardless of religion .. would not.mistake .. and all would understand this distinction. But NO .. Jesus never affirms the Trinity – EVER .. AnyWHERE .in the Bible. And this is the opinion of ALL modern Theological Scholarship of any repute. .. and sorry .. the Fundamentalist Evangelicals opted out of this group.

Response: I am not sure what gave you the notion that I believe the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are the same person because I would agree with you that the Scriptures make it abundantly clear that they are three distinct persons and this is in fact the teaching of the dogma of the Trinity. Look up hypostatic union to learn more about this. There are three persons, consubstantial, or of the same substance and essence, as one another: God. Three persons, one God. I think you should do a little more research on what us Trinitarians believe because nothing you are saying is believed by any Trinitarian anywhere. And that is a lie. You obviously thought we are all ignorant on this forums because nothing could be further from the truth. Here is a list of Trinitarian scholarships and you can look each up to view their credentials if you would like: Millard J. Erickson, Shirley C. Guthrie Jr., Roger Olsen, Christopher Hall, Charles C. Rykiel, Graham Greene, Cyrillic C. Richardson, etc etc. Please, rather than making bogus arguments like “this is the opinion of all modern scholarship of any repute”, actually attack valid points and substantiate them with real evidence. This entire post of yours was a strawman

ProudToBeCatholic

Argument Topic: Differences in Numerical Values in Sacred Scripture

@DaveD Your quote: Where one of these contradictions comes in is that Gen 11:25 states that Terah was 75 years old when Abram (Abraham) was born. It states in 11:32 that Terah was 205 years old when he died, and in 12:4 Abram was 75 years old when left Haran. That means that when he left Terah was 150 years old and would be alive for another 55 years. Where’s the contradiction? That comes in Acts 7:4 in Stephen’s speech when he said “…and after his father died God made him leave Haran and come to this land you are living today.” Now, yes, Stephen was using the Sumarian Pentateuch which states that Terah died at 145, but that does not change the fact that the contradiction made its way into the Bible.

My response: I have never looked into this before so I don’t know I can offer a good answer, but I am sure there are scholarly resources you can find which explain this. I do want to not however, that in many cases with numbers in the OT, we find differences between manuscripts. Sometimes, a scribe would accidentally leave out a number and rather than having 1500 soldiers, there would be 150 soldiers, but scholars have had the chance to compare the thousands of manuscripts we do have and come to a pretty solid conclusion about the correct number. Perhaps the Sumarian Pentatuch is the proper reading of the text, but I would have to look at the scholars and see what they say. But please note that there is a such thing as mistakes in translation. Many Bibles, when translated into another language, have small mistakes that can easily be fixed by going to the original. Point is, the fact that a Bible translation may have gotten something wrong does not it any way mean the Bible itself is wrong

Phite

@ProudToBeCatholic

Then what you have, metaphorically speaking, is a clay master who tried his hand at creation, and when he found that his work was flawed, he irresponsibly removed himself from the equation and blamed the clay.  And to add insult to injury, he solved the problem of the "bad" clay by pulling a perfectly flawless clay sculpture from the top shelf and allowed it to be torn apart and discarded.  Problem solved?

And isn't that just right in line with a god who negligently allowed a serpent into the garden, and then blamed his freshly created beings for being fooled by the same serpent who fooled him? 

ProudToBeCatholic

Argument Topic: The Foreknowledge of the 'Clay Master'

@Phite
Your quote: Then what you have, metaphorically speaking, is a clay master who tried his hand at creation, and when he found that his work was flawed, he irresponsibly removed himself from the equation and blamed the clay. And to add insult to injury, he solved the problem of the “bad” clay by pulling a perfectly flawless clay sculpture from the top shelf and allowed it to be torn apart and discarded. Problem solved? And isn’t that just right in line with a god who negligently allowed a serpent into the garden, and then blamed his freshly created beings for being fooled by the same serpent who fooled him?

Response: No. The argument you are presenting doesn’t take into account God’s foreknowledge. God knew the Devil would fall. God knew Adam and Eve would fall. God knew all of humanity would fall. But He allows free will and thus He allowed all of this to happen. He was not content to watch humanity fade into the obscurity of their sin, however, so He had a plan. Jesus Christ would come down to this earth and live a life like the rest of us. Using His free will to cooperate with the Father’s plan, He offered Himself on the cross as a perfect sinless sacrifice before God so that we might follow in the same path He did; one of cooperation with His grace. Without a perfect sacrifice, the Father could not look away from sin, for the very sacrifice would be plagued with sin. It would be ineffectual. Now, you are also making the mistake of claiming God removed Himself from the equation, but that is not true either. Jesus is God, not just mere man. The second person of the Blessed Trinity came down to earth and offered Himself as a sacrifice to the Father.

You said God ‘tried His hand at creation’ and found His work was flawed, but nothing can be further from the truth. God created the world perfect (Genesis 1:31), but man corrupted themselves through the use of their free will. God put the serpent in the garden and God gave Adam and Eve a choice. He knew what their decision would be, but as I said, rather than taking away man’s free will, He chose to allow us to use our own free will to find our way back to Him through His Son, Jesus Christ.

So no, your analogy does not do justice to what we are speaking of, for it supposes God failed in His plan, and that He had no idea said ‘failure’ would occur. These two ideas are inseparable. If God does not have foreknowledge, He failed when Adam and Eve rebelled. But, if God does have foreknowledge, as Scripture teaches, then Adam and Eve’s fall is not a failure, but rather a means to an end, and that end is Jesus Christ, the righteous Son of God. As the Exultet we sing every Easter Vigil states, “O happy fault, O necessary sin of Adam, which gained for us so great a Redeemer!”

Barnardot

@Phite ;Then what you have, metaphorically speaking

Thats not metaphorically speaking thats just dum offensive extremist speaking. You have to fase the fact that when your extreme about things then people dont like foolish dim wits who can only think that way about every thing.

Phite

ProudToBeCatholic said:

The argument you are presenting doesn’t take into account God’s foreknowledge.

If the god knew the beginning to the end, and the end from the beginning, why did it create inferior beings knowing that its penchant for justice would consume even its mercy?  So, according to the story, the god's first mistake was giving the gift of free will and then taking it back by informing the "free" will recipients that any will not in alignment with its own will be severely punished.  That's some free will . . .

You need to look up the word "free."
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________

21 Balaam got up in the morning, saddled his donkey and went with the Moabite officials. 22 But God was very angry when he went, and the angel of the Lord stood in the road to oppose him. Balaam was riding on his donkey, and his two servants were with him. 23 When the donkey saw the angel of the Lord standing in the road with a drawn sword in his hand, it turned off the road into a field. Balaam beat it to get it back on the road.

24 Then the angel of the Lord stood in a narrow path through the vineyards, with walls on both sides. 25 When the donkey saw the angel of the Lord, it pressed close to the wall, crushing Balaam’s foot against it. So he beat the donkey again.

26 Then the angel of the Lord moved on ahead and stood in a narrow place where there was no room to turn, either to the right or to the left. 27 When the donkey saw the angel of the Lord, it lay down under Balaam, and he was angry and beat it with his staff. 28 Then the Lord opened the donkey’s mouth, and it said to Balaam, “What have I done to you to make you beat me these three times?”

29 Balaam answered the donkey, “You have made a fool of me! If only I had a sword in my hand, I would kill you right now.”

30 The donkey said to Balaam, “Am I not your own donkey, which you have always ridden, to this day? Have I been in the habit of doing this to you?”

“No,” he said.

31 Then the Lord opened Balaam’s eyes, and he saw the angel of the Lord standing in the road with his sword drawn. So he bowed low and fell facedown.

32 The angel of the Lord asked him, “Why have you beaten your donkey these three times? I have come here to oppose you because your path is a reckless one before me.[a] 33 The donkey saw me and turned away from me these three times. If it had not turned away, I would certainly have killed you by now, but I would have spared it.”

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________

So you see, Balaam proceeds to answer the donkey and accuse it of not obeying even though it was a miracle.  

One cool character indeed!

John_C_87

@Phite

Then what you have, metaphorically speaking, is a clay master who tried his hand at creation, and when he found that his work was flawed, he irresponsibly removed himself from the equation and blamed the clay.  And to add insult to injury, he solved the problem of the "bad" clay by pulling a perfectly flawless clay sculpture from the top shelf and allowed it to be torn apart and discarded.  Problem solved? And isn't that just right in line with a god who negligently allowed a serpent into the garden, and then blamed his freshly created beings for being fooled by the same serpent who fooled him? 

Very short summary you give Phite, can I ask who created the Angels as it is one of the angels who had become the serpent to whom you speak. Lucifer became this "serpent" not by outwitting GOD, lucifer had been banished by his own hubris from the heavens. GOD is said to have created the heavens and earth and everything in them. A reason for such great and devoted love of GOD by the angels is GOD when creating the heavens and Earth had set the Angles free of the darkness if knowing only hate in an existence that held only a War of Good Vs. evil.

A truth, a self-evident truth is a command GOD makes do not eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge, the knowledge of good and Evil. Creation Phite what brings the end of the garden of Eden for Adam and Eve was an inability to follow command and that is all.

Genesis III “2 The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, 3 but God did say, ‘You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.’” Genesis II: XV ( the ratio equal but not equal) I and I are self-evidently letters just as X and V. A ratio written in two letters each both yield a different sum I I sum is 2 and X and V sum is 15.

The Lord God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground—trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food. In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil

And the Lord God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.”

Adam and Eve failed to obey a simple order to eat the snake over the fruit of knowledge, more importantly it is Adam who by whole truth in a chain of comand disobeys a direct order from GOD( self-evident truth). Bringing lucifer and the angels who loyally follow lucifer to earth to abuse humanity with hate, deceit, and lie. 

Genesis 2 NIV - Thus the heavens and the earth were - Bible Gateway

ProudToBeCatholic

Argument Topic: Justice and Mercy, Free Will, and Balaam's Donkey

@Phite
Your quote: If the god knew the beginning to the end, and the end from the beginning, why did it create inferior beings knowing that its penchant for justice would consume even its mercy? So, according to the story, the god’s first mistake was giving the gift of free will and then taking it back by informing the “free” will recipients that any will not in alignment with its own will be severely punished. That’s some free will . . . You need to look up the word “free.”

Response: I would challenge your fundamental assertion here; that God’s penchant for justice would consume His mercy. You have to understand the character of God to understand His heart. God has justice against wickedness; He must punish it. His mercy is not the type that lets individuals get away with sin., rather His mercy is what enables Him to forgive us when we confess our sins. So no, His justice does not outweigh His mercy, but on the contrary, the two are closely intertwined with one another. Perhaps the best example of this judgement/mercy relationship is found in Ezekiel 33. “Son of man, give your people this message: The righteous behavior of righteous people will not save them if they turn to sin, nor will the wicked behavior of wicked people destroy them if they repent and turn from their sins. When I tell righteous people that they will live, but then they sin, expecting their past righteousness to save them, then none of their righteous acts will be remembered. I will destroy them for their sins. And suppose I tell some wicked people that they will surely die, but then they turn from their sins and do what is just and right. For instance, they might give back a debtor’s security, return what they have stolen, and obey my life-giving laws, no longer doing what is evil. If they do this, then they will surely live and not die. None of their past sins will be brought up again, for they have done what is just and right, and they will surely live.”

Secondly, you obviously don’t understand what free will even is. Free will does not mean there are no rules or consequences. We live in a society where we have rules we must follow , such as not stealing, not committing murder, etc. We still have free will however, or we would not be capable of disobeying the rules given by the powers above us. In the same way, God gives us commands we are to live by, but He also gives us free will. If man uses His free will to disobey God’s commands, he will be punished. In short, rules do not negate free will, but rather require a cooperation of man’s free will through both behavioral and intellectual submission to the law giver. So, you are incorrect in asserting, God does not give free will simply because He demands we align our free will with His commands.

Your quote: So you see, Balaam proceeds to answer the donkey and accuse it of not obeying even though it was a miracle. One cool character indeed!

You have added nothing to your previous argument I rebutted. I did not deny Balaam answered the donkey, only that we don’t have a detailed account of exactly what happened here. You are making an argument from silence by claiming Balaam was not surprised by the donkey talking that stems from your skepticism towards the Bible. The text itself never states this.

Phite

@John_C_87

A very short summary is what I gather from the Bible.

Cutting to the chase, if the god knew of the failure of his creation before creating them, then the god cannot complain when exactly that happens, can it?  And becoming angry and drowning humans is not the act of a being who knew what was going to happen, is it?  

Also, if there is no alleged Hell to suffer, then death is of no consequence to the people who fail to return the god's love.

On a related note, I've always found it impossible to love what I fear, or to fear what I love . . .

Phite

@John_C_87

A short summary is what the Bible is.

Anyway, the god got angry and drowned all humans.  Becoming angry is not the act of a being who knew what was going to happen, is it?

If there are no consequences for failing to return the god's love, why would anyone agree to love it when it's wrath can be provoked to anger by what it knew was going to happen?  Sounds like the god didn't know itself well enough to foresee its own reaction to what it knew would happen all along.  That's not . . . reasonable.  That's a contradiction.

Let's hope this post stays up long enough for you to answer it.  It seems the moderation here is using the delete button as a substitute for offering an argument against what angers them.

John_C_87

@Phite

A short summary is what the Bible is.
The Bible is a translation of many stories.....not a summary of one story.

Anyway, the god got angry and drowned all humans.  Becoming angry is not the act of a being who knew what was going to happen, is it? I understand. However, the story goes, it is the Lord who is angry. and the outcome of the story is much like the story of Mary with a Lord said to be GOD. Though we are on earth and in the place where lucifer has cast himself to the ground, screaming Oh! it is GOD who has done this to me, Boo Hoo losing the greatest of qualities once held by loss of whole truth with the loyal to his cause, the angels who aided in the attempt to overthrow if self-evident truth.

If there are no consequences for failing to return the god's love.
The issue here Phite is that you may be assuming a witness account made by Jahn, though may be simply the words repeated form Jesus in that GOD is love not Self-evident truth created and found by the rescue of the Angels in the War of all war's over the void if Good and Evil...You are right it is contradiction and good observation to see truth of GOD, but it is not contradiction to the will of lucifer and often this is all humans have to tell the difference  while alive. Phite I might say it is good to see some are still so willing to keep the dream of satin alive...To be GOD's equal in some way shape or form. I lie often though... not everyone needs to know the whole truth. Not everyone is willing to learn the whole truth.

Let's hope this post stays up long enough for you to answer it.  It seems the moderation here is using the delete button as a substitute for offering an argument against what angers them.

Phite

John_C_87 said:

@Phite

A short summary is what the Bible is.
The Bible is a translation of many stories.....not a summary of one story.

Yes, but I'm specifically talking about the story of the god's inexplicable anger at what it knew was going to happen.  That is definitely a contradiction.  To not acknowledge that contradiction is to embrace inconsistency in the name of preserving untenable beliefs.   

The thing that keeps the dream of Satan alive is the blasphemous belief that the god punishes those who don't return its love.  That depicts an abusive and dysfunctional relationship in which Hell awaits those who reject the god's love.

Can you fear what you love?  Can you love what you fear?  I don't think you can.    

John_C_87

Yes, but I'm specifically talking about the story of the god's inexplicable anger at what it knew was going to happen.  That is definitely a contradiction.  To not acknowledge that contradiction is to embrace inconsistency in the name of preserving untenable beliefs.  Can a contradiction exist only in an interpretation? The fact is yes it can. Yes, you are describing a contradiction. Is this contradiction larger or smaller than mine? No, it is not as it is an understanding that GOD is emotionless being self-evident truth. This as it is impossible for a woman to procreate with GOD and produce offspring. Simply said a self-evident truth that has a prediction of bad outcome, outcome created by events outside the sequence of condition which display or show a future vision taking place of having the complex evidence or proof of bad occur, visible. Does not mean amotion is at play, love, hate, or other. A vision of the future is one look at an event that has many vantage points, meaning it may not even take place at all.

Can you fear what you love?  Can you love what you fear?  I don't think you can.    "The self-evident truth that requires nothing more then common sense said in that phrase is no you cannot love what you fear, as truth GOD said you compare yourself first to another, yet are not either him, her or me. You have only ever had one choice and for this no one weeps. Do you have the curage to embrase what is not fate?

Weep Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com

Phite

Believing the contents of a book necessarily means that you take it at its word.  The god got angry with Moses.  It also got angry with the Midianites--even the children!  It is illogical for a being who foresaw everything in advance to become angry when those things occurred.  It is a contradiction.  And nothing you've posted has resolved that conflict.  
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
"The self-evident truth that requires nothing more then common sense said in that phrase is no you cannot love what you fear, as truth GOD said you compare yourself first to another, yet are not either him, her or me. You have only ever had one choice and for this no one weeps. Do you have the curage to embrase what is not fate?
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Could you please rewrite that?

And just so I don't have to assume, do you adhere to the theory that eternal torture is the price of not returning the god's love?

Barnardot

@Phite ;It seems the moderation here is using the delete button as a substitute for offering an argument against what angers them.

Well what I reckon is that it is to easy to genralize and real hard to be objective because what I have noticed is that they only hit that button on only a few times like there have only been 6 times in the past year so thats not many at all really. They only hit that button when there is some thing so totally untruthfull and offencive that not even some one like a tard with half of a brain would ever want to read that sort of baloney any way. Any way the dufises who post that sort of baloney all end up getting kicked off in the end any way.

John_C_87

@Phite
John_C_ 87 wrote : "The self-evident truth that requires nothing more then common sense said in that phrase is no you cannot love what you fear, as truth GOD said you compare yourself first to another, yet are not either him, her or me. You have only ever had one choice and for this no one weeps. Do you have the curage to embrase what is not fate?

Phite asked: Could you please rewrite that? I am sorry, no I cannot rewrite it.
And just so I don't have to assume, do you adhere to the theory that eternal torture is the price of not returning the god's love? GOD has no love, GOD has no hate, with all certianty GOD is not human. It is some angels who have been said in claim to humans that they feel GOD as love and humanity that is reciprocal. It is the right of humanity to say to other humans they feel GOD as hate and humanity that is again reciprocal..

Believing the contents of a book necessarily means that you take it at its word.  The god got angry with Moses.  It also got angry with the Midianites--even the children!  It is illogical for a being who foresaw everything in advance to become angry when those things occurred.  It is a contradiction.  And nothing you've posted has resolved that conflict. The proverb in account states first it is Lord then goes on to recant and then say GOD. Moses had a life and the documentation of that life is after the serpent is set lose on earth where he had grown and lived all by the actions of Adam. The point is did Moses know GOD or no Lucifer when addressing egyptian pharaoh. What came before creation was the great void where the Battle had raged between Good vs. Evil this batle field was the home of lucifer.

Proverb Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster

And just so I don't have to assume, do you adhere to the theory that eternal torture is the price of not returning the god's love? lol......Who by all eternity is the king of damnation and eternal torture? I like you.........you are funny.........can I give you a piece of sound advice. If you are ever in a field of battle with long sword during a lightning storm drive your sword into the ground and fight on your back. The lightning may or may not be a gift from from GOD but does it really matter? Keep them geussing, I blame Jesus for the death of Joan of Arc not the church who condemed her to burn as a witch..

ProudToBeCatholic

Argument Topic: Waiting

@Phite
I am still waiting for your response to this post: https://www.debateisland.com/discussion/comment/165342/#Comment_165342
I look forward to hearing from you again.

Phite

@John_C_87

You seem reluctant to state whether or not you believe Hell exists as a place of torment for those who reject the god's love. It's a yes or no question.  Could you please just give a yes or no answer to the question.

How is it not blasphemy to accuse a being of love of behaving like a jilted lover when lesser beings than itself don't return its love?

And what's up with its hatred of the Midianites?  Was the god angry with their children, too?  Did the god order everyone killed except for the young girls and the women who had not yet been with a man, and to then take those girls for themselves?  Did Moses or the god imagine that such unions would be based on anything like love?  Girls tend to have no loving interest toward the murderer of their families; turns them off like nothing else.  So, let's call it what decent people know it to be--murder and rape.  Believe it or not, plunging swords into pregnant women's bellies is murder.  Sounds like the god had parts of itself that it was truly unaware of before trying its hand at creation.  And when its true nature manifested in its own handiwork, it denied having anything to do with it. 

If the fact that the voice inside Moses' head was telling him to murder, men, women, and children and to rape young girls isn't enough to convince you that it wasn't the voice of a loving being he was hearing, what would it take?  I guess you had to be there. 

When speaking of the god to others, how do you steer them away from the obvious inference--that the perfect loving god is prone to drowning or burying its mistakes?    

John_C_87

@ProudToBeCatholic

He does not know as fact if Jesus is the son of GOD, he believes only which is what makes the impossible possible at all. Believing by faith that GOD has desire and because humanity was created in the image of self-evident truth, hope is desperate in people to appear as GOD like, for we are made in the image of self-evident truth. If, Jesus is found as the offspring of lucifer, something highly likely by all accounts as lucifer was an angel who has been banished from the heavens, sent down to earth with who else? The loyal angles who have served the serpent angels who are documented to have lied to a woman again. This time the women’s name is Mary.  Balaam: 21 But God was very angry when he went, and the angel of the Lord stood in the road to oppose him. Again, this GOD is Lord and before creation Genesis there was the War between Good and Evil a lord is an assignment of rank set by having been granted land from battle. Lucifer often tries to be GOD that is the hubris of devil. And a lord GOD is an assignment of rank taken during a battle lucifer addressing the banishment as what in truth is self-imposed as part of an inheritance gained after the Great War of Good and Evil.

 I for the longest time did not take liberty of such honesty, for above all Jesus is not to be held guilty of the defiance of GOD taken on by his family as a whole. This is not forgiveness, it is truth. While people have murdered for far less reason.... truth, if any truth at all.

John_C_87

@Phite
Morning............Phite
You seem reluctant to state whether or not you believe Hell exists as a place of torment for those who reject the god's love. It's a yes or no question.  Could you please just give a yes or no answer to the question.

 It is far more complicated than that.......For the record it is a reasonable attempt at a yes and no question.........What blinds Jesus and people to who is his complete family? In a translation so you have an answer you might understand there are 12 levels forms of Evil dwelling. Hell is just one name, one place?

Phite

@John_C_87

So, when a person dies in sin, they are not placed in a state of never-ending torment? 

John_C_87

@Phite

So, when a person dies in sin, they are not placed in a state of never-ending torment? 
Depends on the person, depends on the sin...,people are tormented without sin...the list of human torment is many. And, GOD describe death as a fruit from the tree of knolledge touched or eaten that had grown at the center of a garden called eden. How does one die outside of sin? Death.......nothing but one moment of truth, if only a moment at all.

Phite

John_C_87 said: @Phite Depends on the person, depends on the sin..

Really?  Give an example of what you mean by that.  Tell me how it works.

But moreover, you're saying that you do believe that there is a place of eternal torment for folks who failed to return the god's love.  Correct?

John_C_87

@Phite

But moreover, you're saying that you do believe that there is a place of eternal torment for folks who failed to return the god's love.  Correct? No! take off a shoe and sock, Hold up all ten of your finures if you still  have them and count two toes....... in basic I see and know 12 places of torment and you need not return love of any kind to anyone to reach all twelve at on instant, or just one. If as a person you are to work at it.

I am not saying anything I am writting it down and yet it is if I have written nothing at all...The Bible speaks of only two people who make a claim like you descrtibe, one is Lucifer and the other is Jesus, neither are God, neither have control over GOD. (Self-evident truth) Man didn't create GOD the Great War over Good Vs Evil before creation of eath and the Heavens created GOD, inside the great void.

Really?  Give an example of what you mean by that.  Tell me how it works. No! The fact is some people cannot understand self-evident truth. There is no explaining how it works to you, sorry.

Phite

@John_C_87

Question: But moreover, you're saying that you do believe that there is a place of eternal torment for folks who failed to return the god's love.  Correct?

Answer: No!

Question: Really?  Give an example of what you mean by that.  Tell me how it works.

Answer: No!

Response: Good day, then.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Oh, and by the way, you forgot to address this:

And what's up with its hatred of the Midianites?  Was the god angry with their children, too?  Did the god order everyone killed except for the young girls and the women who had not yet been with a man, and to then take those girls for themselves?  Did Moses or the god imagine that such unions would be based on anything like love?  Girls tend to have no loving interest toward the murderer of their families; turns them off like nothing else.  So, let's call it what decent people know it to be--murder and rape.  Believe it or not, plunging swords into pregnant women's bellies is murder.  Sounds like the god had parts of itself that it was truly unaware of before trying its hand at creation.  And when its true nature manifested in its own handiwork, it denied having anything to do with it and instructed its henchmen to erase the evidence of its failed creation through what certainly looks like genocide.

John_C_87

@Phite
Response: Good day, then.
Good day... sorry I could not answer, I am not here to preach a sermon..I feel tht is what you are asking of me...There are twelve places of torment you may hold yourself...
Oh, and by the way, you forgot to address this:
No, I didn't forget to address the point I had made my point clearly the bible describes lucifer and the Angels who side with the serpent as set free by adam, this new evil lucifer lables itself GOD while on earth. As do the angles who follow it.  

ProudToBeCatholic

@John_C_87
If you don't mind my asking, what religion are you? I agreed with a lot of what you said, but your writing seems to have a bit of Gnostic undertones to it, such as  creating the connection between Jesus and Lucifer in rebelling against GOD. I think you are saying Jesus and Lucifer are the same being, if I'm not mistaken? Please correct me on any of these things if I am wrong, because I do not want to misrepresent your beliefs.

just_sayin

@Phite

Yes, but I'm specifically talking about the story of the god's inexplicable anger at what it knew was going to happen.  That is definitely a contradiction.  To not acknowledge that contradiction is to embrace inconsistency in the name of preserving untenable beliefs.   

The thing that keeps the dream of Satan alive is the blasphemous belief that the god punishes those who don't return its love.  That depicts an abusive and dysfunctional relationship in which Hell awaits those who reject the god's love.

I don't understand your argument about God's anger.  Shouldn't God react to injustice or wrong doing?  That seems like a very logical response.  God exists outside of space-time, but interacts with creation within space-time. When would you expect God to respond to our wrongdoing?  Within space-time where we exist, or outside of it?  I'm not seeing the contradiction.

Why is is contradictory for God to be just and punish wrong doing, and be loving at the same time?  How is being just and punishing wrongdoing unloving?  That doesn't make sense to me.  How is the idea of punishment and Hell dysfunctional?  If someone lived their life in opposition to God and rejected Him, why would God force them to live with Him for eternity.  Would you think it loving if a divorced person was forced to live with the one they divorced?  If not, then why would God force someone to live with Him for eternity, when they choose not to follow Him?  I am wondering if your idea of justice or love is inaccurate.  Can you explain how these actions are contradictory?  

John_C_87

@ProudToBeCatholic

I am not trying to give a sermon like I said to Phite. Jesus is more than likely the son of Lucifer, as GOD cannot be the creator of Jesus in the way that was described in the Bible, Virgin birth from a women.  The idea of this type of birth is to be alibi and nothing more then a way to start a religion based on religous union like Marriage, not GOD as what was known is that a women nor man could not in fact have a sexual interaction with GOD. ( Hash-tag Romen Empire) Ever and it was not for any other reasone then GOD is a self-evident truth. According to the Bible the only entity on earth which could have sent angles to talk to Mary and also be responsible for impregnating her is Lucifer. The serpent. What I know is that Virgin Mary and Eve according to the Bible had both been deceived and it is most likely though not as obvious by the accounts written in the bible they had been deceived by the same evil force.

Needless to say, you can understand how this observation is a dangerous one to have...

When shared with me I was told to be extremely careful as it could and may have cost me my life…

ProudToBeCatholic

Argument Topic: God's Anger and the Midianite Women

@Phite
Your quote: And what's up with its hatred of the Midianites? Was the god angry with their children, too? Did the god order everyone killed except for the young girls and the women who had not yet been with a man, and to then take those girls for themselves? Did Moses or the god imagine that such unions would be based on anything like love? Girls tend to have no loving interest toward the murderer of their families; turns them off like nothing else. So, let's call it what decent people know it to be--murder and rape. Believe it or not, plunging swords into pregnant women's bellies is murder. Sounds like the god had parts of itself that it was truly unaware of before trying its hand at creation. And when its true nature manifested in its own handiwork, it denied having anything to do with it.

First off, you asked why God hated the Midianites. The answer is simple; the Midianite people were leading Israel after other gods. They used the women of their people to seduce the Israelites and lead them astray, and for this reason among many others, the Lord ordered their destruction. Read Numbers 31:16.

Second, you asked if God was angry with the Midianite children as well. As I have explained over and over again in this website to people like you and @21CenturyIconoclast , God was not angry at the children. In His foreknowledge He foresaw the children would later rise against the Israelites in order to avenge the deaths of their parents or grandparents. When they hear the stories of what happened to their ancestors at the hands of the people they now mingled with, they would become embittered and revolt. In an act of protection for His people, God commanded their deaths.

Now, I can hear you objecting to how a loving God could ever command this but you must not forget the fact that God gives and takes away life as He wills. He created us; it is only logical He can destroy us as well. God killed David’s son for his sin with Bethsheba (2 Samuel 12). God killed the Israelites at the hands of other nations for their disobedience and rebellion against Him. This is not a new concept, but rather something we see all throughout Scripture. God is the Creator of all things, and as such, He is entitled to create or destroy whomever He wants, whenever He wants.

As far as the Israelites taking the young girls goes, a few things must be noted. Firstly, God did not command the Israelites to keep the women for themselves. In fact, He commanded the opposite. Deuteronomy 7:1-6 states: “When the Lord your God brings you into the land you are entering to possess and drives out before you many nations—the Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites, seven nations larger and stronger than you—and when the Lord your God has delivered them over to you and you have defeated them, then you must destroy them totally. Make no treaty with them, and show them no mercy. Do not intermarry with them. Do not give your daughters to their sons or take their daughters for your sons, for they will turn your children away from following me to serve other gods, and the Lord’s anger will burn against you and will quickly destroy you. This is what you are to do to them: Break down their altars, smash their sacred stones, cut down their Asherah poles and burn their idols in the fire. For you are a people holy to the Lord your God. The Lord your God has chosen you out of all the peoples on the face of the earth to be his people, his treasured possession”. Here we see God specifically commanding the Israelites to spare no one when they march against their lands; neither children or women. This is the reason why Moses grew angry with the Israelites in Numbers 31:14-18. In fact, he cited the same warning God gave in Deuteronomy; “Behold, these caused the children of Israel… to commit trespass against the Lord.” (Numbers 31:16)So, again, I would challenge your foundational premise for this argument. God did not order them to spare the young girls. The Lord only knows what Moses’ thought process was as he made his decision to kill the male children but save the virgins and little girls, but one thing we can know is that God never condoned these actions but, on the contrary, specifically commanded the Israelites to put everyone to death.

Secondly, this was not rape, regardless of whether it was ethical or not, for a few reasons. (A) The Israelites married these women. Such was God’s command to Moses in Deuteronomy 21:10-14. Rape was strictly forbidden by God and was even punishable by stoning. (B) They were doing the women a favor by marrying them instead of killing them. This was not forced love, but rather a merciful act upon the Midianite women. In this time, women were dependant upon the men for their livelihoods. If they had no father, relative, or husband to rely on, they didn’t have much chance in the world. Moses, foreseeing this and the fact that the Israelites needed wives, decided to work within the circumstances and allow them to keep the virgins and female children. Note none of this was permitted by God Himself and therefore it is a bit problemtic to say God condoned this. Whether it was right or wrong is irrelevant, for God remained virtually silent on the issue. As Acts 17:30-31 states: “The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent, because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed; and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead.”

So, both the notion that God ordered the saving of the young virgins for the Israelite men and the idea that this was rape are completely unfounded. Such interpretations presume (a)Moses was infallible and only did the things God commanded and (b) God agreed with and commanded everything Moses ever did. Both are unprovable and unBiblical.

ProudToBeCatholic

@John_C_87
Okay, you are definitely at least a little bit Gnostic. You have correctly affirmed that Mary and the Virgin Birth are the foundation upon which Catholicism and all of Christianity is ultimately built, but you then said it would be impossible for Mary to have sexual relations with God. The problem with that argument is that you are presuming God did indeed interact with the Blessed Mother in a sexual way. No Christian would agree with that. God did not have relations with Mary, but rather, God planted the seed within the womb of Mary in a supernatural way, so that she could become pregnant without ever losing her virginity. It must be taken into account that Mary remained a virgin both before and after the birth of Christ, for this negates the possibility that Jesus was born as a product of any sexual relations whatsoever.
You also claimed it was more likely Lucifer deceived her, but you still run into the same problem if we logically follow your argument. There is no evidence in Scripture that an angel can have sexual relations with a man, and there are in fact things that would go against that notion, such as the fact that God would not have bothered creating sexual organs on an angel when their ordinary function is not to have sexual relations. (Mark 12:25)
Also, you drew a comparison between Eve and Mary, and if you know much about Roman Catholicism, you know we do the same. However, you say they were both decieved. We would reject that. St. Paul writes in Romans 5:12 that just as Adam brought sin into the world, so Christ, the new Adam, brought life. In keeping with this, as many church fathers note; just as through one woman's disobedience death came into the world, so through one woman's (Mary's) obedience life(Jesus) comes into the world. Mary is the new Eve and just as the new Adam loosed the chains of the old Adam through His obedience, so the new Eve looses the chains of the old Eve through her obedience.

I do want to ask though: do you worship Jesus? What is your religion exactly?

John_C_87

@ProudToBeCatholic

The problem with that argument is that you are presuming God did indeed interact with the Blessed Mother in a sexual way. No Christian would agree with that. God did not have relations with Mary, but rather, God planted the seed within the womb of Mary in a supernatural way,
........No GOD did not add a seed in the womb of Mary. Acording to the bible the only one on that desert islland with Mary is lucifer. Creation describes GOD and the ceation of man and women I can understand why it is important to decive people.
You also claimed it was more likely Lucifer deceived her, but you still run into the same problem if we logically follow your argument. There is no evidence in Scripture that an angel can have sexual relations with a man, Lucifer is no longer a angel, lucifer acording to the bible was a angel and not just any angel Lucifer was said to be number one in what is visible to GOD. Which we can take that in many ways including well on the way to being at odds agaisnt GOD.
Peter V: VIII

"Be alert and of sober mind. Your enemy the devil prowls around like a roaring lion looking for someone to devour."
Corinthians IV: IV
"The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel that displays the glory of Christ, who is the image of God."
Corintians XI; XIV
"And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light.Lucifer had not been banished from the heavens alone and is in the comp[any of Angels.
Jahn IIX: FIV

"You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a and the father of lies."


Romans V: XII
12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned—

13 To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law. 14 Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come.

15 But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! 16 Nor can the gift of God be compared with the result of one man’s sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. 17 For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ!

18 Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people. 19 For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.

20 The law was brought in so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more, 21 so that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

You must be careful here ProudtobeCathlic Jesus was given no orders from GOD for him to obey or disobey. That Jusus could not reconise his own father was the fate set upon him by his mother. I am not here to sermon anyone. Like I said before. While there is nothing said in Romans V: XII where Jesus is to obey orders that would be describe given by GOD. At this time what is still known to be impossible is GOD as the planter of a magic seed in Mary, GOD being more of creator to Maries son Jesus then any other human women or man on earth is a lie told against GOD. We are all created in GOD's image. Okay, you are definitely at least a little bit Gnostic. I worship GOD not a person who stands between creator and creation. At the moment there are creators of religions unconnected to the establishment of one GOD telling us to believe that angels from the heavens  had sided with humans and had not told Mary a lie about the nature of her pregnancy on behalf of lucifer.

No...I follow, GOD. I worship GOD.

Gnosticism : The thought and practice especially of various cults of late pre-Christian and early Christian centuries distinguished by the conviction that matter is evil and that emancipation comes through gnosis
Gnosticism Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster There is no emancipation as a worshiper of GOD I am never free of restraint and might only be relieved of command or dishonorably discharged from that service. At the moment the question of the light is under what self-evident truth is the "Name Known Only To GOD" the identical name shared with name assigned by a mother and father at birth? That to is an impossible thing to occur as a whole truth. So we are open and forthwith as humans we do understand the possiblilaty at this time much more clearly that humans can create female fertilizations by  alturnative measures. Leaving a clear understandiong that man and lucifer are both on the list of impregnating Mary. A truth being told that a women is pregnant does not make the self-evident nature of the truth spoken responsible for the human pregnancy itself.before

My way, Aloha from Hawaii,1973...
Do you feel like we do. Live form the Unite States. 1976...

maxx

what many call contradictions simply are not. The bible of course is composed of many books written by various authors; who perceive, interpret, and write about events as they see and understand them. For instance, if we took two events in history, different countries will see these events differently and write about them differently. one can easily see this by looking at the history books of how america and japan played their roles in world war two.  same as in the bible, different authors will write about an event differently than another writer. So a true contradiction of the bible would be if the same writer said something in one chapter and reversed it later on. The only one i can think of is in Gennesis of the first few chapters, in which some scholars say was written that way for the authors clarification. @ProudToBeCatholic

John_C_87

Contradictions in the Bible happens when conflicts occur inside a proposition itself as part of a prover or established fact. " Maxx " the Bible, Torah, and Quran all are forms of collected proverbs linked together. GOD in the Bible is dated back to be at the great War between Good Versus Evil before Genesis and creation. This fact simply rules out Jesus as being GOD and other proverbs which describe it as possible are contradiction of established fact. A gedneral truth is like a interpritation made upon information given after the nfact that are not relavent to what had been made as established fact in the opening proverb.

maxx

we are not talking about if god and other religious figures exist, but of contradictions. correct? The only link between what you pointed out is in your mind and others who create the link, not between the actual writers. Even though the Tora and the Quaran seems linked, it is no different than two writers of history linking key events. In doing so, there are bound to be differences. These writers of the books of the bible had no idea that eventually the book(s) that they wrote would be compiled into one. They were simply writing their own piece, in their own way without regard to what other writers were doing.  So no matter if there are similarities between the books, it was not their intention when they wrote their individual books to produce any similarities, let alone any contradictions. For instance; if those in the very far far future took all of the history books from the beginning to today and compiled them into one book; there would be many similarities; yet also many events that do not agree with one book to the other. These are not contradictions; just writers seeing things differently and is not contradictions. @John_C_87

John_C_87

@maxx

We, you and I maxx, are in an entirely different debate, please by all means join the current argument between myself and ProundToBeCatholic, and Phite the contradiction of bible describes GOD as the father of Jesus. What is known as fact is that GOD is already dated and known to be older than mankind for the Bible places GOD before Genesis and creation at the Great War between Good versus Evil. The place where GOD had gained the love and worship of the Angels, those who had been serving good within the great void by battle. The fact in the Bible detailing how both human and lucifers attention after the War of Good versus evil had been won. GOD began Genesis creating earth and the Heavens.

To make this recap limited in its consumption of time lucifer had been banished to earth and lost rank of Angel before GOD. Sent to earth along with angels loyal to lucifer cause who had not been stripped of their rank. Long story short Jesus is the son of lucifer not GOD as the only entity on earth who harbored Angels was lucifer, GOD had the Heavens for the angels. GOD was a rank in what might appear to be a Military order no law GOD provided commands and this understanding confused the week minded as they cannot understand who self-evident truth can give out such commands.

The Bible is compared to the Bible only Maxx in our debate. Get on point. Please, bring quotes not principles of interpretation. I understand ProudtobeCathlic is on sabbatical to seek out proverb to explain why angels who are loyal to GOD would describe something as true that they understand as fact is impossible. Planting this so-called magic seed in Mary, I am in no rush…please though do not attempt to strip fact from representation before the people it is an act of dishonor to yourself. 

There are Biblical contradictions...

maxx

sir john i am going by the OP. assuming we are talking about the books of the bible, i have done explained how contradictions take place. Different writers seeing events differently. i fail to see where in the bible, that luicfer was banned before god. also a true contradiction is where in one book, it says something is true and later on it says differently. .perhaps you can point out specific verses in where jesus was lucifers son. otherwise we have an issue with translation of the original texts. the Nephilim for example, giants among men simply refers to those who were above others, those who are higher in society, those who made a name for themselves among others. They came down does not refer to coming from heaven just like if my relatives "came down" from out of state. The sons of gods were simply people not fallen angels. Lucifer and his followers were fallen angels and even if{which is a big if} that lucifer was respncible for marys child, you would have to show it in order give the idea credibility. There are no passages, no matter how well one reads between the lines to the idea having any merit. no contradiction there otherwise.  Those Elusive Sons of God: Genesis 6:1–4 Revisited | Bible Interp (arizona.edu). .@John_C_87

John_C_87

@maxx
Revolation 12:9
Then war broke out in heaven. Michael and his angels fought against the dragon, and the dragon and his angels fought back. 8 But he was not strong enough, and they lost their place in heaven. 9 The great dragon was hurled down—that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray. He was hurled to the earth, and his angels with him

There are no passages, no matter how well one reads between the lines to the idea having any merit. no contradiction there otherwise. It is not about reading between the lines ... Gabriel, an Angel who has only visited three people appears to Mary to save her from the punishment of adultery? Sent by GOD? GOD cannot produce a child the way it is described to occur by witness, the idea Gabriel visits Mary at all of this a form of contradiction to the limited number of humans Gabriel contacts. Which does take place after then fact of pregnancy. That the visit would add validity to the proposition making it out to be known fact. Yes, it is admitted that the evidence is circumstantial, but the convenience is to both Mary and joseph questionable. I will continue to look there had been a passage of proverb describing Mary had an encounter with two angles on the road who are not named for telling of the mysterious leap into her womb …To be honest Maxx the whole story is contradiction to events in the Garden of Eden and GOD powers of creation as a self-evident truth. You do not see the attempt to relive command of something worshipped greatly by humanizing it?

John 8: 44 Then they asked him, “Where is your father?”

“You do not know me or my Father,” Jesus replied. “If you knew me, you would know my Father also.” 20 He spoke these words while teaching in the temple courts near the place where the offerings were put. Yet no one seized him, because his hour had not yet come

Peter 2:4

God punished the angels who had who did wrong. He put them into the darkest part of hell. They must be kept there until the time when they will be judged. 

self-evident truth is that GOD only punished those angels caught maxx.

. Luke 1:29 - 80

 During those days Mary set out and traveled to the hill country in haste to a town of Judah, 40 where she entered the house of Zechariah and greeted Elizabeth. 41 When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the infant leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth, filled with the holy Spirit, 42 cried out in a loud voice and said, “Most blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb. 43 And how does this happen to me, that the mother of my Lord[a] should come to me? 44 For at the moment the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the infant in my womb leaped for joy. 45 Blessed are you who believed[b] that what was spoken to you by the Lord would be fulfilled.”

maxx

sir john, you are adding 1 and 1 and getting 3.  both luke and mathew both say she became in birth through the holy spirit. You are connecting verses that do not belong together and as well, no where does it say that mary was ever visited by any fallen angels. If you connect fallen angels with mary, then i will listen. If you connect her birth with a fallen angel, i will listen. but peter 2:4 has nothing to do with either. You are taking verses out of context with the chapter itself, attempting to give new meaning to the verse.  It is quite possible that the story of adam and eve may have been a symbolism of fallen innocence. Yet I fail to see anywhere, nor anyway you can logically connect mary with fallen angels, let alone lucifer. ren 12.9 and john 8.44  says nothing that at all relates. John_C_87

John_C_87

@maxx
both luke and mathew both say she became in birth through the holy spirit
Did you mean to say became pregnant throught the Holy spirit? As for Luke 1:29 it tell Gabrial visits Mary
both luke and mathew both say she became in birth through the holy spirit
If you connect her birth with a fallen angel, i will listen. but peter 2:4 has nothing to do with either
Peter 2:4
 For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them to hell,[a] putting them in chains of darkness[b] to be held for judgment;

2:4 Is only placing in context angels in hell beside lucifer moving between hell and earth. I am taking the connection one step at a time slowly as it is described in the Bible in proverbs.
Maxx said:  i fail to see where in the bible, that luicfer was banned before god. Then summary is lucifer was one of the angles self-evident truth did not spare...
There is someting made clear to me about the Bible you do not understand from the start. GOD is in a order of Military command and not law. GOD though In a Militray command is not a Angel or person the self-evdent truth which introduces GOD the then Angels is Good Versus Evil as a War seen in a void of existance. This is what Genesis states by you never appeard like many to grasp. 
I'm not hear to sermon you maxx...you may have taken fruit from the tree of Knolledge at the center of the Garden of eden and it has clouded your mind.

John_C_87

It is quite possible that the story of adam and eve may have been a symbolism of fallen innocence.

Not if the proverb is written as self-evident truth as to be created in the image of GOD. Only if you are to be the serpent who offers fruit to others from the tree of knowledge which grows at the center of the truth as the one and only Eden. The proverb in all versions of the Bible share the same contradiction found to be rooted in the proverb itself as explained.

re-phrased 8:30 pm 06/21/2023 by the writer