Is the Bible internally consistent?

[Brian2]

Hey - those of you who think that the Bible is internally consistent (@robocop (actually) or @Brian2 , maybe?): any of you want to take in Dan Barker's Easter Challenge?

It is - or should be - straightforward: just lay out everything the Bible says in Easter in a single narrative with no contradictions.

More details:

Leave No Stone Unturned: An Easter Challenge For Christians by Dan Barker (August 2000) - Freedom From Religion Foundation

Can you do it?

I probably could not do it. That does not mean that Jesus died and rose again. Those things are harder, as details to get wrong and they all agree about them.
It would be interesting to try the challenge however. I have tried to work out some things that are or seem like contradictions and I cannot do it well.
Interestingly an ex cold case detective (J Warner Wallace) tried to show the gospels were invented and came to the conclusion that they showed the hallmarks of stories by different witnesses as he had found in his years as a cold case detective. iow the seeming contradictions fitted together to give the bigger picture.
But when it comes to seeing the gospels narratives as we like to think we have history these days, the gospels are probably not meant to be that type of history and any one of them does not give the whole story.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I probably could not do it. That does not mean that Jesus died and rose again. Those things are harder, as details to get wrong and they all agree about them.

IOW, internal inconsistencies in the Bible are understandable.

I think this is different from saying that the Bible has no internal inconsistencies.

It would be interesting to try the challenge however. I have tried to work out some things that are or seem like contradictions and I cannot do it well.
Interestingly an ex cold case detective (J Warner Wallace) tried to show the gospels were invented and came to the conclusion that they showed the hallmarks of stories by different witnesses as he had found in his years as a cold case detective. iow the seeming contradictions fitted together to give the bigger picture.
But when it comes to seeing the gospels narratives as we like to think we have history these days, the gospels are probably not meant to be that type of history and any one of them does not give the whole story.

Again, this seems to be more of an argument that the internal inconsistencies don't necessarily imply that the underlying basic story is false. It doesn't seem to be an argument that there are no internal inconsistencies.

 

[1213]

...
Is the Bible internally consistent in your view and please explain your view.
...

Yes, because I don’t think there is anything that makes it inconsistent.

 

[steveb1]

Never mind whether science and the Bible coincide to you.

Is the Bible internally consistent in your view and please explain your view.

This thread might be featured!

In my view the Bible is not internally consistent and there's no reason it would need to be.

I do not regard the Bible as the inerrant word of a deity, but even so, who's really to say that a book inspired by a deity has to be internally consistent? All it really needs to be is meaningful and spiritually "true".

The Bible is in great part the claimed mystical experiences of ancient individuals and their cultures, each with its respective encounters with its god, his angels, saints, sages, and prophets. One would not necessarily expect that the content of these revelations has to be equivalent throughout. Certainly the experience of Job is different from the experience of the Psalmist; the experience of Moses is different from Jeremiah's or Isaiah's experience; the experience of Jonah is different from Solomon's experience. Etc.

Nor does the Bible consist of one single type of writing - some of it is revelation, some is genealogical, some is personal, some is poetic, some is philosophical, some is prophetic, some is peaceful, some is warlike, etc.

The only consistent person is probably a corpse because a corpse never evolves or comes up with anything new. Not so the Bible, whose evolution through time is observable, and whose preservation of an entire spectrum of view guarantees that its very consistency consists of variegated testimonies.

 

[Redemptionsong]

Never mind whether science and the Bible coincide to you.

Is the Bible internally consistent in your view and please explain your view.

This thread might be featured!

Jesus believed that there was internal consistency in scripture (as applied to the Hebrew scriptures) when he said, 'scripture cannot be broken' [John 10:35]. Jesus also said, 'These are the words that I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses [Torah], and in the prophets [Nevi'im], and in the psalms [Ketuvim], concerning me.' [Luke 24:44]

A criticism of the internal consistency of the Hebrew scriptures is, therefore, also a criticism of the truth of Christ's claims. Yet Christ claimed to be 'the way, the truth, and the life' [John 14:6]

In looking at the internal consistency of the New Testament, we should first be aware that it is considered as scripture [Revelation 22:18,19], and that 'all scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:' [2 Timothy 3:16]

We should remember also that Jesus chose the disciples whose eyewitness accounts underpin the Gospels. These same men, with the exception of Judas, experienced the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Christ. This Spirit was to 'teach you all things' [John 14:26] 'and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you'.

IMO, small errors may have been made by scribes, but this does not undermine the fundamental integrity and internal consistency of scripture.

 

[Brian2]

IOW, internal inconsistencies in the Bible are understandable.

I think this is different from saying that the Bible has no internal inconsistencies.


Again, this seems to be more of an argument that the internal inconsistencies don't necessarily imply that the underlying basic story is false. It doesn't seem to be an argument that there are no internal inconsistencies.

Maybe there is no Christian who has worked out all those places that look like internal inconsistencies and seen that they are not. In the end, unless the inconsistencies are substantial it does not matter to most.
Maybe all those places can be worked out, I don't know.
I do know that some people point out what they see as inconsistencies which are not inconsistencies and nothing is going to bring them to change their mind.
So sometimes internal inconsistencies are in the eye of the beholder.

 

[nPeace]

Never mind whether science and the Bible coincide to you.

Is the Bible internally consistent in your view and please explain your view.

This thread might be featured!

Yes. The Bible is consistent, coherent and harmonious.

Since God is the Bible's author, then he reveals the truth of his word.
To illustrate...
Say I spoke to a crowd of 600 people.
At the end of my speech, people started talking about what I said.
As happens in real life, among those 600 people, there may be a number of different understandings, interpretations, and claims about what I said.
All of them may be wrong, or one of them is right, but all of them being different, cannot be right.
However, I know what I said. I know what I meant. I can explain it to whomever I choose. ...and let anyone else run with what they think.

This is exactly the case.
The Bible is not understood by those God does not reveal his truths to. He let's an error go to them. 2 Thessalonians 2:11, because he knows they couldn't care less about the truth of what he said.

Jesus himself gave a demonstration of this, in John 6, and he explained it in Matthew 13:10-16
Those whom God grants the privilege of knowing and understanding his truth, don't make the obvious mistakes some do, of taking a word and applying one way only, when they know full well that the word is understood differently based on the context in which it is used.

That's an obvious indicator, the person is not interested in truth, but interested finding anything as an excuse to believe as they do.
That's ugly... and I would not worry to correct such persons, who "misunderstood" me.
I would do exactly what God does. Psalms 2:4

 

[nPeace]

Certain books within all of the various books in it seem to have different opinions from one another. I'd dismiss many of the claims 1-10 Alex has put up though. For example #1 badly paraphrases two unreferenced scripture verses to make them appear contradictory when in actuality they are unrelated, not counterposed. The LORD doesn't allow a man to be jealous of his neighbor's wife or his neighbor's property, but the LORD allows a man to be jealous of his own wife. This has got nothing to do with the LORD being jealous for Israel, so the claim that there is a contradiction is groundless. This is an example of very bad arguing which actually hurts the proposition instead of supporting it. I've seen large web sites with similar terrible arguments claiming hundreds or thousands of bible contradictions, and to find one actual contradiction requires wading through tons of useless ones. There are a some, but there are not hundreds and thousands.

There may be seeming contradictions, but there may be none at all. I like your post though.
Didn't rate it as such, since I don't believe those seeming contradictions actually are, if one accepts explanation that makes sense given lack of understanding.

For example, a person who says there are contradictions will not say they don't understand. They will go to their grave thinking they understand.
On the other hand, others will go to their grave thinking. rather than it being a case of contradictions, it's a case of misunderstanding.

It's one or the other - not both.
I go with the latter. There are no contradictions. Just misunderstandings of things that don't appear to be straightforward... some not as straightforward as the one you mention, which I think is quite simple, but perhaps because I looked into the word usage, which many critics don't care about.

 

[Triumph]

I mean, let me whip up a Top Ten list for you?

1. In one part of the Bible, it says god hates jealously. In another part, it says god is a jealous god.

2. In one part of the Bible, it says god does not lie. In other parts, it says he put false words into the mouths of prophets and that he sent powerful delusions to deceive people.

3. God is said to be perfectly just and perfectly merciful, but mercy is the suspension of justice. This is a logical contradiction.

4. God is said to be all-powerful, but he could not help his people defeat an army because they had "chariots of iron."

5. God is said to be all-knowing, but there are multiple places in the Bible where god regrets how events played out, or where he changes his mind.

6a. The logical sequence of a god sacrificing himself to himself, to create a loophole in rules that he presides over, is incoherent.

6b. From an outsider perspective, the Bible reads like an evolving theology with layers of ad hoc additions over time, in many cases trying to fuse together different interpretations that were popular in the early years. For example, in all of the earliest writings of the New Testament, there is no claim that Jesus is god or the son of god, or that he was bodily resurrected (many stories and religions in that region at the time had non-bodily resurrections of central figures.) The god-is-Jesus claim only comes in the last gospel which was written two to three generations later. The bodily resurrection sections also came later. To me, it seems like an apocalyptic preacher gathered a charismatic following, then unexpectedly was executed, leaving his followers to struggle to frame his death in a way that made sense. "He was the ultimate sacrifice for our sins" then "Oh, and he was the son of god, which made him a really good sacrifice" which conflicted with "No, he was actually god in the flesh" and was harmonized as "He was the son of god AND god at the same time, somehow, so we don't have to have interdenominational fighting about this anymore, ok?" There was an entire early branch of Christianity that thought Yaweh and Jesus were separate gods, but they were wiped out by the other Christians and their writings destroyed.

7. The notion of hell is very vague in the New Testament, if not inconsistent. Where Jesus supposedly refers to hell in the NT, he is referencing OT scriptures that were not talking about an afterlife. Universalists can point to just as many passages to support the notion that everyone is eventually saved.

8. There is no coherent description of a Satan figure in the Bible. The poems attributed to him are actually polemical criticisms of real historical kings in the Middle East during the OT. Satan only means "adversary" and there are human beings who are referred to as Satan in the Bible merely because they are opposing another protagonist.

9. The Bible says "God is not the author of confusion" but there are tens of thousands of Christian denominations, all claiming mutually contradictory paths to salvation, descriptions of god's attributes, claims about what god wants, whether to be baptized and how to be baptized, etc etc.

10. The OT regularly depicts god as one of many other gods, but stronger than these other gods (Henotheism). His priests get in miracle battles with priests of other gods, who can also do miracles but not as well. He commands "you shall have no other gods before me." Words used to describe him can be traced back to a god who was part of pantheons worshipped in earlier times in that region. By contrast, the NT and Christianity recast Yaweh into the triune god of a monothestic faith where there are in fact no other gods.

The God that Jesus worships is not a Jealous God and even forgives blasphemy. He is the only God that exists. But the Lord God Abraham invented and the Jews worship is jealous because the king on the throne acting as if he is the voice of that God is jealous and kills people for blasphemy to keep people in fear.

 

[Triumph]

Yes. The Bible is consistent, coherent and harmonious.

Since God is the Bible's author, then he reveals the truth of his word.
To illustrate...
Say I spoke to a crowd of 600 people.
At the end of my speech, people started talking about what I said.
As happens in real life, among those 600 people, there may be a number of different understandings, interpretations, and claims about what I said.
All of them may be wrong, or one of them is right, but all of them being different, cannot be right.
However, I know what I said. I know what I meant. I can explain it to whomever I choose. ...and let anyone else run with what they think.

This is exactly the case.
The Bible is not understood by those God does not reveal his truths to. He let's an error go to them. 2 Thessalonians 2:11, because he knows they couldn't care less about the truth of what he said.

Jesus himself gave a demonstration of this, in John 6, and he explained it in Matthew 13:10-16
Those whom God grants the privilege of knowing and understanding his truth, don't make the obvious mistakes some do, of taking a word and applying one way only, when they know full well that the word is understood differently based on the context in which it is used.

That's an obvious indicator, the person is not interested in truth, but interested finding anything as an excuse to believe as they do.
That's ugly... and I would not worry to correct such persons, who "misunderstood" me.
I would do exactly what God does. Psalms 2:4

So you did not notice that Jesus said do not take a widows house away from her when her husband dies but Paul said the widows home is to be taken away from her and given to a male because Paul does not support equal rights for women? Jesus said woe to the men that do that because they will receive the greater damnation.
Did you notice that Jesus taught Peter to teach women and if her husband does not know the gospel Jesus taught that the wife is to return home and teach her husband the true Doctrine (with love and kindness in subjection to the marriage vow to love one another, as his wife) so that the husband can convert and also be saved?
1 Peter 3:1
Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives;" The husband won by conversation of the wife because he did not obey the words of God= the wife teaching the husband doctrine, the words of God the woman learned from Jesus and Peter. Jesus wants women to teach men/husbands and not be in silence.
But Paul tells the women to be silent and tells wives they are not to teach their husbands anything. Paul tells the wives they are not to learn religion from anyone but their husbands.
. 1 Timothy 2:11
Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. 12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
Paul would rather a man not know the truth and lose his salvation than a woman to teach him the true doctrine of Jesus.

Notice Jesus said there are 12 thrones in heaven, one for each apostle to judge a tribe of Israel in the end of days so there are only 12 Apostles allowed by Jesus and Matthias is the final Apostle.
Paul would be the 13th Apostle but 13 are not allowed, there is no throne in heaven for a lying Pharisee that gave himself the title of Apostle.
Jesus taught his followers to love everyone even their enemy, so they called all men, "beloved brothers". Apostle Peter with kindness called Paul "beloved brother" because Peter wanted to convert Paul so Paul would teach truth but Paul had gained a large following and refused to get behind the real Apostles teaching what their leader, the Shepherd Jesus taught.
Paul implies the real Apostles should be following him instead. Also note there is no "Chieftest" Apostle because Jesus taught equality among all his Apostles refusing to exalt any above another so all are to be treated as equals. But Paul likes status in his church and works to establish a hierarchy with Paul at the top handing out titles. Paul never called a true Apostle "beloved bother" but he would call men that would follow Paul,
"beloved". The true Apostles never called Paul an Apostle because they know he is not one.

 

[rational experiences]

So you did not notice that Jesus said do not take a widows house away from her when her husband dies but Paul said the widows home is to be taken away from her and given to a male because Paul does not support equal rights for women? Jesus said woe to the men that do that because they will receive the greater damnation.
Did you notice that Jesus taught Peter to teach women and if her husband does not know the gospel Jesus taught that the wife is to return home and teach her husband the true Doctrine (with love and kindness in subjection to the marriage vow to love one another, as his wife) so that the husband can convert and also be saved?
1 Peter 3:1
Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives;" The husband won by conversation of the wife because he did not obey the words of God= the wife teaching the husband doctrine, the words of God the woman learned from Jesus and Peter. Jesus wants women to teach men/husbands and not be in silence.
But Paul tells the women to be silent and tells wives they are not to teach their husbands anything. Paul tells the wives they are not to learn religion from anyone but their husbands.
. 1 Timothy 2:11
Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. 12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
Paul would rather a man not know the truth and lose his salvation than a woman to teach him the true doctrine of Jesus.

Notice Jesus said there are 12 thrones in heaven, one for each apostle to judge a tribe of Israel in the end of days so there are only 12 Apostles allowed by Jesus and Matthias is the final Apostle.
Paul would be the 13th Apostle but 13 are not allowed, there is no throne in heaven for a lying Pharisee that gave himself the title of Apostle.
Jesus taught his followers to love everyone even their enemy, so they called all men, "beloved brothers". Apostle Peter with kindness called Paul "beloved brother" because Peter wanted to convert Paul so Paul would teach truth but Paul had gained a large following and refused to get behind the real Apostles teaching what their leader, the Shepherd Jesus taught.
Paul implies the real Apostles should be following him instead. Also note there is no "Chieftest" Apostle because Jesus taught equality among all his Apostles refusing to exalt any above another so all are to be treated as equals. But Paul likes status in his church and works to establish a hierarchy with Paul at the top handing out titles. Paul never called a true Apostle "beloved bother" but he would call men that would follow Paul,
"beloved". The true Apostles never called Paul an Apostle because they know he is not one.

You seem to overlook that baby man grew into adult was life sacrificed again after thousands of years gas cooling heavens Moses.

As an adult man.

By terms the inheritor God status.

Mountain melt. As gases came out first in heavens from volcano.

Tectonics C the carpenter earthquake release where ground by status changes its mass.

The teaching I compare to teach advice as a human.

A man said in every earth nation it fell.

As time lying theist human is gas clear burning in a vacuum heavens void natural light immaculate heavens sun sacrificed.

Natural light only. Holy light.

Light does not fall out being nuclear causes.

Fall out by man of science caused was a nuclear satanic life attack ignored.

We DO NOT own nuclear as biology.

So if gases cooled fell out as X twelve nations attacked its proof human scientists caused it.

 

[Brian2]

I mean, let me whip up a Top Ten list for you?

1. In one part of the Bible, it says god hates jealously. In another part, it says god is a jealous god.

God said He is jealous when His people worship other gods. But for people of God, we are given what the Lord wants us to have and we should not be jealous of what others have because that leads us to do evil things, it lead us to covet what they have and try to get it or to destroy what they have or to destroy even the person who has it.
Ex 34:13Rather, you must tear down their altars, smash their sacred stones, and chop down their Asherah poles. 14For you must not worship any other god, for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God. 15Do not make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land, for when they prostitute themselves to their gods and sacrifice to them, they will invite you, and you will eat their sacrifices.…

2. In one part of the Bible, it says god does not lie. In other parts, it says he put false words into the mouths of prophets and that he sent powerful delusions to deceive people.

God lets people be deceived when their hearts want to be deceived and be led away from the truth. So you believe lies about God without God lying to you.

3. God is said to be perfectly just and perfectly merciful, but mercy is the suspension of justice. This is a logical contradiction.

God was perfectly just and merciful in sending Jesus to die for us.
God also says that He will have mercy on whom He wants to and condemn whom He wants to.

4. God is said to be all-powerful, but he could not help his people defeat an army because they had "chariots of iron."

God said that He wanted to leave some of the Canaanites etc in the land. It was not that He could not defeat them.

5. God is said to be all-knowing, but there are multiple places in the Bible where god regrets how events played out, or where he changes his mind.

God does what is right at the time. It is not that He does not know what will happen, it is that He is not going to condemn people before they do what He knows they will do.

6a. The logical sequence of a god sacrificing himself to himself, to create a loophole in rules that he presides over, is incoherent.

Misstatement of what God did by sending Jesus.
If you can call it a loophole, it was there from the start and God knew He would use it to complete His will.

6b. From an outsider perspective, the Bible reads like an evolving theology with layers of ad hoc additions over time, in many cases trying to fuse together different interpretations that were popular in the early years. For example, in all of the earliest writings of the New Testament, there is no claim that Jesus is god or the son of god, or that he was bodily resurrected (many stories and religions in that region at the time had non-bodily resurrections of central figures.) The god-is-Jesus claim only comes in the last gospel which was written two to three generations later. The bodily resurrection sections also came later. To me, it seems like an apocalyptic preacher gathered a charismatic following, then unexpectedly was executed, leaving his followers to struggle to frame his death in a way that made sense. "He was the ultimate sacrifice for our sins" then "Oh, and he was the son of god, which made him a really good sacrifice" which conflicted with "No, he was actually god in the flesh" and was harmonized as "He was the son of god AND god at the same time, somehow, so we don't have to have interdenominational fighting about this anymore, ok?" There was an entire early branch of Christianity that thought Yaweh and Jesus were separate gods, but they were wiped out by the other Christians and their writings destroyed.

You are listening to false claims by some scholars about the Bible and what was or was not part of Christianity etc.

7. The notion of hell is very vague in the New Testament, if not inconsistent. Where Jesus supposedly refers to hell in the NT, he is referencing OT scriptures that were not talking about an afterlife. Universalists can point to just as many passages to support the notion that everyone is eventually saved.

If you say so.

8. There is no coherent description of a Satan figure in the Bible. The poems attributed to him are actually polemical criticisms of real historical kings in the Middle East during the OT. Satan only means "adversary" and there are human beings who are referred to as Satan in the Bible merely because they are opposing another protagonist.

Satan is no hero that we should know about him intimately. But imo it is plain that he exists and is an adversary to God's people and will and truth.

9. The Bible says "God is not the author of confusion" but there are tens of thousands of Christian denominations, all claiming mutually contradictory paths to salvation, descriptions of god's attributes, claims about what god wants, whether to be baptized and how to be baptized, etc etc.

All Christian denominations claim one path to salvation, Jesus.

10. The OT regularly depicts god as one of many other gods, but stronger than these other gods (Henotheism). His priests get in miracle battles with priests of other gods, who can also do miracles but not as well. He commands "you shall have no other gods before me." Words used to describe him can be traced back to a god who was part of pantheons worshipped in earlier times in that region. By contrast, the NT and Christianity recast Yaweh into the triune god of a monothestic faith where there are in fact no other gods.

The OT and NT are in agreement about God being the only true God. But of course there were other gods that people worshipped in OT and NT times.
The NT gives a more full revelation of God with the trinity, but imo this does not contradict the OT.

 

[rational experiences]

God said He is jealous when His people worship other gods. But for people of God, we are given what the Lord wants us to have and we should not be jealous of what others have because that leads us to do evil things, it lead us to covet what they have and try to get it or to destroy what they have or to destroy even the person who has it.
Ex 34:13Rather, you must tear down their altars, smash their sacred stones, and chop down their Asherah poles. 14For you must not worship any other god, for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God. 15Do not make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land, for when they prostitute themselves to their gods and sacrifice to them, they will invite you, and you will eat their sacrifices.…



God lets people be deceived when their hearts want to be deceived and be led away from the truth. So you believe lies about God without God lying to you.



God was perfectly just and merciful in sending Jesus to die for us.
God also says that He will have mercy on whom He wants to and condemn whom He wants to.



God said that He wanted to leave some of the Canaanites etc in the land. It was not that He could not defeat them.



God does what is right at the time. It is not that He does not know what will happen, it is that He is not going to condemn people before they do what He knows they will do.



Misstatement of what God did by sending Jesus.
If you can call it a loophole, it was there from the start and God knew He would use it to complete His will.



You are listening to false claims by some scholars about the Bible and what was or was not part of Christianity etc.



If you say so.



Satan is no hero that we should know about him intimately. But imo it is plain that he exists and is an adversary to God's people and will and truth.



All Christian denominations claim one path to salvation, Jesus.



The OT and NT are in agreement about God being the only true God. But of course there were other gods that people worshipped in OT and NT times.
The NT gives a more full revelation of God with the trinity, but imo this does not contradict the OT.

If one path is Jesus salvation you state Jesus was sacrificed died but then came back as Jesus as God wanted life saved.

So he meaning the term expressed by men humans chose to sacrifice life to save life?

No it's a fake themed read.

If Jesus existed as Jesus then Jesus wouldn't change first. If Jesus owned the position first stated of saving human life from sacrifice. No sacrifice would even occur.

As every human is the human. A baby was born a male that you quote came to save life. To be born you quote as a human baby that baby was healthy.

Before human babies unhealthy mutated. Do did Jesus save human DNA or did evolution and human sex save life,?

Oh it was evolution and human sex. As science ignores that human sex and any animal sex or seeds own life's presence today. And not theses.

Instead he reads from a document that humans falsify that a human baby magically popped into a woman humans womb. Whereas it was a medical reasoned why genetics of life had redeveloped from sickness.

So when you falsify advice it allows magical God terms to exist. Not real. So magical God science theists keep lying. As the teaching method supports their want of magic secrets.

Then you quote a healthy baby first when a grown man was human life body attacked. As a human.

Then you quote then the attack on the human life stopped.

Life was saved. The meaning life owning all the heavens support as any one body anywhere does survived.

Was that man still alive?

Everyone should say yes.

Was and had the man's body been changed?

Yes.

So who killed the man? Oh the hierarchy murdered him for fighting for human rights human safety and human health.

So had thousands of years of gas amassing from Moses to the event passed? In the exact life living age about 33 years human?

No.

What about was he reborn again as the same baby Idealised theme?

No.

You know for the babies DNA to have returned expressed in human health?

No says lying scientists.

What happened then lying scientists?

Ice the saviour had melted. Put water oxygenated mass back that allowed biology to live on having no condition whatsoever to do with scientific chemical reactions....science. or chemical gases.

Now if humans didn't invent and didn't perform human science on earth no human would even own the need to tell fake stories either about any subject human.

As it's human choice to be an egotists. Medical science for humans friends on humans existing as humans.

Occult science says science is only real for inventive design and reactions. By humans as humans in human life only.

Isn't in fact any other type of science like you try to coerce.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

It is coherent but is hard to fully comprehend.
Thomas called Jesus "my God" and Jesus agreed.

So if you call me God and I agree, I’m God now?

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Jesus believed that there was internal consistency in scripture (as applied to the Hebrew scriptures) when he said, 'scripture cannot be broken' [John 10:35]. Jesus also said, 'These are the words that I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses [Torah], and in the prophets [Nevi'im], and in the psalms [Ketuvim], concerning me.' [Luke 24:44]

A criticism of the internal consistency of the Hebrew scriptures is, therefore, also a criticism of the truth of Christ's claims. Yet Christ claimed to be 'the way, the truth, and the life' [John 14:6]

In looking at the internal consistency of the New Testament, we should first be aware that it is considered as scripture [Revelation 22:18,19], and that 'all scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:' [2 Timothy 3:16]

We should remember also that Jesus chose the disciples whose eyewitness accounts underpin the Gospels. These same men, with the exception of Judas, experienced the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Christ. This Spirit was to 'teach you all things' [John 14:26] 'and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you'.

IMO, small errors may have been made by scribes, but this does not undermine the fundamental integrity and internal consistency of scripture.

Wouldn’t be the first time someone claiming to be a prophet didn’t know what they were talking about.

edit: If all 12 apostles got the Holy Spirit, why don’t we have 12 gospels?

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

God said He is jealous when His people worship other gods

Maybe God needs therapy.

 

[Redemptionsong]

Wouldn’t be the first time someone claiming to be a prophet didn’t know what they were talking about.

edit: If all 12 apostles got the Holy Spirit, why don’t we have 12 gospels?

Although Jesus was a prophet, he was much more than a prophet. We know that the prophets of the OT all committed sin at some point in their lives, whilst Jesus Christ did not. From a Christian point of view, Jesus Christ is not just a man, but 'God with us'.

As regards 'gospels', there is, in reality, only one Gospel. The four books described as 'gospels' all become one in Christ. Each of the apostles preached the one Gospel, the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

There may be numerous divisions within the earthly religions of man, but in the Spirit of Christ there is only one body, the true Church. Only God knows the entirety of this Church.

IMO.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

As regards 'gospels', there is, in reality, only one Gospel. The four books described as 'gospels' all become one in Christ. Each of the apostles preached the one Gospel, the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Not 4. 22, at least.

I count 22 gospels listed here, and I'm not sure this list is complete:

Early Christian Writings: New Testament, Apocrypha, Gnostics, Church Fathers

Only 4 got canonized, and while one of the others (Q) got used as a source for the canonized gospels, there are a lot left over.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

We know that the prophets of the OT all committed sin at some point in their lives, whilst Jesus Christ did not.

He did, though. It’s important not just to read claims but to see if they are supported. He even sins against himself, when he called calling people fools was worthy of hell but he called people fools.

 

[Triumph]

Although Jesus was a prophet, he was much more than a prophet. We know that the prophets of the OT all committed sin at some point in their lives, whilst Jesus Christ did not. From a Christian point of view, Jesus Christ is not just a man, but 'God with us'.

As regards 'gospels', there is, in reality, only one Gospel. The four books described as 'gospels' all become one in Christ. Each of the apostles preached the one Gospel, the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

There may be numerous divisions within the earthly religions of man, but in the Spirit of Christ there is only one body, the true Church. Only God knows the entirety of this Church.

IMO.

Jesus said why call me Good only God is Good. Jesus is to teach with kindness and mercy forgiving the trespasses against him by the command of God but in the temple Jesus could not control his anger against men that were killing poor people for not having enough money to pay the Jews to not kill them. And the Jews were getting rich by doing that because people were paying them out of fear. The rich could buy any sin they wanted to do as often as they wanted to do it and were calling themselves sinless and righteous.
So Jesus disobeyed God that said to Jesus to command everyone love one another forgiving their trespasses. That command is a LAW of God and Jesus broke it with anger by striking the men. Jesus is acceptable by God, cleansed of his sin/trespasses because Jesus became water baptized.
Jesus was trying to save the Jews so in fact did love them but he did not love what they believed and what they did so became violent in opposition to it. Jesus refused to break the command from God to not kill, so never killed a Jew even though Jews were threatening to kill him. But had Jesus been perfect, Jesus would never had caused any physical harm to anyone so in fact, Jesus is not sinless, not good, only God is Good forgiving even the trespasses of His son Jesus.
Only Pharisee Paul taught that killing a life pleases God. Paul still calls himself a Pharisee after he lied saying he is an Apostle. The command of God is not to kill so in no way did the murder of Jesus please God and it certainly did not remove anyone's sins.
Sins are removed with belief in water baptism forsaking belief in blood sacrifice.
Paul lies when he said he converted to follow Jesus because he did not. There are 12 Apostles and 2 false Apostles in the Bible. Paul did formulate his own ideas of what religion should be and taught that by creating his own inferior church in total opposition to what the church Jesus established taught.