No, there are the discrepancies you mentioned about who got to the tomb first, how many women, etc. Where are you going with this? I am very curious.
Who found that Jesus was not in his tomb?
Mark 16 says three: Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome.
Matthew 28 says two: Mary Magdalene and the “other Mary”.
Luke 24 just says “the women”.
John 20 says one: Mary Magdalene.
Who was Jesus’ granddad?
Matthew 1:16 …and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, and Mary was the mother of Jesus who is called the Messiah.
Luke 3:23 Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli
Where was Jesus three days after his baptism?
Mark 1:12-13 "After his baptism, the spirit immediately drove him out into the wilderness. And he was in the wilderness forty days … "
John 1:35; 1:43; 2:1-11 Next day after the baptism, Jesus selected two disciples. Second day: Jesus went to Galilee - two more disciples. Third day: Jesus was at a wedding feast in Cana in Galilee.
You asked to see contradictions-What are you going to do with the information you requested?
You are making a lot of baseless assertions here.
-
Just because an event is not mentioned in one Gospel account that is mentioned in another, does not mean that event did not happen. It just means that one Gospel writer didn’t mention it. Nothing more. Only the most obtuse would assert otherwise.
-
You are completely misrepresenting John’s account. It doesn’t say anything at all about him living “happily ever after” on earth, or that he did “lots more stuff”. It just says that if everything Jesus did during his ministry were written down, it would fill up lots more books. Read it again.
-
This cult of the written word is so bizarre to me. Why do you nonbelievers who don’t even believe the Bible place so much importance on it? I follow Church tradition which has been handed down through the centuries from the Apostles. Yes Scripture is a part of that, but just a part. And it was not meant to be read in the way that so many of you seem to be imposing on us.
I don’t know.
I don’t know.
I don’t know.
Of course not-It is meant to be read in a way that supports what you have been taught to believe.
Do you care?
Well, I would say that it was meant to be read how the various authors intended it to be read, which is not always known.
But, granting your assertion, what was the purpose of our little exercise?
Not really. Should I? Maybe I should be more interested in those minute details.
The bottom line is the books that make up the Bible were chosen and compiled by the Catholic Church during the first few centuries of its existence.
If the Church thought that something in one or more of those books was contrary to the faith, then they would not have had it canonized.
Well, gee, since you asked to see them in the first place…:smack:
Only because you keep bringing them up and making an issue out of them.
Here’s a thought-The next time a topic comes up that you really don’t care about, either say “I don’t care about that subject”, or don’t address it at all.
Ok, I was waiting for an explanation as to why you feel that those discrepancies you mentioned are relevant. I didn’t think they were relevant, but I thought you were going somewhere with them.
If someone says “Example?” when the topic of Biblical contradictions is brought up(which you did), and Biblical contradictions are shown, they are relevant to the question you asked. Adding conditions after the fact is your personal problem, not mine-I provided exactly what you asked for.
I see what you’re saying, I apologize for the misunderstanding. When I mentioned “confusion, incoherency, and/or contradiction” outside the Catholic Church, I was referring to theology, morality, and truth claims. I don’t view the discrepancies from Scripture that you mentioned to be on par with the chaos and confusion that is inherent to Protestantism that I was referring to.
Let he who is without confusion, incoherency, and/or contradiction cast the first stone.
LOL, true. Won’t be me.
And it certainly isn’t the Roman Catholic Church.
It confuses me why some of ya’ll are trying to answer “when has God changed his mind?” with “the bible is factually inconsistent.” You do realize that the one isn’t the answer to the other, right?
In my opinion the most blatant example of the biblical God changing his perspective on morality is that God used to be hella murder happy, and considered murder to be the correct punishment for all manner of infractions, notably including being an unfaithful child. Unless the entirety of modern christianity are apostates, God has changed his moral stance on child care and the murdering thereof.
Unfaithful/disobendient children? To murder, or not to murder? God seems to have mellowed out and utterly reversed his morality in his old age.
Agree to disagree