“There are no contradictions in the Bible.”

When there are two different versions of an event in the Bible, literalists quickly assert both actually happened.  Accounts differ, they explain, because one account did not happen to include the other.

Take the death of Judas.  Matthew 27 tells that Judas died by hanging himself. Then the priests took his money and bought the “field of blood”.   We can go to Acts 1 which explains Judas first bought the property.  Then, while on the property, he fell on his head and his bowels exploded.

No problem, literalists say, both are true.  One account just happens not to mention the other.  Judas hung himself, they say, then after decomposition his bowels exploded.  We skeptics wonder why the first account did not include the second, or, visa versa.

I’ve never heard, either,  how the very different versions of purchasing the property are explained away.  I just know they are somewhere.

Ironically, omitted material helps skeptics, too.  Folks who believe the Jesus character did not have a problem with homosexuality note he did not comment about  it.  Apologists point to other things he said that might imply he was against homosexuality, but he didn’t really say it.

Then, there is priest/preacher pedophilia supporters.  Since, so I’ve been told, the Bible does not condemn, specifically, sex between clergy and little children, it could be OK.

Because everyone can find their views approved of, either in the text or by omission, the Bible remains a best seller.

See us on FaceBook, Red River Freethinkers

Avatar of Jon Lindgren

About Jon Lindgren

I am a former President of the Red River Freethinkers in Fargo, ND, a retired NDSU economics professor and was Mayor of Fargo for 16 years.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

113 Responses to “There are no contradictions in the Bible.”

  1. Wanna B Sure says:

    Jon; Re. the priest/preacher pedophilia,”Since I’ve been told, the Bible does not condemn, specifically, sex between clerty and little children, it could be OK.”. Where did you dig that one up? In the Freethinkers” think tank? ” Funny.

    • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

      Wanna 12:50 “Where did you dig that one up? In the Freethinkers ‘think tank’?”

      You’d be surprised.

      • Wanna B Sure says:

        Bet I wouldn’t.

      • entech says:

        Gets a bit complicated, paedophilia is sex with a prepubescent child.
        It is quite clear in Numbers 30:3-5 that a young person cannot make a vow, even a vow of marriage without her father’s approval. It is stated in many places that fornication is a sin and so it must follow that as a child is not married then imposing any sexual activity is also a sin.

        A major problem is apparent acceptance and cover up in organisations with a biblical basis, churches of different denominations, scouts, salvation army, faith based schools have all been guilty at some stage, and Jewish, Christian and Muslim. Especially in Christian terms this cover up is itself sinful and condemned.
        Mark 9:42 – And whosoever shall offend one of [these] little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea. Since this appears to protect only Christian children I hope some one can come up with a generic condemnation.

        Any civilised person does not need any of this, to any normal person this is just wrong.

        • Wanna B Sure says:

          Re. Mark 9:42; If you study the preceeding verses, and the context of this, and the following verses, you will see that it is in regards of (adversly/hindering) affecting the faith in a negative way. Of course it would appear to pertain only to Christian children, as the non Christians would not be included in the faith. It would be in error to interpret this to be related to pedophelia.

        • entech says:

          On the other hand Exodus 217-11 indicates that it is OK to sell a daughter as a sex slave. Doesn’t mention an age limit.

          Because everyone can find their views approved of, either in the text or by omission, the Bible remains a best seller

        • entech says:

          Further as Mark only refers to Christian children it is presumably all right to do anything to other children. Don’t need to be a religious person to know this is wrong.

        • entech says:

          Wanna B Sure says: May 6, 2012 at 2:47 am
          No use in reasoning anymore with you.

          Note to self: the converse is actually the truth, try and remember the futility and don’t get suckered into any commentary.

          • Wanna B Sure says:

            Not trying to reason with you, merely pointing out your errors. Back to Mark 9:42. And where is Exodus 217-11?

          • entech says:

            Shinola! need to make a correction, should have been obvious. Exodus Chapter 21 verses 7 to 11.

          • Wanna B Sure says:

            Start Exodus 21 at verse 2. Slavery is mentioned, and indeed the subjects involved are slaves. Specifically Hebrew slaves. Not “sex slaves” in today’s context. Since this in regards to the ancient Hebrews, It would be best to ask a Jewish historian, to gain the context of the time. You could also consult Keil & Delitzsch. I’m sure there are several pages available to research. I know you have it available on line.

          • entech says:

            Other Translations of Exodus 21:8

            If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himselfe, then shall he let her be redeemed: To sell her vnto a strange nation hee shall haue no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her.
            - King James Version (1611)

            “If she is displeasing in the eyes of her master who designated her for himself, then he shall let her be redeemed. He does not have authority to sell her to a foreign people because of his unfairness to her.
            - New American Standard Version (1995)

            If she please not her master, who hath espoused her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a foreign people he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her.
            - American Standard Version (1901)

            If she is not pleasing to her master who has taken her for himself, let a payment be made for her so that she may go free; her master has no power to get a price for her and send her to a strange land, because he has been false to her.
            - Basic English Bible

            If she is unacceptable in the eyes of her master, who had taken her for himself, then shall he let her be ransomed: to sell her unto a foreign people he hath no power, after having dealt unfaithfully with her.
            - Darby Bible

            If she displease the eyes of her master to whom she was delivered, he shall let her go: but he shall have no power to sell her to a foreign nation, if he despise her.
            - Douay Rheims Bible

            If she shall not please her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her to a strange nation he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her.
            - Webster’s Bible

            If she doesn’t please her master, who has married her to himself, then he shall let her be redeemed. He shall have no right to sell her to a foreign people, since he has dealt deceitfully with her.
            - World English Bible

            if evil in the eyes of her lord, so that he hath not betrothed her, then he hath let her be ransomed; to a strange people he hath not power to sell her, in his dealing treacherously with her.
            - Youngs Literal Bible

            If she please not her master, who hath espoused her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed; to sell her unto a foreign people he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her.
            - Jewish Publication Society Bible

            Just a little further reading and a few thoughts for myself, and myself alone.

            If a man sells his daughter and If she is not pleasing to her master who has taken her for himself he can get his money back, or give her to his son. But not to foreigners, keep it in the family, yours or hers.

            In what strange and alternative universe is this not sex slavery, worse it is selling your own offspring – of course, if the girl was always ” not pleasing to her master who has taken her for himself” she could be sold many times, I think the modern term for this is ‘white slavery’.
            Bit like the Muslim hypocracy of buying a marriage license and divorce papers at the same time, this avoids such sins as prostitution and fornication, the difference being the Muslim is a contract entered into by two people who know what they are doing. It is not a father selling a daughter.

          • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

            entech 3:32 “If a man sells his daughter and if she is not pleasing to her master who has taken her for himself..”

            I’m seaching for a response to help out apologists. A good response might be, “This refers to her cooking.”

          • Wanna B Sure says:

            One would think you would be thankfull for the New Covenant. and the ensuing correction/satisfaction of those in the Old.

          • entech says:

            Jon 3:32 At this risk of breaking a convention of this blog, perhaps a word that rhymes would be more likely.

          • entech says:

            @ 2:01am It is quite clear in Numbers 30:3-5 that a young person cannot make a vow, even a vow of marriage without her father’s approval. It is stated in many places that fornication is a sin and so it must follow that as a child is not married then imposing any sexual activity is also a sin.

            I started trying to demonstrate to Jon that it was possible to find Bible verses that could be legitimately said to condemn paedophilia, instead of support and other readings to counter the claim that it could be condoned by omission, I get jumped on and told my interpretations are wrong. Does this mean that it is approved?
            Or simply that even when he agrees the atheist is still wrong, Christian tolerance, or even more that whatever the atheist may say is to be taken as a deliberate insult and offensive simply because it is an atheist that says it.

            If I say, you may well be correct, unfortunately I cannot believe that it is true” is that also construed as a deliberately provocative statement. It certainly does seem that way, yet if I object to denigration of myself and family I am accused of being precious and over sensitive?

            31 posts, most of them telling me how, when and why I was wrong for telling Jon he should look deeper for condemnation of paedophiles. Mind boggling hypocrisy and total arrogance from an assumed superiority is all I see from the posts.
            I have a little bet with myself.

          • Wanna B Sure says:

            Jon; As I told Entech, ask/talk to a Hebrew scholar/ historian/Rabbi.

          • Henry says:

            entech: “31 posts, most of them telling me how, when and why I was wrong for telling Jon he should look deeper for condemnation of paedophiles.”

            Oh, yes. entech the standard bearer of morality who gets a little sensitive with a discussion of shore leave. What absolute corruption.

          • entech says:

            Oh well, a losing bet.

        • Wanna B Sure says:

          Re. Numbers 30; and that a young person couldn’t make a vow or marriage vow without father’s approval; When I was young, One couldn’t get a marriage license if under 21 without father’s signature. I don’t know if that has changed. Since my wife is 3 months older than me, and we have been together continually since the 8th grade, I could have had her arrested for statutory kissing. That would have “learned her” for taking advantage.

          • Wanna B Sure says:

            I don’t remember any couples being denied parent’s signature if they wanted to get married if under age by a year or two. In fact, it was quite common. I understand much younger was common in the deep South, but never heard of that up here.

    • Stanta says:

      Pure BS Jon. Which pedophile told you that tall tail. Some people will claim anything to justify their own action.

      • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

        Stanta 1:35 “Pure BS Jon.”

        You have to admit, the Bible kind of leaves the door open.

      • entech says:

        Stan, Do you say that the cover ups are BS as well. Or are they permitted to protect the good name of the institution? One example is a local Jewish college, it took years to get someone extradited from America back to Australia, Head teachers and Rabbis disclaimed any knowledge until it came to court. under oath they had to admit that they “had heard something to that effect, at sometime”, even then a straight out admission of knowledge and condemnation of the perpetrator dis not seem possible. In Britain, when a little Muslim girl was found by her parents crying and frantically washing her hand and the parents complained about the actions of the Mullah/Imam or whatever the family had to leave the town, bringing the Mosque into disrepute. Then, the less said about Ireland the better.

        • Stanta says:

          Entech, I am saying that the person who can find a verse in the Bible that a llows pedophilia between a priest and a child is making things up from whole cloth.

          I also think that since Jon claims to know ONE person who claims this and paints the whole of the Judeo/Christian world with it he is being disingenuous. Jon is allowed this of course since he is against religion. On the other hand we can provide plenty of places in both the Old and New Testament with prohibitions against homosexuality and they are ignored with the statement that “It doesn’t matter because I don’t believe in it anyway.

          As father, soon to be grand father, teacher, scout leader and professional Santa Claus I deplore the times when it is found out a child has been hurt by sexual abuse. No right thinking person, religious or not, would applaud or encourage such a thing. While groups like NAMBLA working within the homosexual rights movements is working toward that goal.

          Most of the attacks have not been against small children, that happens in the public schools. In the church and Boy Scouts it is people who have placed themselves in a position where they can prey on pubescent children the ages of 13-18 and almost always of the same sex. In my book that is homosexuality.

          In the mean time they are SCREAMING that we must let declared homosexuals be priests and scout leaders. Can we then sue the homosexual right groups when the children continue being attacked?

          Jon doesn’t give a damn himself, did he report the person claiming this to an authority of the church? I doubt it, just held it back so he could do a little backstabbing later.

          Both the church and scouts are making stride for protection. The children are being taught that they will be believed when they tell of abuses. We want to clean this up but when you insist we use foxes to guard the henhouse it becomes more difficult.

          • entech says:

            As a medical diagnosis, pedophilia, or paedophilia, is a psychiatric disorder in persons 16 years of age or older typically characterized by a primary or exclusive sexual interest in prepubescent children (generally age 13 years or younger, though onset of puberty varies). An adolescent who is 16 years of age or older must be at least five years older than the prepubescent child before the attraction can be diagnosed as pedophilia.

            Homosexuality is romantic or sexual attraction or behaviour between members of the same sex or gender. As an orientation, homosexuality refers to “an enduring pattern of or disposition to experience sexual, affectionate, or romantic attractions” primarily or exclusively to people of the same sex; “it also refers to an individual’s sense of personal and social identity based on those attractions, behaviors expressing them, and membership in a community of others who share them.”

            Ephebophilia is the primary or exclusive adult sexual interest in mid-to-late adolescents, generally ages 15 to 19. The term was originally used in the late 19th to mid 20th century.

            All definitions from Wikipedia

            I think I made clear my revulsion at paedophilia. I tried to say that covering it up is an equal crime in my opininion.
            On that point I think we will agree.

            Going by the above definitions I cannot see a connection between homosexuality and paedophilia.
            Ephebophilia as described above is a separate thing, there are many cases of young/old lesbian relationships, but the most publicised is the male version (going back to Socrates and earlier). From what I have read NAMBLA is part of this group, I could be wrong. I think the attraction felt by older men to young men (or women to girls) is very strange and wrong, at least the participants are more or less capable of accepting or rejecting and being aware of what was going on.
            Paedophilia as described is a medical disorder as well as being totally wrong, any abuse of the defenceless is wrong, sexual abuse is the worst. Paedophiles are about as low as you can get and still call yourself human, I doubt, personally, that you could claim to be a civilised human being.
            Homosexuality, the definition speaks for itself and to me it is essentially something between mature people who know what they want.

            I do not think anyone is helped by grouping all three together. Paedophiles are criminals and should be dealt with by law, any one covering up is an accomplice and guilty of perverting the cause of justice. I tried to make clear in my post that the problem is widespread.

            I agree that there can be no justification, Biblical or any other way to condone this behaviour or helping to cover it up. I have never heard of a Biblical argument to the effect because it is not banned it is permitted (got into big trouble over it too), the only thing I have heard said, and this by a person who should have known better, “oh, but the child may like it”, you want an argument against relativism – use that one -disgusting.

            I presume we agree on a lot of this. It is totally wrong to abuse children. It is totally wrong to find any justification to condone it or not punishing it severely. It is totally wrong to protect the perpetrators (perpetrators sound so clinical, monsters may be better).

            We can never agree that the other two are not related, when googling this I found almost all results were religious groups blaming everything in the world on homosexuality and conflating the lot, I guess this is what you are bombarded with and this is what you accept. I agree on everything else.

          • Avatar of Demosthenes Demosthenes says:

            “While groups like NAMBLA working within the homosexual rights movements is working toward that goal.”

            You do know NAMBLA is a joke right?

            Idiots these days will believe anything if they can find it on the internet.

          • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

            Stanta 11:38 “In my mind that is that is homosexuality.”

            The only study I know of that interviewed men convicted of pedohphilia was in Colorado. Those convicted were asked if they were attracked to adult women or adult men, if they were married, etc. Nearly everyone interviewed was judged to be heterosexual by the anwswers they gave and the evidence of their lives before conviction. Thus, there is absolutely NO evidence homosexuals are child abusing pedofiles.

            It is no more accurate to say a gay person is likely to be a pedofile than it is to say that as soon as a man puts on a Priest collar he starts fiddling with little boys.

          • Stanta says:

            Did I miss where the 13-15 year olds were targeted? That would be a large part of the attacks by both the clergy and the Boy Scouts would be. And they are almost exclusively male on male. In my opinion that would be homosexuality. The very group where we are being castigated for refusing to admit both into the priesthood and Scout leadership. I bet NONE of those would be placing themselves in a position where the pickings are easy. Cough Sudansky cough. Don’t give me that he was a heterosexual just because he is married and has children, plenty of people who are now out homosexuals have done both.

            To force that and then shout we don’t protect the children enough is ridiculous. A simple case of cause and effect or unintended consequences.

          • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

            Stanta 1:55 “Don’t give me that he was a heterosexual just because he is married and has children..”

            So, I’m trying to understand for a policy perspective how we go about finding pedaphiles. It sounds like we look for men who have wives and children. Men who publically self identify as homosexual are not a threat?

          • Stanta says:

            Demo….link please….and it doesn’t mean there aren’t people following it’s principles……just as Jon seems to think that there are a lot of bazaar people using the Bible to promote pedophilia.

          • Stanta says:

            And Jon trusts the word of people who are pedophiles. Jon in previous posts you seem to make the assertion that all priests are just waiting for their chance or covering up for those who are pedophiles. When a child is 10 times more likely to be abused by a public school teacher or a relative. Both which everybody does a pretty good job of covering up. Especially teachers who are protected by their public unions.

          • Stanta says:

            Demo, I googled NAMBLA. Did you? very source says they are real and have even been defended by the ACLU on free speech grounds.

            http://www.aclu.org/free-speech/aclu-statement-defending-free-speech-unpopular-organizations

          • Avatar of Demosthenes Demosthenes says:

            “Demo, I googled NAMBLA.”

            Response, can’t believe I am having to quote myself.

            “Idiots these days will believe anything if they can find it on the internet.” <— Yup Stanta, you see its the crap you believe that has been in question this entire time.

            The ALCU defending a joke to exist is still a joke. You believe in crap like this cause you want to; Just like what you want to believe in your un-cited, un-sourced, religious fact book is the "Truth".

          • Stanta says:

            Demo, give me a link. I trust you as much as you trust me.

            But then you never link, just hit and run.

          • Henry says:

            It is just absolutely ridiculous for Demonthemes to be defending NAMBLA. Quite a number of them have been sent to prison. He apparently thinks their behavior is funny. It really isn’t.

          • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

            Henry 11:54 Stan’s reference to ACLU’s involvement in a NAMBLA is an old saw. If you bring up priests assulting children who trusted them, someone will put up the defense that “ACLU defended NAMBLA.” It is a shameful comparison.

            Priests gone to jail, convicted pedafilias. ACLU defended NAMBLA from a charge that NAMBLA’s website would cause people to sexually assult people. This went to court. ACLU’s case was that nothing on NAMBLA’s website “advocated or insited the commission of any illegal acts, including murder or rape.” The court agreed and the government’s case was dismissed.

            There were two NAMBLA peopel sent to prison, but they were released after it was found the key witness against them was unreliable. I don’t know any more about than that. Maybe there were others, I don’t know.

            My point is, whenever anyone uses the ACLU/NAMBLA to defend priests, teachers or anyone else who abuses children, it’s a red herring.

          • Henry says:

            Jon defends NAMBLA as well.

            NAMBLA members did indeed go to jail.
            http://www.webcitation.org/6610eRu6g

            Jon and Demonthemes think it is a joke. I don’t think it is funny.

          • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

            Henry 4:11 “Jon defends NAMBLA as well.”

            You really caught me this time, scored a big blow to my credibility. You are right. I defend everyone’s Constitutionally guaranteed freedom of speech. I wish everyone did.

          • Avatar of Demosthenes Demosthenes says:

            Stanta…… really? Why am I repeatedly having to tell you only that not everything you find on the internet is true. Why I would link you information from the web as “proof” is rather disingenuous. It first gives credence that I, myself, believe such information found trolling Google. Second, that such link to information IS in fact truthful and correct. Neither of which I would like to portray. I prefer to speak for myself.

            Henry – 1st why are you lying? When you said “NAMBLA members did indeed go to jail.” The ACLU case references do NOT include members of NAMBLA. 2nd, no one has gone to jail in reference to the ACLU case. 3rd if you wish to speak of about other possible NAMBLA members going to jail then understand you are speaking out of context to this thread and really should not use the ‘reply’ link but instead start a new one. It muddy’s the water and I do believe this is your intent. I also do believe the ACLU can defend NAMBLA’s right to exist, I think it is in our Constitution somewhere…

            NAMBLA is a joke, I neither believe in its legitimacy nor what it believes to be true. Coincidentally it seems both Christians and NAMBLA members have issues when it comes to boys and sexual relationships/rape.

          • Henry says:

            Demonthemes: “The ACLU case references do NOT include members of NAMBLA. 2nd, no one has gone to jail in reference to the ACLU case.”

            ACLU was not referenced by me. You brought that into the conversation when you decided to defend NAMBLA. NAMBLA was part of the conversation without the ACLU reference well before. NAMBLA members did go to jail. You did a poor job of lying.

            Are you still stuck clerking?

          • Avatar of Demosthenes Demosthenes says:

            “Stanta says:
            November 28, 2012 at 4:22 am

            Demo, I googled NAMBLA. Did you? very source says they are real and have even been defended by the ACLU on free speech grounds.

            http://www.aclu.org/free-speech/aclu-statement-defending-free-speech-unpopular-organizations” Lying again Henry… You said “You(Demosthenes) brought that(ACLU) into the conversation….” Looks to me like Stanta brought it up, Lying on a blog …. why?

            I am not lying when I say “That NAMBLA members in the ACLU case did not go to jail.” Have NAMBLA members gone to jail? Yes. In the ACLU case? No.

            Again if you don’t understand how to stay on topic or in the context do not reply to me, as we are NOT talking about the same thing and it only leads to confusion. Which I have stated before is what I think you intent.

  2. entech says:

    Jon, who are deliberately trying to offend this time. Don’t you know it is all true.
    To suggest otherwise is offensive, to show otherwise is blasphemy.
    :lol: :cry: :eek: :smile: :grin:

    • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

      entech 12:54 “who are you debiberately trying to offend this time. Don’t you know its all true.”

      Oh, my goodness. Did I offend someone? It’s the first time I’m sure. : )

      • entech says:

        Jon, some people can find offense anywhere they like. I write to say that your bit about paedophiles is wrong, as is the cover up of their crimes, Bible can be interpreted this way and says nothing about it being permitted.
        I am trying to avoid any direct communication as it will most likely be turned into a personal attack.

      • Wanna B Sure says:

        Pretty hard to follow with all the loose threads floating around. I think it is the Chinese who have a political strategy using the same tactics, and that is essentially to overwhelm the board with unrelated matter, so as to evade, and sneak the objective in through the back door. A common practice here.

  3. Chuck82 says:

    Another post by Jon (the insecure athiest)… who would have thought? Why rail on the claims of Judeo/Christian scripture if they mean nothing at all? As far as contradictions go, the modern mass media has it’s work cut out for it as well. Solid arguments gain solid ground.

    • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

      Chuck82 7:56 Thanks for commenting. Your reactions are welcome here.

      “Why rail on the claims of ..scripture if they mean nothing at all?”

      The temptation is too much for me. : )

      And, thanks for the psychoanalysis (insecure). Those of us who are unconvinced appreciate beleivers who analyze, pray and offer scripture to correct what’s wrong with us.

  4. entech says:

    Fascinating non-topic so far. Contradictions not mentioned at all.
    WBC picked up on the bit about paedophilia not being specifically condemned. I tried to show that this not necessarily true, from the idea that any sex outside of marriage is sinful then as children were not married paedophilia was a sin. I was hoping that someone would pick up on this and perhaps have something more on the subject, even though I do not think the Bible is true I cannot believe that something as horrendous as this could be condoned even by omission – but this was ignored.
    I then quoted about the evils of doing bad things to children in Mark indicating that even the cover up was wrong – asking that something more relevant would be available, this was not ignored but started an interminable series of posts about how I was reading Mark wrong – actually irrelevant to asking for a better way of showing that neither the act not the cover up was condoned.
    Rather a discussion of why child sex abuse and its cover up were not condoned in the Bible we get heaps of criticism of my misusing Mark and nothing actually on topic. Relevant to that the Bible does have lots about slavery (even the selling of children, as potential sex objects), so slavery is explicitly condoned even advocated, I ask again for demonstration that such child abuse does not appear to explicitly condemned even though I cannot imagine that it would be condoned.
    Then to cap of all this avoiding the real question we get a strange post @ 3:06 am from WBS complaining about all the unrelated stuff, stuff of which he was the major contributor in general and specifically @ 3:26, 3:36 and 3:43

    The actual line was ” Then, there is priest/preacher pedophilia supporters. Since, so I’ve been told, the Bible does not condemn, specifically, sex between clergy and little children, it could be OK.
    To me this is quite clearly a reference to the work of people trying to justify their atrocities.
    I agree with Stan which paedophiles are telling that BS to justify their actions?

    And, as usual we have Hendrik, that is the Norwegian version of Henry?, poking his oar in to stir the pot. Hope you don’t mind me calling you Hendrick, almost rhymes with endwreck, as endwreck is your pet name for me I thought it might create a little bond.

    Any one got anything to say about contradictions, how about the different stories about the discovery of the empty tomb, pretty crucial to the resurrection story.
    The different names of the women going to the tomb, not a big thing, some women went and if the names are a bit different, so – modern journalism does this sought of thing all the time.
    Similarly for the actions of the women. Run away, tell the story, don’t tell the story, again journalistic license.

    But there are major differences in what was found:
    Tomb already opened, enter the tomb and meet one young man, or, two men suddenly appear.
    Do not enter the tomb but find two angels sitting outside
    But Mathew has a very different and unique version:
    The tomb is closed and somehow Roman guards are there, the women would have noticed.
    And behold, there was a great earthquake; for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat on it. His countenance was like lightning, and his clothing as white as snow. And the guards shook for fear of him, and became like dead men.

    Bit like a couple of days earlier, you would think that all the darkness and earthquakes and dead people working would have been recorded somewhere outside of the story told by the faithful, somewhere verifiable.

    • Henry says:

      1. Obviously the gospel accounts weren’t created later to smooth out the accounts. Rather, they were presented as produced without some helpful scribe trying to “clean” them up. In my mind, this points to authenticity of the accounts rather than fabrication.

      2. As far as the tomb, different times-different people. This isn’t difficult.

      But it is difficult to the “bound”, where the simple context of Mark 9 is contorted by the “bound”.

      • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

        Henry 12:20 “…gospel accounts…created..”

        Use of the word “created” is very appropriate. One definition of “to create”, “to produce through artistic or imaginative effort.” Fits the Bible perfectly.

        • Henry says:

          Jon, you missed a key operative word, “weren’t” as in “weren’t created” in regards to the gospel accounts. You are drifting like a rudderless ship empty of oil. Careful of the approaching shoals.

        • Stanta says:

          And if the Gospels matched you would claim collusion. Nice to be on the winning side all of the time. The fact is that different witness see things differently. Judges, police and attorneys understand this. The thing to remember is none of this materially changes the message.

      • entech says:

        Yes, I have heard that before, they are so messed up they must be true.
        Different times different people, what was this some kind of procession, were they going up in groups, anyone charging admission. No two totally different accounts of the same event, one with angel coming down from the sky knocking the guards unconscious and perching on the stone it just moved and no angel from the sky just an already open tomb and modest difference in the account.

        You still don’t see that the reference in Mark was an invitation to show something better, I was trying to support that the Bible was probably anti paedophilia, but you would rather put me down than make a case for your self.

        • Wanna B Sure says:

          See 2:21

        • Wanna B Sure says:

          Entech; The context of your entire 2;01 was clearly related to pedophelia. Your inclusion of Mark implied it was against pedophelia. Clearly the Mark you referenced had nothing to do with pedophelia. The “abuse” Mark was referring to was of a spiritual nature, and a warning to those of position not to exercise it. See Lenski–see others–take your pick.

      • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

        Henry 12:20 “this point to the authenticity of the accounts rather than fabrication.”

        So, the more the divergent and less alike the “historical accounts” are, the more accurate they are. Interesting to say the least.

        • Henry says:

          That wasn’t said. Different observations were made by different people of events, yet what would the conflict be?. For example. Angels were noted by one gospel on the outside of the tomb. Angels were noted by another gospel on the inside of the tomb. For all we know, both events occurred. However, in the skeptic’s mind, one or the other must occur to apparently be clear for them. In the Christian’s mind, whether or not the angels were on the inside, outside, topside, or underside of the tomb is not the primary thrust of the passages.

          The fact the texts are not in direct apparent harmony, but not necessarily wrong, actually gives me confidence some handy scribe didn’t alter and “clean” them up.

          • Avatar of Demosthenes Demosthenes says:

            “The fact the texts are not in direct apparent harmony, but not necessarily wrong, actually gives me confidence some handy scribe didn’t alter and “clean” them up.” – Sound systemic to me, you’ll catchup, eventually.

          • entech says:

            When you say in the skeptic’s mind, one or the other must occur to apparently be clear for them. I think you forget that in the skeptics mind, neither could happen, angels are in the category of things that probably don’t exist. You may say that does not prove that they don’t, and I would have to agree, but as they have not been seen or heard of outside of the “gospels” you are relying on then they are no more likely to exist as minotaurs, gorgons and other mythical creatures from ancient works of fiction.
            You are very enthusiastic about sarcastic commentary on “atheist logic”, if we exam the logic of your statements, not formally, just sensibly.
            For all we know, something can be in two places at once.
            For all we know two things can happen at the same time.
            These are not debating points these are observations about the nature of things, angels, they only make sense if they are imaginary things with magical properties:
            Magical beings that can be simultaneously in more than one place at the same (by extension, they could be everywhere at the same time).
            Magical beings that can do different things at the same time (by extension, everything at once).
            How do we explain the physical limitations, if they don’t have any? If you have no story to explain the contradictions, if you have a story that says they are capable of doing whatever they want (presumably as agents of this god of yours) the you have a theory which tries to explain everything you finish up explaining nothing (except that it is magic and therefore normal rules don’t apply).

            But we have more, it doesn’t matter how many there were, where they were, presumably it doesn’t matter if they were even there ( I know you didn’t say that, but the rest is outlandish who cares), nothing really matters because the story is not about the properties of angels, the thrust of the message is that you must believe in the resurrection, because without it you would have no reason to exist.

            In your last paragraph you are taking liberties with language that are hard to reconcile:
            The fact – A fact (derived from the Latin factum, see below) is something that has really occurred or is actually the case. The usual test for a statement of fact is verifiability, that is whether it can be proven to correspond to experience. Nothing here is verifiable from any other source, effectively they are facts because you say so.
            Not in direct apparent contradiction! you got that right, nothing apparent about the direct contraction(s).
            Not necessarily wrong! of course not, a contradiction is not wrong. You haven’t used your courtroom analogy for a while, permit me to borrow it, we have four witnesses describing an event differently, an event which none of them actually witnessed, the defence lawyer tries to make a case that all of that is irrelevant, the judge must dismiss the case.
            Your confidence is misplaced, it wasn’t cleaned up because it never happened, no scribe had any idea what to put in its place, but as it was crucial it just had to be left as is and hope nobody would notice

          • Henry says:

            endwreck: “it wasn’t cleaned up because it never happened”

            You have no proof to that claim.

            “the defence lawyer tries to make a case that all of that is irrelevant, the judge must dismiss the case.”

            Ancient texts are admissable. You lose.

          • Henry says:

            Demonthemes: “Sound systemic to me, you’ll catchup, eventually.”

            Not interested in “advancing” to your presumed superior level.

          • Henry says:

            Endwreck: “For all we know, something can be in two places at once.
            For all we know two things can happen at the same time.”

            The “freethinker” demonstrates their one-dimensional thinking (“reasoning”). Note the events are presumed by the “freethinker” to be simultaneous in regards to angel appearances.

          • entech says:

            Hendrik, my proof that it never happened is equal to yours that it does. zero = zero. But you didn’t notice my reference to your “primary thrust” and the whole thing being crucial. No resurrection means no reason for Christianity, you must defend it at any cost.

            Ancient texts are admissible, there you go making things up again – said nothing of the ancient document per se, the reference was to witnesses making conflicting statements.

          • entech says:

            Hendrick, You presume too much. I “the freethinker” assume nothing I am going by your words interpreting the words of the four differing texts.

            ps. why do things like atheist, freethinker need scare quotes around them, when will you learn your presidents name and the political party to which he belongs.

          • Henry says:

            endwreck: “No resurrection means no reason for Christianity, you must defend it at any cost.”

            Interesting you make the resurrection dependent on my work of defending. I am quite pleased to say the resurrection can stand by itself without my assistance. Your theology, whatever that may be, seems very works dependent. Good luck with that.

          • entech says:

            Hindwreck @ 2:44
            But you didn’t notice my reference to your “primary thrust” and the whole thing being crucial. No resurrection means no reason for Christianity, you must defend it at any cost.

            Interesting interpretation of my words:
            By leaving a sentence out you bend it a little towards your view.

            Your 9:03 you say the location etc. of angels is not the primary thrust of the message. From apologist lectures and debates I am lead to understand that the whole point (the primary thrust of the message) of the empty tomb is that Jesus was raised from the dead and then on with the rest.

            The essential points I get from apologists is that because Adam and Eve disobeyed God, death was introduced to the world and the whole of mankind was deemed to be sinful.
            After many trials and tribulations mankind is offered a second chance, for god so loved the world etc. as part of this chance he takes on a physical body, and as Jesus (he becomes God Incarnate) he wanders around for a few years giving lessons and accumulating disciples, he then sacrifices himself. The death of Jesus on the cross is a blood sacrifice offered in atonement for the sins of Adam and Eve, and by extension the sins of rest of mankind, sinners for simply being the descendents of Adam.

            Now, most Christians say that God and Jesus are one and the same and if you add the Holy Ghost you get three entities in one being, Jesus was not created, always part of an eternal trinity, to come to earth he had to take on human form and at the same time remain a part of the Godhead, fully human and at the same time fully divine.

            Back to the sacrifice, in itself crucifixion is not much people were crucified all the time, but this had to be special because it was God dying for mankind. There are two aspects to this, as God is eternal he cannot by definition die, he has to show that this apparent death was only temporary. But, as he was also starting a new religion, a new way of worshiping him, as well as dying on the cross it was necessary for the new movement to have its own covenant. For some reason a covenant requires the shedding of blood, this was done on the cross.

            An essential part of the new movement had to be that Jesus did not just disappear and leave his followers to it, that scenario has appeared and disappeared many times, without a messiah a messianic movement has no reason to exist. So Jesus had to come back to life. The primary thrust of the message to be taken from the story of the empty tomb, is that God is risen and if you can believe that then you will be forgiven everything and come to live in heaven in a relationship God. Otherwise eternal separation you choose not to accept, then you choose to remain separate. There are many versions of what this entails to some, of a more sadistic frame of mind this means eternal agony, to others separation from god is sufficient punishment and this aloneness is in itself hell.
            So it is essential to the new Jesus movement that it is shown that he has not deserted them, that future generations can say “I know that my redeemer liveth”.

            In brief mankind is tainted by original sin, Jesus died to atone for that sin, Jesus rose from the dead demonstrating to his disciples that he was actually God. Given this the Jesus movement could develop into a fully fledged religion called Christianity. Given these requirements I say that, “you must defend it at any cost”, id est, no resurrection no Christianity. The reality of belief and faith is independent of your defense or my denial.

            My error was the comma instead of a period. To paraphrase (pointless I know you always reject what you don’t like), I think that the resurrection is an essential part of the Jesus story, no resurrected Christ no Christianity. Now if this is true and this adequately sums up this aspect of your belief then, “you must defend it at any cost”.

            Your works based theology actually came a long time after, grace, belief, good works – whatever else are not relevant to the empty tomb. Remember that the “kingdom of God” was imminent for the early church, the interpretations of the gospels came long after, good works or good grace was not an issue – the end is nigh, any day now, repent and believe.

          • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

            entech 8:16 A very good summary of the faith. To me, the necessity for the ressurection makes it all the more imparative the “events” be recorded accurately. When there are different versions, it makes magical made-up story all then more difficult to sell. No matter how fanciful, it must be defended no matter the evidence.

          • Henry says:

            Jon: “To me, the necessity for the ressurection makes it all the more imparative the “events” be recorded accurately.”

            1. I haven’t seen anything presented from the “freethinkers” that would point to inaccuracies.
            2. From a “freethinker” perspective, it appears the validity of the resurrection is dependent on the actions taken by man. (i.e. recorded accurately). That is a losing theology every time.

          • entech says:

            Bondage of the Mind: How Old Testament Fundamentalism Shackles the Mind and Enslaves the Spirit by R. D. Gold.
            This is a highly recommended book, being praised by atheists, Christian apologists and Rabbis
            .
            OK proselytising over back to the blog

            Definition of THEOLOGY
            1. : the study of religious faith, practice, and experience; especially : the study of God and of God’s relation to the world
            2a : a theological theory or system
            2b : a distinctive body of theological opinion
            3. : a usually 4-year course of specialized religious training in a Roman Catholic major seminary
            Merriam-Webster

            @2:44 and 5:22 You use theology to describe things either Jon or myself have said, is your thinking being clear at the moment, surely you meant atheology.

            By your lack of contradiction I am assuming you accept my ” adequately sums up this aspect of your belief” @ 8:16.
            I note that you are actually responding to Jon, but as I was part of the thread. I assume I am permitted to contribute; rotten freethinkers always making assumptions.

            @ 5:52
            1. I haven’t seen anything … A sure sign of the bound mind, bondage and blinkered vision seem to go together to such an extent that you would fail to recognise an inaccuracy it if jumped up and bit you on the elbow.

            2. … validity of the resurrection is dependent on the actions taken by man … Not at all the validity or otherwise of the resurrection or any other hypothesis does not rely on the perspective of the observer. That it happened or not is an event that does not depend on perspectives, the accuracy of supposed witnesses or any “theology” that requires it to have happened, or even anti anti-theology that requires that it never happened.
            It is either a historical fact or not, to say it is fact depends on books written by the group of early believers, an accurate and consistent account would tend to increase the validity: that some aspects of the events of that crucial finding of the empty tomb and the events leading up to it are not recorded elsewhere tends to validate the case against it being historical fact. Nowhere else do we hear of the hours of darkness, the rising of the dead or the lightning storms heralding one version of the opening of the tomb. The conclusion to be reached, by an unbound mind, is that none of it is true – this implies the stories written after are not true and neither is the other supposed historic event that caused “the fall”.

          • Henry says:

            That’s it? All that and no meat.

          • entech says:

            I have given you meat, potatoes and gravy, and get a pathetic little comment in return.

            My November 27, 2012 at 3:36 am shows how to handle a situation like this.

          • entech says:

            Knife and fork? perhaps some ice cream.
            What is really needed is a pack of cards to build a new house.

          • Henry says:

            endwreck: “What is really needed is a pack of cards to build a new house.”

            Your ideas of how to build a house are different than mine. You can keep looking for more cards.

          • entech says:

            House of cards is also an expression which dates back to 1645 meaning; a structure or argument built on a shaky foundation or one that will collapse if a necessary (but possibly overlooked or unappreciated) element is removed.
            Wikipedia

            Definition of HOUSE OF CARDS
            : a structure, situation, or institution that is insubstantial, shaky, or in constant danger of collapse
            First Known Use of HOUSE OF CARDS 1645
            Merriam-Webster

            Henry the literalist?
            I am sure you are a metaphorist as well.
            Your whole hypothesis is metaphor, with a lot of myth and magic added. And, undoubtedly some history as well.

          • Henry says:

            I was speaking metaphorically. Keep looking for your cards.

          • entech says:

            OK, But at least I still have all my marbles.

    • Wanna B Sure says:

      Didn’t do the research on Mark did’ja. My 3:26 and3:36 were directly related to and in context with your 2:01. The 3:06 was appropriate.

      • entech says:

        See my reply to Henry @ 3:09 instead of taking the context of the quote was used and intended as I tried to explain, you go out of your way to find a way to put me down, the bound mind would rather attack than think. It just shows how increasingly irrelevant you are becoming, and that was intended to be deliberately offensive, the difference is I am true as well as offensive you are simply spouting personal invective.

        • Wanna B Sure says:

          desperation

          • entech says:

            Glad you admit it. I would probably put it a little stronger you are more than desperate, but do not panic it is all part of the mind shedding the bindings, in time you will fully realise what is slowly becoming apparent now. What you now believe is not actually true, just relax and let the truth flow through you it is a marvelous feeling of freedom, shed the bonds that bind you to the ideas that were given to you as a child.
            I know you have devoted a huge part of your life to your church and beliefs and it is difficult after a lifetime of belief to realise you were wrong. Don’t worry about thinking you have wasted your life and your time, that is simply not true, only stupid people say things like that, your life has obviously been very fulfilled and satisfying but it is time to move on, relax and let it into your mind, lose the bondage of the mind.

          • Wanna B Sure says:

            Rambling—— and desperation. You misused Mark, and are now trying to defend it. More rambling to follow?

          • Wanna B Sure says:

            Now I see it ! You took my response of “desperation ” to mean mine. Not so!! Only an observation of yours. Silly boy you are. ‘Bout time for bed?

        • Wanna B Sure says:

          I’m glad to see you are against pedophelia. Use any Bible verse you wish to use against it if it is in context. The Mark you used isn’t in context with pedophelia. It would be a well intended misapplication, but a misapplication all the same.

          • entech says:

            Admitted that from the start, asking for help in finding one. Unfortunately you would rather lecture than help, I bet you were a terribly pedantic pedagog in your day.

          • Wanna B Sure says:

            I’m trying to help, but you resist. You do have a problem with the spiritual nature of Mark. Indeed, you have a problem with the spiritual of any kind. Bound.

        • entech says:

          OK. I surrender, no more. It is not possible to compete against the mind in bondage, not the slightest possibility of deviation from the preconceived.

          How many time is it necessary to say the Mark quote was not intended to be taken literally but as a starting point for something further, we should have been on the same team on this point.

          I surrender to the superiority of henry and wbs.

  5. Stanta says:

    Jon, this person who claims Biblical justification, did you agree and then let him continue with his crimes with a smirk ? Or did you report him to the authorities? If you didn’t report him you are as guilty as he is.

    • entech says:

      Just as a Bishop or Cardinal would be.

      • Stanta says:

        I asked Jon, Entech. Are you using the old, smear the other side technique you accuse me of…..Stalin…Moa…….Pol Pot?

        • entech says:

          Just a little trick I learned from you, spread it around, mention anything not liked – find somewhere where it is worse. No matter how far and wide you spread the shinola it is still shinola. Please note, this does not in any way, shape or form diminish the original wrongdoing, it simply means that there are two or more things that are wrong.

          My very first answer to you on this subject @ 2:11 was about covering up, Bishops and Cardinals have been involved, and as I said School Heads, Rabbis , Imams – I could have gone on with the Salvation Army, Church of England, even the state Government has hidden some of the horrors perpetrated on ‘Wards of State’. Wards of the state orphans and homeless, or children removed from unfit parents only to be placed in care of church people and secular people and male and female. The abuse has been inflicted by all of the above including females (albeit rarely sexual abuse by females), physical and mental abuse is pretty well equally inflicted by male and female.
          Stop being so defensive it happened, if it was by clergy/priests it is more dramatic, can be presented as more hypocritical by a media looking for headlines.

          If you want a private chit chat with Jon I am sure he could arrange it if he wanted and you asked. Until then this is a public forum.

      • Stanta says:

        If the clergy won’t clean house quicker, the laity may have to. Which is more then the public school system is doing.

        A whole school in the Peoples Republic of California had it’s staff cleaned out during investigations because it may have been a large percentage of the teachers involved. Been months, i wonder how many have been rescued by the union and have just had to resign without charges? After which they move to new school districts because they have no record and the original school district can only confirm that they did or did not work there. Not the reason for leaving.

        http://abcnews.go.com/US/los-angeles-school-closed-teacher-abuse-scandal/story?id=15525125

        Goodness, two years come March…..tidbits Fired but school pays $40,000 sttlement….THEN arrested. Has picture with kids…oh just read it yourself. ore teachers and staff arrested.

        http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/Timeline-Miramonte-School-Scandal-138970604.html

    • Stanta says:

      Our Bishop is trying to go proactive on this. Besides I wasn’t asking my Bishop…..I was asking Jon, why won’t he reply? Are you his spokesman?

  6. Stanta says:

    Second to last paragraph of this blog post Jon. That you have been told by priest/preacher pedophile supporters. You never felt the need to report them to authorities or their superiors? Or are making up stuff again.?

    • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

      Stanta It says I have been told the Bible does not specifically condeme sex between clery and children. It does not say I know anyone who practices it. PLEASE don’t waste my time on such stuff.

      • Henry says:

        Jon: “It says I have been told the Bible does not specifically condeme sex between clery and children.”

        I have not been able to follow the significance of what Jon is pontificating. I am also unaware of any civil law that “specifically condems sex between clergy and children.” However, civil law generally prohibits this specific case. Similarly, Biblical law generally prohibits the specific case of sex between clergy and children. What is the problem? Jon seems to be creating a problem.

    • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

      Stanta I should not have said you were wasting my time. In retropect, I can see you were in an upset frame of mind. A better thing for me to have said was to reread the post when relaxed and well rested. Carry on.

  7. Dustin White says:

    I just thought I would add my two cents here. I agree that the Bible can be used to justify nearly everything. When slavery was an issue here in the United States, both sides of the issues picked up their bibles and claimed they were speaking the word of God. Today, on the topic of homosexuality, both sides of the issue once again pick up their Bible s and declare they are spreading the Word of God. The truth is, usually both sides are just BSing. Neither actually has any idea about what the Bible says, but instead, have found a few verses, ripped them out of context, misunderstood them, and then claim they are right. You can do it with nearly any topic.

    An honest individual, regardless of religion, who has actually taken the time to study the Bible, will see that there are contradictions in the Bible. That doesn’t have to mean anything though. Instead, it should be a signal that each work should be read in its own context. Matthew is portraying a different idea than Luke is. Each should be read on their own as the perspective and message being present are different. The problem with these apologists who want to smooth out the contradictions is that are completely missing the message.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>