Of all the contradictions and inconsistencies in the Bible, few make more of a mess of things than the four accounts of the crucifixion and resurrection as given in the four gospels.

Here we have a single narrative, told by four different authors, that is so contradictory that I've never seen an explanation of it. It will be interesting to see Christians untangle this mess. For the sake of brevity, we'll just pick up the story on that first Easter Sunday:

When the sun was coming up (Matt. 28:1) while it was still dark (John 20:1), Mary Magdalene (John 20:1) or Mary Magdalene and the other Mary (Matt 28:1) or "the women" [note the plural] (Luke 24:1) went to the tomb. There was an earthquake, and an angel came down and rolled the stone away (Matt. 28:2) from the entrance of the tomb and sat on it, even though it had apparently already been rolled away when Mary Magdalene had got there (John 20:1, Mark 16:4, Luke 24:2). The reason for the visit was to anoint the body with spices (Mark 16:1, Luke 24:1) or just to look at the tomb (Matt. 28:1), take your pick.

When she or they, take your pick, arrived, she/they witnessed the earthquake and angel coming down from heaven (Matt. 28:1), or they walked into the tomb to discover a young man dressed in white sitting on the right (Mark 16:5) or two men in bright shining clothes (Luke 24:4), take your pick.

At this point, John says that Mary had run back to fetch Peter and another disciple. The other gospel writers make no mention of Mary taking leave of the tomb to go back and get any of the men at this point.

If/when she/they returned, the angel (Mark 15:6) or the angels (Luke 24:5) is/are quoted by the gospel writers as having said one of three things. Either "He is not here, he is raised, just as he said." (Matt. 28:6) or "He is not here, he has been raised." (Mark 15:6, Luke 24:6) or "Woman, why are you crying?" (John 20:13).

So the woman or women ran from the tomb to tell the disciples (Matt. 28:8) or they left, too terrified to say anything to anyone (Mark 16:8), take your pick.

Mary Magdalene saw Jesus appear to her and decided he'd been resurrected (John 20:14-18). Or the women, having left the tomb and thinking things over, were sure that Jesus' body had been stolen, so they tried to bribe the soldiers guarding the tomb to tell them where the body had been taken (Matt. 28:11-15).

I'm sorry, but at this point, the stories diverge so completely, it is not possible to correlate them any further. But that's OK, because by now, you get the point. There are just too many glaring inconsistencies here, most of which are mutually exclusive without some really implausible apologetics. So much so that it’s ludicrous to claim that the four accounts are all true. As you've seen, they can't possibly be.

If you want to get a real sense of the inconsistencies in the narrative of the four gospels, start with the trial of Jesus, and compare the accounts in the gospels side by side, reading the account of each incident in the narrative in each gospel before going on to the next incident in the narrative. It will quickly become obvious just how inconsistent the Bible really is.

As you do this, you'll come to realize just how imperfect this supposedly perfect document has to be.

-- Eric Rodriguez (atheistforlife2003@yahoo.com), June 30, 2003

Answers

Hi Eric, it is very simple really. You have four different human beings with four different perspectives describing the most monumental event in human history. They naturally remembered what was most prominent to them.

When you watch the news each news media outlet has a different angle, don't they? You can watch CNN and get one perspective, then watch NBC and get another, then flip on FOX and get something completely different. They are not contradictory but COMPLEMENTARY!

It would be highly suspect if all four gospels were identical!

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), June 30, 2003.

Hi Eric.

One event ultimately has many meanings and teachings. The Bible is universal. Mark had his inspiration as so did Matthew, Luke, and John, to name a few. It is also like the many camera angles of a movie; just because it was recorded differently doesn't mean it didn't happen. It was simply recorded from a different angle.

I love your last name. Now, where have I heard that name before?

rod... .

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), June 30, 2003.

Hi Gail and Eric.

I think that Gail and I said basically the same thing. But, then again we didn't exactly say the same thing. The same meaning could be extracted from both of our replies or we could find different meanings. As Gail mentions, all of the writings would compliment each other.

rod... .

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), June 30, 2003.

Jmj

Hello, Eric.
I am not going to take your ill-intentioned bait. Even if I had reason to believe that you are sincere, I wouldn't take the time to explain the "problems" you mentioned, because I don't believe in "reinventing the wheel." If you go to www.google.com and enter a search on ...
Bible contradictions
you will find sites in which your "problems" are explained.
Yes, you will also find sites listing other alleged contradictions, but they are have explanations. For some reason, you didn't stop to think about the fact that, for 2000 years, the New Testament has not been abandoned as full of errors, despite the "problems" you think it contains. The reasons is that there really are no problems.

To Catholics like us, your e-mail address -- "atheistforlife" -- is a source of sadness. But it provides a teaching moment. You see, you may be an "atheist for [the rest of your] life," but the moment you die, you will no longer be an atheist, because your soul will be quaking in the presence of almighty God. (Best to get your soul ready for that, starting today.)

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), June 30, 2003.

So Eric,

If several different observers disagreed on the color of the planes that hit the Word Trade Center, their size and make, the airlines they belonged to, the direction from which they approached, their relative speeds, the number of people aboard, the prevailing wind direction, relative humidity and temperature at the time, and the exact floor they hit - would these discrepancies render the event insignificant? or imaginary?

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), June 30, 2003.

your e-mail address -- "atheistforlife" -- is a source of sadness

Really? I though it was very hopeful. Don't the "Atheists for Life" participate in the annual March for Life in Washington?

(I'm serious here.)

-- Catherine Ann (catfishbird@yahoo.ca), June 30, 2003.

What about the March for Life in Heaven? I believe that's the main issue. rod.

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), June 30, 2003.

Yes. "Atheists for Life" do participate in the march. You don't have to know God to recognize that Human life is to be held sacred. This truth is dictated by the Natural Law, which resides in the heart of every human being.

However, I didn't take the above email address as a reference to a Pro-Life position, but rather as a final, fatalistic stance.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), July 01, 2003.

Yes, so did I, Paul.

Catherine Ann, I hope that Paul and I are mistaken and that Eric uses his e-mail address to call himself a pro-lifer!
JFG

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), July 01, 2003.

Inherent Flaws:

1. The fundamental truth of the Bible is that God is One. Any teaching that in any way appears to deviate from or undermime this profound truth must be very firmly substantiated. The doctrine of the Trinity pretends to be such a teaching, yet it is entirely absent from the entire Old Testament. This doesn't make sense.

2. Mortality and Immortality are mutually exclusive characteristics. If Jesus is God, he couldn't have really died, for God is immortal by nature. Likewise, if Jesus died, he couldn't really be God, for God cannot die. Immortality is not a fluctuating quality! A being is either mortal or immortal. You can't have it both ways with this. Either Christ died, and he is mortal, or he's God and can't die. Pick one alternative, as holding both is simply untenable. Traditional Christians typically respond to this point with the idea stated above in the introduction, that Jesus was fully human and fully God. But look at the next point.

3. For the temptations of Christ to have been in any way real, there had to exist the possibility that he sin. If Christ is God, it is impossible that he could have sinned, for God is perfect by nature. Jesus pointed this out in Mt 19:17, marking the distinction between himself and God (only ONE is good...).
   If Christ was God, and therefore couldn't sin, all his 'temptations' were faked, and his identification with mankind a cruel sham! And for those affirming the 100%/100% idea, do you really see God locking Himself into a nature that could potentially sin? Finally, James explicitly states that God cannot be tempted by evil (1:13-15).

4. Another point: God is all-knowing, Jesus learned (Luke 2:40, 52) during his life, which implicitly means acquiring knowledge or wisdom not previously possessed. In fact, there were some things Jesus never knew until after his resurrection - like the date of his return (Mrk 13:32). Traditional Christian thought (see above) has it that he never ceased to be God, so how did he learn? Did he just 'forget' for a while, while on earth? Did he later "remember" that he was omniscient? Again, omniscience and humanity are mutually exclusive characteristics. And if you are omniscient, you can't shed that quality temporarily.

5. God is undeniably all-powerful, while Jesus always acknowledged that his power was received from God, not inherently his own (ie. Jn. 7:16, 8:28, 12:49- 50, 14:28). He said this about his teaching as well, in many places. Why would he say this if he and God were the one and same? In addition, when the disciples requested to sit at his right hand and at his left, he said that this was not his to give, but the Fathers' to decide (Mtt. 20:23). The usual response to this is that the different persons of God have different domains of authority; but there you would venture out onto thin ice indeed, as it is very difficult to be One, yet have multiple and distinct personhoods, with distinct levels of authority.

6. God is by nature invisible and never seen (Jn. 1:18, I Tim. 6:16, I Jn. 4:12); Jesus was of course seen. To say that God was never seen, and then to continue that Jesus is God just doesn't make sense. The idea that Jesus is God isn't a mistery or some profound biblical truth too deep to understand - it just doesn't make sense.

7. In the Bible, God = the Father, and no other. See Rom. 1:7, Col.3:17, I Thes. 1:1, II Tim 1:2 and many more (for example, the introductory words of almost all Paul's letters). The appelations "the Father" and "Jesus" are never used interchangeably in the Bible.

8. In Mtt. 28:10 Jesus speaks of his followers as "brethren". Are we children of God, or brethren of God? We can't be both. It again follows from this simple description of our relationships to them that Jesus and God occupy very distinct stations. And in fact, how can a Father and Son be the one and same? Again, to affirm so isn't a mistery, it's nonsense.

9. In Mtt. 3:17 God says: This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased" in a voice from heaven as Jesus rose from the waters of baptism - What is the value of God indicating his pleasure in Christ, if Christ was God himself? And what had Christ supposedly achieved here, if he was God and it was impossible for him by nature to sin or do wrong?

10. I Cor 11:3 and 15:8. Here are two more instances (post resurrection!) where Christ is clearly not equal with God.

11. And the clincher: in John 8:17-18 Jesus quotes from the law the necessity that evidence, to be valid, must be agreed upon by two witnesses. Jesus states that the two witnesses are himself and God. Two, not one. If Jesus were God, there was only one witness, and if Jesus says there are two, then he and God are not one.

12. In Ephesians 5:2, Christ is described as a "fragrant offering and sacrifice to God". This does not make sense if they are the one and same person. And in fact, if Christ is God, could you really conceive as the all-powerful God, the only creator of the universe, supreme in glory and majesty, as a 'sacrifice'? Here is where we Christadelphians really have a problem with the supposed doctrine that Jesus is God: it's a nice idea that God gave himself as a sacrifice for us; but the all-powerful God of the universe as a pitiful sacrifice for me, a human sinner? Somehow we just don't see it. However, the vision of Jesus as a perfect man, the most loved son of God, overcoming the inherent weaknesses of the flesh by prayer and determination: there is an image that makes sense.

-- Eric Rodriguez (atheistforlife2003@yahoo.com), July 14, 2003.

“The doctrine of the Trinity pretends to be such a teaching, yet it is entirely absent from the entire Old Testament.”

Genesis 1: 26 Then God said, Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground. 27 So God created man in his own image,in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them

I won’t pick apart all your statements, but this one was particularly erroneous.

1) If God was NOT a triune God (meaning ONE God, but Three distinct persons. That is Three persons ONE in being), then Genesis would have been worded, “Let ME make man in MY image. But instead it is plural, “ let US make man in OUR image”.

And 2) If man is made in the image of God, and “man “was made male AND female, then explain to us how TWO humans produce the image of God.

Contrary to what you are trying to convey, man and woman, and the bond between them which is love (a life giving love), were produced in the image of God. God is Father, Son, and the bond between them which is Love (the Holy Spirit). So you see, three entities, male female and the child/life giving love between them were made in the image of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit!

Eric,

While reading the Bible you must remember that it isn't simpy a book composed by one writer. The Bible is a compilation of several writers, who's author was the Holy Spirt, over a period of 2500 years. It is the written Word of God. So to think that you can just scan certain passages and believe that they are contradictory is foolish on several fronts.

I would suggest praying first, but read the entire Bible through without making any observations on the micro. It is a macro type of work. That is, you won't get much out of nit picking clipped texts. You must read the entire work and wrap it all up in your mind. But even then, without including it's author (our God) it will be difficult.

-- Jake Huether (jake_huether@yahoo.com), July 14, 2003.

Jmj

Hello, Jake H.
Glad to see that you paid us a visit and helped Eric with a couple of his items. You inspired me to respond to some other things he mentioned ...

Hello, Eric. Since you call yourself an "atheist," I found it surprising that you plagiarized that list of objections from a Christadelphians' page, because those folks are not atheists. They are just non-Trinitarians.

Eric, I'll put an "E:" before your words and a "J:" before mine.

E: Mortality and Immortality are mutually exclusive characteristics.
J: No, they are not. Though we have a mortal body, we have an immortal soul. Moreover, our mortal bodies will be raised at the end of time -- reunited with our souls.

E: If Jesus is God, he couldn't have really died, for God is immortal by nature. Likewise, if Jesus died, he couldn't really be God, for God cannot die.
J: When Jesus (before his conception) had just a divine nature, "he couldn't have really died, for God is immortal by anture" (as you said). But he took on a human nature, making it possible to die (though without surrendering his divine nature).

E: A being is either mortal or immortal. You can't have it both ways with this. Either Christ died, and he is mortal, or he's God and can't die. Pick one alternative, as holding both is simply untenable.
J: No one has to "[p]ick one alternative" if he trusts in God's revelation, which tells us that it is not "simply untenable" to believe that Jesus is both God and man. Only a materialist who is unfamiliar with revelation is deceived into believing that he must "Pick one alternative."

E: For the temptations of Christ to have been in any way real, there had to exist the possibility that he sin.
J: Actually, "[f]or the temptations of Christ to have been in any way real," there had to exist (1) a man with real appetites and (2) a tempter who did not know that the man was also divine and thus incapable of giving in to a temptation.

E: If Christ was God, and therefore couldn't sin, all his temptations' were faked, and his identification with mankind a cruel sham!
J: No. He felt the temptations, but he resisted them -- showing us how to do the same.
If he could not have felt the temptations, then you might have a case for the "sham" idea, but he felt them all right. Remember how he sweat blood in the Garden of Gethsemane and expressed his human "will" that he not have to suffer -- so terrible was the idea of the pain, so enticing was the temptation to flee from it.

E: And for those affirming the 100%/100% idea, do you really see God locking Himself into a nature that could potentially sin?
J: A "nature" cannot sin. Only a "person" can sin -- if that person is not divine, but human or angelic.

E: Finally, James explicitly states that God cannot be tempted by evil (1:13-15).
J: Correct. Prior to his conception, Jesus (God the Son in heaven) could not be tempted. But as man, he could be tempted.

E: God is all-knowing, [but] Jesus learned (Luke 2:40, 52) during his life, which implicitly means acquiring knowledge or wisdom not previously possessed.
J: In his divinity, Jesus always knew everything. Through his human nature (e.g., his senses), he was capable of experiencing and learning things -- including things he already knew in his divinity.

E: In fact, there were some things Jesus never knew until after his resurrection - like the date of his return (Mark 13:32).
J: Again, he knew it in his divine nature, but not through his human nature.

E: God is by nature invisible and never seen ... Jesus was of course seen. ... The idea that Jesus is God isn't a mistery or some profound biblical truth too deep to understand -- it just doesn't make sense.
J: If one is a Cristadelphian heretic, not much makes sense. But once a person understands the "hypostatic union" of the two natures of Jesus, everything makes sense. The First and Third Persons of the Trinity, the Father and Holy Spirit do not have a human nature, so they are invisible (as Jesus was before being conceived as a man).

E: In the Bible, God = the Father, and no other.
J: This is not correct. St. Thomas cried out to Jesus: "My Lord and my God!" There is plenty of evidence of Jesus's divinity as well.

E: The appelations "the Father" and "Jesus" are never used interchangeably in the Bible.
J: Why should they be, since they are two distinct Persons of the divine Trinity.

E: In Mtt. 28:10 Jesus speaks of his followers as "brethren". Are we children of God, or brethren of God? We can't be both.
J: Sure we can. We are adopted children of God the Father ... and brothers of God the Son (Jesus).

E: And in fact, how can a Father and Son be the one and same? Again, to affirm so isn't a mistery, it's nonsense.
J: But we don't affirm that. The Father and the Son are "one" in being ("consubstantial"), but not "same" in Person. They are distinct Persons.

E: And the clincher: in John 8:17-18 Jesus quotes from the law the necessity that evidence, to be valid, must be agreed upon by two witnesses. Jesus states that the two witnesses are himself and God. Two, not one. If Jesus were God, there was only one witness, and if Jesus says there are two, then he and God are not one.
J: This is definitely no "clincher." The objection is based on false quotation. John 8:17-18 refers to the "Father," not to "God," as follows: "In your law it is written that the testimony of two men is true; I bear witness to myself, and the Father who sent me bears witness to me."
As I have already stated, Jesus and his Father are two Persons of the divine Trinity. They are neither two gods nor the same person of the one God.

E: ... it's a nice idea that God gave himself as a sacrifice for us; but the all-powerful God of the universe as a pitiful sacrifice for me, a human sinner? Somehow we just don't see it.
J: True. The author lacks faith. He lacks a reliable, authoritative teaching Church.

E: However, the vision of Jesus as a perfect man, the most loved son of God, overcoming the inherent weaknesses of the flesh by prayer and determination: there is an image that makes sense.
J: It's a mistake to think that everything has to "make sense" to us limited humans. There really are such things as "theological mysteries" -- truths that don't contradict reason, but are beyond the ability of reason to fully understand -- but believed because they have been revealed by God and taught to us by his Church.

E: 5. God ... 9. In Matthew 3 ... 10. I Cor ... 12. In Ephesians ...
J: The responses to #5 and #9 and #10 and #12 should be obvious by now. If not, feel free to say so.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), July 14, 2003.

Excellent reply to Eric, John; Jake as well. He posed good objections, which deserve answers. Not everybody can answer them as quickly as you have.

One point only I wish to make for Eric. If he sincerely seeks truth, he'll mke a good start here.

Eric; it has to be confessed beforehand that almost everything we know about our Creator has been revealed to us by Himself, and it wouldn't matter how intelligent or philosophical one were, there is NO way to truly know Him. Unless He shows Himself to us, we can't understand Him or know anything about Him.

This is the main reason that heathens and pagans console their spiritual desire, the thirst for God, by creating myths and traditions from the primeval past. No one has truly seen God; so they try to rationalize His inevitable existence. Because nature and the heavens are silent witnesses to Him. He MUST exist! The heathen feels this truth in his heart, but he can't see who God is.

However, He revealed Himself to His people as the Bible records. We know Him as He is, not from our own discoveries, or searches. No one knew the real God until He spoke to men. In the Old Testament we see that He revealed His divinity and His infinite perfection to prophets whom He Himself raised up. He called certain chosen men. And in the last revelations He gave us the complete truth about Himself through Jesus Christ. What Jesus revealed, no man in history could have invented or mythologized.

You can't invent the Holy Trinity One God.. It's hidden from Creation unless He wishes Himself known. And, in His Son Jesus He did it. He made Himself understood to the Church. That is the ONLY reason we believe, Eric.

He has told us through His divine Son and the Church He founded on the apostles. Who would ever have dared make up such an unreasonable image of the Creator? Certainly not Socrates, or the greatest thinkers to that time. They never knew Him, because he didn't speak to them.

But the holy apostles went forth into the world, blithely saying: ''Here is God. The Father and His Son Jesus Christ who is risen from the dead, and the Holy Spirit who dwells in His Church. One God. Not three Gods; One; and having three distinct Persons with One eternal existence. We know it for the truth because Jesus has revealed it. He who can neither deceive nor be deceived. Christ is the one who says it; it is therefore true.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), July 14, 2003.

Jmj
Thanks for the compliment, Gene. Let me pay you one in return. In recent weeks, on other threads, you and Paul have been doing the "yeoman's share" of this kind of work (replying to litanies of objections from fundies, etc.). I haven't been able to contribute much, due to limited free time. But today, I had a chance to help out more than usual.
JFG

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), July 14, 2003.

Eric, go to http://www.thebereancall.org/radio/2002.htm and download Article # 0212a. It explains very well why "Matthew, Mark, Luke and John get their stories straight".

-- Mike (blank@none.com), July 18, 2003.

Mike, What denomination is that from? God bless,

-- john placette (jplacette@catholic.org), July 18, 2003.

I don't know what denomination that is, I don't think it has a denomination.

-- Mike (blank@none.com), July 18, 2003.

Hello, John P.

I just wanted to let you know that (non-Catholic) Mike is trying to send Eric to "The Berean Call," which is an electronic publication of one of America's worst Fundamentalist, anti-catholic bigots -- a fellow named Dave Hunt.

Any doubt about my characterization of D. Hunt will be dispelled by a visit to this "Berean Call" page, wherein Catholicism is rejected as a "cult."

[Mike, you ought to be ashamed of yourself, coming to a Catholic forum to do this kind of thing.]
God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), July 19, 2003.

I find it really unsettling in discussions like this that no one has obviously learnt about the new testament and why and who it was written by. I have studied the bible and the stories i have compared them and the writers and its amazing what you discover. It would take many days to go into detail but the simple examples about why the bible is different is because the writers are different. Matthew was jewish, intent on portraying jesus as moses or the new moses, in matthew he often speaks on rocky mountains or cliffs parraleling it with moses on the mountains recieving the ten commandments. He lengthens the beatitudes so that there are ten teachings also to echo the ten commandments/moses idea. In matthews infancy narrative it includes joseph dreaming, killing of children, flight to egypt and resettlement which again echos the exodus event. Because matthew was writing in antioch, syria for a majorly gentile community and at the time he was writing the gentiles were kicked out of the temples in jerusalem by the jews, he made the wise men from the east (gentiles) be the first to recognize jesus as the messiah and not the jews. In lukes infancy narrative mary is told she is pregnant by the angel gabriel which would have been a familiar name to the people of his time as in the hebrew scriptures Daniel 9:20-27 the angel gabriel appears and tells of the coming of the messiah. I wont go on but every line in the bible is filled with such hidden meaning and message. If anyone wants to know more you may just email me thanks

-- alice (asuka086@hotmail.com), October 08, 2003.

for God's sakes child, get yourself to a church and to a theology class.

first, Jesus is spelled with a capitol J and God with a big G. simple matter of respect.

Second, there are more than enough Bible scholars here whos studies go back to the basics of subtle nuances and meanings of the greek and aramaic that the original scriptures were written in. You presume too much.

Finally, you arent right. The four gospels were NOT written by the people for whom they are named. Therefore, your little piece about the scriptures being corrupted by the desires of men to satisfy their own image is moot. The four names of the gospels are picked after TWO DISCIPLES, and TWO APOSTLES (who never met Jesus). therefore we know that the Gospels were not written by their namesakes as first witness testimony. Second, we know when the gospels were written... within the 50 - 150 years following Jesus' ascension, meaning it was far out of the lifespan of the Disciples you CLAIM wrote the gospels.

I suggest, while you look at your nuances, you learn from a more reliable source than your rack and stack protestant youth minister promoting their own beliefs in the same way you think inspired scriptures are attempting.

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), October 08, 2003.

"The four gospels were NOT written by the people for whom they are named.... The four names of the gospels are picked after TWO DISCIPLES, and TWO APOSTLES (who never met Jesus). therefore we know that the Gospels were not written by their namesakes as first witness testimony. Second, we know when the gospels were written... within the 50 - 150 years following Jesus' ascension, meaning it was far out of the lifespan of the Disciples you CLAIM wrote the gospels."

Really? I didn't know that, and I bet a lot of people don't either..... I knew that the accounts were written later, but thought that they were like written 30 years later, when these people might still have been around.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), October 08, 2003.

I do know when the gospels were written and that they were not written by the actual apostles or diciples everyone knows that. When i say matthew i mean the people who wrote matthew, that they were jewish etc. I also dont think it appropriate that you seek to criticize me through my puncuation and spelling errors. I was trying to put across a truthful message about the bible and its meanings. I also dont like your assumption that because i have a different perspective on the bible that i have little faith, i am a very devoted catholic and i strongly believe in the messages of the bible.

Knowing what i have been taught about the realities under the gospels i think my faith has actually improved as i can appreciate that jesus was human and divine but always human first. All the gospel accounts of jesus even thomas and the Q documents all express that he was a great human who had an ability to draw crowds and help people. That is the jesus that i feel everyone needs to get back to a jesus that is alike a great Gandhi, Aung San Suu Kyi or martin luther king An extraordinary human who lived a human life but who was god.

-- alice (asuka086@hotmail.com), October 09, 2003.

Jesus can not be equated with anyone because Jesus is the King of Kings. Every human that has ever existed or will exist will fall miserably short in comparison.

If anything, we should criticize the english language. It is querky! Here is an example:

I read the book. Well, do I or did I read the book?

"slow"..."plow"...

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), October 09, 2003.

Jesus was not the equal of Gandhi or Martin Luther King. He was their Creator, Lord, Master, and Savior. Neither was Jesus "an extraordinary human who lived a human life but who was god." Rather, He was a divine Person, God from all eternity, who freely took on an additional human nature. After doing so, He was never "human first" or "divine first", but was always and at every moment FULLY human, and FULLY divine. If what you "have been taught about the realities under the gospels" has led you into such heretical beliefs, then I strongly suggest you find yourself a new teacher; and, if you sincerely desire to know the truth, that teacher needs to be the Holy Catholic Church, which the Word of God defines as "the pillar and foundation of truth".

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), October 09, 2003.

"God's love for man has made the Son leave His Father to offer Himself for mankind by means of the sacrifice of the Holy Cross, thus joining man to God."

I am Love and Mercy Itself: Our Lord's Message to Blessed Faustina
Prof. Dr. Bruno Rychlowski, S.D.B.

Would it be safe to include John 3:16 in regards to "...whosoever believes in Him..."?

rod...

..

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), October 09, 2003.

I am not saying in any way that the bible is wrong, that gods words are not truthful because they are. I am just trying to express that there are different genres of writing for example poetry, creation stories, infancy narratives, biographies etc each use different ways to portray a message and they are all in the bible. Im not seeking to prove anything wrong. I was not the one who named this topic "bible contradictions"

On another note i am interested to see what people thought about my original message about the different portrayals of jesus in the bible. I also want to hear about other peoples interpretations of how jesus has been portrayed.

-- alice (asuka086@hotmail.com), October 10, 2003.

Hi alice.

If you start learning about the different ways Jesus has been portrayed, you are going to find inspired portraits and false portraits of Jesus. May I point out your previous post about Jesus being equal to famous people? That portrait of Jesus would be wrong. I guess we could say that those people may have had some similarities to Jesus (in some way). But, Jesus can never be "equal" to anyone.

I imagine that there are thousands upon thousands of interpretations out there regarding Jesus. Some are reasonable interpretations while others are down right crazy. Some think that Jesus was just a man. Others think that Jesus was just a man who found a "knowledge" that each of us can have. Some think that we too can be or exceed what Jesus "was". All that is a bunch of baloney! I guess what I'm trying to say is that your quest for interpretations may actually lead you farther away from the truth in Jesus/God. So, you should use extreme caution with your encounters of interpretation.

I must concede that the Catholic belief is the most accurate when learning about Jesus. Any true Catholic will fill you in on why my statement is more than correct. I would highly recommend that you spend more time asking about Jesus in this forum. People like John, Paul M, paul, and Eugene, to name a few, are the ones I've counted on for hard truthful answers and teachings. Of course, it is up to you to decide to believe or not to believe.

rod

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), October 10, 2003.