bible is full of contradictions

I don't know if anyone else is curious about the whole Adam and Eve thing. I haven't really looked too hard. But I thought I'd just ask.
So after God threw Adam and Eve out of the Garden of Eden, they had kids right? But how did their Adam and Eve's kids have kids without having incestual relationships? Or was incest just written down as "wrong" later on in the Bible? Even if their offspring wasn't like mutated or screwed up in some way, incest is incest even if for the sake of populating the Earth, isn't it? Sorry if somebody has already answered this question, I'll look around. And I don't mean to offend anybody.. I'm just curious how it happened. Thanks.

 

I'll try and make it quick. Incest is against God's law for our protection. This can be easily evidenced. However, when there is little room for danger, then is it necessary to have a law? Of course not. Adam and Eve were genetically perfect. Their children, albeit after the fall, would have, for lack of a better word, "near-perfect." As such, there would be no danger of genetic mutation with incestuous relationships. When the law was written, however, the danger had become significant (lol, probably from previous incestuous relationships). As such, a law then became necessary to protect us. A good corellary would be seatbelt laws in the US. When the automobile first came on the scene, they were not necessary due to slow speeds. Eventually they became standard, and as speed limits increased and fatalities mounted, many states added the law which required seatbelts to protect us from ourselves.

 

So when God hooked up with Mary (his own creation) it wasn't bad? I bet Mary liked it.

 

Riiiiiiight.

God didn't "hook up" with Mary. In fact, I think she got a bum deal. The pain of childbirth without the ecstasy of creating the child. That would suck.

 

Are you sure about that?

 

Scripture records that the Spirit overshadowed Mary. There was no physical exchange of bodily fluids and no "holy sperm." There was no physical union (as that would definitely constitute intercourse which would remove her status as a virgin). There is no record of it in scripture (or anywhere else), so to assume that there was actual copulation is to make an ungrounded assumption.

 

Thanks for clearing that up for me! ^_^

 

IF ~ the bible was 'inspired by god', how is it that the Roman Emperor Constantine chose what went into it?
The circular argument is that Constantine was divinely inspired, but if he really was, why is he not reverred in the same way as other 'christians' divinely inspired? Given the great importance of the occassion ~ the assembling of books into the Bible, one wonders why christianity all but buries Constantine's contribution. Is it that christians preferr the truth not be known?

 

I wasn't saying that I thought it was a purely physical sexual encounter. You would think that if God makes human conception pleasurable, it would be far more pleasurable to concieve with your maker.

 

i think a lot of people fight that concept just because they still hold that ridiculous notion that sexual pleasure is "bad." i figure mary musta been feeling pretty damned good when she was impregnated. enraptured, one might say.

 

Can you please point to the historical documentation that shows how and when, specifically, Constantine dictated the contents of the canon of scripture?

Conception (the joining of an egg and sperm) is not pleasurable. There is no sensation whatsoever. Now, there might have been some emotional elation at being chosen by God, even being enraptured, but there was no physical pleasure to go along with it (which seemed to be what you were implying). Please forgive me if I have misunderstood.

 

It's not your fault, I just worded it wrong.

Emotional elation or being enraptured would hopefully be a strong enough experience to spill over into the physical world. Public rapture of a hot chick would be funny (and awesome) when she got all uncontrollably orgasmic and moany. Although I don't think I would like to see the majority of human bodies in rapture. Ewwwwwhhhhh.... flesh life is soooo gross and GUI..

Ewwie gooey, ewwie gooey...

Back to the point, if I am raptured, I want it to be so hard core that I am all worn out when I come back down to physical existence and I can be like "Wow.. WTF.. Damn... Whooaa..", and be all relaxed, blissed out and laughing about my fleshly body that I reside within in between raptures while adding to my imaginations arsenal of love.

 

I certainly can. I'll paste a search link below.
But first I should make it clear that only those who seek find.
Second ~ I take exception to you using the word "dictate" in place of the actual word that I used "chose." I think the difference in meaning is clear and obvious. Unless of course you wish to manipulate the truth.

Ask and it shall be given seek and ye shall find, knock and the door will be opened unto thee..........
This is more than a statement of fact, it is a decription of reality. Anyone who meekly accepts what they are told without question will be led astray, one way or another. So if you are not actively seeking the truth, you will not find it (because you accept whatever you want to accept or are told).
That being said, I ask that you question whether or not you are seeking the truth by asking for reference, or are you seeking to defend a stance that you have taken and wish to preserve or defend at all cost (even at the cost of truth)?

One book of great importance in this regard is "Who Wrote the New Testament?" by Burton L Mack (Harper Collins).
Whether you are truly seeking or not will determine if you choose to read it or not.
This link answers your question of specifics regarding the books of the bible as well as origins of christian doctrine
http://www.thegreatestpuzzle.com/325j1.htm
In 325, Constantine the Great convened the council of Nicea..................
How many Gospels had to be scrutinized at the Council of Nicea? Some sources say 270 and others say there were as many as 4,000. If you have a reliable source of information regarding the number of gospels present at the council of Nicea, or any other relevant information, please contact us.
"...a year after the Council of Nicea, he (Constantine) sanctioned the confiscation and destruction of all works that challenged orthodox teachings

Google search new testament constantine = http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=constantine+new+testament&meta

 

That is a good point, maybe it was. The other suggestive biblical hints that Jesus was married do not necessarily mean that that particular wedding was His.

1. Mother Mary takes charge of supplying the wine when it ran out, an odd thing for a guest to do, when tradition is that the groom's family does so.
2. The couple who are married at Canaa, are curiously anonymous. Why?
3. Jesus supplies the wine, and the mc praises the groom, thereby supporting the traditional responsibility is the groom's family.
John 2:11 states that this is the 1st miracle, reveals Jesus' glory, and the disciples believed in Him.
4. Nowhere in the NT does it mention Jesus' marital status, one way or the other..........why? A valid question, I feel.
5. Three, not one or two, three times He is called Rabbi, a title which has as a firm prerequisite that the man be wedded.
6. So.....if He is not wedded, why does no one notice the obvious and comment on the contradiction?
7. Jesus preached that marriage is good, and divorce is bad. In this case, we are asked to believe that He did not take His own advice,
on top of the half dozen previous suggestive points. I look at Him as a do as I do, not do as I say kind of teacher, how do you see Him?
8. At the empty tomb, who would you predict would arrive at the tomb first that morning? Those who were closest to Him would.
KJAV Luke 24:10 "It was Mary Magdalene, and Joanna, and Mary the mother of James........."
John 1:29 "Behold the lamb of God" This is John the Baptist being quoted, and the lamb of God that John the Baptist is referring to is Jesus.
Revelations 21:9, (note the similar verse numbers, considering both chapters are by John). "Come hither, I will shew thee the bride, the lamb's wife."
It is clear that Mary is very close to Him, and that John, the sole recorder of the Canaa wedding is also very close to Him.
John writes Revelations, John describes the crucifixion quite differently than the other 3 'synoptic?' gospels, (synoptic, of one eye....lol)

 

Fair enough. Can you point to the specific historical document that states that Constantine chose the contents of canon?

You made an assertion with no references to back it up. I am asking you to substantiate your claims. I am also willing and seeking to defend my stance because I believe that it is the truth. I believe it is the truth for good reasons. When my reasons are shown to be faulty and my documentation is shown to be incorrect, then I will be obligated to change my posistion. So, the answer to your question is "both." I seek truth and I seek to either defend or alter my posistion depending on the strength of your arguments and the accuracy of your documentation.

Are you serious? Both this book and at least one other that I am aware of (his book Q) make appeals not to historical documentation as actual evidence, but to imagination! "one needs to imagine...one can easily imagine..." ([Mack.Q, 201-2], and elsewhere), "a lengthy period of creative, intellectual labor," "explosion of intellectual energy," "an astonishing interpretation of the Christ myth for Macedonians to have managed by the year 50 CE," "astounding imagination," "an early achievement in Christian mythmaking," "Matthew's gospel appeared in the late 80s and comes as a complete surprise," etc., etc., ad nauseaum. [Mack.WhoNT, 80, 90, 109, 111, 154, 161] Do you want to reference a book that appeals not to evidence but to imagination as a foundational layer in your search for truth? Let's look at what historian Craig Blomberg notes regarding Mack's conclusions. He found that Mack's position requires

"...the assumption that someone, about a generation removed from the events in question, radically transformed the authentic information about Jesus that was circulating at that time, superimposed a body of material four times as large, fabricated almost entirely out of whole cloth, while the church suffered sufficient collective amnesia to accept the transformation as legitimate."

Nice site. Still, there was no historical documentation that Constantine chose the canon. In fact, when quoting the Church fathers, the site authors seemed to miss that the four Gospels and the Pauline letters were universally accepted without question as being authoritative. That is upheld in those quotes.

 

it could also be said, mary could have did this simply to have jesus perform his first miracle and start his ministry. or it could have been a relatives of jesus's wedding, like josephs children from a previous marriage.

no real reason to, the wedding at cannan was a very minor event in the NT.

again it coulda been a relatives of jesus wedding. or alternatinly the mc might not have been aware jesus turned it into wine and assumed as he says that they were keeping the best wine for last.

its unimportant to his message. and it can be assumed if he truely is divine such an act would be very similar to the paganism found in the greek world where gods frequently have sex with mortals.

the term was used more of a sign of respect, and depending on the translation it also appears as simply 'teacher'.

again it was used as symbolic title of respect, jesus is also called the lamb of god, people dont assume he is actually a lamb.

remaining in marriage is good as opposed to getting divorced. it doesnt make the point marriage is nessicary, he was speaking more against divorce than promoting marriage.

just because two people love each other, like mary and jesus did doesnt imply he was married to her or engaged in sexual relations with her, heck i have girls who im just friends with.
the wife of the lamb refers to the church. its symbollic joining of chirst and his people on earth.

 

I enjoyed reading this, guys. Sorry to interupt. I have a question or 2. Why do we write things down now, as a culture that is, instead of memorizing things? In current education thinking there is a heirarchy of intelligence and memorizing(not to degrade anyone, too many christians are lazy in this area)is at the bottom. Is there a reason for this?

 

You seek the strength of my arguments upon which to base your faith?? Surely faith should be based upon solid evidential truth above the word of a man?
Such evidence doen't even exist in the bible which is itself a compendium of error! Which begs the question ~ how can so much error be incorporated into a supposedly divinely inspired work?
(goggle search bible error http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=bible+error&meta=)

Regarding Mack
~ Mack uses accurate dating agreed upon by theologians and biblical scholars alike, all of whom date and verify authorship of biblical texts that concludes that orthodox christian belief (belief, not fact) is based upon historical presumptions, erroneous myth, and pure speculation by succesive generations whose educational status, intellectual ability, or even morality is entirely unknown yet presumed to be impeccable!
Macks "ad nauseum" guesstimations are posited so as to better understand how and why anyone could have done it and got away with it! That is ~ he questions the process of acceptance of error that is factually and evidentially proven to exist in the bible. He simply attempts to apply reason so readers can better or more fully appreciate the mental gymnastics required to actually believe the stuff being dished out. Such reason is beyond the abilities of the unreasonable, however.
He's also way too compassionate and overly non-judgemental in his approah. Laypeople might say that a buch of liars concocted the entire new testament!


I am not here to convince you of anything. Each individual has a duty to themselves in this life.
But I'll stick to the narrow less travelled path, because I know where the well trodden one leads! and literalist christinity is a great deception.
If people don't want the truth, they'll find every way possible to deny finding it ~ a trait all too common amongst "believers.' But there is the real clue ~ believers are in the business of believing whatever they will despite the evidence.

You are also very wrong about the Pauline letters. They have been added to as evidenced by the site you deem "very nice", which is itself a compendium of theological facts, not beliefs.
By whose divine decree are personal notations made by monks on the side of colums of text included into the textual body of the bible?

You are also using for the old "documentary evidence" false circular argument that inferrs that everything ever done in ancient history (where the art of writing and reading was a rarity) was documented somewhere, which is, to put it mildy, quite idiotic (nothing personal ~ it's the argument that's idiotic). Can anyone supply concrete evidence that they even ate an orange last week?
In that regard, the "specific historical document" you require regarding Constantine's manipulation of the truth is found on the site that I linked ~
Constantine destroyed all manuscripts that he didn't want included into his bible. He then went about annihilating any and all opposition to his actions ~ a maxim continued to this day amongst christians who claim those who don't "believe" in Jesus will go to hell (death). Constantine would be so proud that the tradition continues!
And then you dismiss such diabolical acts without comment or acknowledgement ~ the very acts that prove the bible is not a work of divine will.

 

I find messages from God in many places, including the bible. If it's what you are experiencing (including fiction), God will speak to you through it.

You might be caught in samsara if you attach to much significance to the question (idea) of whether or not a work (bible, quran, or will and grace) is from God or not.

 

It would help me decide if this is good advice if I knew what samsara was. I agree with your points, God only speaks to me through signs and experiences, though I often do not understand what the message is, just that there was a message.