The Bible Goofs Again!

Originally posted by Conrau K
No. But the Gospel of John and the Book of Acts all report Jesus ascending and descending, appearing and disappearing, on multiple occasions. Luke reports the traditional three sightings: at the tomb, with the travellers to Emmaus, and finally in front of the eleven disciples. He does not exclude any other appearances, which John includes: a second appearan ...[text shortened]... - but he doesn't, and there is also strong evidence that Luke and Acts had shared authorship.

Of course, strict contradictions are needed. It's true by default, I forgot 😉

I know there's an explanation for all this stuff around - there's been 2000 years of getting the story straight.

Originally posted by whiteknight26
That's some purpose you have there. 😕

It must be frustrating to have such a purpose and to never find what your looking for.. Poor guy!!!

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
...

If anyone does a Google search for "Physicians' Desk Reference contradiction," they will be presented with only 5,690 results.

...

😲 "Only"?!?

This is indeed disturbing. Should there not be zero contradictions in the Physician's Desk Reference?

Originally posted by Badwater
😲 "Only"?!?

This is indeed disturbing. Should there not be zero contradictions in the Physician's Desk Reference?

I don't think just googling such phrases mean anything. It all depends on the context of those pages found. They could all be conspiracy websites for all we know.

Originally posted by 667joe
Luke 24:51 Jesus ascends to heaven the 1st night after the resurrection.

Acts 1:3, 9 Jesus ascends to heaven at least 40 days after the resurrection.


Once again the bible conflicts with itself and is obviously wrong on at least one count. Of course the most likely case is that the bible is wrong on both counts because Jesus was never resurrected.

and where is it written that Jesus shall ascend once, and ONLY once?

Originally posted by PinkFloyd
and where is it written that Jesus shall ascend once, and ONLY once?

So you are saying the 2cd coming has already happened and maybe a 3rd and 4th coming also........ Most watchers have not been as astute as you.

Originally posted by 667joe
So you are saying the 2cd coming has already happened and maybe a 3rd and 4th coming also........ Most watchers have not been as astute as you.

That is not what the second coming means. You are grasping at straws.

Originally posted by 667joe
Luke 24:51 Jesus ascends to heaven the 1st night after the resurrection.

Acts 1:3, 9 Jesus ascends to heaven at least 40 days after the resurrection.


Once again the bible conflicts with itself and is obviously wrong on at least one count. Of course the most likely case is that the bible is wrong on both counts because Jesus was never resurrected.

===================================
Luke 24:51 Jesus ascends to heaven the 1st night after the resurrection.

Acts 1:3, 9 Jesus ascends to heaven at least 40 days after the resurrection.
============================


So what ?

So there was possibly more than one ascending of Jesus to heaven. So ? Did the New Testament say that there could not be more than one ?

Where ?

In John chapter 20 He would not allow Mary to touch Him because He had not yet ascended to His Father (v.17). Then latter the disciples touched Him. Why could He not ascend in the morning for the Father's enjoyment and come back in the evening for the disciples (most likely) to touch Him (v.19,20)? He certainly invited Thomas latter to do so (v.26,27).

Oh, please show me how you know Luke 24:51 occured on the same day as Christ's resurrection. I have never noticed that. I'm all ears.

Originally posted by PsychoPawn
Of course, strict contradictions are needed. It's true by default, I forgot 😉

I know there's an explanation for all this stuff around - there's been 2000 years of getting the story straight.

Conrau K brings out an important aspect of Christ's post resurrection behavior.

Jesus, over a period of 40 days, appeared and disappeared to His disciples. It says He suddenly appeared or that He was manifested. Here they see Him then they don't. Then they do again.

Why?

I believe that Jesus was training His disciples as the founders of His church, that though they could not see Him He was still with them. He was training them to live by His invisible presence. The discussion of John 14 through 16 would definitely seem to confirm this.

He was with them until the consummation of the age (Matt. 28:20). Christ trained the first apostles to live by His invisible and constant presence. And such training must have been the reason why they were so willing to die for the witness that He had resurrected and was Lord.

They got well trained. And they established a firm beginning of the Christian church for millennia to come after their departure.

By the way, Jesus broke at least 2 of the 10 commandments. He spoke ill of his mother Mary and he coveted the donkey of someone else. According to the bible, breaking these commandments would make Jesus impure and therefore not worthy of sacrifice on behalf of god. Jesus also called certain people fools which Jesus himself said was a sin.

Originally posted by 667joe
By the way, Jesus broke at least 2 of the 10 commandments. He spoke ill of his mother Mary and he coveted the donkey of someone else. According to the bible, breaking these commandments would make Jesus impure and therefore not worthy of sacrifice on behalf of god. Jesus also called certain people fools which Jesus himself said was a sin.

You're to be pitied.

I feel sorry for people whose minds work the way yours does in reading the Bible.

Originally posted by jaywill
You're to be pitied.

I feel sorry for people whose minds work the way yours does in reading the Bible.

I, si, feel sorry for you basing you whole life on make believe. You look facts in the face and ignore them. Everything I have said in recent posts is in the bible that you profess to believe in, yet you deny it.

Originally posted by 667joe
I, si, feel sorry for you basing you whole life on make believe. You look facts in the face and ignore them. Everything I have said in recent posts is in the bible that you profess to believe in, yet you deny it.

That is okay. You just feel sorry for me all you wish. I do not mind.

I pity you because your rebellious revolting nature against God is eating you up. You are spurned on looking into the Bible for ground to make accusations against the Son of God who died for you that you may be saved.

The Bible says to "Receive with meekness the implanted word which is able to save your soul."

You don't receive the word of God. You don't receive it in meekness and allow it to be implanted and grow within you. Rather you come with a haughty attitude, a proud and unteachable attitude searching out mistakes and accusations against Christ.

It is a fearful and tragic sight to see a sinner's rebellious nature devour him up.

Originally posted by 667joe
I, si, feel sorry for you basing you whole life on make believe. You look facts in the face and ignore them. Everything I have said in recent posts is in the bible that you profess to believe in, yet you deny it.

Everything I have said in recent posts is in the bible that you profess to believe in, yet you deny it.

But it isn't. You make outrageous claims about the content of the Bible, that Jesus spoke ill of his mother or that he was the son of Joseph, without any reference to Scripture. And when someone shows your ignorance, you make no attempt to defend your error but carry on as if no objection has been raised.

Anyway, the Commandment does not read 'Thou shalt not speak ill of thy parents.' The word is dishonor.

Originally posted by jaywill
That is okay. You just feel sorry for me all you wish. I do not mind.

I pity you because your rebellious revolting nature against God is eating you up. You are spurned on looking into the Bible for ground to make accusations against the Son of God who died for you that you may be saved.

The Bible says to [b]"Receive with meekness the implanted w ...[text shortened]... t.

It is a fearful and tragic sight to see a sinner's rebellious nature devour him up.

It is sad to see an other wise decent person as your self wallow in make believe and ancient myths. You have not denied that what I have written is in the bible. Obviously for you to admit that I'm correct would destroy your world view. So, naturally, you defend the indefensible by attacking me. I assume that your position is so indefensible that you can only defend it by attacking me, the messenger. Again, all the contradictions I have brought up are in the book you so revere, yet, you choose to ignore them even though they are right under your nose. I didn't make it up! It's in the bible.