stole from reddit

[NutHugger 10+ year member]

some of the cartoons may be miscontruals but you know **** well that many of them are not at all. Even religious people who read teh fuggin book know how contradictory it is

Look man if you're looking for something to believe in more power to you... but as someone who has studied theology, I happen to disagree with you on that particular point. It just always shocks me how many atheists are out here trying to make fun of believers. There's nothing to make fun of.

 

[NutHugger 10+ year member]

Cmon son. gtfo here with all that! you dont even have to be an atheist to not believe the bible, fool.

You can either be an atheist or another religion.... what's your point again?

 

[RAM_Designs 5,000+ posts]

LOL at the light/light source one.

 

[MANTI5 10+ year member]

Do we really need a religion/atheism argument? Those that have studied the Bible know there are no contradictions, the ones usually cited as such just require a little more understanding and study. Atheists often have valid points when it comes to the way many practice their religion. Let's just all hug and be happy.

 

[MikeofTulsa Moderator]

read thorugh all of them, didnt find them funny. a couple were at least a decent attempt at comedy.

 

[Wingman0121 10+ year member]

read thorugh all of them, didnt find them funny. a couple were at least a decent attempt at comedy.

That's because it's only funny when you've been on reddit for a long time, tons of inside jokes.

I wasn't expecting to find a redditor here hahaha. I was on Digg but then they totally moronified after the revision.

 

[perfecxionX 10+ year member]

Look man if you're looking for something to believe in more power to you... but as someone who has studied theology, I happen to disagree with you on that particular point. It just always shocks me how many atheists are out here trying to make fun of believers. There's nothing to make fun of.

Mark 14:55-64, Matthew 26:59-66 - Jesus is tried by the whole Sanhedrin

Luke 22:66-71 - The Sanhedrin hold an inquiry about Jesus, but no trial

John 18:13-24 - The Sanhedrin don’t even hold an official inquiry; Jesus just appears before Annas and Caiphas

3 clearly differing accounts of Jesus's trial.* Only 2 possibilities; one of the above took place or none of the above took place. Either way the bible was wrong at least twice. Religion can be funny but most of the time it is just sad. Sad how it needlessly shatters human civilization into competing religious groups. And btw, just b/c someone is not a theist does not mean they are an athiest.

 

[pro-rabbit 5,000+ posts]

The book of job kills the bible in my opinion. I have a list of reasons why if you want them. I'm even some what Christian at that.

The book of Job is full of all the reasons why the bible is just a work of fiction at best.

 

[outsideshot23 10+ year member]

Mark 14:55-64, Matthew 26:59-66 - Jesus is tried by the whole SanhedrinLuke 22:66-71 - The Sanhedrin hold an inquiry about Jesus, but no trial

John 18:13-24 - The Sanhedrin don’t even hold an official inquiry; Jesus just appears before Annas and Caiphas

3 clearly differing accounts of Jesus's trial.* Only 2 possibilities; one of the above took place or none of the above took place. Either way the bible was wrong at least twice. Religion can be funny but most of the time it is just sad. Sad how it needlessly shatters human civilization into competing religious groups. And btw, just b/c someone is not a theist does not mean they are an athiest.

# clearly differing accounts? really? try reading the bible rather then posting something you see on the internet so you dont look like an idiot

Matthew:

63 But Jesus held his peace, And the high priest answered and said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God.

64 Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.

65 Then the high priest rent his clothes, saying, He hath spoken blasphemy; what further need have we of witnesses? behold, now ye have heard his blasphemy.

66 What think ye? They answered and said, He is guilty of death.

luke:

66 At daybreak the council of the elders of the people, both the chief priests and the teachers of the law, met together, and Jesus was led before them. 67 “If you are the Messiah,” they said, “tell us.”

Jesus answered, “If I tell you, you will not believe me, 68 and if I asked you, you would not answer. 69 But from now on, the Son of Man will be seated at the right hand of the mighty God.”

70 They all asked, “Are you then the Son of God?”

He replied, “You say that I am.”

71 Then they said, “Why do we need any more testimony? We have heard it from his own lips.”

John:

19The high priest then questioned Jesus about His disciples, and about His teaching. 20Jesus answered him, "I have spoken openly to the world; I always taught in synagogues and in the temple, where all the Jews come together; and I spoke nothing in secret. 21Why do you question Me? Question those who have heard what I spoke to them; they know what I said." 22When He had said this, one of the officers standing nearby struck Jesus, saying, "Is that the way You answer the high priest?" 23Jesus answered him, "If I have spoken wrongly, testify of the wrong; but if rightly, why do you strike Me?" 24So Annas sent Him bound to Caiaphas the high priest.

 

[outsideshot23 10+ year member]

they all sound pretty familiar to me.. there was no "trial" persay. He went before pilate. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/fyi.gif.9f1f679348da7204ce960cfc74bca8e0.gif I would bet that you have very little if any formal religion education. Its not even worth arguing because people think they know everything and the bible can be interpreted a million different ways. so you can interpret it however you want to prove your point. but having gone to 2 different christian universities for several years and taking religion classes iw ould say i know a fair bit more then you think you do and your 3 differing accounts are hardly that. try reading and come back and we can have a discussion. otherwise this is pointless

 

[pro-rabbit 5,000+ posts]

Why do all Christian based religions never comment on the book of job when it is brought up?

 

[bubbagumper6 5,000+ posts]

I don't condemn anyone for believing in god so long as they agree that it's just as likely that he doesn't exist.

 

[perfecxionX 10+ year member]

they all sound pretty familiar to me.. there was no "trial" persay. He went before pilate. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/fyi.gif.9f1f679348da7204ce960cfc74bca8e0.gif I would bet that you have very little if any formal religion education. Its not even worth arguing because people think they know everything and the bible can be interpreted a million different ways. so you can interpret it however you want to prove your point. but having gone to 2 different christian universities for several years and taking religion classes iw ould say i know a fair bit more then you think you do and your 3 differing accounts are hardly that. try reading and come back and we can have a discussion. otherwise this is pointless

I chose the example I did because it is a classic SCHOLARLY example of biblical contradiction due to the different books being written by different people at different times. Because I don't waste time memorizing scripture i copy and pasted the specific chapters and lines from a quick google search. It happened to be an example i remembered from a course i took years ago at Indiana University.

I dont claim to be any expert in theology (i don't think you have to be one to discuss it), but if you actual received education on the subject and were never confronted with biblical contradictions then your education was probably much more of a christian self appeasing one rather than a critical scholarly one (which wouldn't be surprising depending on the christian university you attended).

Apparently you didnt learn much about being a good christian there either, or you wouldn't be resorting so much to name calling and personal attacks.

The gospels provide three very different accounts of the trial of Jesus. Peter, possibly writing as early as the 40s C.E., describes a single trial scene involving Jewish, Roman, and Herodian officials. Mark, writing in the 60s C.E., describes two separate proceedings, one involving Jewish leaders and one in which the Roman prefect for Judea, Pontius Pilate, plays the key role. Matthew and John's account generally support Mark's two-trial version. Finally, Luke--alone among the gospels--adds a third proceeding, having Pilate pass the buck (for jurisdictional reasons) and sending Jesus to Herod Antipas.
The gospels report that Jesus was brought before high priest Joseph Caiaphas and the Sanhedrin, the Jewish supreme governing council and court. Mark and Matthew report a trial at night in the house of Caiaphas, whereas Luke explicitly states that Jesus was tried in the morning before the Sanhedrin. Some scholars doubt the accuracy of of the gospel accounts. They note that Jewish law prohibits both capital trials on the eves of a festival and trials by night. (Other scholars answer that Jewish law might have been different then.)

The gospels point to different sources of initial concern among the Jewish authorities. Mark suggests that the Jewish authorities were concerned primarily with the confrontation Jesus had with traders in the Temple, while Luke's account identifies their primary concern as his teachings in the Temple. John, meanwhile, points to a fear among Jewish authorities that Jesus' rising popularity could lead to an uprising that would provoke a violent response from Rome.

All four Biblical accounts agree, however, that Caiaphas and the Sanhedrin ultimately condemned Jesus for blasphemy. The gospels record that when Caiaphas asked Jesus whether he claimed to be the Messiah, he replied, "I am" (Mark 14:62) (or "You have said so" (Matthew 26:64) or "If I tell you, you will not believe" (Luke 22:67-8) or "You say that I am" (John 19:7)). Although the Mishnah, the Jewish lawcode assembled around 200 C.E., defined blasphemy more narrowly as speaking the sacred name of God (YHWH), the gospel writers suggest a looser first-century construction of the term, one that includes a variety of serious theological offenses.

After his condemnation by Jewish authorities, Jesus was brought--under all but Peter's account--to the Roman prefect of Judea, Pontius Pilate. The reason, according to John, was that the death penalty was not an available option for the Sanhedrin under Roman law. (It should be noted, however, that the Sanhedrin operated during these times with less than complete independence to implement Jewish law, having a dual political and religious status.) There is, however, strong reason to believe that Jewish authorities could, had they so desired, executed Jesus. The well-substantiated executions--by stoning--of two first-century Christians, Jesus's brother James in 62 C.E. and Stephen, show that capital punishment was--at least within a few decades of Jesus' trial--practiced by Jewish authorities. Moreover, Temple inscriptions from the period warn of death to Gentiles that pass into certain restricted areas.

Biblical accounts of the trial before Pilate are largely fictional, according to most scholars. It is unlikely that any supporter of Christ would have been in a position to record any questioning of Jesus by Pilate that might have taken place.

The Trial of Jesus: An Account

 

[Cabin_Pressure 10+ year member]

Thought we had a rule about religion threads

 

[matt_bennett05 10+ year member]

It's pronounced retard, not retard. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/fyi.gif.9f1f679348da7204ce960cfc74bca8e0.gif