Does the Bible Contradict Itself?

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

Perhaps THE greatest difference between protestant and Catholic:

Catholics accept the position "Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead."

Many protestants believe salvation comes from faith alone. Plus Calvinists teach predestination,which Catholics reject.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

James 2 14-26

New King James Version (NKJV)
Faith Without Works Is Dead

14 What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him? 15 If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, 16 and one of you says to them, “Depart in peace, be warmed and filled,” but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit? 17 Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.

18 But someone will say, “You have faith, and I have works.” Show me your faith without your[a] works, and I will show you my faith by my[b] works. 19 You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe—and tremble! 20 But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead?[c] 21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? 22 Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect? 23 And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.”[d] And he was called the friend of God. 24 You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.

25 Likewise, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out another way?

26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.

[spockrates]

Perhaps THE greatest difference between protestant and Catholic:

Catholics accept the position "Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead."

Many protestants believe salvation comes from faith alone. Plus Calvinists teach predestination,which Catholics reject.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

James 2 14-26

New King James Version (NKJV)
Faith Without Works Is Dead

14 What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him? 15 If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, 16 and one of you says to them, “Depart in peace, be warmed and filled,” but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit? 17 Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.

18 But someone will say, “You have faith, and I have works.” Show me your faith without your[a] works, and I will show you my faith by my[b] works. 19 You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe—and tremble! 20 But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead?[c] 21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? 22 Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect? 23 And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.”[d] And he was called the friend of God. 24 You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.

25 Likewise, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out another way?

26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.

Hi, Padraic. I think most Protestants accept the words of James as true--they just interpret them differently than Catholics do. For example, when I was Evangelical, I understood these words,

For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.

(James 2:26)

to mean good works ( good thoughts, words and deeds) are an effect of living (or real) faith. Hence, one is saved from hell by a faith that causes salvation, and salvation then causes good works. Salvation and good works are then the effects of faith. For we are saved through faith alone. In other words,

Faith -> salvation + works

where -> = causes

Catholics tell me the passage means faith alone does not save anyone from hell. One needs both faith and good works. For good works are not an effect of salvation, they are instead a cause of salvation. Moreover one's faith must be not in Christ alone, but also in the sacraments (e.g., baptism). In other words,

Faith + sacraments + works -> salvation

where -> = causes

Protestants might respond by saying Catholics are confusing correlation with causation. Catholics might then reply that Protestants mistakenly assume the correlation is not a case of causation.

I'd say this is another instance of a lack of clarity in a biblical text resulting in contrary interpretations of the text. Would you say the same?

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

Protestants might respond by saying Catholics are confusing correlation with causation. Catholics might then reply that Protestants mistakenly assume the correlation is not a case of causation.

Of COURSE the two sides will argue;the issue is differences not the 'why' of the difference

I'd say this is another instance of a lack of clarity in a biblical text resulting in contrary interpretations of the text. Would you say the same?

No,I'd say the protestant view is idiotic and self serving. Don't worry,the Catholics have been doing the same thing for nearly 2000 years. EG their unique scriptural interpretation for the intercession of the Virgin Mary and the saints, indulgences (as a still extant concept) and papal infallibility, are really creative.


I hope you realise this is all academic to me; I don't believe in god(s) , nor do I believe in revealed truth of any kind. (due to the lack of credible evidence)

[Cato]

Hi, Padraic. I think most Protestants accept the words of James as true--they just interpret them differently than Catholics do. For example, when I was Evangelical, I understood these words,

For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.

(James 2:26)

to mean good works ( good thoughts, words and deeds) are an effect of living (or real) faith. Hence, one is saved from hell by a faith that causes salvation, and salvation then causes good works. Salvation and good works are then the effects of faith. For we are saved through faith alone. In other words,

Faith -> salvation + works

where -> = causes

Catholics tell me the passage means faith alone does not save anyone from hell. One needs both faith and good works. For good works are not an effect of salvation, they are instead a cause of salvation. Moreover one's faith must be not in Christ alone, but also in the sacraments (e.g., baptism). In other words,

Faith + sacraments + works -> salvation

where -> = causes

Protestants might respond by saying Catholics are confusing correlation with causation. Catholics might then reply that Protestants mistakenly assume the correlation is not a case of causation.

I'd say this is another instance of a lack of clarity in a biblical text resulting in contrary interpretations of the text. Would you say the same?

I hope your purpose here isn't to prove your self congratulatory profundity. There are clear contradictions in the bible; pitting Protestant and Catholic apologies against one another doesn't make the contradictions vaporize. This gambit doesn't make you intriguing or noteworthy; it makes you boring and predictable. You ignored immediate references to lists of biblical contradictions. This means that learning about the contradictions was not your purpose, you simply wanted others to state one in order for you to practice your apologetics.

[spockrates]

Protestants might respond by saying Catholics are confusing correlation with causation. Catholics might then reply that Protestants mistakenly assume the correlation is not a case of causation.

Of COURSE the two sides will argue;the issue is differences not the 'why' of the difference

Not sure what you mean; please explain what the why is.

I'd say this is another instance of a lack of clarity in a biblical text resulting in contrary interpretations of the text. Would you say the same?

No,I'd say the protestant view is idiotic and self serving. Don't worry,the Catholics have been doing the same thing for nearly 2000 years. EG their unique scriptural interpretation for the intercession of the Virgin Mary and the saints, indulgences (as a still extant concept) and papal infallibility, are really creative.

Please explain why the interpretations of James, chapter 2 that they have is idiotic.

I hope you realise this is all academic to me; I don't believe in god(s) , nor do I believe in revealed truth of any kind. (due to the lack of credible evidence)

Yes, I understand, and I appreciate your taking the time to answer my questions.

---

Hi, Padraic. I think most Protestants accept the words of James as true--they just interpret them differently than Catholics do. For example, when I was Evangelical, I understood these words,

For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.

(James 2:26)

to mean good works ( good thoughts, words and deeds) are an effect of living (or real) faith. Hence, one is saved from hell by a faith that causes salvation, and salvation then causes good works. Salvation and good works are then the effects of faith. For we are saved through faith alone. In other words,

Faith -> salvation + works

where -> = causes

Catholics tell me the passage means faith alone does not save anyone from hell. One needs both faith and good works. For good works are not an effect of salvation, they are instead a cause of salvation. Moreover one's faith must be not in Christ alone, but also in the sacraments (e.g., baptism). In other words,

Faith + sacraments + works -> salvation

where -> = causes

Protestants might respond by saying Catholics are confusing correlation with causation. Catholics might then reply that Protestants mistakenly assume the correlation is not a case of causation.

I'd say this is another instance of a lack of clarity in a biblical text resulting in contrary interpretations of the text. Would you say the same?

I hope your purpose here isn't to prove your self congratulatory profundity. There are clear contradictions in the bible; pitting Protestant and Catholic apologies against one another doesn't make the contradictions vaporize.

Glad you're still contributing to the dialog, Cato.



I was responding to Padraic who wrote:

Perhaps THE greatest difference between protestant and Catholic:

Catholics accept the position "Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead."

Many protestants believe salvation comes from faith alone. Plus Calvinists teach predestination,which Catholics reject.

The Catholic-Protestant debate is one I've raised for the benefit of the two Christian participants in this dialog. For they have responded to my premise that many so-called contradictions are actually due to ambiguities of the text resulting in contrary interpretations. Compare a Catholic interpretation of one text with a Protestant interpretation of another, and there is a contradiction, which is not real but merely apparent. Give a Protestant interpretation to both texts and the apparent contradiction does indeed vanish. (BTW, no atheist in this dialog has to my recollection denied this.) To compare contrary interpretations of two texts and then say the texts themselves are in conflict is to commit the informal logical fallacy of equivocation, or something similar.

This gambit doesn't make you intriguing or noteworthy; it makes you boring and predictable.

I resemble that remark!



Perhaps that's why I enjoy hearing from people like you--I find you both fascinating and unpredictable!

You ignored immediate references to lists of biblical contradictions. This means that learning about the contradictions was not your purpose, you simply wanted others to state one in order for you to practice your apologetics.

I believe I said I was here to have a dialog with others, not a reading session by myself. The latter would truly be both predictable and boring! I believe I have responded to everyone willing to discuss any specific contradictions thought to be noteworthy. I have agreed some are indeed contradictory and explained why I did not think them significant. One was a case of using the number eight instead of 18. Another was a case of confusing the names of the two daughters of an ancient Jewish king. Neither of these errors affects any important doctrine of the Christian faith.

Now if you did bear with the boredom of my gambit to this point in my post, I have a prize for you: I do have one contradiction I recently discovered that promises to be both real and significant. I asked earlier in this dialog if anyone cared to investigate it with me, but I received no takers. I'd like to discuss it with you, if you have not already died of boredom!

[The Grand Nudger]

Denied what, that a Protestant reading of scripture still leads to contradictions? I'll handle that right now. No interpretation changes what you find in the black and white, that any given group has an excuse (and that's precisely what it is) for why any two parts of a text appear to conflict in the here and now after greater scrutiny or a better understanding of the world around us is part and parcel with maintaining a faith. A Catholic excuse, a Protestant excuse, it matters very little in either case. At what point would any groups revision or interpretation of divine words render those words obsolete in favor of their interpretation? So, the faithful have found ways to -in their estimation- make the bible seems less absurd/contradictory/idiotic....well, no surprise there, they've had alot of time to think about it. There are no "apparent contradictions" that's apologetic horseshit, invoked immediately before an excuse -and generally a fairly vapid one- will be offered.

Ambiguity when the arguer/believer wishes for the text to be ambiguous, specificity when the arguer/believer wishes for the text to be specific. Ala-

Genesis is literal but the text is ambiguous as to whether or not homosexuality is verbotten.
-or-
Genesis is ambiguous but the text clearly condemns homosexuality.

The text is not ambiguous, anywhere. Sometimes the text does not agree or conform with some logical principle, some established law of the cosmos, some other part of the text, or some specific belief that a person holds. Sometimes what we find in the text leaves us, today, scratching our heads going "wtf?". This is not ambiguity.

If there was a group of religious folks making things (anything) vanish or disappear, I'd call that a miracle, and their cult would require a little more of my attention.

[spockrates]

Denied what, that a Protestant reading of scripture still leads to contradictions? I'll handle that right now. ... The text is not ambiguous, anywhere. ...

Thanks for trying to show me where I'm deceived, Rythm. Not sure I understand why you believe to text anywhere in the Bible is unclear. Let's consider one that is well known, perhaps even to many atheists:

22 While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take it; this is my body.”

23 Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, and they all drank from it.

24 “This is my blood of the[a] covenant, which is poured out for many,” he said to them. 25 “I tell you the truth, I will not drink again of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it anew in the kingdom of God.”

(Mark 14)

Did Jesus mean to say, "This is my [actual] body," and "This is my [actual] blood," or did he instead mean, "This is my [symbolic] body," and "This is my [symbolic] blood"?

If he clearly meant one, but not the other, please explain why you are so sure.

[The Grand Nudger]

Why do you insist upon inserting confusion (in brackets) where none exists in the text. If it is ambiguous itself then why would it require your input? It's not an issue of "what Jesus meant" -this is again inserting a vector for ambiguity where none exists. It is an issue of "what the text says". It's a fucking storybook, why are the words in the narrative unsatisfying?

Do we insist that it must be symbolic because the text suggests it or because we have realized that bread and wine do not magically transform into body and blood? What does that have to do with the story? Nada.

I don't think that the text is unclear anywhere. Ambiguity only arises as a convenient excuse for the text being difficult to reconcile with reality. People expect too much of this particular tale, but that's a given isn't it? The narrative is one of a magical man doing magical things. Does this mean that there is no symbolism? No, it's chock full of it, but confined to the narrative, the magic is magic. In the same way that Lamfada literally defeats Balor in the narrative as a device for a symbolic expression of this or that outside of the narrative, Jesus performs literal magic within the narrative as a device for a symbolic expression of this or that outside of the narrative.

Now, why would Catholics, for example, decide to partake of communion? Well, the narrative describes a covenant made which they would like to opt in on, and so they have their medicine man perform a ritual to reenact the particulars of this covenant. Protestants presumably feel that this particular ritual is just magic (which it is), they have a distaste for this kind of magic (though they are perfectly fine with other types of magic) and so they opt out (specifically on the magical bits), instead preferring to view this as symbolic in nature. Transubstantiation, in this example, has very little to do with the narrative, because jesus himself is not performing magic at the table with believers in the here and now. It is a story which has been elaborated upon and institutionalized by one sect and downplayed by another. The text doesn't say two things on this issue, two differing sects do.

[spockrates]

Why do you insist upon inserting confusion (in brackets) where none exists in the text. If it is ambiguous itself then why would it require your input? It's not an issue of "what Jesus meant" -this is again inserting a vector for ambiguity where none exists. It is an issue of "what the text says". It's a fucking storybook, why are the words in the narrative unsatisfying?

Do we insist that it must be symbolic because the text suggests it or because we have realized that bread and wine do not magically transform into body and blood? What does that have to do with the story? Nada.

I don't think that the text is unclear anywhere. Ambiguity only arises as a convenient excuse for the text being difficult to reconcile with reality. People expect too much of this particular tale, but that's a given isn't it? The narrative is one of a magical man doing magical things. Does this mean that there is no symbolism? No, it's chock full of it, but confined to the narrative, the magic is magic. In the same way that Lamfada literally defeats Balor in the narrative as a device for a symbolic expression of this or that outside of the narrative, Jesus performs literal magic within the narrative as a device for a symbolic expression of this or that outside of the narrative.

Now, why would Catholics, for example, decide to partake of communion? Well, the narrative describes a covenant made which they would like to opt in on, and so they have their medicine man perform a ritual to reenact the particulars of this covenant. Protestants presumably feel that this particular ritual is just magic (which it is), they have a distaste for this kind of magic (though they are perfectly fine with other types of magic) and so they opt out (specifically on the magical bits), instead preferring to view this as symbolic in nature. Transubstantiation, in this example, has very little to do with the narrative, because jesus himself is not performing magic at the table with believers in the here and now. It is a story which has been elaborated upon and institutionalized by one sect and downplayed by another. The text doesn't say two things on this issue, two differing sects do.

Please answer the question: What do the words, "This is my body," mean in the mythical tale?

[The Grand Nudger]

It means "This is my body".........

A mythical narrative is not bound by the laws of reality, magic can and does happen within these narratives. Magic often provides a wonderful narrative device (up to a point, when it becomes dues ex machina the narrative begins to loose it's impact).


-What does

"Once upon a time" mean in the mythical tale?