Is Christianity logical? (Long)

[LostKid]

Some of you guys might have seen me lurking around the forum, but I'm relatively new here. This post is going to be very long winded, but basically it is what it is. These are my serious questions concerning Christianity - this was not copied and pasted off of some website, I really sat here for hours and typed this all up.

However, before we begin, let's get some things straightened out first:

* These are honest questions. These are not meant to offend or otherwise cause people to question their faith.

* Please read the whole post thoroughly if you're going to reply.

That being said, here's the story. I went through a period of about six months where I realized that I don't believe Christianity (or the bible) make a lot of logical sense. This is not to say that I am not a Christian, but the following are the discrepancies that I keep running into with my faith.

1. Bible contradictions.

I used to hold to the entire inerrancy of the bible - that is, the scripture says it is "God-breathed" and not up to any man's interpretation. Basically what I'm trying to say is that if God truly wrote the bible through men like the scripture says, I don't think it would contradict. But why does it have things in it that seem to do so? For instance:

Acts 1:16

16"Brothers, the Scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit spoke beforehand by the mouth of David concerning Judas,who became a guide to those who arrested Jesus. 17For he was numbered among us and was allotted his share in this ministry." 18(Now this man acquired a field with the reward of his wickedness, and falling headlong he burst open in the middle and all his bowels gushed out. 19And it became known to all the inhabitants of Jerusalem, so that the field was called in their own language Akeldama, that is, Field of Blood.) ESV"

Matthew 27:3-5

"3Then when Judas, his betrayer, saw that Jesus was condemned, he changed his mind and brought back the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and the elders, 4saying, "I have sinned by betraying innocent blood." They said, "What is that to us? See to it yourself." 5And throwing down the pieces of silver into the temple, he departed, and he went and hanged himself. ESV"

These are two differing accounts of how Judas died. Judas COULD NOT have died by both falling headlong and having all of his innards gush out - it doesn't make any sense.

So I did myself the liberty of looking up the word "headlong" and saw it meant either "Head first" or "with astounding speed."

...I Just can't picture Judas, after hanging himself, falling head first OR with enough force to have his stomach bust and his innards gush out.

What happened with the two Thieves who were crucified next to Jesus?

Matthew 27:42

"42 "He saved others; he cannot save himself. He is the King of Israel; let him come down now from the cross, and we will believe in him. 43 He trusts in God; let God deliver him now, if he desires him. For he said, 'I am the Son of God.'" 44 And the robbers who were crucified with him also reviled him in the same way. ESV"

Luke 23:39 - 43

"39 One of the criminals who were hanged railed at him, saying, "Are you not the Christ? Save yourself and us!" 40But the other rebuked him, saying, "Do you not fear God, since you are under the same sentence of condemnation? 41And we indeed justly, for we are receiving the due reward of our deeds; but this man has done nothing wrong." 42And he said, "Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom." 43And he said to him, "Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise." ESV

So what gives? It clearly says in the Matthew passage that both ridiculed him like the Pharisees did, but in the Luke passage we see that only one ridicules Jesus. Are you guys going to try to tell me that the both robbers mocked Jesus, AND AFTERWARDS one turned to the other and rebuked him for continuing to do it? This verse doesn't make sense to me.

1 Kings 4:26

"Solomon also had 40,000 stalls of horses for his chariots, and 12,000 horsemen. ESV"

II Chronicles 9:25

25And Solomon had 4,000 stalls for horses and chariots, and 12,000 horsemen, whom he stationed in the chariot cities and with the king in Jerusalem. ESV

So which was it? 40,000 or 4,000?

Acts 9:7

The men who were traveling with him stood speechless,(B) hearing the voice but seeing no one. ESV

Acts 22:8-9

'8 And I answered, 'Who are you, Lord?' And he said to me, 'I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom you are persecuting.' 9 Now those who were with me saw the light but did not understand the voice of the one who was speaking to me. ESV

Again, that just plain doesn't make sense.

There's a lot more where that came from. Again, this isn't my little case against Christ, these are just general points that I really don't understand.

Ok, so then I have another dilemma with Christianity.

2. Contradictions in concept.

The following are biblical or otherwise Christian concepts that don't seem to agree with reality.

How is it that, If the holy spirit is what illuminates us to understand things of God, most genuine Christian men and women can't even find themselves agreeing on practically basic doctrine? We have tons of denominations disagreeing on everything from salvation to justification to baptism. One would assert that, if the holy spirit is truly utilized to aid in our understanding of such matters, there would be more agreement amongst the body. I'll even go as far as to assert that possibly even, in situations in which there are "Either Or" answers, all of the unsaved (that is, those lacking the holy spirit)who are asked about the topics would all agree.

How is it that Jesus is fully man and fully God yet was tempted to sin? Allow me to explain. Jesus went into the desert and was tempted by Satan, but God cannot sin? It's like me tempting you to look through women's clothes with X-ray vision. How can I tempt you to do something you aren't capable of doing?

How is it that Christ the son is ONE with the father but doesn't know the hour his father will return? How is it that Christ is equal with the Holy Spirit and with the Father yet this still happens? Also, how is it that God is all knowing yet we see Jesus learning things (demonstrating that he didn't know them) in the book of Luke?

How is possible that an all knowing God regrets things and changes his mind?

Why is it that God creates people, who he claims to love, knowing that they will eventually go to hell in order to glorify himself? Is his glory that important to him that he would create people, love them, and choose not to illuminate them? I mean, God basically recognizes that all people naturally aren't going to want to NOR be able to follow his perfect plan and will consequently forever burn in an orgy of fire and wrath for what reason?

Why is it that God has to hide and he doesn't make his presence obvious? I mean, most of us believe he exists but nobody is really sure (and I'm sure some of you will try to argue that YOU'RE DEFINITELY SURE HE IS REAL, but just for the record I don't believe you. I can find Muslims, Jews, or Scientologists who are just as sure they got it right). We've been down here as race of creatures killing and fighting over what he's really like. Why the secrecy?

Why does somebody who has heard little to nothing of Christ receives the same punishment as someone who knows about it and doesn't do anything? The bible says that all of creation is revelation enough! But is it realistically? I look at the trees and all life and picture quite easily how things evolved from one to another.

This is enough to start us off. Somebody please help a Lost Kid out.

 

[cyberjosh]

Lostkid,

First of all let me say that there is nothing wrong with intellectual curiosity, and many Christians have quite a bit of intellectual curiosity and yet still believe in the Bible. Let me also say that I too at one point was at a stage in my life when it looked like "contradictions" were unavoidably obvious in Scripture and I was plagued by such questions, so much so that I entered the realm of Christian apologetics to try to get some answers. Now, years later I have been well versed in Christian apologetics and had many things answered, but just like any Christain, or human being for that matter, there are still some things I don't understand about the Bible, and no one will ever have it all figured out. But my Dad gave me some good council when I went through that questioning stage in my life, telling me not to get so intellectually bogged down that you never sit back and examine what is being said and why. A sole intellectual pursuit of the Bible would send everyone who calls themself a Christian to hell, I am quite sure of it, because apart from faith the Spirit does not work, and apart from the Spirit the Bible cannot be understood nor will such a person have eternal life in God. So sometimes I had to concede temporary defeat and say, "I don't know the answer, but that doesn't mean there isn't one", and that really is a key point.

We should never be so ignorant as to not recognize that our understanding of things differs over time, so that we say "If I don't know it now & I don't see an answer for it now, then there is no answer and I will never know it". That is false. I had foresight enough in that time of questioning to realize that with God's help in studying the Bible repeatedly in the future that I might one day come to the understanding of something i did not presently grasp. This is as reasonable as expecting while being a freshman in college to eventually have the knowledge of a graduate student, it is to be expected given time. So I urge you if you call yourself a Christian to not cast off God's word on account of something you may not understand, for God is above such intellectual limitations and is able as you walk more with him to open up the Scriptures to you like Jesus did with his disciples on the road to Emmaus. Understanding will come, and as the Bible says blessings will come to those who wait upon the Lord. Be patient, and take understanding as it comes.

Now, on with some of your questions (I won't have time to hit them all right now, but I'll do what I can).

Acts 1:16

16"Brothers, the Scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit spoke beforehand by the mouth of David concerning Judas,who became a guide to those who arrested Jesus. 17For he was numbered among us and was allotted his share in this ministry." 18(Now this man acquired a field with the reward of his wickedness, and falling headlong he burst open in the middle and all his bowels gushed out. 19And it became known to all the inhabitants of Jerusalem, so that the field was called in their own language Akeldama, that is, Field of Blood.) ESV"

Matthew 27:3-5

"3Then when Judas, his betrayer, saw that Jesus was condemned, he changed his mind and brought back the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and the elders, 4saying, "I have sinned by betraying innocent blood." They said, "What is that to us? See to it yourself." 5And throwing down the pieces of silver into the temple, he departed, and he went and hanged himself. ESV"

These are two differing accounts of how Judas died. Judas COULD NOT have died by both falling headlong and having all of his innards gush out - it doesn't make any sense.

So I did myself the liberty of looking up the word "headlong" and saw it meant either "Head first" or "with astounding speed."

...I Just can't picture Judas, after hanging himself, falling head first OR with enough force to have his stomach bust and his innards gush out.

Well as you might have already seen the speculation on, it is commonly believed that Judas hung himself and that after a while under his own weight fell and impaled himself on a rock. Judas hung himself on the Sabbath and no one would want to touch him (that day especially) so as to be ceremoniously unclean. And it is concievable that Judas after about a day the rope or the branch gave way. Judea is also a hilly region and thus if he had hung himself near a cliff or slope of a hill, this could make the fall quite substantial. It is not impossible that both happened, thus we cannot write it off. But like some passages we simply are not given enough information to make a full reconstruction.

What happened with the two Thieves who were crucified next to Jesus?

Matthew 27:42

"42 "He saved others; he cannot save himself. He is the King of Israel; let him come down now from the cross, and we will believe in him. 43 He trusts in God; let God deliver him now, if he desires him. For he said, 'I am the Son of God.'" 44 And the robbers who were crucified with him also reviled him in the same way. ESV"

Luke 23:39 - 43

"39 One of the criminals who were hanged railed at him, saying, "Are you not the Christ? Save yourself and us!" 40But the other rebuked him, saying, "Do you not fear God, since you are under the same sentence of condemnation? 41And we indeed justly, for we are receiving the due reward of our deeds; but this man has done nothing wrong." 42And he said, "Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom." 43And he said to him, "Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise." ESV

So what gives? It clearly says in the Matthew passage that both ridiculed him like the Pharisees did, but in the Luke passage we see that only one ridicules Jesus. Are you guys going to try to tell me that the both robbers mocked Jesus, AND AFTERWARDS one turned to the other and rebuked him for continuing to do it? This verse doesn't make sense to me.

It is possible that one of them indeed had a change of heart after reviling Jesus, just as the Romans jeered and mocked at him, yet after the sky turned black one of the Romans said, "Surely this was the son of God." Another possiblity which I have heard scholars speculate on before is that there were several crosses on the hill not just the 3 we typically think of traditionally. It is shown by archaeology and historical record that crucifixions were ussually done en masse with several simultaneously. I believe Josephus records a crucifixion of 30 priests (for some reason i don't recall) on the same day together. In that case there probably were indeed plenty of robbers around. Niether is outside the realm of possibility, so do with them what you may.

1 Kings 4:26

"Solomon also had 40,000 stalls of horses for his chariots, and 12,000 horsemen. ESV"

II Chronicles 9:25

25And Solomon had 4,000 stalls for horses and chariots, and 12,000 horsemen, whom he stationed in the chariot cities and with the king in Jerusalem. ESV

So which was it? 40,000 or 4,000?

That's fairly simple. Scribal Errors are widely acknowledged by Bible scholars and that's far from the only example of numerical difference between Kings and Chronicles, it is incredibly easy to make a copyists error and many such errors occur on that basis. If you study apologetics you will assuredly come across material on Scribal errors.

Acts 9:7

The men who were traveling with him stood speechless,(B) hearing the voice but seeing no one. ESV

Acts 22:8-9

'8 And I answered, 'Who are you, Lord?' And he said to me, 'I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom you are persecuting.' 9 Now those who were with me saw the light but did not understand the voice of the one who was speaking to me. ESV

Again, that just plain doesn't make sense.

There's a lot more where that came from. Again, this isn't my little case against Christ, these are just general points that I really don't understand.

That's not formally recognized as a contradiction even by sceptics as far as I know. Infact the explanation is rather simple. They saw the glory of light, as did Saul (which blinded him), but did not see Jesus himself. God spoke to Jesus in a crowd in John 12 where the people heard his voice (and some argued it was thunder) but they didn't see God. The case is similar here except there indeed was radiance shining from Jesus, as Acts puts it "brighter than the noon day sun". Such a light would have been seen by them, but Jesus manifested himself in such a way that only Paul heard him and interacted with him.

P.S. I'll try to get to more of this later, but somethings can be resolved by just studying the Word of God in depth, and often sometimes we just need to back out from focusing on one specific verse (so much that we have tunnel vision - that's what these doubts will give you if you don't be careful) and try to understand the purpose and context of such passages, and then the meaning can become more clear.

God Bless,

~Josh

 

[wavy]

hi, lostkid:

my personal witness

i consider myself living proof that christianity is just another religion. i'm not trying to bash it, so i hope the administrators and moderators don't mistake my intent. but anyway, i was raised a christian, and once i was old enough to actually and consciously grasp what i was taught, i formally became independent in applying christianity to my life. by that time my parents were divorced and it broke the family apart. there was no more going to church, no more of the family learning sessions we used to hold on the bible, no more activities we had with other christian families, etc.

i had only myself. and i was sad for my family. i cried for them and for myself because i wanted them to 'know' god like i did and to be motivated and enthusiastic about studying and learning as i was. i didn't want to feel like my walk was alone, but i knew i had the 'holy spirit' and pressed on. i believed in the bible 100% and would even go to message forums and preach to atheists and make apologetics with other christian brothers. i preached to kids at school, engaged my teachers over biblical matters to the point where they were annoyed with me even. i held all the orthodox articles of faith: trinity, 6-day creationism, salvation by faith alone, biblical inerrancy, etc.

i was ready to give my life for my faith at any given moment. i believed in jesus with all my heart, and all i could think about was god. i overcame pornography even...and believe me, that's a hard thing to do even among christians, especially young christian men. i then moved in with my dad who had by then became 'messianic', and i converted over to messianism (basically a more 'jewish' christianity that believes in keeping the jewish law codes). i got myself in deep too, eventually becoming a messianic sacred-namer (the movement that believes in using the 'true' names for god and jesus, which is usually 'yahweh' and 'yahshua'), and adopting two-house theology (the belief that the 10 lost tribes of israel are actually the majority gentile population of the world and that jesus came to reunite them with the jewish house of israel). some users here may remember me from those days since i posted here frequently trying to convince christians that messianism was the way to go; and i adopted oneness pentecostalism/modalism (the belief that god is one person who takes on three different modes: father/son/spirit), then unitarianism (the belief that only the father is god).

then i left messianism altogether and the doctrines often associated with it (observance of the jewish law, sacred name), though still retaining my unitarianism. then i became a biblical errantist, though i still considered myself a christian. i just embraced the view that much of the bible that is dismissed as unhistorical myth or unscientific is actually metaphorical and not to be taken literally, and that the contradictions in it were negligible...that it was the message that was important. but then i began to come to the realization that christian biblical errancy is inconsistent with what historical christianity believes. if one part of the bible is wrong, then it all could be. i became frustrated with biblical apologetics which just makes too many assumptions, imo, to maintain fundamentalism. so recently i have abandoned christianity all together and am now a deist bordering agnosticism.

but looking back at all the beliefs i partook of, i understand one thing: i knew that what i believed in each system was true and was just as vigorous and staunch about one belief as the next. no one can tell me i was not serious, or that i was not seeking god, or that i didn't spend years of my life devoted to the biblical religion. so i don't listen to people who tell me that i didn't have the 'holy spirit' or that i really wasn't 'saved' or that i didn't 'understand', or that if i did, i wouldn't have left christianity (the same things i told people as a christian when they told me that they weren't a believer anymore).

i know exactly what you're feeling, and it's not pleasant. it's scary and uncertain and tiring and intimidating...or at least one of these. but you'll find that you can either make the decision to overcome this obstacle and free yourself from, as i see it, the bondage of it, or you can stick with it. it's your choice, but being free from it really brings you peace of mind. you are not alone. many people feel as you do. but you'll find your own way. i'm just giving you my personal witness. you may draw something from it.


biblical contradictions

as far as your biblical contradictions, i accept them as contradictions. too many ad hoc assumptions have to be made to reconcile them just to maintain the bible's integrity. for example, that judas hung himself and that in the attempt he fell on a rock or similar and bursted open really just sounds silly. omissions are not contradictions, per se, but why would the author of acts or the author of matthew leave out the detail in the other? answer: they were writing independently and the one didn't know of the other. simple as that. when you maintain inerrancy, you can pretty much reconcile anything in any way by making up something. it's convincing sometimes, but many times it isn't. this is one of those cases where it isn't.

with the two thieves, it's obvious that the author of matthew and the author of luke (same author of acts) had different theological purposes, both utilizing mark as a source, who also has the two thieves mocking him. matthew might be just copying mark, but he wants make a point about everyone around jesus mocking him in order to connect the crucifixion with the scene in psa xxii.

luke's gospel wants to make jesus and christianity appear as least offensive to the roman empire as he can. he has one of the thieves purposefully make the comment that jesus didn't do anything wrong to place further emphasis on his innocence. in mark and matthew, they serve no purpose so they are just included in the mockery surrounding jesus. together with john these gospels explicitly state that two men were crucified with jesus (mk xv.27, mt xxvii.38, lk xxiii.33, jn xix.18) . luke has one thief deride jesus, and then has 'the other' vindicate him. 'the other' indicates that there were only two, so the assumption that there might be more than two is ruled out. the true purpose and meaning of mentioning the two thieves at all is found in the primary gospel of mark (since the other three weren't written yet and at least two of them merely rehashed his material) . it's part of one of the author of mark's motifs and i believe it's intended to be ironic. james and john in mk x.35-45, shortly before the crucifixion, had asked for positions of authority in the kingdom they thought christ was going to enforce shortly, not understanding his repeated attempts to tell all his disciples that he was going to die...something they couldn't grasp at first. these positions of authority requested by james and john were to be on his right hand and on his left (vs.37). the irony at the cross is that christ first had to be humiliated and the only positions available were the crosses next to his very own...on his right hand, and on his left.

just an interesting bit there.

as far as the contradiction of how many stalls of horses solomon had, most christians will tell you that it is a transcriptional error. that's easy to claim a lot of the time, but i don't know of any textual evidence to support it. chronicles seems to disagree with kings on many figures...i doubt they were all transcriptional errors.

the slightly different accounts of paul's conversion in acts are minor contradictions, but i believe they are contradictions nonetheless. why would god, supposedly inspiring the text, state it differently on three occasions that seem contradictory just so you could use mental gymnastics to resolve it? there's no point in that. there's nothing to gain from it. read for what they say, the accounts differ and therefore contradict one another.


conceptual bible contradictions

i see what you're saying about the holy spirit. so many different interpretations and denominations...all of them claiming the truth and the 'illumination' of the holy spirit...each of them accusing the other of satanic influence or error...and every single last one of them just as serious about their faith as the other. some one is lying or the holy spirit is not doing its job...or maybe all of them are wrong.

as far as jesus being 100% man and 100% god, i believe that is a logical contradiction, but looking past that, trinitarians and other theologies that believe jesus is god will simply say that jesus' human nature was tempted, not his divinity. same thing with his ignorance on some matters (makes him seem schizophrenic to assert that he both knows something and doesn't know it at the same time...all in one person).

as far as god regretting things and changing his mind in the bible, that's how the ancient culture who wrote about it viewed god, plain and simple. they obviously didn't view him as aloof and autonomous (or powerful) as christians do today. that's one thing common to all religions...they evolve. the god in the ot asks questions out of apparent ignorance (e.g.gen iii.9), acquires knowledge (e.g. gen xviii.21), had a tangible form that could be seen (e.g., exod xxiv.10)...all quite contrary to today's depicture of god.

as far as creating people knowing that they'll suffer, i think that's despicable. punishment serves as a deterrent, i.e., to keep some one from making the same mistake again and to keep others from making the mistake (the latter in the case of capital punishment). eternity in hell serves no purpose other than to inflict pain for pain's sake. it doesn't keep the suffering entities from making the same mistakes (as they can't escape) and it doesn't serve to keep others from making the same mistakes (since everyone else is in heaven for eternity). christians don't agree, plain and simple. but the bible isn't consistent on it either. the old testament knows nothing of this eternal, burning place of torment. that's another aspect of the judeo-christian faith that evolved.

as far as why as god hides himself, there could only be three explanations:

1) he doesn't exist

2) no one knows. he just does because he's god and knows what he's doing.

3) he can't. he exists in a different realm where you must die first to see.


as far as those who have never heard, christians believe differing things about this topic (just like others). some believe they won't be held accountable...others do.

just my thoughts for what they're worth.



~eric

 

[cyberjosh]

Lostkid,

You will always hear dissenting/differing opinions on the Scriptures, but please do atleast take my advice that I gave at the beginning at my last post. If you do indeed believe in God he will lead you beyond times of doubt, as long as you don't place a condition on God that you must be 100% intellectually satisfied at every moment or you will not believe him or walk with Him, because God doesn't work that way and such "faith" wouldn't be faith. And trust me, I've been debating in apologetics for years: there's always a counter arguement (and it can go in circles without end). I've heard an entirely convincing atheistic view before and then the day after heard an entirely convincing evangelistic view and I marveled at how both could sound so convincing. Thus is the nature of words, they can persuade sometimes beyond what our mind can grasp, and that's why sometimes we need to go beyond the words and see on what basis they lie, and for the Bible (the Word of God) it rests on God's words and inspiration and on the firm, unchanging principle that He will not lie to us. What we must accept and choose as true at any given moment may not readily be discernable to us always (thus is the ailment of our human understanding) but God - if you indeed believe that he is real - is above our intellect and can carry us even when we don't understand. And I've got through some of the toughest times in my life that way, and what I saw on the other side I never could have deduced I would have seen from where I started: and such is the power of faith upheld by the power of God's Spirit.

"Trust in the LORD with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding; in all your ways acknowledge him, and he will make your paths straight" (Proverbs 3:5-6)

"For if our heart condemn us, God is greater than our heart, and knoweth all things" (1 John 3:20)

God is greater than us and our present of understanding of things. Trust in Him.

God Bless,

~Josh

 

[LostKid]

I want to thank everyone for their participation - both Christian and Agnostic alike.

And you're both perfectly in harmony with the others' arguments - and this is the basis of my struggle. I know the agnostic understands what I'm going through.

I have, however, concluded that there is a God. I can't take the time to spell out everything right now (And that's not a cop out - i DO want to talk to both of you further).

Long story short I'm joining the army.

 

[Free]

as far as why as god hides himself, there could only be three explanations:

1) he doesn't exist

2) no one knows. he just does because he's god and knows what he's doing.

3) he can't. he exists in a different realm where you must die first to see.

There are more possible explanations.


LostKid,

That's a huge change. What's in the army? A sense of purpose and meaning? Discipline? There is nothing necessarily wrong with wanting to join the army, if you're doing it for the right reasons.

When I first started with apologetics about 8 years ago I was a fairly ignorant, narrow-minded Christian. You know what I'm talking about--zeal without knowledge. I got into it pretty heavy with some atheists (physicists, biologists, anthropologists and the like). I was over my head to say the least and it nearly ended up costing me my faith on a couple of occasions. Their arguments seemed so good, so much better than the Christians and I could not give anything close to a decent rebuttal.

Perhaps the one thing that kept me going was looking back through my life and seeing the hand of God in directing it. I could not deny that there was a purposeful direction to it. After a few years I felt that I was supposed to get into Apologetics as a ministry although I didn't know how that would work out. I took about a year and a half of schooling for it and haven't made it back (hard to pay the bills, support a wife, and go to school). I might make it back, I might not.

I've wrestled with all the things you are stating in your opening post, and then some. I still wrestle with strongly with this stuff. The more I learn the more I realize I don't know. I've never had a personal experience of God but many very close to me have, including my wife. I have essentially stripped down my faith to the bare minimum and I am building it back up piece by piece.

There's talk of all the presuppositions that are involved in Apologetics, and that may be so, but there is no one on Earth that does not bring their presuppositions into theology, philosophy or science.

In short, there are very good answers to the contradictions you have given. Of all the ones you can give, some will be copy errors by earlier scribes and there are some that certainly have a great degree of difficulty, but most have plausible explanations and many, when viewed in context and in the original languages, really aren't contradictions at all.

And yes, Christians disagree, they always have and they always will, but that neither means Christianity or the Bible are false, nor does it mean we cannot know the truth about God.

1Co 1:10 I appeal to you, brothers, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment.
1Co 1:11 For it has been reported to me by Chloe's people that there is quarreling among you, my brothers.
1Co 1:12 What I mean is that each one of you says, "I follow Paul," or "I follow Apollos," or "I follow Cephas," or "I follow Christ."
1Co 1:13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?

The problem is people. We are the problem, not the Bible.