NationStates Jolt Archive

I'll begin by saying this isn't meant to be insulting in any way, but these are serious questions I've wondered and often gotten responses that contradict one another from various Christians, or gotten no answer.

1. Do you believe Christians of other denominations will go to heaven? Say... if you are catholic, do you think presbytarians are going to heaven? What about Jehova's witness or Mormons? What about the other way around? Why or why not?

2. Are people saved through works or through faith? Or both? Why? Keep in mind that the bible has many parts that support both sides.

3. If god is such a forgiving being, would he forgive Lucifer? Now excluding the idea that Lucifer wouldn't repent, let's say Lucifer DID repent and DID truly feel sorry for what he had done, would he be forgiven and let back into heaven? Why or why not?

4. Is the old testament valid? I'm assuming most people will say yes, so if yes, then why is it okay to ignore certain parts of it (say... the explicit instructions to put someone to death if they commit incest! Or the parts against eating certain foods). If you say what Jesus said nulls these parts, then how do you respond to the fact that in the old testament it declares that anyone who tries to change it is immediately identified as a false prophet? If the old testament ISN'T valid, how do you justify that in light of the fact Jesus himself references it?

5. "... but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die" - God (Genesis 2:17)
"You will not surely die... For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil." - The serpent (Lucifer) (Genesis 3:4-5)

Doesn't this mean God lied and Lucifer told the truth? Would Adam and Eve have known Good and Evil had they not eaten the fruit?

6. Why are the geneologies of Jesus inconsistant? This one I know is a very common question, but I've never heard a satisfactory answer to.

7. Why are the stories of the resurrection inconsistant? Again I know this is a very common question, but I've never heard a satisfactory answer.

"The correct religions is of course the mormans, yes the mormans"

All other people go to hell, period....

1. Do you believe Christians of other denominations will go to heaven? Say... if you are catholic, do you think presbytarians are going to heaven? What about Jehova's witness or Mormons? What about the other way around? Why or why not?

Yes.

2. Are people saved through works or through faith? Or both? Why? Keep in mind that the bible has many parts that support both sides.

People are saved through faith, and genuine faith produces works as an outward effect.

3. If god is such a forgiving being, would he forgive Lucifer? Now excluding the idea that Lucifer wouldn't repent, let's say Lucifer DID repent and DID truly feel sorry for what he had done, would he be forgiven and let back into heaven? Why or why not?

I'm leaning toward yes on this one, because if I say no, that puts me in the position of trying to limit God. It's hard for me to give a sure answer because your hypothetical is probably impossible by defintion.

4. Is the old testament valid? I'm assuming most people will say yes, so if yes, then why is it okay to ignore certain parts of it (say... the explicit instructions to put someone to death if they commit incest! Or the parts against eating certain foods). If you say what Jesus said nulls these parts, then how do you respond to the fact that in the old testament it declares that anyone who tries to change it is immediately identified as a false prophet? If the old testament ISN'T valid, how do you justify that in light of the fact Jesus himself references it?

The simplest way I can think of to answer this is that the overall messages of the Old Testament are valid, but its laws are no longer necessary for salvation.

5. "... but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die" - God (Genesis 2:17)
"You will not surely die... For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil." - The serpent (Lucifer) (Genesis 3:4-5)

Doesn't this mean God lied and Lucifer told the truth? Would Adam and Eve have known Good and Evil had they not eaten the fruit?

No, God did not lie. Death is one of the consequences of Adam and Eve's sin; as I understand it there was no death before that point. And if knowledge of good and evil was a result of eating the fruit, I suppose it's reasonable to assume that without eating the fruit, they wouldn't have known good and evil.

6. Why are the geneologies of Jesus inconsistant? This one I know is a very common question, but I've never heard a satisfactory answer to.

I honestly don't know.

7. Why are the stories of the resurrection inconsistant? Again I know this is a very common question, but I've never heard a satisfactory answer.

Different people remember the same events different ways, especially when they're writing several years after the fact.

"The correct religions is of course the mormans, yes the mormans"

All other people go to hell, period....


lol....gotta love it

1. Do you believe Christians of other denominations will go to heaven? Say... if you are catholic, do you think presbytarians are going to heaven? What about Jehova's witness or Mormons? What about the other way around? Why or why not?

My personal belief is that everyone is on a spiritual path, and those who attempt to follow it, and follow God, will spend eternity in God's presence. Part of me likes the idea that all good people will be given a last chance to repent and acknowledge God, but I haven't really come to a firm viewpoint on that.

2. Are people saved through works or through faith? Or both? Why? Keep in mind that the bible has many parts that support both sides.

You are saved through faith. However, if you truly have faith, you will express it through works. Faith directly leads to works, but it is the faith that is necessary.

3. If god is such a forgiving being, would he forgive Lucifer? Now excluding the idea that Lucifer wouldn't repent, let's say Lucifer DID repent and DID truly feel sorry for what he had done, would he be forgiven and let back into heaven? Why or why not?

I'm iffy on this one, but I tend to lean towards yes. Of course, belief in a Satan/Lucifer/Devil figure comes from the Babylonian exile, so I'm iffy on whether or not such a being even exits. Temptation does not necessarily have to have a personification.

4. Is the old testament valid? I'm assuming most people will say yes, so if yes, then why is it okay to ignore certain parts of it (say... the explicit instructions to put someone to death if they commit incest! Or the parts against eating certain foods). If you say what Jesus said nulls these parts, then how do you respond to the fact that in the old testament it declares that anyone who tries to change it is immediately identified as a false prophet? If the old testament ISN'T valid, how do you justify that in light of the fact Jesus himself references it?

The Old Testament, just like the New, was written by human beings. Were these human beings inspired by God? I believe so. Were they perfect? Absolutely not. There are things in the OT which people believed at the time were the will of God, but were not. The trick is not to have blind faith in the Bible, but to have faith in God. All passages should be interpreted in light of the message of Christ and a great deal of prayer and a request for God to lead you to the right conclusion.

5. "... but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die" - God (Genesis 2:17)
"You will not surely die... For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil." - The serpent (Lucifer) (Genesis 3:4-5)

Doesn't this mean God lied and Lucifer told the truth? Would Adam and Eve have known Good and Evil had they not eaten the fruit?

(a) The story of Adam and Eve is most likely a metaphor for humankind evolving out of a purely instinct-driven species and into a thinking one, which brings knowledge of death.
(b) Even taking it literally, the Serpent (it is simply a serpent by the way, the interpretation that it was Lucifer/Satan didn't come until after the Babylonian exile when the Israelites began to believe in such a being) *was* lying, as he said that Eve would not die. Of course, the penalty for eating the fruit was expulsion from the garden and eventual death.

6. Why are the geneologies of Jesus inconsistant? This one I know is a very common question, but I've never heard a satisfactory answer to.

They were written down by flawed human beings who had heard the stories passed by mouth through at least one person trying desparately to make a point.

7. Why are the stories of the resurrection inconsistant? Again I know this is a very common question, but I've never heard a satisfactory answer.

See above.

Before you read any of my answers, I just want you to know that I am a new Christian(baptized of the 14 of November), so I will not be able to answer these completely but I'll try.

1. Do you believe Christians of other denominations will go to heaven? Say... if you are catholic, do you think presbytarians are going to heaven? What about Jehova's witness or Mormons? What about the other way around? Why or why not?

Well, personally, I do, and so does my church. I really think that if you truely beleive that Jesus died on the Cross for your sins, and you try to follow your life like him (i.e. Ten Commandments), you'll go to Heaven. I'm not sure about the Catholic situation, since I'm not Catholic, but I've spoken to a few(teenagers), and they beleive that their friends of different denominations WILL go to Heaven. As for Jehova's Witness and Mormans, I can;t really give you much info on there.

2. Are people saved through works or through faith? Or both? Why? Keep in mind that the bible has many parts that support both sides.

A little of both really. Now, yes, you can be saved by faith alone, but not just faith will not get you as much if you work to help other people gain faith.(Also keep in mind that these are just MY opinions, not EVERYONE'S.)

3. If god is such a forgiving being, would he forgive Lucifer? Now excluding the idea that Lucifer wouldn't repent, let's say Lucifer DID repent and DID truly feel sorry for what he had done, would he be forgiven and let back into heaven? Why or why not?

Once you go to Hell, that is it. When you die, you are sent to a judgement before God. Then and there he looks over your life and sees if you have done as he says.

5. "... but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die" - God (Genesis 2:17)
"You will not surely die... For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil." - The serpent (Lucifer) (Genesis 3:4-5)

Doesn't this mean God lied and Lucifer told the truth? Would Adam and Eve have known Good and Evil had they not eaten the fruit?

In a way, we ARE dieing. Chemical bombs, nuclear bombs, mass genocide, hate, despair, abuse, sex before marriage... We ARE slowing dieing- killing ourselves.

Everything else I can not give a good answer for- remember, I'm new. If you'd like to ask anything else, just email me(look in my profile) and i can talk to my youth minister about it.

Sincerely,
Matt

Okay, I'm studying for some tests right now, so I'll ask a bit more in detail later, but for now...

In regards to what you guys have said in that the bible was written by men, hence the flaws (like the inconsistances of the genealogies of Jesus, whom can't even agree who his grandfather are, or the stories of ressurection), then why is it inconceivable that another part of the bible was mangled as well? Perhaps important parts?

As to whomever said that people view things differently and that's why the things are inconsistant... I'm sorry but no matter how you view things, it doesn't change what day something happened. It doesn't change what possessions you saw someone with. It doesn't change who that person spoke to. It doesn't change the time of the day (for example, in the ressurection stories, one of them says it was dark out.... another one says it was bright and noon... not literally those words... but seriously, people don't have THAT different perceptions of things)

first of all im quaker which is kind of a liberal religion so go to a catholic for hardcore answers
1. yes, all good people even without belief in jesus as a living god as long as they recognise his goodnes

2. both, faith in jesus is good but well " be not simply good, be good for something"

3.yes, if he not only repented but worked for reversing his evil influences

4.the bible is an adapted book the message is of god but it was written by men, and cant be expected to be perfect

5.deaths a part of the deal, they were immortal before, and by knowledge of good and evil it means that they would know both before then they only percieved good

6.dont know i never knew the guy

7. i think like in much of the bible this is meant to be taken simbolicly, like his message was again being carried by new followers

As quickly as I can, without taking time to pull out references:

1. Basically yes. I think divisions within the church are unnatural and therefore do not effect one's salvation. As for Jehovah's Witnesses/Mormons . . . I'm not an expert on either, but I am under the impression that both add significantly to the Bible (see the very end of Revelation), and so I would say probably not.

2. Neither. Through grace only, which allows us to have faith, which leads us to good works. So well faith and works will both result in a Christian, neither is the root of salvation.

3. I would say yes. I remember asking my parents when I was very young why God doesn't just destroy Satan, and there answer was that God still loves him, and wants him to repent. That's pretty much what I think. If God forced Lucifer to be on good behavior or simply destroyed him, Lucifer would no longer have the chance to sincerely repent.

4. Yes. To use your examples: a) capital punishment: I've thought about this and one thing I've come up with was that in the OT, sins were atoned for by animal sacrifices, which were imperfect and worldly. Therefore, possibly, no animal sacrifice is "powerful" enough to atone for serious sins; the person is thus left without hope of atonement and might as well die. After the crucifixion, which was a perfect sacrifice, there was a sacrifice in place "powerful" enough to atone for any sin. b) Dietary laws - Peter's vision revoked them; in the NT "clean" and "unclean" were no longer defined by external factors. I'm unfamiliar with a passage in the OT suggesting it cannot be changed; please give me the reference you are referring to. A quick search for "false" in the NASB gave 38 occurrences in the OT, and none of them struck me as saying this. The closest I could find was in Ezekiel 13, which says rather that false prophets will try to pass off their prophesies as the Word of God when they're not, but does not preclude God giving new parts of His Word to true prophets. If this is not what you're looking for, let me know. Furthermore, "change" is not the same as "cause to be inapplicable in the literal sense." Jesus didn't say that the OT said something other than what it says, he simply said that not all of the Law was necessary anymore. Also keep in mind that Jesus is God and therefore it seems natural that rules applying to humans don't necessarily apply to him!

5. No. Adam and Eve did die. "When" doesn't have to be immediate; consider the statement, "when you're 18, you can vote." Now, unless your 18th birthday happens to fall on the first Tuesday in November, you cannot vote immediately once you turn 18. Is that statement then false? And no, Adam and Eve would not have known good and evil if they had not eaten of the fruit.

Before I go into these two, I'd like to offer up that I don't think divine inspiration of the Bible necessitates God picking out every last word, but only revealing the content. But I will try to defend these, just for the heck of it:

6. I've heard some explanations. One is that the genealogies are intentionally incomplete in order to achieve a symbolic number of generations; thus different ancestors are omitted. My NIV Study Bible (pretty conservative) posits this. Another possibility is that Matthew traces the genealogy through Joseph's side (since Joseph was Jesus' legal father) while Luke traces it through Mary's side (since Mary was Jesus' biological mother). Again, I personally think that while the Bible is God's inspired Word, He didn't necessarily give the writers perfect knowledge or perfect memories in all places (e.g., He could've said, "Matthew, trace Jesus' genealogy back to Abraham at this point," and "Luke, trace Jesus' genealogy back to Adam at this point," without actually telling either what exactly that genealogy was). So I'm saying I take the divine inspiration of Scripture as inspired content, not necessarily inspired phrasology. And things like exactly who was so many generations back from Jesus is really irrelevant in terms of content. But at the same time I don't see the point in arguing with or deriding those who do choose to believe that God ordered every single word.

7. See mostly my conclusion to number (6). Although I'd point out that many of the "contradictions" concerning the resurrection in the Skeptic's Annotated Bible result from the SAB guy assuming that every account purports to be a complete account. Case in point, he says John 20:1, which states that Mary Magdalene came to the tomb, contradicts Matthew 28:1, which states that Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to the tomb, and Mark 16:1, which adds Salome, and Luke 24:1, 10, which doesn't mention Salome, but adds "other women." The point is, none of these passages necessarily contradict: you could just as easily read Luke as the most complete, Mark as defining Salome as one of the "other women," but not mentioning the rest, Matthew as not mentioning anyone but the two Marys, and John as only mentioning Mary Magdalene. I could say, "I went to the mall on the Saturday after Thanksgiving," and "My brother and I went to the mall on the Saturday after Thanksgiving," and "My mother and my brother and I went to the mall on the Saturday after Thanksgiving," and all of those statements are completely true.

But I digress, because I don't really think it's important exactly who was at the tomb or who saw the resurrected Christ first or where, and I know that I can't really defend the Bible as containing zero contradictions at all. The bottom line, I think, is that it would be silly for me to change my entire worldview on the basis of who Joseph's great great great great grandfather is.

1. Depends. As long as they put God per se above any particular ritual, belief, or quirk, they're good. Otherwise, it's 666 Kelvins (the temperature at which souls burn... and yes, the Lord uses SI units).

2. I never did like this question. It's not just faith: it's fidelity. Love God as faithfully as a son loves his father. And if ye love him, keep his commandments and such.

3. Assuming the traditional story, I'd say yes. I'll leave the deeper issues raised by this innocent question to more capable minds.

4. The Old Testament still applies. But the Mosaic Law was for the children of Israel. It's not legally binding against gentiles such as myself. I have only two rules to follow: Love God, and Love my Neighbor. And Don't Let Gays Get Married. (J/K! J/K! Don't sue me! I have no money!)

5. God didn't lie. Adam and Eve died sho'nuff. But the serpent was correct in his explanation of the tree. If they hadn't eaten from the tree, they would not have known good and evil, and our race would have been as carefree as the animals. Kinda low aspirations for God's masterwork, but I won't question his judgment.

6. Um... pass.

7. Eyewitness accounts are notoriously sketchy. It sucks, but it's true. At least by having the four stories, one can discern the general facts of the Resurrection. [edit: just saw your post about night and day... will have to look into it.]

Okay, I'm studying for some tests right now, so I'll ask a bit more in detail later, but for now...

In regards to what you guys have said in that the bible was written by men, hence the flaws (like the inconsistances of the genealogies of Jesus, whom can't even agree who his grandfather are, or the stories of ressurection), then why is it inconceivable that another part of the bible was mangled as well? Perhaps important parts?

As to whomever said that people view things differently and that's why the things are inconsistant... I'm sorry but no matter how you view things, it doesn't change what day something happened. It doesn't change what possessions you saw someone with. It doesn't change who that person spoke to. It doesn't change the time of the day (for example, in the ressurection stories, one of them says it was dark out.... another one says it was bright and noon... not literally those words... but seriously, people don't have THAT different perceptions of things)

1. See my post; it is possible to believe that God revealed important content but not unimportant details.

2. Actually, the contradiction you're referring to is between "still dark out" and "sunrise;" I think a reasonable interpretation is whoever precisely was going left their house a little before sunrise and got to the tomb at sunrise! Sort of like I can say, "I go to class at 8:45," meaning I leave my room at 8:45, or "I go to class at 9," meaning I get to my first class at 9. And remember that the gospels were not written immediately (like journals), but years later (like memoirs). And I'm pretty sure that some of my memories might be inaccurate as to who said what to whom, what day or time of day it was, etc.

1. Do you believe Christians of other denominations will go to heaven? Say... if you are catholic, do you think presbytarians are going to heaven? What about Jehova's witness or Mormons? What about the other way around? Why or why not?

God does not see what denomination you are. He see's whats inside your heart. "For God so loved the world that he gave his one in only son, so that whoever believes in him will not perish but have eternal life." If you believe Jesus was the son of God and that he came and died for your sins then you will go to heaven.

2. Are people saved through works or through faith? Or both? Why? Keep in mind that the bible has many parts that support both sides.

"All men have sinned and have falled short of the glory of God" If people were saved through works, then no one would be saved. Why? Because if you have sin, you can not be with God in heaven. And all have sinned. You are saved through believing in Jesus and that he died for your sins. This does not mean that you shouldn't do good deeds.

3. If god is such a forgiving being, would he forgive Lucifer? Now excluding the idea that Lucifer wouldn't repent, let's say Lucifer DID repent and DID truly feel sorry for what he had done, would he be forgiven and let back into heaven? Why or why not?

Lucifer was an angel. Not human. God set different parameters for them. We do not know what these parameters are so I can not say one way or another.

4. Is the old testament valid? I'm assuming most people will say yes, so if yes, then why is it okay to ignore certain parts of it (say... the explicit instructions to put someone to death if they commit incest! Or the parts against eating certain foods). If you say what Jesus said nulls these parts, then how do you respond to the fact that in the old testament it declares that anyone who tries to change it is immediately identified as a false prophet? If the old testament ISN'T valid, how do you justify that in light of the fact Jesus himself references it?

These were rules God set upon his people. His people being the Jews. God specifically commanded them to obey these rules and you will enter heaven. These were the rules given to them because they did not have Jesus. God also said that he will sent a savior that will free Israel. IE Jesus. When Jesus came he came for all the world not just God's chosen people. The old testament rules pertained only to the Jews before Jesus came.

5. "... but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die" - God (Genesis 2:17)
"You will not surely die... For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil." - The serpent (Lucifer) (Genesis 3:4-5)

Doesn't this mean God lied and Lucifer told the truth? Would Adam and Eve have known Good and Evil had they not eaten the fruit?

What do you mean by this question? Do mean the fact that they didn't die? Because they did. They died later in life. You see before they ate from the tree they would live forever.

6. Why are the geneologies of Jesus inconsistant? This one I know is a very common question, but I've never heard a satisfactory answer to.

Do you know you're exact geneology? It's really a matter of how things were written down and the change through translation.

7. Why are the stories of the resurrection inconsistant? Again I know this is a very common question, but I've never heard a satisfactory answer.

To answer that I would have to know the inconsistancies of it. Please expand.

1. Do you believe Christians of other denominations will go to heaven? Say... if you are catholic, do you think presbytarians are going to heaven? What about Jehova's witness or Mormons? What about the other way around? Why or why not?

It's not about religon its about beliving in jesus if you belive in him you go to heavan when god judges you he dosn't go hmm your catholic go to hell he looks at your heart to see if you belived

2. Are people saved through works or through faith? Or both? Why? Keep in mind that the bible has many parts that support both sides.

By faith and only faith loving god and belivin gin him leads you to do good things but even so that dosnt mean you will

3. If god is such a forgiving being, would he forgive Lucifer? Now excluding the idea that Lucifer wouldn't repent, let's say Lucifer DID repent and DID truly feel sorry for what he had done, would he be forgiven and let back into heaven? Why or why not?

Yea if never really thought about this it is quite a stumper but i don't belive he could if though i dont have anything to back it up

4. Is the old testament valid? I'm assuming most people will say yes, so if yes, then why is it okay to ignore certain parts of it (say... the explicit instructions to put someone to death if they commit incest! Or the parts against eating certain foods). If you say what Jesus said nulls these parts, then how do you respond to the fact that in the old testament it declares that anyone who tries to change it is immediately identified as a false prophet? If the old testament ISN'T valid, how do you justify that in light of the fact Jesus himself references it?

The old testament was basicly a set of laws which govenend how people were to live in a time where there was really no hope for them but when jesus came back and died for us we no longer had to follow those rules all we had to do was belive in him jesus. It isn't void it's just not how you have to live your life now (even though it would be nice if you did/did not do those things)

5. "... but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die" - God (Genesis 2:17)
"You will not surely die... For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil." - The serpent (Lucifer) (Genesis 3:4-5)

Doesn't this mean God lied and Lucifer told the truth? Would Adam and Eve have known Good and Evil had they not eaten the fruit?

eating the fruit caused them to be opean to sin banishing them from eden when it says die i dont think it means a physical death i think it has something to do with your spirt there spirts were no longer pure but full of evil so basiclly there innocens died

6. Why are the geneologies of Jesus inconsistant? This one I know is a very common question, but I've never heard a satisfactory answer to.

Basicly becaue it was recorder by humans and honestly how acuratle do you think we are ecpecially back then

7. Why are the stories of the resurrection inconsistant? Again I know this is a very common question, but I've never heard a satisfactory answer.

I honestly don't know what your talking baout i've only heard one story. but if so just human error

1. I believe all Christians will go to heaven. However, I do not believe that (all) Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses are Christians. Christ is the only way to salvation and you cannot earn it on your own.
2. Faith and faith alone is the means of salvation. Works are merely the outward demonstration of one's faith.
3. I do not believe this hypothetical is practical for the simple reason that Lucifer does not repent. I cannot answer for God in a situation that does not exist.
4. Jesus came as the fulfillment of the Old Testament, not to override it or to destroy it. Man could not hold up his part of the bargain in the Old Covenant (salvation by works), so God provided the means for our salvation Himself. Parts of the Old Testament must be taken in conjunction with the interpretations of such passages in the New Testament. A large part of the Old Testament law was intended to set the Jews apart as God's chosen people so that they might bring more to follow Him, and also to demonstrate the inability of man to save himself, thus directing man towards total dependence upon God.
5. The result of Adam and Eve's disobedience WAS death. God told the truth, as He always does. Lucifer included enough of the truth in his deception to pull Adam and Eve into sin. They already knew good, for God is good, and by eating the forbidden fruit, they only gained knowledge of evil. Through their disobedience they became unlike God as they could possibly, for they were tainted with sin.
6. The genealogies do not contradict one another. The gospels want to point out different things to their audience about Christ's nature, and therefore include the bloodline that traces that path.
7. Again, the gospels emphasize different points. One emphasizes Jesus' divine nature, one emphasizes His taking on of the human nature, and if you read both of them, you understand more completely the nature of Christ. Also, each of the gospels was written by a different author, so therefore it is logical that each hold a slightly different perspective on events, although they are all divinely inspired. None is in contradiction with the other.

I hope by reading all these responses you will get a clearer feel for the baseline of Christianity.
Associate Reformed Presbyterian, baby!

As to whomever said that people view things differently and that's why the things are inconsistant... I'm sorry but no matter how you view things, it doesn't change what day something happened. It doesn't change what possessions you saw someone with. It doesn't change who that person spoke to. It doesn't change the time of the day (for example, in the ressurection stories, one of them says it was dark out.... another one says it was bright and noon... not literally those words... but seriously, people don't have THAT different perceptions of things)

There just memorys memorys can be alterd if somebody tells you enough times they can make you think it happend or you were acutaully there or if your parents repatedly tell a story from when you were younger you can think you rember what happend but you dont really memorys can be alterd in the movie momento a guy almost convinces another guy that he killed his wife

In regards to what you guys have said in that the bible was written by men, hence the flaws (like the inconsistances of the genealogies of Jesus, whom can't even agree who his grandfather are, or the stories of ressurection), then why is it inconceivable that another part of the bible was mangled as well? Perhaps important parts?

As to whomever said that people view things differently and that's why the things are inconsistant... I'm sorry but no matter how you view things, it doesn't change what day something happened. It doesn't change what possessions you saw someone with. It doesn't change who that person spoke to. It doesn't change the time of the day (for example, in the ressurection stories, one of them says it was dark out.... another one says it was bright and noon... not literally those words... but seriously, people don't have THAT different perceptions of things)
I am one of those Christians who believes in the inerrancy of the Bible. There are contradictions between the gospels, simply different points of emphasis and modes of the presentation of facts. Some gospels do not mention certain events and some do. There is no contradiction there.

In regards to what you guys have said in that the bible was written by men, hence the flaws (like the inconsistances of the genealogies of Jesus, whom can't even agree who his grandfather are, or the stories of ressurection), then why is it inconceivable that another part of the bible was mangled as well? Perhaps important parts?

As I pointed out, this *is* a possibility, which is why the Bible is only a place to start. The real guidance comes through prayer and requesting that God lead you.

I am one of those Christians who believes in the inerrancy of the Bible. There are contradictions between the gospels, simply different points of emphasis and modes of the presentation of facts. Some gospels do not mention certain events and some do. There is no contradiction there.

What about the fact that the Gospels have Christ born under completely different kings?