All FOUR gospels disagree on who was there, where they were, how many, when it happened. Its a TRAIN WRECK!

HOW do I know this?
I'm a seminary graduate, former preacher, deeply studied Greek and Hebrew, former church planter, former missionary.

Religion is a scam.

At least 30% of the seminary graduates I know realize it but they're too deeply involved in the grift that they can't say anything for fear of losing their income and, never having developed any skills needed in the real world, would only qualify to be greeters at Walmart. Thankfully, I have an MBA and it's paid off. Most employers today only look back at your employment history 10-15 years and my time "in the ministry" is over 25-30 years ago.

Look up The Clergy Project and realize what I'm saying is fact.

The beautiful thing about the Bible is that there are no contradictions. If there's one thing in Christianity that's perfectly infallible, it's the Bible.

Apparently this man knows his way around Greek and Hebrew, so he must have overlooked the text. They don't disagree over how many angels there were. They didn't say that there was ONLY one angel, they just said that there was an angel.

There are a couple types of people. There are the people who were originally Christians, like our friend here, but the world's harsh environment or their lack of roots choked them out. At some point in their life, maybe they were too lazy or didn't really have the true meaning or maybe it was something else, but they did not survive.
The other type is the type that could never be bothered to receive the gospel properly. I need not talk about them much.
The last type is the type that received the gospel and bore much fruit.

You base your life and beliefs on faulty evidence. You want contradictions, OPEN YOUR GOD ... DAMN ... EYES. Read your silly little "holy" book written by a bunch of Middle Eastern goat fukkers 3000 years ago. The fact you have to "reconcile" anything is proof.

How many women went to the tomb?
How many angels were there?
Where were the angels, inside or out?
Were they seen immediately or did they suddenly appear?
Was Jesus there?
When the woman/women went, was the sun already up or was it still dark?
I can do this with every single aspect of your fictional story.

Mark (written first) was simply fan fiction written to prop up Paul’s psychosis.
Matthew is a complete train wreck with zombies coming out of tombs but no one noticed.
Luke makes a halfhearted attempt to fix the issues but only makes them worse.
John changes the J-man into SUPERMAN and it's hilarious.

Why is Matthew such an obvious train wreck? It’s a dumpster fire. Its accounts often veer into the realm of legendary hyperbole and commonly repeated Greek/Roman/Egyptian myth to the point of challenging comprehension for believers (most non-believers are not so easily persuaded). Zombies? Really? Unrecorded earthquakes, the sun being darkened (the same things were said about Julius Caesar when he died and NO, there was no eclipse) yet none of these events were recorded by any historians … or any other Bible writers. It really appears that Matthew’s author quote mined the old “scriptures” in order to write a bio and force it to match prophecy. Not only that, but Matthew couldn’t have been very familiar with Hebrew due to the fact that he mentions scriptures that don’t exist and apparently misunderstands common Hebrew language structure.

BUT XTIANS ARE BLIND TO ALL THIS ... and it is both sad and hilarious that supposed adults believe these myths and stories copied from other religions and adapted a little so they appear a bit unique.

Your religion is a fraud.

Why do you feel the need to find something that's completely normal and has no problem and turn it into a "contradiction"? The obviously sound book of Matthew even whispers the old testament in its pages.

If Dr. Seuss was in your buybull you'd believe and defend it too. You don't have any idea what was voted on to be in the buybull, or why, or what was included that isn't now. You'll run along and do a little research to respond, but the fact is, MEN decided what would be in your buybull, MEN voted on it. LOL, you're about as sharp as a cue ball but you can't fathom that you've been lied to your whole life and that you continue those lies in your own mind. Your god is between your ears.

If Dr. Seuss was in our holy book and was accurate, we'd defend it. If the writings aren't accurate, they wouldn't be in the Bible.

See if you can fathom this: true Christians don't defend the Bible because they are a bunch of propagandized people who will do whatever anyone says (though there are other people that do, unfortunately), we defend the Bible because it is correct.

Actually, I do know somewhat of how the Bible was put together. And I'm not doing any research right here. There was a big council that assembled to declare which of the books should be included in the Bible. They decided on 66 books. They voted on the books and letters to decide on them.

If you would just open your eyes, take a peek, you'd find that most things practically scream the existence of God.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Again, your lack of education rears it's ugly head. You're a gullible fool. You have bought the bull about your buybull.

The claim that the “original bible had 66 books” is historically false.
There was no single ‘original bible’ and no fixed table of contents for centuries. The number 66 reflects a 16th-century Protestant decision, not an ancient reality. HAHAHA! You're a doofus.

Early Jewish scripture existed in multiple textual traditions, most notably the Hebrew corpus later standardized by rabbinic Judaism and the Greek Septuagint, which included additional books (Tobit, Sirach, Wisdom, 1-2 Maccabees). Greek-speaking Jews and later Christians used the latter extensively.

The New Testament canon itself was not settled until the 4th century CE, with significant disagreement before then (Athanasius, Festal Letter 367 CE). Those disagreements centered on a wide variety of issues, including perceived or assumed apostalic authorship (an excuse made for Luke and 58 other books - more in a bit). Early Christian Bibles commonly contained more than 66 books, and some traditions still do. Imagine trying to parse out things that happened in 1626 and claiming it is now "god's word" ... stupid.

Saying the bible “originally had 66 books” projects your modern confessional boundary backward onto a fragmented ancient textual landscape. That is theology, not history.

MEN decided what you will consider to be the "word of god". Funny. And to top it all off, even christian bible scholars admit we only know about 7 books for certain.

Everything you say is a faith claim, not facts.

From a secular, scholarly standpoint, we’re certain about exactly seven books: Paul’s undisputed letters are Romans, 1–2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, Philemon. That’s it.

The Gospels? Anonymous.
Moses writing the Torah? Legend.
Peter writing 2 Peter? Almost certainly not.

Your bible is a library of anonymous and composite texts, not a signed first edition. Pretending otherwise confuses tradition with evidence. And you understand ZERO about how or why.

I'm arguing with a toddler about Santa Clause here.

Well thanks for the compliment. I always wanted to be called a doofus. And thank you for clearing up a bit of the history I was unsure about. The previous statement was genuine. I did tell you, after all, that this was all off the top of my head. No need to accuse me of being a doofus.

The second paragraph is accurate, yes, but you seem to have forgotten that most of the books from the new testament were largely settled on by the time very early on by...did I hear you say the 4th century? So that is that. I'm very interested in this history, thank you for your enlightening knowledge, biased as it is.

Theology is great, you seem to have a good interest in it. Especially the part where you get to call me an idiot. Other than that, I can tell you've done quite a bit of homework.

Now for the part where you make your argument, an attack on my Bible. Christians believe that the Bible is organized by God ultimately. That's not really something either side can dispute. But what is disputable is whether the Bible is valid. I think it is, with zero flaws. That's why the books chosen were chosen. Because they perfectly fit. It was probably Moses who wrote the Torah, maybe he didn't though. That's not what matters though.

It doesn't seem that an attack on the construction of the Bible gets very far, given that it's really about the theology of the books and not their background.