I looked this up several years ago as reply in an IRC argument. Before I posted the reply I went though an actually looked at many of the quotes in detail (beca

I looked this up several years ago as reply in an IRC argument. Before I posted the reply I went though an actually looked at many of the quotes in detail (because I knew my interlocutor would do the same - I had been burned before!). Disappointingly every one I looked at turned out not to be a "contradiction" at all - at least in the logical sense. But given the least charitable interpretation, could be construed as one. This isn't good enough if you're addressing well-read Christians (, and have any intellectual integrity). I clicked on one just now, by way of example, http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/jesus_dad.html http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/jesus_dad.html The contradiction concerns who the father of jesus was: Two "contradicting" quotes are: "Concerning his son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh. " "When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost." There are valid interpretations of these two quotes. Talking about "contradictions" is pointless. What we need to be asking is, "what is the best explanation". The best theory of a non-historical Jesus (a greek euhemerized tale about a jewish demi-god) interprets the first quote about "god taking the sperm* of david" as god having used the sperm of david to create a demi-god called Jesus. The later story about him being born to Mary is a euhemerization. Historical interpretations "interpret" sperm to signify "part of a lineage"... that Jesus is descended from David somehow. *the original text says sperm, "seed" is an english euphemism