But it's not silly at all to think Jesus did what he did. Because he was God's son.
But what if he wasn't?
Well, he was.
Can you prove he was?
Can you prove he wasn't?
There's the standstill.
But it's only a standstill if you keep going at it from that angle. If you instead prove or disprove that he did those things, it'd be settled.
Can that be done? Maybe.
Within a decade of Jesus' crucifixion, people who would have known better
believed that he rose from the dead. No reliable contemporary documents indicate that anyone ever even tried to deny that the tomb was empty. The Jewish authorities spread the story that the disciples stole the body, but all but one of the eleven were martyred. (Note: I'm not saying martyrdom = truth. People who die for their faith today do it because they believe what a book says; the disciples died because of what they believed they saw firsthand) There was not enough time for the story of Jesus to become a myth, and if the disciples had stolen the body, how did nobody spill the beans about it (especially while being crucified upside-down)?
As for
http://www.coppit.org/god/contradictions.php, first off, I should say that you will never hear me claiming that an English translation of the Bible is inerrant, nor that the manuscripts we currently have perfectly preserve the originals.
I'll also note that the Bible never actually calls itself inerrant. The verse often used to support that idea is 2 Timothy 3:16: "There's nothing like the written Word of God for showing you the way to salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. Every part of Scripture is God-breathed and useful one way or another--showing us truth, exposing our rebellion, correcting our mistakes, training us to live God's way. Through the Word we are put together and shaped up for the tasks God has for us."
When I read that, I don't see a guarantee that an English translation 2000 years later isn't going to have any typos on the part about how many soldiers a guy had.
Most of the contradictions presented on that page seem to be relatively minor copying errors, or the use of language that is either poetic, or phrased in a way that ancient readers would understand, or poetic because it is phrased in an ancient way. In fact, that said, this is the only one from that page that seems worth extensive discussion here:
Anyone who strikes a man and kills him shall surely be put to death. (Exodus 21:12)
Do not repay any one evil for evil. (Romans 12:17, likewise Matthew 5:39)
You have to consider the cultural context. When the Mosaic law was given, the standard was "a life for an eye", making "an eye for an eye" quite progressive. They weren't ready for the law of love, but they could at least get to the law of fairness.
Most unsavory things in the Old Testament are just the trappings of the ancient culture. Humanity isn't pretty, and the farther back you go, the worse it looks. God met the Israelites where they were. "You want to keep slaves?" he said. "Then treat them fairly and humanely, and offer them an opportunity to be set free. You want to stone people? Then at least reserve it for heinous crimes, and give them a fair trial (by 2000 BC standards)."
Jesus gives an example of this in Matthew 19:
One day the Pharisees were badgering him: "Is it legal for a man to divorce his wife for any reason?"
He answered, "Haven't you read in your Bible that the Creator originally made man and woman for each other, male and female? And because of this, a man leaves father and mother and is firmly bonded to his wife, becoming one flesh -- no longer two bodies but one. Because God created this organic union of the two sexes, no one should desecrate his art by cutting them apart."
They shot back in rebuttal, "If that's so, why did Moses give instructions for divorce papers and divorce procedures?"
Jesus said, "Moses provided for divorce as a concession to your hardheartedness, but it is not part of God's original plan. I'm holding you to the original plan, and holding you liable for adultery if you divorce your faithful wife and then marry someone else. I make an exception in cases where the spouse has committed adultery."
Moral discrepancies between Old and New Testament are usually the result of progressive revelation.
I know there are much better apparent contradictions, and if you want to bring up more (probably either in another thread or in PMs), I'm game.