Religious scholars have almost made it an Olympic sport to make all the inconsistencies seem meaningful, rational and coherent.
Little premise; i found out pretty early in my life that i am what most would label as an atheist.
With this in mind, a then 22 YO me thought it would be a good idea to read the whole Bible (both old and new testament), as perhaps i would get some benefits of being somewhat impartial to it.
The old one, with its style, was really hard to read and get to the end figuring out what is actually written.
The new one, however, was very interesting for me to read. What immediatelly stuck out to me, is that it says that John the Baptist was considered as THE prophet by the people, but he told them the great prophet, much greater and holier than him, "whose sandals i'm unworthy of tying" (along those lines), is yet to come.
The whole time he acts as if he doesen't know who it is, and even when he gets to point at Jesus, revealing him as such, all along he acts as if he sees him for the first time.
Yet, in another place, in several gospels (not all), the fact that Elizabeth (mother of John the Baptist) and Mary (Mother of Christ) were RELATIVES, and even that Mary visited her relative while she was 3 months pregnant, while Elizabeth was 6 months pregnant.
Did they have a deal to raise their sons (who will be relatives) believing they are special, holy, born from God, thinking they will become these alpha persons to battle it out with the harsh world and make it for themselves, only for the whole thing to get out of control and a new religion to arise and change the world, all because of two spoiled mommy's boys?
I don't know, but it sure seemed like it to me back then, and now even more so.
Never heard anyone speak about this, or even present it as an inconsistency worthy of attacking/defending, yet i think this alone would be enough for me to at least start questioning some things even if i was a believer to begin with.