- Status
N
Nicea325
Guest
I agree with you 100%!
D
Dokimas
Guest
:clapping::dancing::
M
monina
Guest
I’m just going by* your* paradigm, larkin. Everything is subjective, eh?
So why do I have to be honest then? And what if, by my own subjective criteria, I am being honest?
You have no response to that in your paradigm. I’m just sayin’
M
monina
Guest
Really? You’d quote from some historical account that you thought the writers may be “mistaken, interpolating, exaggerating, or lying”? (Remember, you said that Scripture may have had writers who did this here.)II respond the same way when reading some historical accounts.
Why in the world would you do that?
C
Contarini
Guest
Because the alternative is to say nothing about history at all.Really? You’d quote from some historical account that you thought the writers may be “mistaken, interpolating, exaggerating, or lying”? (Remember, you said that Scripture may have had writers who did this here.)
Why in the world would you do that?
Any historian, approaching any historical document, assumes that the writers may be doing one of these four things, or all of them at once. That doesn’t mean that we assume the writers are doing this. I for one tend to give the authors (of any text) the benefit of the doubt when it comes to deliberate lying–that is, I assume they are sincere unless I have reason to believe otherwise. But of course authors do lie, and when approaching any text that’s always going to be a possibility.
How else do you imagine historians approach evidence?
Edwin
M
monina
Guest
Why would that be the alternative?
*You *don’t present historical evidence as if you believe the writers were exaggerating, mistaken, interpolating or lying.
If you did, then we would have to take all of your citations as if you really didn’t believe your own sources.
M
monina
Guest
Addendum:Why would that be the alternative?
*You *don’t present historical evidence as if you believe the writers were exaggerating, mistaken, interpolating or lying.
If you did, then we would have to take all of your citations as if you really didn’t believe your own sources.
Why, Edwin, you in fact just posted something minutes earlier that serves as a wonderful example! Why should we take this post as having any credibility?
Clearly, you do NOT approach historical evidence assuming “that the writers may be doing one of these four things, or all of them at once.” That’s an absurd paradigm with which to function.Contarini said:
All we have to do is respond to each of your posts: “Well, your historical reference may have been mistaken, lying, exaggerating or interpolating–maybe all of them at once.”
L
larkin31
Guest
Because that is all that there is. Are you at all familiar with historical interpretation and analysis? Do you think that scientific research is inerrant?Really? You’d quote from some historical account that you thought the writers may be “mistaken, interpolating, exaggerating, or lying”? (Remember, you said that Scripture may have had writers who did this here.)
Why in the world would you do that?
I consider the answers to your questions incredibly obvious, so I feel that you must be asking them for rhetorical purposes. So what is your purpose with them?
L
larkin31
Guest
Because you appear to be claiming that ONLY historical commentary 100% free from bias or error can be useful or helpful or true in other ways. That is why he wrote that to you. You seem to be repeatedly suggesting that ONLY absolutely true and 100% accurate documentation throughout a work makes it useful in any way.
If this is NOT your point, then please clarify instead of repeatedly asking the same questions about the usefulness of documentation that may have an error in it.
L
larkin31
Guest
You do not “have to be honest.” You don’t even have to breathe. Or write a reply at all.I’m just going by* your* paradigm, larkin. Everything is subjective, eh?
So why do I have to be honest then? And what if, by my own subjective criteria, I am being honest?
You have no response to that in your paradigm. I’m just sayin’
Is your point that ONLY theists have a “reason” to be honest and just? Or is your point that theists ARE more honest and just? Or is your point that ONLY theists can understand what “honest” and “just” mean?
I find getting you to clarify and make claims very challenging.
M
monina
Guest
My point is that you, who believes that everything is subjective, cannot make any request of someone to be honest. It’s a nonsensical statement in your paradigm, as you don’t believe there’s an objective standard for honesty.
If “all claims made by humans are subjective. One human mind is doing the thinking and stating the words” as you stated once then it’s absurd to assign me the responsibility of meeting some subjective criteria you’ve made up in your own mind.
How in the world would I know what “honesty” is if it’s subjective? It’s a creation in your own mind that I can’t have access to.
That’s the Gordian knot you’ve created.
Now, someone who believes that there’s an objective understanding of “honesty” (like any Christian here) can make a demand that another be honest, because we all know what that person means by “honesty”.
YOU can’t ask that of anyone, Mr. “All Claims Made by Humans Are Subjective”. :sad_yes:
L
larkin31
Guest
You’re being absurd. You think that you are being logical, but you are not simply because your pique has been raised.
Humans everyday all over the world come to understandings between each other and share commonalities in their subjective experiences and points of view and agree to certain standards that they generalize into codes, laws, and expectations. It’s how families are run, neighborhoods are run, villages are run, nations are run. To claim as you are that EITHER one must believe that there is an objective morality (outside human consciousness) OR one must abandon moral expectations altogether is to commit the “EITHER/OR” fallacy (also known as “horns of the dilemma” or “false dichotomy”).
L
larkin31
Guest
You did not address this issue, which is actually NOT about me. This post is on the topic (inerrancy), which I would like to get back to.
R
rinnie
Guest
Not on the Teaching’s of the Church Love. The CC has never changed its teaching’s in over 2000 years. The devil only has influence over Man not God.
The Pope can be influenced by the devil over his own human thoughts and actions. But that has nothing to do with scripture and teaching the word of God.
What the Pope and Bishops etc teach have nothing to do with human understanding. It is all taught by the power of the Holy Spirit. They never teach something on what THEY think. Oh they can have opinions on things like us, but they will never claim it came from God. There is a difference between what is from God and what they think.
Just like you and I. You can quote me a scripture and ask me what I think it means. And then you can tell me what you think it means. But then we must see what it really says and what God says it means. Thats the job of the Church.
Just like the Pope and bishops can sin, they are human and open to sin like the rest of us. But God never promised us that our Pope or Bishops or Priests would never fall from Grace. God promised us that the teachings of the Church never would.
R
rinnie
Guest
I misread this also. I thought you said WHERE was peter called to be the One leader of the early Church. Peter told us why Jesus picked him. But you have to really pay attention to catch it.
When Peter betrayed Jesus he betrayed Jesus 3 times. Now when Jesus returned after he was crucified he said to Peter 3 times feed my sheep. Did you catch that. It was his way of saying Peter I still want you to lead the Church. Now back to that scripture what did Peter say to Jesus when Jesus asked him the last time. He said you know everything Lord, there is your answer Jesus knew Peters heart and how much his love for God was.
That is why in the beginning the Holy Spirit revealed to Peter who Jesus was. Remember when Jesus said flesh and blood did not reveal this to you. Then Jesus said YOU ARE PETER and upon this ROCK I will build my Church. That is why Jesus changed Peters name into Peter, and Peter translates into Rock and Rock translated into Father.
Jesus also changed Abram’s name into Abraham, it also means Rock, and it also means Father. Father Abraham. Abraham was also called to lead the People of God.
R
rinnie
Guest
I gave you the scripture. Go back and read it again. Jesus told Peter to feed the sheep.
R
rinnie
Guest
Exactly and many have misconceptions about the infallibility of the Pope and bishops. Infallibility is not the absence of sin, nor is it a charism that belongs only to the Pope. Infallibility belongs to the Body of bishops as a whole when in DOCTRINE UNTIY WITH THE POPE they solemnly teach doctrine as TRUE.
Jesus promised this to them when he said he who hears you hears me, and whatever you bind on earth is bound in heaven.
They are all called together in a Ecumenical council.
C
Contarini
Guest
You confuse “were” with “may be.”Why would that be the alternative?
*You *don’t present historical evidence as if you believe the writers were exaggerating, mistaken, interpolating or lying.
If you did, then we would have to take all of your citations as if you really didn’t believe your own sources.
Edwin
C
Contarini
Guest
Actually the post you cite is an excellent example supporting what I’m saying. Note my caveat: “if Allison is right.” I very carefully made it clear that I knew Allison might be mistaken or exaggerating. And I said in my earlier post that I generally assume that people are not lying outright, although of course it’s a possibility one can never exclude altogether when dealing with sinful human beings.Addendum:
Why, Edwin, you in fact just posted something minutes earlier that serves as a wonderful example! Why should we take this post as having any credibility?
Clearly, you do NOT approach historical evidence assuming “that the writers may be doing one of these four things, or all of them at once.” That’s an absurd paradigm with which to function.
All we have to do is respond to each of your posts: “Well, your historical reference may have been mistaken, lying, exaggerating or interpolating–maybe all of them at once.”
Allison is almost certainly not a liar, but he is a fallible human being with a strong bias in favor of conservative low-church Anglicanism. So I take his conclusions tentatively, aware that someone else (or my own closer reading of the primary sources) might be able to show that he is mistaken or exaggerating (or even conceivably lying or interpolating, but that’s highly unlikely).
I do in fact apply this methodology consistently. It’s the only reasonable way to deal with fallible human sources.
Of course, that creates tension when we deal as Christians with texts that we take on faith as infallible. It means that we must distinguish between what we can say as historians (which always leaves open the possibility of error) and what we must say as believers. But there’s no contradiction between the two approaches, because historians are always dealing with probability.
Note that even when dealing with fallible human sources, personal trust does play a role. I’m less likely to assume that Allison is a liar than that some ancient anonymous writer (say, the author of one of the non-canonical Gospels) is a liar, in part because I think I have reasons to have basic confidence in Allison’s character. And given his standing as a bishop and a scholar, I’m also going to assume (until I see evidence to the contrary) that any errors into which he has fallen are going to be fairly subtle.
Edwin
- Status