How do we understand Biblical Inerrancy?

[lacivit]

Of course I have no credibility. I actually agree with you on hat. I’m just an anonymous poster who reads a lot of biblical criticism books. I am very familiar withbthe apologetics arguments as I used to be Catholic. I do know both sides now. When I critically compared both viewpoints, I came to the conclusion that the evidence was entirely in favor of the critics. Catholicism is not alone, as all the religions are equally false in my opinion.

Take what i say and do your own research.

The truth has nothing to fear. That’s why I’m here.

 

[paul_c]

Of course I have no credibility. I actually agree with you on hat. I’m just an anonymous poster who reads a lot of biblical criticism books. I am very familiar withbthe apologetics arguments as I used to be Catholic. I do know both sides now. When I critically compared both viewpoints, I came to the conclusion that the evidence was entirely in favor of the critics. Catholicism is not alone, as all the religions are equally false in my opinion.

Take what i say and do your own research.

The truth has nothing to fear. That’s why I’m here.

You are here to spread the truth that all religions are equally false? Based on your opinion? You’ll need much more than that to make a compelling case. I’ve spent a lot of time discussing this with disciples of JD Crosnan. They parse out the bible as historical or not, based on their pre-concieved notion that Jesus was not divine and that no miracles are possible. They then pass this off as scholarship to the willing athiest.

If you start off by ruling out the possibility that Jesus was the son of God as he claimed in the bible, can you actually come to any other conclusion? But that is very poor scholarship because it rules out valid evidence based on prejudice.

Let me ask you this. Why have you ruled the Gospels out as valid witnesses to the Life of Jesus Christ?

 

[Pete_Holter]

Very helpful information, Pete! Thank you! Good discussion all around!

I’m glad I could help! It’s fun.

If you’d like me to bomb this thread with citations from the Fathers and Doctors pertaining to (1) inspiration, (2) inerrancy, (3) the preservation of the text, and (4) the purpose of the Bible being the salvation of man, I’d be glad to. The inspiration and inerrancy of Sacred Scripture is the dogma of our faith that I’ve spent the most time learning about.

In Christ the LORD,
Pete

 

[Windfish]

I’m glad I could help! It’s fun.

If you’d like me to bomb this thread with citations from the Fathers and Doctors pertaining to (1) inspiration, (2) inerrancy, (3) the preservation of the text, and (4) the purpose of the Bible being the salvation of man, I’d be glad to. The inspiration and inerrancy of Sacred Scripture is the dogma of our faith that I’ve spent the most time learning about.

In Christ the LORD,
Pete

You can bet I am going to PM you.

 

[Big_Dummy]

Luke is not in error. The material of the roof is not a part of the truth of the gospels. Read them again. Matthew 9:2 does not mention a roof. Mark 2:3 does not mention the material of the roof. So where did you come up with ‘straw’ and how is it ‘more historically accurate’?

So, one can not import tiles from rome to use in consturction? lol

 

[Big_Dummy]

The reference to “roof tiles” is a clear indication that the anonymous author of “Luke” isn’t actually from that area.

One of the major blunders by “Luke” is the claim for a census. 2 major errors.

1. There is no Roman record of ANY universal census taking place until the reign of Vespasian until 74 C.E.
2. There is no Roman record of any census requirement to go back to your hometown.
   “Everyone went to his own town to be registered” Luke 2:3

The purpose of a census was to collect taxes. Going back to your own town would be totally unnecessary. Also, any state that had it’s own King, would be responsible for collecting their own taxes and then subsequently handing over to Rome it’s share.
Judea was a client Roman state and therefore responsible for collecting it’s own taxes.

It is quite clear to this critical reader of the NT that the “census” as described was inserted to make the claim that “Jesus” was prophesied by the OT. In other words, “Jesus” had to be from Bethlehem.

doxa.ws/Bible/Luke.html

 

[lacivit]

You are here to spread the truth that all religions are equally false? Based on your opinion?

Not on my opinion but based on presenting evidence which backs up what I have to say.

You’ll need much more than that to make a compelling case. I’ve spent a lot of time discussing this with disciples of JD Crosnan. They parse out the bible as historical or not, based on their pre-concieved notion that Jesus was not divine and that no miracles are possible. They then pass this off as scholarship to the willing athiest.

I’ll answer this by asking you a question. Do you accept the miracles of Islam? Did Mohammed fly to Jerusalem on a horse? Do you actually think that hundreds of dead corpses got out of their graves when Jesus died on the cross? Don’t you think that this type of embellishment calls everything into question? I certainly do. Funny how these types of miracles don’t happen in the modern age. I wonder why that is?

I agree with you on this. I rule out the son of God claim since there is no evidence for it and of course the NT Jesus is just another in a long line of Sons of God. The difference being of course is that this one is the true one.

If you start off by ruling out the possibility that Jesus was the son of God as he claimed in the bible, can you actually come to any other conclusion? But that is very poor scholarship because it rules out valid evidence based on prejudice.

Let me ask you this. Why have you ruled the Gospels out as valid witnesses to the Life of Jesus Christ?/QUOTE

Evidence indicates with a very high degree of probability that the canon Gospels were works of totally anonymous authors. This is only disputed by very conservative Christians.
My own St. Jerome’s Catholic study bible acknowledges the anonymous authors. The early church had no evidence for authorship but named them after the apostles in the narratives according to " church tradition". It was also known that by doing this, the documents would be more likely to be believed.

I’ll sum up my position with these 10 points before moving on to other topics.

1. The idea that Jesus is a myth is not ridiculous. There is actually more evidence for this position than “real person” Jesus.
2. Jesus was wildly famous according to the NT, but there was no reason for contemporary historians to notice him. This is absurd and contradictory. He should have been noticed IF he was as famous as indicated in the texts. If he indeed existed, he was likely an obscure run of the mill apocalyptic preacher of which there were many. For example Jesus Ben Strada.
3. Ancient historian Josephus DID NOT write about Jesus. Although this would amount to nothing more than hearsay 64 years or so after his crucifixion, it is an interpolation for sure. The shorter reference was also tampered with and the Jesus referenced is not the Christ.
4. Eyewitnesses most certainly did not write the gospels. The evidence for this position is overwhelming.
5. The gospels do not give a consistent picture of Jesus. They are highly contradictory in minor and major details.
6. Actual recorded history does not confirm the gospels. In fact many things in the gospels are contradicted by actual recorded history.
7. Secular archeology does not confirm the gospels.
8. Paul and the Epistles do not corroborate the gospels.
9. Christianity did not begin with Jesus and his apostles. Jesus would have been a Jew. He wasn’t a Christian! He was a 100% law abiding Jew. The text claiming to “build my church” wasn’t in the earlier texts. It was clearly added by the Roman church at a later date to establish authority.
10. Christianity was not a totally new and different miraculous overnight success that changed the world. For the first 300 years or so it was a small sect in the empire. Christianity exploded when Constantine gave Christianity certain privileges over the other pagan religions. The impetus for this move was to unify the empire. Christianity was attractive for the devotion to authority. Once in a position of power, the Christians were ruthless in stamping out other pagan religions and also so called “heretical” Christians like the Gnostics.

 

[paul_c]

paul c;7462847:

You are here to spread the truth that all religions are equally false? Based on your opinion?

Not on my opinion but based on presenting evidence which backs up what I have to say.

okay. we’ll see.

paul c;7462847:

You’ll need much more than that to make a compelling case. I’ve spent a lot of time discussing this with disciples of JD Crosnan. They parse out the bible as historical or not, based on their pre-concieved notion that Jesus was not divine and that no miracles are possible. They then pass this off as scholarship to the willing athiest.

I’ll answer this by asking you a question. Do you accept the miracles of Islam? Did Mohammed fly to Jerusalem on a horse?

I have no opinion of the miracles of islam. I’ve never heard of them.

Do you actually think that hundreds of dead corpses got out of their graves when Jesus died on the cross? Don’t you think that this type of embellishment calls everything into question? I certainly do.

Matthew says the bodies of many saints were raised from their tombs. You think this is unreasonable because you’ve never seen it, but you weren’t there at this pivotable time in World history.

Funny how these types of miracles don’t happen in the modern age. I wonder why that is?

There ARE modern day miracles. In 1854, Mary appeared to Bernadette Soubirous 18 times in Lourdes, France. A stream miraculously formed in the grotto and there have been ~60 miraculous healings at that site in the last 150 years confirmed by an independent medical commission. In 1917, tens of thousands witnessed the miracle of the sun at Fatima, and it was covered by the local secular press. Padre Pio had the stigmata of Christ starting in 1919. he died in 1969.

lacivit:

If you start off by ruling out the possibility that Jesus was the son of God as he claimed in the bible, can you actually come to any other conclusion? But that is very poor scholarship because it rules out valid evidence based on prejudice.

I agree with you on this. I rule out the son of God claim since there is no evidence for it and of course the NT Jesus is just another in a long line of Sons of God. The difference being of course is that this one is the true one.

Well , the evidence for Christ’s divinity includes those accounts you dismiss. If you eliminate all the evidence of Christ’s divinity as invalid, then of course no evidence will exist. its self fulfilling.

lacivit:

Let me ask you this. Why have you ruled the Gospels out as valid witnesses to the Life of Jesus Christ?

Evidence indicates with a very high degree of probability that the canon Gospels were works of totally anonymous authors. This is only disputed by very conservative Christians.
My own St. Jerome’s Catholic study bible acknowledges the anonymous authors. The early church had no evidence for authorship but named them after the apostles in the narratives according to " church tradition". It was also known that by doing this, the documents would be more likely to be believed.

This is not evidence. You are just offering opinions. Let’s discuss the facts. yes, the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke are not signed. John’s is. But that doesn’t make them anonymous. These Gospels were copied over thousands of time in antiquity and always with the same titles. This consistency is not an accident. And there are written records describing the authorship form the 100s.

 

[paul_c]

lacivit:

I’ll sum up my position with these 10 points before moving on to other topics.

1. The idea that Jesus is a myth is not ridiculous. There is actually more evidence for this position than “real person” Jesus.

You have no evidence at all that Jesus is a myth. How can you possibly prove someone didn’t exist. On the other hand, we have contemporary accounts from Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, James, Jude, Paul, and Peter that he did exist.

lacivit:

1. Jesus was wildly famous according to the NT, but there was no reason for contemporary historians to notice him. This is absurd and contradictory. He should have been noticed IF he was as famous as indicated in the texts. If he indeed existed, he was likely an obscure run of the mill apocalyptic preacher of which there were many. For example Jesus Ben Strada.

Seriously, you are arguing that something didn’t happen from silence. That is never sound evidence. Further, you ignore the contempory accounts from believers, and nonbelievers would have no reason to talk about Jesus.

lacivit:

1. Ancient historian Josephus DID NOT write about Jesus. Although this would amount to nothing more than hearsay 64 years or so after his crucifixion, it is an interpolation for sure. The shorter reference was also tampered with and the Jesus referenced is not the Christ.

So, let me get this straight, there is one contemporary Jewish historian (who wrote from 76-93 AD, not 64 years after the crucifixion) and he mentions Jesus and you deny this too. By the way, even if it was 64 years later, this is the amount of time between today and the end of world War II. Surely if someone today wrote about World War II, you wouldn’t dismiss it as hearsay… Adn by the way, you’ve stated opinions but offered no evidence.

lacivit:

1. Eyewitnesses most certainly did not write the gospels. The evidence for this position is overwhelming.

You state this but show no evidence to support your point.

lacivit:

1. The gospels do not give a consistent picture of Jesus. They are highly contradictory in minor and major details.

Like what ? You don’t even give one example. And by the way, why is this even important.

lacivit:

1. Actual recorded history does not confirm the gospels. In fact many things in the gospels are contradicted by actual recorded history.

Again, you offer up not one single example to support your point. This is not evidence.

lacivit:

1. Secular archeology does not confirm the gospels.

Actually, many of the historical points are supported by secural archeology. Check the previous posts for the details.

lacivit:

1. Paul and the Epistles do not corroborate the gospels.

Sure they do, they point to the same moral teachings and they recognize Jesus pashcal sacrifice as the basis for man’s salvation.

lacivit:

1. Christianity did not begin with Jesus and his apostles. Jesus would have been a Jew. He wasn’t a Christian! He was a 100% law abiding Jew. The text claiming to “build my church” wasn’t in the earlier texts. It was clearly added by the Roman church at a later date to establish authority.

of course Jesus was a Jew, they were the chosen race for the messiah. Christians are people that follow Christ’s new covenant. Prove that the text claiming to “build my church” wasn’t in the earliest text. Where is your evidence.

lacivit:

1. Christianity was not a totally new and different miraculous overnight success that changed the world. For the first 300 years or so it was a small sect in the empire. Christianity exploded when Constantine gave Christianity certain privileges over the other pagan religions. The impetus for this move was to unify the empire. Christianity was attractive for the devotion to authority. Once in a position of power, the Christians were ruthless in stamping out other pagan religions and also so called “heretical” Christians like the Gnostics.

Well, you are completely wrong here. By the time of the Edict of Milan in 313 AD, despite 300 years of persecution, the Roman population was about 1/4 Christian, including the Constantine’s mother. Constantine really had no choice but to stop the persecutions becasue to continue to persecute such a high percentage of his subjects was detrimental to the empire. check out the data on this timeline of rome for 300AD: scaruffi.com/politics/romans.html

In the final conclusion, you have actually provided ZERO evidence to support your points.
You’ve only made unsupported statements, some of which I showed were in error. the others are so vague as to be unaddressable. You’ll need to do much better than this to convince anyone that you are right…

 

[lacivit]

Consider…

Peter’s commission
[edit] Matthew 16:18-19

Matthew 16:18-19 reads, “And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” This evidence of Peter’s leadership role among the apostles does not appear in the parallel gospel accounts and interrupts the natural flow of the passage. It is doubtful Jesus would have used “church” to refer to Christianity, since it did not yet exist, and in fact the only other verse in the gospels where the word is used is in Matthew 18:17, itself a likely interpolation. Additionally, the phrase “gates of hell” appears nowhere else in the Bible.

 

[paul_c]

Consider…

Peter’s commission
[edit] Matthew 16:18-19

Matthew 16:18-19 reads, “And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” This evidence of Peter’s leadership role among the apostles does not appear in the parallel gospel accounts and interrupts the natural flow of the passage. It is doubtful Jesus would have used “church” to refer to Christianity, since it did not yet exist, and in fact the only other verse in the gospels where the word is used is in Matthew 18:17, itself a likely interpolation. Additionally, the phrase “gates of hell” appears nowhere else in the Bible.

This is not scholarship, This is just opinion based on a false premise. Peter’s leadership role is also discussed in Luke 22: where Jesus tells them about leadership and then tells Peter to lead…
24 Then an argument broke out among them about which of them should be regarded as the greatest.
25 He said to them, "The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them and those in authority over them are addressed as ‘Benefactors’;
26 but among you it shall not be so. Rather, let the greatest among you be as the youngest, and the leader as the servant.
27 For who is greater: the one seated at table or the one who serves? Is it not the one seated at table? I am among you as the one who serves.
28 It is you who have stood by me in my trials;
29 and I confer a kingdom on you, just as my Father has conferred one on me,
30 that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom; and you will sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
31 “Simon, Simon, behold Satan has demanded to sift all of you like wheat,
32 but I have prayed that your own faith may not fail; and once you have turned back, you must strengthen your brothers.”

and in John 21: where the Risen Jesus, the good shepherd, tells Peter to tend his flock.
15 When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Feed my lambs.”
16 He then said to him a second time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Tend my sheep.”
17 He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” Peter was distressed that he had said to him a third time, “Do you love me?” and he said to him, “Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.” (Jesus) said to him, "Feed my sheep.

If you really were going to prove your point, you would have gotten the oldest know versions of Matthew’s Gospel and see whether it included these passages. You would find, however, that it did. Not only that, but you would find that all of the handwritten copies of Matthew’s Gospel that are left from antiquity are in great agreement on the text. This is well documented - google:“discrepancies in new testament manuscripts” and you will see dozens of references saying that the manuscripts from antiquity are in 99.5% agreement , with virtually all the discrepancies being spelling or word order. - (i.e., copying errors).

By the way, who were you quoting? You should give references. Was it JD Crosnan? We’ve already discussed his bias and lack of scholarship…

 

[lacivit]

I’m not sure how much more clear this fact shows…

“the earliest manuscripts don’t have that line”…

The church added it at a later date …even the protestants acknowledge this.

 

[paul_c]

I’m not sure how much more clear this fact shows…

“the earliest manuscripts don’t have that line”…

The church added it at a later date …even the protestants acknowledge this.

What facts?. You just made a statement without substantiating it in the least. Where is your link to a trusted source? I have been doing apologetics for a long time and I have never, ever heard it said that Matthew 16: 18-19 was not part of the original text so the burden of proof is on you…

 

[lacivit]

I’ll be glad to provide you with sources. Look for another post later on this am.

Right now I’m reading about Gallio who is the judge in acts who let Paul go free. Supposedly of course!

Gallio was Seneca the Younger older brother. Isn’t it strange that Gallio never told Seneca about Jesus? Seneca was Rome’s greatest writer on ethics yet he has nothing to say about arguably the biggest ethical shakeup of his time. Strange isn’t it?

 

[paul_c]

I’ll be glad to provide you with sources. Look for another post later on this am.

Right now I’m reading about Gallio who is the judge in acts who let Paul go free. Supposedly of course!

Gallio was Seneca the Younger older brother. Isn’t it strange that Gallio never told Seneca about Jesus? Seneca was Rome’s greatest writer on ethics yet he has nothing to say about arguably the biggest ethical shakeup of his time. Strange isn’t it?

Not really, Gallio is shown in Acts to be completely disinterested in adjudicating the case or in discussing arguments over doctrine and he didn’t set Paul free, he simply left it in the hands of the Jews:

Acts 18:
12 But when Gallio was proconsul of Achaia, the Jews rose up together against Paul and brought him to the tribunal,
13 saying, “This man is inducing people to worship God contrary to the law.”
14 When Paul was about to reply, Gallio spoke to the Jews, “If it were a matter of some crime or malicious fraud, I should with reason hear the complaint of you Jews;
15 but since it is a question of arguments over doctrine and titles and your own law, see to it yourselves. I do not wish to be a judge of such matters.”
16 And he drove them away from the tribunal.
17 They all seized Sosthenes, the synagogue official, and beat him in full view of the tribunal. But none of this was of concern to Gallio.

Since Gallio didn’t bother to even hear Paul, it should be no surprise that he didn’t talk to Seneca about him. But in fact, you don’t know whether he talked to Seneca about Christianity or not. You are arguing completely from silence here - we’ve already discussed that this proves nothing.

Besides, why would you expect Seneca to write about Christianity? Becasue he was wrote on ethics?. He was a Stoic philosopher and an advisor to Nero, who was a Christian persecutor, To cross Nero meant death (which Seneca learned the hard way, being forced to commit suicide in 65AD). He also led a distinctly non-Christian life. This is not to say that Senece didn’t know about Christianity, I’m sure he was exposed to it being in Rome at the time of Nero’s persecutions. But that doesn’t mean that he had to write about it.

 

[Pete_Holter]

By the way, who were you quoting? You should give references. Was it JD Crosnan? We’ve already discussed his bias and lack of scholarship…

Here you go, brother: rationalwiki.org/wiki/Bible_interpolation#Peter.27s_commission

In Christ,
Pete

 

[paul_c]

Here you go, brother: rationalwiki.org/wiki/Bible_interpolation#Peter.27s_commission

In Christ,
Pete

Thanks for finding his source. Unfortunately for him, there is nothing in this view other than opinion. There is no source data that shows the church added anything to the text. No one even claimed the work. Its not even attributed on wiki - just some anonymous opinion. Funny how Lacivitis has a problem with the Gospels because of their alleged anonymity but he feels justified in quoting something like this.

And by the way, just because Peter’s commission isn’t in the other Gospels doesn’t mean it was added to Matthew. All of the Gospels have unique information (otherwise they would be identical)