How do we understand Biblical Inerrancy?

[lacivit]

One other point. There is a very good reason that 99.999% of the Jews rejected this “Jesus”. They certainly recognized the pagan elements of the story.

 

[Pieman333272]

Matthew and Luke changed some things that were clearly in error in Mark. They were not original works but simply a “reworking” of Mark. Your hypothesis considers Matthew and Luke as eyewitnesses which they clearly were not. In fact, these gospels were likely written 10-20 years at least after Mark. John was likely written some 30-50 years after Mark. Mark is generally thought to have been written around 70-75 CE at the earliest, perhaps later.

They add huge details and plots which Mark omitted. And I never said they had to be eyewitnesses. Luke obviously wasn’t and to my knowledge it was never explicitly stated that Matthew the Evangelist is the same as Matthew the Apostle. BTW, even if none of them were eyewitnesses, they would still be based on eyewitness oral testimony, and would still be valid sources for the time.

Radical scholar’s view? Perhaps you should substitute the word “unbiased” for “radical scholar”.

An unbaised scholar wouldn’t argue Mark was written based on Q.

MARK 9:1 And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power.

Kingdom of God = established with the resurrection. He didn’t mean finalized, he meant started.

Doesn’t get more clear and concise than this. “John” fixed this false prophecy by converting "“Jesus” into “God” himself.

No, he didn’t. That still doesn’t explain why it didn’t happen and would only set the bar higher. Again, I believe it is implied in the synoptics and Paul.

Paul’s authentic letter’s do not say that Jesus is “God”. The “Son of God” doesn’t equate to “God” himself. There were plenty of other “Sons of God” in mythology. Paul being a diaspora Jew was very familiar with the pagan religion “sons of God”. His “Jesus” was simply a Jewish version of the same.

Paul certainly didn’t base it on Paganism. There are way too many dissimilarities. And I think he meant him as the Wisdom, Word, and Son of God, the second person of the Trinity, which would of course make him God.

In my view, if there was an actual man behind the story, he was simply just another apocalyptic end times false preacher.

OK, Jesus’ existence is a fact, and you’ll need to give more evidence than that one passage for mark to convince me he was an apocalyptic prophet.

 

[Pieman333272]

One other point. There is a very good reason that 99.999% of the Jews rejected this “Jesus”. They certainly recognized the pagan elements of the story.

Thanks for making me double post (kidding, I don’t care)

THERE ARE NO PAGAN GODS COPIED INTO JESUS’ STORY!!! The reason the Jews rejected him were because they were unprepared for his astonishing claims, which is the same reason they wanted him crucified for blasphemy.

Unbiased… Yeah… :nope:

 

[Pieman333272]

Hello, brother!

Inspiration is usually taken to be a miraculous action of God. It is specifically the action of the Holy Spirit working in and around the person at the time of inscripturation that makes both the human author and the final written text “inspired” in such a way that the words written are not just human, but God’s very own words. 2 Timothy 3:16 says that Scripture itself is “Godbreathed” and 2 Peter 1:21 indicates that this Godbreathed Scripture is produced by the human authors as they are “carried along by the Holy Spirit.”

Peter said that “the Scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit spoke beforehand by the mouth of David” (Acts 1:16) and that “God spoke by the mouth of His holy prophets long ago” (Acts 3:21). Again, the disciples prayed to “the Sovereign Lord… Who through the mouth of our father David, Your servant, said by the Holy Spirit, ‘Why did the Gentiles rage…’ ” (Acts 4:24-25). In these examples we see that what is spoken by God the Holy Spirit and what is preserved in the written text of Scripture are identifiable with each other. They help us to understand what Paul means when he says that “all Scripture is Godbreathed.”

Inspiration always has the same final result of something that has been dictated, although inspiration does not always employ the mode of dictation to arrive at that final result.

I hope that helps!

Your brother in the LORD,
Pete

One more question…

How does this form of Divine Inspiration tie in with free will? Did God override the free will of the Evangelists?

 

[paul_c]

One more question…

How does this form of Divine Inspiration tie in with free will? Did God override the free will of the Evangelists?

Divine inspiration is simply the revealing of the truth to the evangelists so they could write it down. Free will is the ability to choose what you do. So sure, the evangelists could have chosen not to write the truths revealed to them, but why would they make that choice?

 

[Pete_Holter]

One more question…

How does this form of Divine Inspiration tie in with free will? Did God override the free will of the Evangelists?

As Catholics, we don’t believe that God overrides the free will of the creature. But He works through the free will of the creature in order to accomplish His will. He guides all of history in accordance with His will, but these moments involved in the inspiration of the Sacred Scriptures were miraculous interactions between God and man that produced a unique effect: a compilation of books written by God!

In Christ,
Pete

“It is to the canonical Scriptures alone that I am bound to yield such implicit subjection as to follow their teaching, without admitting the slightest suspicion that in them any mistake or any statement intended to mislead could find a place” (St. Augustine, , 3, 24Letter 82).

 

[lacivit]

"THERE ARE NO PAGAN GODS COPIED INTO JESUS’ STORY!!!

I’m sorry but that is a completely false statement.

Even your Catholic Church fathers admit that “Jesus” is similar to the previous “sons of God”. Reference St. Justin Martyr.

The official answer to this accusation is that of “foreshadowing the true Christ” to come.

Another explanation is that the devil purposely “planted” these earlier “sons of God” to deceive the faithful.

To deny the similarities is just plain evasive on your part. The evidence is overwhelming.

 

[Pieman333272]

"THERE ARE NO PAGAN GODS COPIED INTO JESUS’ STORY!!!

I’m sorry but that is a completely false statement.

Even your Catholic Church fathers admit that “Jesus” is similar to the previous “sons of God”. Reference St. Justin Martyr.

The official answer to this accusation is that of “foreshadowing the true Christ” to come.

Another explanation is that the devil purposely “planted” these earlier “sons of God” to deceive the faithful.

To deny the similarities is just plain evasive on your part. The evidence is overwhelming.

The Good St. Justin was referring to the Greek Myths being inspired by the devil based on Hebrew Scriptures. He was also aiming at Pagans to show to them that their myths and the Hebrew Bible were similar (but the latter came first), which the Pagans were not seeing.

As for the “foreshadowing”, I think you mean the “partial revelation” argument used by St. Augustine. But he was referring to similarities in teachings, not in live stories or titles.

What, may I ask, is your source?

 

[paul_c]

“Q” if there was a “Q” is the likely source for “Mark” the first gospel written. Matthew and Luke were written afterwards, using “Mark” as their source

Those honest about the gospels will admit that no one can prove the authorship of any of the books, other than what tradition says. Eusebius, writing in his Church history in 300 AD says that mark wrote his gospel in this way: (Book 2, chapter 15)
Chapter 15. The Gospel according to Mark.

1. And thus when the divine word had made its home among them, the power of Simon was quenched and immediately destroyed, together with the man himself. And so greatly did the splendor of piety illumine the minds of Peter’s hearers that they were not satisfied with hearing once only, and were not content with the unwritten teaching of the divine Gospel, but with all sorts of entreaties they besought Mark, a follower of Peter, and the one whose Gospel is extant, that he would leave them a written monument of the doctrine which had been orally communicated to them. Nor did they cease until they had prevailed with the man, and had thus become the occasion of the written Gospel which bears the name of Mark.
2. And they say that Peter — when he had learned, through a revelation of the Spirit, of that which had been done — was pleased with the zeal of the men, and that the work obtained the sanction of his authority for the purpose of being used in the churches. Clement in the eighth book of his Hypotyposes gives this account, and with him agrees the bishop of Hierapolis named Papias. And Peter makes mention of Mark in his first epistle which they say that he wrote in Rome itself, as is indicated by him, when he calls the city, by a figure, Babylon, as he does in the following words: “The church that is at Babylon, elected together with you, salutes you; and so does Marcus my son.”.

Matthew and Luke changed some things that were clearly in error in Mark. They were not original works but simply a “reworking” of Mark. Your hypothesis considers Matthew and Luke as eyewitnesses which they clearly were not. In fact, these gospels were likely written 10-20 years at least after Mark. John was likely written some 30-50 years after Mark. Mark is generally thought to have been written around 70-75 CE at the earliest, perhaps later.

This timing, with Matthew and Luke dependent on Mark has been the view of many (but not all) moderm scholars since the late 1800s, but Eusebius, quoting Papias, who wrote in the 100s ,states that Matthew wrote his Gospel very early and in Hebrew, prior to traveling out of Palestine.

“The Q Hypothesis, unless you are operating on some radical skeptic scholar’s view”

Radical scholar’s view? Perhaps you should substitute the word “unbiased” for “radical scholar”.

There are many common passages between Mark, Matthew and Luke. There are also common passages between Luke and Matthew that are not in Mark. Mark has more detail in some of the common passages than Matthew and Luke. All three have unique passages.

The marcan priority theory says that Mark must have been first because it has more details in certain passages than Luke and Matthew. the subscribers to this theory are then left to describe how Luke and Matthew could have common passages that were not in Mark. This is where the “Q” source comes in. According to the Q theory, both Matthew and Luke had access to both Mark and a lost source “Q” that they drew from, in addition to their own unique traditions. mark did not make use of Q, and is missing the Q passages.

By the way, one other popular alternative is that Matthew was first and was the source for both Mark and Luke… According to Eusebius, quoting Papias, Peter elaborated on the gospel of Matthew in a series of lectures, adding detail to important accounts and that is what Mark used to flesh out his Gospel, using Matthew as the base. This theory more adequately explains the common passages between gospels, eliminating the need for the lost “Q” source". it also provides for an earlier dating of the Gospels, with Matthew prior to 60 AD, and Luke and Mark following prior to 65AD. LUke in particular seems to me to have been written prior to 65AD because Acts, the second book in the series stops prior to the death of Paul.

MARK 9:1 And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power.

Doesn’t get more clear and concise than this. “John” fixed this false prophecy by converting "“Jesus” into “God” himself.

The Kingdom of God came with power at the resurrection.

 

[paul_c]

Paul’s authentic letter’s do not say that Jesus is “God”. The “Son of God” doesn’t equate to “God” himself. There were plenty of other “Sons of God” in mythology. Paul being a diaspora Jew was very familiar with the pagan religion “sons of God”. His “Jesus” was simply a Jewish version of the same.

This is simply note true, this is how Paul opens his letter to the Romans:
1 Paul, a slave of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle and set apart for the gospel of God,
2 which he promised previously through his prophets in the holy scriptures,
3 the gospel about his Son, descended from David according to the flesh,
4 but established as Son of God in power according to the spirit of holiness through resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord.
5 Through him we have received the grace of apostleship, to bring about the obedience of faith, for the sake of his name, among all the Gentiles,
6 among whom are you also, who are called to belong to Jesus Christ;
7 to all the beloved of God in Rome, called to be holy. Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

He recognizes all three members of the Holy trinity in this opening doxology

In my view, if there was an actual man behind the story, he was simply just another apocalyptic end times false preacher.

You’ve done nothing to prove that your view is correct… In fact, by the simple fact that 2000 years later we are speaking about Jesus being God denies your hypothesis that he was just another false preacher. Why does Jesus have 2Billion followers while we don’t remember any of the other false teachers of his time? Wouldn’t you agree that this makes him extraordinary…

 

[lacivit]

Jesus existence cannot be taken as fact. That there was a man called Jesus is certainly possible but unfortunately the evidence for such a character is very weak and based on hearsay evidence. So called oral traditions passed on over several generations is notoriously unreliable and suspect. These gospels were written several generations later by people who weren’t even from that geographic area. They are total anonymous works. The fact that the early church “guessed” who wrote them should be quite revealing as to the true nature of these documents.
It is just as plausible that the gospels are nothing more than religious advertisements written to promote the new religion. There didn’t have to be an actual real man to build a new religion.

Realize that Paul, the true founder of the Christian religion and the author of 7 letters never even met “Jesus”.

The whole story of Jesus simply doesn’t jibe with what we actually know about Roman customs and laws. The census being just one example of many flat out misrepresentations of how things were actually done. These are hard truths for a Christian to deal with. If you are willing to be critical and not unbiased, you will see the NT for what it really is.

Religious advertisements to make new converts.

 

[lacivit]

Sorry last sentence should read " not biased".

 

[Pieman333272]

Jesus existence cannot be taken as fact. That there was a man called Jesus is certainly possible but unfortunately the evidence for such a character is very weak and based on hearsay evidence.

But at least one secular source draws directly on eyewitnesses (Josephus), as does Paul!

So called oral traditions passed on over several generations is notoriously unreliable and suspect. These gospels were written several generations later by people who weren’t even from that geographic area. They are total anonymous works. The fact that the early church “guessed” who wrote them should be quite revealing as to the true nature of these documents.

The Gospels’ authorship were ascribed in the 2nd-3rd centuries. If they were wrong, they were wrong, but no real evidence has been found to the contrary.

It is just as plausible that the gospels are nothing more than religious advertisements written to promote the new religion. There didn’t have to be an actual real man to build a new religion.

Wrong. The Gospels are written as history of the time. They also wouldn’t have any reason to lie as they would have just been martyred anyway.

Realize that Paul, the true founder of the Christian religion and the author of 7 letters never even met “Jesus”.

All of Paul’s ideas are taken from the original disciples (11 + outer circle). He probably did actually meet Jesus, as both would be in Jerusalem around the Passover.

The whole story of Jesus simply doesn’t jibe with what we actually know about Roman customs and laws. The census being just one example of many flat out misrepresentations of how things were actually done.

OK, I really didn’t want to link to any articles, but I’m sick or this radical, baised criticism you’re using. Here’s a link on the census. Read it with an open mind and get back to me on it.

These are hard truths for a Christian to deal with. If you are willing to be critical and not [un]biased, you will see the NT for what it really is.

“Critical and not biased”… dude, look. I’ve read atheist apologetics, and I realized that they just don’t match up with the Christian defense. I’ve read Dawkins, Carrier, Loftus, etc. Again I ask, what is your source, but now I add another question:
What Christian Apologetics Source did you read with an open mind?

Religious advertisements to make new converts.

Says a lot about your “unbiased scholarship”. :doh2:

 

[davidv]

Jesus existence cannot be taken as fact. That there was a man called Jesus is certainly possible but unfortunately the evidence for such a character is very weak and based on hearsay evidence. So called oral traditions passed on over several generations is notoriously unreliable and suspect. These gospels were written several generations later by people who weren’t even from that geographic area. They are total anonymous works. The fact that the early church “guessed” who wrote them should be quite revealing as to the true nature of these documents.
It is just as plausible that the gospels are nothing more than religious advertisements written to promote the new religion. There didn’t have to be an actual real man to build a new religion.

Realize that Paul, the true founder of the Christian religion and the author of 7 letters never even met “Jesus”.

The whole story of Jesus simply doesn’t jibe with what we actually know about Roman customs and laws. The census being just one example of many flat out misrepresentations of how things were actually done. These are hard truths for a Christian to deal with. If you are willing to be critical and not unbiased, you will see the NT for what it really is.

Religious advertisements to make new converts.

How do you know that “So called oral traditions passed on over several generations is notoriously unreliable and suspect”? What is your evidence?

 

[lacivit]

A quick reply since I have leave my pc.

Josephus is a forgery by known liar for God, Eusebius. Besides Josephus wrote this around 94 CE. Not contemporary at all but hearsay. It’s a forgery though.

Even the St. jerome’s study bible I have admits that the gospels are anonymous.
It seems to me that you are not in agreement with a Catholic study bible?

I’ll comment on your other points tomorrow.

 

[Pieman333272]

A quick reply since I have leave my pc.

Josephus is a forgery by known liar for God, Eusebius. Besides Josephus wrote this around 94 CE. Not contemporary at all but hearsay. It’s a forgery though.

Not at all. It has been proven to have had additions, but the text mentioning Jesus still remains authentic in most Josephian Circles. He also has a shorter one which is almost certainly authentic, every serious scholar for every topic agrees on it. Also, he was working on the text for an unspecified length and probably would have been able to speak with people who actually met Jesus. And finally, a source from that time is still considered authoritative even if it’s hearsay.

Even the St. jerome’s study bible I have admits that the gospels are anonymous.
It seems to me that you are not in agreement with a Catholic study bible?

I just said no evidence had been found to the contrary… the fact they choose to take a liberal view in their footnotes is acceptable, it’s the majority position, but the fact still remains that it’s a popular position to assert at least one of th Evangelists existed and wrote his Gospel.

One more time:

Please give me your source(s) for this as well as any Christian writings to the contrary you have read.

 

[paul_c]

Jesus existence cannot be taken as fact. That there was a man called Jesus is certainly possible but unfortunately the evidence for such a character is very weak and based on hearsay evidence. So called oral traditions passed on over several generations is notoriously unreliable and suspect. These gospels were written several generations later by people who weren’t even from that geographic area. They are total anonymous works. The fact that the early church “guessed” who wrote them should be quite revealing as to the true nature of these documents.
It is just as plausible that the gospels are nothing more than religious advertisements written to promote the new religion. There didn’t have to be an actual real man to build a new religion.

Realize that Paul, the true founder of the Christian religion and the author of 7 letters never even met “Jesus”.

The whole story of Jesus simply doesn’t jibe with what we actually know about Roman customs and laws. The census being just one example of many flat out misrepresentations of how things were actually done. These are hard truths for a Christian to deal with. If you are willing to be critical and not unbiased, you will see the NT for what it really is.

Religious advertisements to make new converts.

1. Whyy do you claim that Jesus never existed? There certainly is a ton of writings on his life from antiquity. More than on any other historical figure. What would be proof for you that he existed? Would anyone meet that criteria? How about Paul, who you claim founded the Christian church? How do you know he existed?
2. The church isn’t guessing at who wrote the gospels: Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Its others outside the church who are guessing.
3. The gospels WERE advertisements of a sort to aid in teaching the faith. But why do you say that they weren’t based on fact. Who would allow themselves to be persecuted and killed for a faith that they knew was a lie? It doesn’t make sense in that way now does it.
4. Paul never claimed to be the founder of the faith, what makes you think he was?
5. Can you prove without a doubt that there was no census taken in Judea at the time of Christ’s birth? And what other claim in the Gospel can you prove was false?

 

[Pete_Holter]

Jesus existence cannot be taken as fact. That there was a man called Jesus is certainly possible but unfortunately the evidence for such a character is very weak and based on hearsay evidence. So called oral traditions passed on over several generations is notoriously unreliable and suspect. These gospels were written several generations later by people who weren’t even from that geographic area. They are total anonymous works. The fact that the early church “guessed” who wrote them should be quite revealing as to the true nature of these documents.
It is just as plausible that the gospels are nothing more than religious advertisements written to promote the new religion. There didn’t have to be an actual real man to build a new religion.

Realize that Paul, the true founder of the Christian religion and the author of 7 letters never even met “Jesus”.

The whole story of Jesus simply doesn’t jibe with what we actually know about Roman customs and laws. The census being just one example of many flat out misrepresentations of how things were actually done. These are hard truths for a Christian to deal with. If you are willing to be critical and not unbiased, you will see the NT for what it really is.

Religious advertisements to make new converts.

Hello again! And welcome to the forums, by the way!

Before I became a Christian as an adult, I was able to read some interesting books by Freke & Gandy called The Jesus Mysteries and Jesus and the Lost Goddess. I joined the Jesus Mysteries Yahoo Group and got to read some good discussions with people like Earl Doherty (see The Jesus Puzzle) and Peter Kirby (the founder of the Early Christian Writings website). Caught an interview with Acharya S, etc. It sounds like you might be familiar with some of their stuff. I hear some Bart Ehrman in you with the failed apocalyptic preacher thought, but I was already a Christian before I started reading his stuff and listening to his lectures.

A Christian gave me The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel, and I decided to be fair about it and read it back-to-back with Earl Doherty’s Challenging the Verdict. I also read Strobel’s other books that you’re probably familiar with. There were also Mere Christianity and R.C. Sproul’s Reason to Believe, John Stott’s little Why I Am a Christian, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? by F.F. Bruce, The Meaning of Jesus: Two Visions by Borg and Wright, etc.

I know where you are, at least to a degree, and I know what it’s like for the case against the historical Jesus to sound overwhelmingly obvious. I will pray for you. I also know what it’s like for this case to be totally crushed by the truth of history and the power of God in the proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ Who loves you. And so I have hope for you. If you are interested, perhaps the best place to start is Evidence for Jesus and Parallel Pagan “Crucified Saviors” Examined . Phil Porvaznik posts here, so he may be able to answer any questions you may have if you’d like to track him down.

With the love of Christ,
Pete

 

[Windfish]

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

btw, we can take Jesus’ existence as fact, and we know quite a lot about him, more so than any other figure in antiquity, which is astounding given his poverty and obscurity. The pagan parallels argument is bogus. Always has been. The argument for the traditional authorship of the Gospels is very strong, much more than the argument against it. And there are parts of Paul’s epistles which date within just a few years after the Crucifixion! I am currently studying up on this, and I encourage all of my fellow Catholics to study the area of textual criticism. There are segments in Paul’s epistles which can be dated so near to the time of Jesus! The Gospels were already quite close!

 

[lacivit]

You couldn’t be more wrong.

Apologists like you refuse to acknowledge cold hard facts about “Jesus”. Christian apologists are known to make wildly exaggerated claims. For example, we know more about “Jesus” than Julius Caesar. That is absolute nonsense of course to any secular historian. Christian biased apologists already know what they believe and just look for confirmation of those beliefs. That’s not how you approach historical claims!

Almost nothing is known about “Jesus”.

When was he born? ???Who knows.
What did he look like? No idea.
Where was he from? The “City of Nazareth” didn’t even exist at that time.
Did he write anything like Paul did? No.
Where is his burial site? Who knows?
What do secular historians (of which there were many) say about this “Jesus” during the 1st century? Complete silence. Josephus is a known interpolation. The other shorter reference is not the “Jesus” of Nazareth. “Jesus” was a very common name back then.

Prior to this passage in Josephus, there is complete and utter silence. How do you explain this? Simple, the miracle working, raised from the dead “Jesus” was a constructed mythical character.

St. Justin Martyr acknowledged the pagan similarities, why can’t you? He had an excuse to explain it away. You can’t deny the overwhelming evidence of artifacts and written documents showing the similarities.

There is absolutely no evidence for the authorship of the NT Gospels. None. Only fundamental Christians continue to insist that they were actual eyewitnesses. They weren’t. In fact, the overwhelming evidence is that the authors weren’t even from that immediate area. There are simply too many errors in geography and custom.

Paul’s letters (the 7 probable authentic one) were likely written from 15-20 years after the supposed death of “Jesus”. He never claimed to have met “Jesus” in person. “Jesus” appeared to him as a vision. Ask yourself this. Why is that in Paul’s 7 authentic letters, he knows NOTHING of this “Jesus” other than his death and resurrection? He knows of no other personal details of this “Jesus”. Isn’t that very strange considering that he wrote his letters before the NT gospels?

In my my opinion, the reason for this is evident. Paul made “Jesus” up as a Jewish version of the dying-rising son of God hero of the pagan religions which were so well known in that area of the world.