Innerrantcy

Originally posted by whodey
As far as the Pauline letters go, I think Paul has made himself clear in terms of how important the resurrection is.

Galations 2:21 "I do not frustrate the grace of God, for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.


1 Corinthians 15:12 "Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no ...[text shortened]... u. I hope you will recieve what I have to say and have been trying to say in such a spirit.

Originally posted by whodey
I don't say these things to be flippant, rather, I say these things because I am concerned about what I think I am hearing you say. I am not attacking you as much as I am challenging you. I hope you will recieve what I have to say and have been trying to say in such a spirit.

Originally posted by Nemesio
You have almost continuously misunderstood and misread what I have said. I don't know what you
are concerned about, but it's not about what I said but of some figment of your imagination that I
seem to be battling at every turn.

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
'The Bible' doesn't declare anything. An author of one of the books of
the Bible declares something about what he interprets to be 'Scripture.'
This author makes no claims about the accuracy of any events.

It does not 'position itself' because 'itself' didn't exist until the fourth
century. And it is not reliable for information with respect to peopl ...[text shortened]... ould broaden what I opine to be a
impoverished theological hermeneutic.

Nemesio

Originally posted by josephw
Do you think it goes both ways a little?

Originally posted by Nemesio
When misunderstanding takes place, it can be from
1) Bad writing;
2) Bad reading skills; or
3) Both.

Whodey accused me of saying that historical accuracy is necessary for
spiritual relevance. I asked him to find a single passage that supports
such a claim. He repented of this.

He wrote that the Resurrection is a 'vital teaching that ALL of t ke an outline of what I say before you suggest that I might be
confusing.

Nemesio

FreakyKBH, I hate to say it, but it's a pleasure to have you respond to
my posts. We may disagree but at the very least you read what I write.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
I'm not really sure which author you are referencing, but--- keeping things more contemporary--- can we assume accuracy in your writing, or should we assume error?

I was saying that nowhere in the Christian Scriptures does it say that all
of the Christian Scriptures are inerrant, because at the time of the
authoring, there was no collected body of Christian Scripture. The only
texts that even have the potential for reflecting on a(n incomplete) body
of Christian Scripture would be the Pastoral Epistles or II Peter, because
by the time of their authoring, Christian groups were beginning to gather
texts together. But these groups weren't terribly uniform; even the 4th-
century canons aren't wholly Orthodox.

So, when an author says 'Scripture is good for x,' he cannot possibly be
speaking specifically of what has come to be known as Christian Scripture
because that corpus was 100 years in the defining.

And, so, as I said, when one author makes a statement about what
he holds to be Scripture, there is no reason to believe that his canon is
the same as some other author in the NT, otherwise, we would have the
Book of Enoch and the Assumption of Moses in our Bibles.

And, simply because St Luke might say 'I hold these things to be true'
doesn't mean that he holds the things that St John said to be true.

You're confusing group recognition with what had already been established within the orthodox body for close to three hundred years.

If you are saying that the canon was fixed before the second century,
then this is where our problem is. If it had been fixed, then there wouldn't
have been any debate in the late-second century. But we both know there
was, and lots.

Yes, by then we can pretty much have a good deal of confidence in the
'canonic currency' of the Synoptic Gospels by the mid-second century,
and with some confidence earlier, but certainly not in St John's. We
can feel comfortable that the Pauline Epistles enjoyed a great deal
of respect, but not Revelation or Hebrews. And we know that several other
texts were viewed as Scripture -- The Shepherd of Hermas or the First
Epistle of St Clement -- that have come to be rejected as such.

This lack of uniformity describes the second century; the third century
was the first time in which we find a broader acceptence of a larger canon.

Despite objections otherwise, the Bible has never been shown to be in error.

In what kind of error? Did you want to comment on the Acts thing I quoted
earlier? Did you want to comment on the stone's movement before and
after the women's arrival? If you said that Christian Scripture is an
infallible guide for faith and practice, then we can have an amicable
discussion, because that's merely an interpretation.

But if you want to say that these errors above which are supported by the
grammar of the authors themselves, then we've got a problem. If
'did not hear' and 'did hear' mean the same thing to you, then there is
no convincing you.

So, before we start, I would ask that you offer an example of the sort of
thing that would constitute a contradiction.

And 3,500 years from now, when some poor well-meaning but otherwise ignorant curiousity-led discoverer unearths the ancient art of internet exchange, some will maintain that you and I have no regard for one another. Others will proffer that FreakyKBH and Nemesio were actually one and the same person, while others still will insist neither of us ever existed.

This is very cute. You've always had a flair for the literary humor.

Originally posted by josephw
Although you and I may have different opinions, I think we are both guilty of being patronizing. 🙂

Originally posted by Nemesio
It is almost impossible not to be patronizing when I type several carefully-
written posts about translation to have you respond 'What sources are
those?' a few posts later.

Can you even fathom how frustrating it is? I assumed you were coming
to the table interested in learning a different perspective and you don't
even read the basic essentials of w ...[text shortened]... .

Can you appreciate why my tone might be a little frustrated at this point?

Nemesio

This thread rules.

Originally posted by josephw

My rate of intake is slower than yours, so why don't you try to condense your posts into something I can digest easier?

Originally posted by josephw
To tell you the truth, I think your theology sucks.

If by 'sucks' you mean you disagree with it, then that's fine with me.
If by 'sucks' you mean that you think I'll burn in hell, then that's fine with
me, too.
In fact, I doubt you have much idea what I believe since I keep the
specifics of my spirituality -- my relationship with the Divine -- rather private,
as I think one ought.

And since you have gross errors in you theology, I question your understanding, although it may be vast, of the historical evidence.

My theology plays absolutely no role whatsoever in my interpretation
of historical evidence. I strive to strip myself of all preconceived, a priori
notions when studying Scripture. As I think I said before, I try to make of
myself an empty vessel into which the Spirit pours (and hopefully I don't
spill out). Unlike you, I don't claim to have arrived anywhere, merely
journeying and studying. You, however, claim to have embraced the
perfect translation. Your work is done, so to speak. And I find that to be
an impovrished theological stance (irrespective of its substantive contents).

Don't assume I didn't read your posts. I've read all of them for the last six months. Maybe I over looked some things you said, and didn't respond the way you had expected, and maybe I'm dumber than you, which I'm willing to admit without shame, but you don't have to get all bent out of shape about it.

I'm not going to turn this into a little pity party for you. It's not about
whether you have less knowledge or process things slower or whatever.
It's about your closed-minded stance and how that makes anything I
write utterly futile.

My rate of intake is slower than yours, so why don't you try to condense your posts into something I can digest easier?

I'm Nemesio. My style is my style. I write how I write. I'm sorry you
don't like it, or it's clause-ridden, or overly academic, or too long-winded,
or not rosy enough. If you don't have interest in understanding my posts,
then don't respond to them. But I'm not going to take even more pains
to 'condense' what I feel to be necessary contents to a Reader's Digest
version. Sorry; my accommodation only extends to far.

And don't get mad just because I said your theology sucks. I'm sure you must feel the same about mine.

I don't think it 'sucks' because I don't even know what that means.
Does it mean that it's lousy, or crazy, or evil, or silly, or confused or
what?

I think your theology is misformed and malnourished. It's constructed
upon a problematic framework and is fed with misinformation. I've
tried to get you to consider the possibility of restructuring and tried to
get you to reflect on other material, but you've got your closed-minded,
preconceived self-righteousness. I'm merely the serpent saying 'eat the
apple,' as far as you're concerned.

You're from a long line of lost causes for me. You're not the first to tell
me, 'I'm gonna believe what I want to believe and no one can tell
me different,' and you won't be the last. I'm just comforted that a
handful of people -- some atheist, others theist, and an agnostic or two --
have thanked me privately for my efforts and helped them along their
own respective paths (different than mine) towards a greater spirituality.

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
Originally posted by josephw
[b]To tell you the truth, I think your theology sucks.

If by 'sucks' you mean you disagree with it, then that's fine with me.
If by 'sucks' you mean that you think I'll burn in hell, then that's fine with
me, too.
In fact, I doubt you have much idea what I believe since I keep the
specifics of my spiritu ...[text shortened]... e) towards a greater spirituality.

Nemesio[/b]

Originally posted by josephw
You shouldn't try explaining everything so much. It's boring to read.

I'm sorry that you find information boring. I guess that's part of the reason why you believe what
you do: you find researching your faith boring.

That's even more tragic than 'I'm gonna believe what I'm gonna believe no matter what.'

May I ask you a simple question? Who do you believe Jesus is?

First of all, why do you care? Second of all, if you're inquiring into my personal faith life, you're
going to find a brick wall, because it's the business of God, me and the various people in my life who
serve as spiritual advisors. Third of all, I think it's evident I certainly don't believe He is who you
think He is, so I'm sure that along with all the atheists, Moslems, liturgical Christians, Quakers,
Unitarians, Jews, pagans, and all the other people God hates, I'm going to hell.

Sucks means it blows.

That's no clearer. I did find it funny you 'defined' it with a literal contradiction. It sums up your
hermeneutic.

Nemesio

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
You can't digest Nemesio's posts, but you have sufficiently digested the entirety of the KJV to determine that it is a perfect transcription of God's Word? Are you a time traveler from the year 1500 or something?