The Tribe of Korah, their Hebrews was up to perfect. They wanted to kill Moses and lead the Israelites back to Egypt. If you trust that their native Hebrew speaking skills gave them the edge in understanding the prophet, do you also agree that Moses should have been stoned?
King Saul, I'm sure, had good Hebrew reading and writing skills. He wanted to kill David and slew a company of priests in his mad jealousy to destroy David.
Did his Hebrew speaking and reading skills give him the edge on understanding the will of God?
Just to read and write ancient Hebrew doesn't cut it when receiving revelation is involved. It certainly could help. But it is no garantee of faith or obedience.
The poster said that these were only the tip of the iceberg, but doesn't have any more heavies to drop on us. In other words, underneath that little snow hill, he hopes there is a mountain of ice down there somewhere. He just doesn't know where it is.[/b]Originally posted by jaywill
I think what we have today as the NT is very [b]adaquate to give us a good picture of what Christ and the Apostles taught. It is trustworthy. It is wholy adaquate. [/b]
One of the articles of the Korean Methodist Church is that the Bible is
a 'sufficient guide to faith and practice.' Many interpret this to mean
that the Bible is inerrant, but it's not an article of faith for them. As
I understand what you are saying, you do not take the Bible to be
factually inerrant, which puts you at odds with many evangelicals.
John selected some cases to present truths about Jesus Christ which He wanted to emphasize. If they were not in proper historical sequence, I am willing to excuse that. Maybe the order of some things happened in another sequence.
Again, to be clear, you accept the fact that Saint John was painting a
theological picture, not a factual one. That he might have reinterpretted
the actual facts to create a particular theological constellation is totally
okay with you, right?
I give John the freedom to present his version of the teachings and deeds of Jesus as he wants to. I do not believe that John made up [b]lies to testify of Jesus Christ. [/b]
I would never say that Saint John lied; this implies that he was
striving to deceive. However, I was wondering that if you learned that
Saint John invented part, much or most of his Gospel that it would make
a difference to you. I take it as a given that if he did this, he did so
because of the inspiration that the author took from the experience
of knowing Jesus's legacy through word of His teaching and deeds.
I think it is a skeptic's daydream that he will find rational to reject the Person of Christ and His messages because it was compromised.
I don't think that this would constitute a sufficent reason for rwingett's
rejection, but it is elemental to his struggle with evangelicals who insist
that the Gospels contain no error and are entirely historically accurate,
and for whom admission of irreconcilable error would constitute a major
blow to their faith (which I consider to be idolatrous).
Nemesio
Nemesio
As I understand what you are saying, you do not take the Bible to be factually inerrant, which puts you at odds with many evangelicals.
There apparently was a copyist's error in the instance of ie., how many horses did Solomon own. Was it 6,000 or 60,000?
Errors of this nature do no detract from the reliability of the Bible as God's speaking to man.
Neither is it a major issue if, for example, the three temptations offered to Jesus by Satan, were placed in one order by Matthew but placed in a different order by Luke. It makes practically no difference.
Show me which discrepency in the New Testament document persuades you that you have no need to repent of your sins and believe in the Savior Jesus. Which copyist's error or which inconsistency within the four gospels persuades you that you do not need forgiveness from God?
Again, to be clear, you accept the fact that Saint John was painting a
theological picture, not a factual one.
False dichotomy. A theological picture can be a factual one also. It may just bare some stylistic aspects which do not effect the intrinsic essence of the message intended.
Exactly, when did Jesus go into the temple and overturn the tables? I am not completely certain. It is a fact that He did, I believe.
If He did it toward the end of the three and a half years of His ministry or He did in the beginning of His ministry, makes little difference.
These kinds of differences are a test to the fickleness of our own hearts. They expose us. As Jesus said, the religionists had a tendency to "strain out a gnat and swallow a camel."
On the day of judgment are you going to argue with God that you did not repent because you couldn't figure out if Solomon had 6,000 horses or 60,000 horses?
Are you going to argue with God that you rejected His salvation for this: You could not be sure if Satan showed Jesus all the worldly kingdoms before he led Him to the top of the temple, or whether it occured the other way around?
You could turn your attitude around and take these differences to prove that the Gospel writers did not collaborate together to fabricate consistent testimony. So what you criticize could also be taken as indications of the authenticity of the witness. There was NO conspiracy.
I would never say that Saint John lied; this implies that he was
striving to deceive. However, I was wondering that if you learned that
Saint John invented part, much or most of his Gospel that it would make
I do not believe that that is true.
I believe that skeptics single out John's Gospel particularly. Probably because it is among the clearest pronouncements that Jesus Christ is God incarnate - God come in the flesh.
Of course that He is God come in the flesh can also be seen in the synoptics. But John is so emphatic about this that unbelievers target John for slicing and dicing to nullify the revelation of the Word that was God became flesh.
Within the chapters 14 through 17 which passages did Jesus speak and which passages did Jesus not speak? Break them down one by one and list them out for me.
I don't think that this would constitute a sufficent reason for rwingett's
rejection, but it is elemental to his struggle with evangelicals who insist that the Gospels contain no error and are entirely historically accurate, and for whom admission of irreconcilable error would constitute a major blow to their faith (which I consider to be idolatrous).
Take again the three temptations presented to Christ by the Devil. Matthew has them told to us in one order. Luke presents them in a different order.
I assume the event happened once. I assume that one of the two evangelists has the order sequence not exactly right.
You would have to prove to me that it makes much of a difference. You would also have to prove to me that both evangelists insist that their order is the proper sequence.
If such a view is out of step with most evangelicals then it is simply out of step with many evangelicals. I don't mind being out of step with many evangelicals in this point.
It does not mean that I am out of step with the basic faith in the Lordship of Christ or the truth of the Bible.
Originally posted by jaywillEvidence for the lack of a conspiracy does not in any way indicate authenticity of the witness. In fact if there was a conspiracy it would have occurred before the gospel writers and thus they would merely be reporting their different views on the said conspiracy and not necessarily collaborating on it. However there are many other possible reasons for fabrication than a collaborative conspiracy.
You could turn your attitude around and take these differences to prove that the Gospel writers did not collaborate together to fabricate consistent testimony. So what you criticize could also be taken as indications of the authenticity of the witness. There was NO conspiracy.
The gospels are however consistent on some points which do point to some form of collaboration either in the form of copying from each other or from a common source.
Originally posted by NemesioIt certainly was elemental to my struggle.
I don't think that this would constitute a sufficent reason for rwingett's
rejection, but it is elemental to his struggle with evangelicals who insist
that the Gospels contain no error and are entirely historically accurate,
and for whom admission of irreconcilable error would constitute a major
blow to their faith (which I consider to be idolatrous).
Originally posted by twhiteheadHow about they experienced the same thing?
Evidence for the lack of a conspiracy does not in any way indicate authenticity of the witness. In fact if there was a conspiracy it would have occurred before the gospel writers and thus they would merely be reporting their different views on the said conspiracy and not necessarily collaborating on it. However there are many other possible reasons for fa ...[text shortened]... ome form of collaboration either in the form of copying from each other or from a common source.
I don't know why it seems strange to you that these men could have their lives turned upside down with the power of the life of Jesus.
And they wanted to tell the world about it. They felt it was momentous and that future generations should know.
The canon is the standard and rule of the authoritative word of God to man.
We do not belive that the church determines the canon. We believe that the church discovers the canon.
We do not believe that the church judges the canon. We believe that the church is witness to the canon.
We don't believe that the church regulates the Books of the divine revelation. We believe that the church recognizes the Books of the divine revelation.
We do not count ourselves as masters of the canon but as the servants of the canon.
Originally posted by jaywill
Within the chapters 14 through 17 which passages did Jesus speak and which passages did Jesus not speak? Break them down one by one and list them out for me.
I do not believe that Jesus Himself said any thing that derives from those
chapters. The Gospel as a whole is a late, 1st-century, proto-gnostic
meditation on Jesus' ministry with very little to do with what Jesus actually
did. I say this because I believe that Saint Mark's Gospel very likely
had most of the biographical details right: Jesus went around healing
people, speaking and demonstrating the hypocrisy of the Jewish authorities,
offering aphorisms and parables, and encouraging people to symbolically
wash away their sins and live a God-centered life.
In light of this knowledge, the author of Saint John's Gospel offers his
own meditation on this message, using the figure of Jesus to communicate
his particular interpretation of this message, one that is deeply mystical
and spiritual. Whereas I do not believe that any of it has anything to
do with anything that Jesus actually said or did, I do believe that it is
(largely) a reflection of the Divine and (largely) pleasing in God's sight,
so to speak. I don't think that Divine inspiration is predicated on
historical truth and the fact that I don't believe that Jesus said anything
in chapters 14-17 doesn't mean that I don't meditate on the power of
the messages entailed in those four chapters and let it influence my
life.
You would have to prove to me that it makes much of a difference. You would also have to prove to me that both evangelists insist that their order is the proper sequence.
I don't believe that it does make a difference. My point is that many
evangelicals believe that there is no historical-factual error anywhere in
the New Testament and the fact that you are comfortable with the idea
that there are errors (as inconsequential as they are) makes you a
black sheep among evangelicals.
It does not mean that I am out of step with the basic faith in the Lordship of Christ or the truth of the Bible.
I think many of your colleagues would disagree -- that the admission of
any error in the Bible reflects a weakness of faith. Naturally, I don't
believe this at all, so I'm not trying to make the case in any way shape
or form.
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioWell, as I was one of those evangelicals, and because the doctrine of inerrancy is held as truthful as any of Jesus's sayings, I found it personally terrifying to consider the option that the doctrine of inerrancy was, er, in error.
Do you mean your personal struggle with faith or your struggle with
evangelicals who insist that an inerrant Bible is a requirement of faith?
Nemesio
Consider: The doctrine of inerrancy is the initial interpretive assumption of evangelicals. On top of that, the Bible is held to be the absolute authority on life, the universe, and everything.
As by degrees I found the credibility for inerrancy deteriorate, I also got to watch the basis for my entire outlook on life fall away.
There's a para-church organization that many Americans will recognize from their college days: Campus Crusade for Christ. There's a little booklet they've used in evangelism for decades called "The Four Spiritual Laws." Those of you familiar with it may recall a passage describing the proper relationship between faith, fact, and feelings. That relationship is illustrated as a train, where feelings are the caboose, faith is the coal car, and facts are the engine. You can find a .pdf of it here: http://www.crusade.org/downloads/article/resources/4SpiritualLaws.pdf
For ease of reference, I paste the relevant passage below:
"The promise of God’s Word, the Bible–not our feelings–is our authority. The Christian lives by faith (trust) in the trustworthiness of God Himself and His Word. This train diagram illustrates the relationship among fact (God and His Word), faith (our trust in God and His Word), and feeling (the result of our faith and obedience). (Read John 14:21.)
The train will run with or without the caboose. However, it would be useless to attempt to pull the train by the caboose. In the same way, as Christians we do not depend on feelings or emotions, but we place our faith (trust) in the trustworthiness of God and the promises of His Word."
If the fact is shown to be inaccurate, though, then buddy, you're going off the rails on a crazy train.
Nemesio,
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I say this because I believe that Saint Mark's Gospel very likely
had most of the biographical details right: Jesus went around healing
people, speaking and demonstrating the hypocrisy of the Jewish authorities, offering aphorisms and parables, and encouraging people to symbolically wash away their sins and live a God-centered life.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
So if you prefer Mark then you have no problem with Mark 12:1-12)?
Mark's Gospel opens with these words to which you then have no objection, I trust:
"The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God." (Mark 1:1)
In Mark 12 Jesus tells this parable to show how He is the Son of God and is persecuted by the regilionists. The master of the vinyard sends servants to collect the fruit of the vinyard.
"And he [the master of the vinyard] sent another, and that one they killed; and so with many others, beating some and killed others.
And He had one; a beloved son; he sent him to them last, saying, They will respect my son.
But those vinedressors said to one another. This is the heir. Come, let us kill him, and the inderitance will be ours. (Mark 12:5-8)
It is clear that in the parable the master of the vinyard is the Father. The servants are the prophets. The vinyard is the nation of Israel. And the "beloved son" is Jesus the Son of God (Mark 1:1)
The Son of God is not merely one of the prophets according to the parable. He is the unique "beloved son" whom the Father (in the parable) hopes the opposers will respect.
So then, if you trust Mark's Gospel, you have no problem with Christ's teaching here that He is the Son of God, distinct from the holy men and prophets whom God sent, and that He too was killed as one of the prophets? For the parable continues:
"And they took him and killed him and threw him out of the vinyard" (v.8)
You have no problem then with this parable of Jesus the Son of God - ie. the beloved son of the master of the vinyard, who like the servants the OT prophets, was persecuted and killed?
Nemesio,
If you trust Mark's Gospel then you have no problem with Mark 10:32-24?
Here Jesus teaches of His coming death and resurrection:
"Behold, we are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be delivered to the chief priests and to the scribes. And they will condemn Him to death and deliver Him to the Gentiles. And they will mock Him and spit at Him and scourge HIm, and they will kill HIm.
And after three days He will rise" (Mark 10:32-24)
So you trust Mark? Do you then trust that the Son of Man (who is also Son of God (Mark 1:1)) taught that He would be killed and rise from the dead after three days?
Originally posted by blakbuzzrdDo certain factual inconsistencies within the texts (assuming they are legitimate) necessarily indicate that God is not trustworthy? Or that his promises are not trustworthy? If God is real and his Kingdom is now, then should he not be able to verify as much by his own Spirit? After all, we are to develop a direct relationship with God as he is in himself, an immanent Being, rather than merely with the written word alone. I don't discount the preeminence of God's word being "given by inspiration of God, and . . . profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction [and] for instruction in righteousness" (2 Timothy 3:16), though I do wonder if failing to seek the Lord in spirit and thereby receiving assurances of his trustworthiness firsthand, does not leave one susceptible to a shaky faith easily swayed by certain factual inconsistencies (again, assuming they are legitimate).
Well, as I was one of those evangelicals, and because the doctrine of inerrancy is held as truthful as any of Jesus's sayings, I found it personally terrifying to consider the option that the doctrine of inerrancy was, er, in error.
Consider: The doctrine of inerrancy is the initial interpretive assumption of evangelicals. On top of that, the Bible is ...[text shortened]... hown to be inaccurate, though, then buddy, you're going off the rails on a crazy train.
twhitehead,
Me:
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Show me which discrepency in the New Testament document persuades you that you have no need to repent of your sins and believe in the Savior Jesus.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
You:
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The parable of the sheep and the goats?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
You were refering to Matthew 25:31-46.
Do you consider yourself one of the sheep?
Or do you consider yourself one of the goats?
Or do you consider yourself of the third group mentioned in the teaching - "these the least of my brothers"?