Biblical Inerrancy - Legacy thread

12345679»

Comments

  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    MPaul wrote: »
    Gee D wrote: »
    MPaul wrote: »
    Gee D wrote: »
    MPaul wrote: »
    John couldn’t care less about the order of the events he portrays. He is the artist kind of writer.
    There is no mistake or error.

    I can't see how John's attitude towards the order of things leads to your conclusion. Ok, John cared nothing about the order - that may well led to his making this sort of error (assuming the synoptics are correct).


    The accusation here is that it is an ERROR. There is no error here. Error assumes John did not know what he was doing. If you want correct order of events read Luke.
    .

    Any authority for your assertion that error must proceed from ignorance? If Luke is right then John is wrong - and the necessary conclusion from that is that John is in error.

    Not the case at all. They are both right. Each was drawing from eyewitness knowledge, his own or another’s. Both are inspired by the Holy Spirit. Each had a different purpose. Each included the events that suited his theme. Neither included everything. Sometimes John chose a chronological sequence, sometimes not. What is the error? There isn’t one.

    On your account, John has it at the wrong time. Why is that not an error? Why does John's sticking to his theme allow him to set forth something completely at odds with Luke without committing an error?
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Purgatory Host, Dead Horses Host
    MPaul

    I'm analysing your assertion, asking for clarification. I've pointed to its incoherence as I see it, and also the lack of support from biblical scholars who adopt an inerrantist viewpoint so far as I have read. I've asked for any references from commentators who support your argument. That's the sort of thing we do here.

    It is not an effective response to repeat your argument and ask me to go figure. From my point of view, I'm seeking to engage constructively with what you are saying to test the validity of my understanding and yours.

    You are free to ignore or withdraw, but there is no need for you to continue to assert your original viewpoint.
  • MPaulMPaul Shipmate
    @Barnabas62

    I have told you why I think John is not in error and supported it the best way I can. You have concluded that that is incoherent? That seems an impasse to me.
  • MPaulMPaul Shipmate
    Gee D wrote: »
    MPaul wrote: »
    Gee D wrote: »
    MPaul wrote: »
    Gee D wrote: »
    MPaul wrote: »
    John couldn’t care less about the order of the events he portrays. He is the artist kind of writer.
    There is no mistake or error.

    I can't see how John's attitude towards the order of things leads to your conclusion. Ok, John cared nothing about the order - that may well led to his making this sort of error (assuming the synoptics are correct).


    The accusation here is that it is an ERROR. There is no error here. Error assumes John did not know what he was doing. If you want correct order of events read Luke.
    .

    Any authority for your assertion that error must proceed from ignorance? If Luke is right then John is wrong - and the necessary conclusion from that is that John is in error.

    Not the case at all. They are both right. Each was drawing from eyewitness knowledge, his own or another’s. Both are inspired by the Holy Spirit. Each had a different purpose. Each included the events that suited his theme. Neither included everything. Sometimes John chose a chronological sequence, sometimes not. What is the error? There isn’t one.

    On your account, John has it at the wrong time. Why is that not an error? Why does John's sticking to his theme allow him to set forth something completely at odds with Luke without committing an error?

    It is not an error because where he puts the event..which happened, is a calculated ploy to establish Jesus identity and function early in his gospel. John knows quite well when the event happened chronologically but by placing it out of sequence he emphasises his theme better.
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Purgatory Host, Dead Horses Host
    MPaul wrote: »
    John knows quite well when the event happened chronologically but by placing it out of sequence he emphasises his theme better.
    There is no way that you can know that. It is pure conjecture.

    But I agree we are at an impasse.

  • MPaulMPaul Shipmate
    There is no way that you can know that. It is pure conjecture
    I know it from reading the gospel as I tried to show above. By assuming error in this instance on misses a major point John makes.
  • MPaul wrote: »
    There is no way that you can know that. It is pure conjecture
    I know it from reading the gospel as I tried to show above. By assuming error in this instance on misses a major point John makes.
    You construct a narrative and then apply that to how you read the Bible. Whilst that isn’t uncommon, it does appear hypocritical to pretend otherwise
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Purgatory Host, Dead Horses Host
    "MPaul wrote:
    (From the other thread, addressed to me)

    What can you define as an error? You were shown clearly why it is not necessary to see a chronological aberration as error and you cannot accept it.
    Actually, I wasn't shown clearly anything other than this is what you believe. I've been trying to clarify why you believe it.

    It certainly isn't obvious from the text of John that he doesn't give a fig about chronology or sequence. Given that he provides chronology and sequence in his gospel, I would have thought the reverse was true.

    Nor can you argue that John knew the temple cleansing occurred at the end of Jesus mission but he placed it at the beginning for reasons of his own. There is not the slightest indication of that in the text itself.

    You may argue that it is a reasonable assumption from your reading of the text. But that presupposes that he did not make an error, therefore there must be some reason why he did it. So your argument is circular.

    But I do not want to go running round in circles with you. So I'll stop there, recognising the impasse.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    MPaul wrote: »
    Gee D wrote: »
    MPaul wrote: »
    Gee D wrote: »
    MPaul wrote: »
    Gee D wrote: »
    MPaul wrote: »
    John couldn’t care less about the order of the events he portrays. He is the artist kind of writer.
    There is no mistake or error.

    I can't see how John's attitude towards the order of things leads to your conclusion. Ok, John cared nothing about the order - that may well led to his making this sort of error (assuming the synoptics are correct).


    The accusation here is that it is an ERROR. There is no error here. Error assumes John did not know what he was doing. If you want correct order of events read Luke.
    .

    Any authority for your assertion that error must proceed from ignorance? If Luke is right then John is wrong - and the necessary conclusion from that is that John is in error.

    Not the case at all. They are both right. Each was drawing from eyewitness knowledge, his own or another’s. Both are inspired by the Holy Spirit. Each had a different purpose. Each included the events that suited his theme. Neither included everything. Sometimes John chose a chronological sequence, sometimes not. What is the error? There isn’t one.

    On your account, John has it at the wrong time. Why is that not an error? Why does John's sticking to his theme allow him to set forth something completely at odds with Luke without committing an error?

    It is not an error because where he puts the event..which happened, is a calculated ploy to establish Jesus identity and function early in his gospel. John knows quite well when the event happened chronologically but by placing it out of sequence he emphasises his theme better.

    I see nothing to support your assertion that it was a "calculated ploy" - except that it's an assertion that gets you around what would otherwise be a very great difficulty.
  • MPaulMPaul Shipmate
    It certainly isn't obvious from the text of John that he doesn't give a fig about chronology or sequence

    Well you are now implying John was simply naively wrong about where he placed the event. This is a far greater stretch of credulity. We are talking about a writer who consciously used many devices and symbolism in his writing. One who had all the other gospels at his disposal if as is commonly believed, his is the later of the four. You simply will not accept a common sense solution, insisting that chronology is a necessary element of his narrative. This is just stubborn. You are wrong and obviously so but cannot admit it. That is the reason for the impasse and it demonstrates the point that really this is all about pride and point scoring. If you are at all open to another view, you could check out the study on the Life of the Messiah by the Jewish messianic scholar Arnold Fruchtenbaum. I rather suspect you will not do this since you are happy as you are.
    Gee D wrote: »
    MPaul wrote: »
    Gee D wrote: »
    MPaul wrote: »
    Gee D wrote: »
    MPaul wrote: »
    Gee D wrote: »
    MPaul wrote: »
    John couldn’t care less about the order of the events he portrays. He is the artist kind of writer.
    There is no mistake or error.

    I can't see how John's attitude towards the order of things leads to your conclusion. Ok, John cared nothing about the order - that may well led to his making this sort of error (assuming the synoptics are correct).


    The accusation here is that it is an ERROR. There is no error here. Error assumes John did not know what he was doing. If you want correct order of events read Luke.
    .

    Any authority for your assertion that error must proceed from ignorance? If Luke is right then John is wrong - and the necessary conclusion from that is that John is in error.

    Not the case at all. They are both right. Each was drawing from eyewitness knowledge, his own or another’s. Both are inspired by the Holy Spirit. Each had a different purpose. Each included the events that suited his theme. Neither included everything. Sometimes John chose a chronological sequence, sometimes not. What is the error? There isn’t one.

    On your account, John has it at the wrong time. Why is that not an error? Why does John's sticking to his theme allow him to set forth something completely at odds with Luke without committing an error?

    It is not an error because where he puts the event..which happened, is a calculated ploy to establish Jesus identity and function early in his gospel. John knows quite well when the event happened chronologically but by placing it out of sequence he emphasises his theme better.

    I see nothing to support your assertion that it was a "calculated ploy" - except that it's an assertion that gets you around what would otherwise be a very great difficulty.

    Then you are treating John like a literary moron..which he wasn’t.
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Purgatory Host, Dead Horses Host
    edited January 31
    That is the reason for the impasse and it demonstrates the point that really this is all about pride and point scoring. If you are at all open to another view, you could check out the study on the Life of the Messiah by the Jewish messianic scholar Arnold Fruchtenbaum. I rather suspect you will not do this since you are happy as you are.

    Arnold Fruchtenbaum is a dispensationalist and an inerrantist.

    I will see if I can get a hold of his work from my local library. It's a bit pricey to buy. But I will have a look at what he has to say about the authorship and construction of John's gospel.

    The bit I emboldened ruins your argument. It is nothing of the sort.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    MPaul wrote: »
    It certainly isn't obvious from the text of John that he doesn't give a fig about chronology or sequence

    Well you are now implying John was simply naively wrong about where he placed the event. This is a far greater stretch of credulity. We are talking about a writer who consciously used many devices and symbolism in his writing. One who had all the other gospels at his disposal if as is commonly believed, his is the later of the four. You simply will not accept a common sense solution, insisting that chronology is a necessary element of his narrative. This is just stubborn. You are wrong and obviously so but cannot admit it. That is the reason for the impasse and it demonstrates the point that really this is all about pride and point scoring. If you are at all open to another view, you could check out the study on the Life of the Messiah by the Jewish messianic scholar Arnold Fruchtenbaum. I rather suspect you will not do this since you are happy as you are.
    Gee D wrote: »
    MPaul wrote: »
    Gee D wrote: »
    MPaul wrote: »
    Gee D wrote: »
    MPaul wrote: »
    Gee D wrote: »
    MPaul wrote: »
    John couldn’t care less about the order of the events he portrays. He is the artist kind of writer.
    There is no mistake or error.

    I can't see how John's attitude towards the order of things leads to your conclusion. Ok, John cared nothing about the order - that may well led to his making this sort of error (assuming the synoptics are correct).


    The accusation here is that it is an ERROR. There is no error here. Error assumes John did not know what he was doing. If you want correct order of events read Luke.
    .

    Any authority for your assertion that error must proceed from ignorance? If Luke is right then John is wrong - and the necessary conclusion from that is that John is in error.

    Not the case at all. They are both right. Each was drawing from eyewitness knowledge, his own or another’s. Both are inspired by the Holy Spirit. Each had a different purpose. Each included the events that suited his theme. Neither included everything. Sometimes John chose a chronological sequence, sometimes not. What is the error? There isn’t one.

    On your account, John has it at the wrong time. Why is that not an error? Why does John's sticking to his theme allow him to set forth something completely at odds with Luke without committing an error?

    It is not an error because where he puts the event..which happened, is a calculated ploy to establish Jesus identity and function early in his gospel. John knows quite well when the event happened chronologically but by placing it out of sequence he emphasises his theme better.

    I see nothing to support your assertion that it was a "calculated ploy" - except that it's an assertion that gets you around what would otherwise be a very great difficulty.

    Then you are treating John like a literary moron..which he wasn’t.

    I rest my case.
  • LouiseLouise Dead Horses Host
    edited February 1
    hosting

    I've already warned people about getting unduly personal on this thread. Lil Buddha and MPaul you need to both back off from each other or open a Hell thread.

    This however
    reason for the impasse and it demonstrates the point that really this is all about pride and point scoring.

    is a personal attack on Barnabas, breaking C3. I will be asking an admin to look at this.
    Louise
    Dead Horses Host

    hosting off
  • MPaulMPaul Shipmate
    Louise wrote: »
    hosting

    I've already warned people about getting unduly personal on this thread. Lil Buddha and MPaul you need to both back off from each other or open a Hell thread.

    This however
    reason for the impasse and it demonstrates the point that really this is all about pride and point scoring.

    is a personal attack on Barnabas, breaking C3. I will be asking an admin to look at this.
    Louise
    Dead Horses Host

    hosting off

    Louise wrote: »
    hosting

    I've already warned people about getting unduly personal on this thread. Lil Buddha and MPaul you need to both back off from each other or open a Hell thread.

    This however
    reason for the impasse and it demonstrates the point that really this is all about pride and point scoring.

    is a personal attack on Barnabas, breaking C3. I will be asking an admin to look at this.
    Louise
    Dead Horses Host

    hosting off

    Great. Make sure they consider the exchange on the other thread as well

    MPaul out

  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Purgatory Host, Dead Horses Host
    edited February 1
    My Peake commentary on John's gospel points out that there are form-critical arguments about the text order in John's gospel. Signs that the text is in the wrong order because scrolls got copied out of order.

    The classic illustration is that the story of the woman taken in adultery is found in different places, including, bizarrely, one of the manuscripts of Luke's gospel.

    Personally I don't rule that out as a possible explanation for the placement of the temple cleansing where it is. Particularly as the segment includes crucifixion allusions.

    That would still be an error of course, but an error of transmission. It strikes me as a heck of a lot more likely than some deliberate misplacing of the story for polemical reasons.

    But, as is well known, inerrantist apologetics is generally hostile to form criticism of this kind.
  • It really sounds from outside like somebody who has set up a theory, and then has to spin more and more fudges to make it fit the data. Or as they used to say in astronomy, epicycles. At some point the astronomer says "enough with the epicycles; circles aren't enough. They're ellipses." And the whole thing once again makes sense.
  • Admin Comment
    MPaul wrote: »
    Louise wrote: »
    hosting

    I've already warned people about getting unduly personal on this thread. Lil Buddha and MPaul you need to both back off from each other or open a Hell thread.

    This however
    reason for the impasse and it demonstrates the point that really this is all about pride and point scoring.

    is a personal attack on Barnabas, breaking C3. I will be asking an admin to look at this.
    Louise
    Dead Horses Host

    hosting off

    Great. Make sure they consider the exchange on the other thread as well

    MPaul out
    Don't worry, by the nature of admin oversight we almost always consider posting records across more than one thread. In this instance, I'm not sure whether you think it will help your case.

    When people are warned by a host about getting too personal the expectation is that people (those specifically warned and others who may not have been as personal) rein back on personalising the arguments. Certainly on the thread concerned, common sense would indicate that people also consider their style of posting on other threads so the hosts don't need to issue similar warnings there.

    This is now a formal warning to everyone posting on these threads (I will copy it to the other thread as well). The admins have seen the hosts issue multiple warnings about personal attacks on these threads. We are watching these threads and will not look kindly on any further posts which appear to ignore those warnings.

    As usual, if people have any questions or comments then start a thread in the Styx where we will try to clarify this ruling.

    Alan
    Ship of Fools Admin
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Purgatory Host, Dead Horses Host
    MPaul

    Arnold Fruchtenbaum. I checked the Norfolk UK catalogue and they don't have a copy of the work you refer to. The four volume work is available via Amazon UK but would cost me about £200 to buy. There is an abridged version for £30 but unfortunately it doesn't contain his source code detailed references and since his work is based on some original work on source codes I'm not sure there would be too much value in the abridged version. The full version is well out of my affordable range.

    So I have drawn a blank there. A shame. Arnold Fruchtenbaum's personal history is poignant. I note also that his basic approach seems heavily influenced by Midrashic hermeneutics. Both liberal scholarship and conservative scholarship are sometimes guilty of both overlooking and misunderstanding Midrash.

    Do you think that John's gospel is, or contains midrash i.e. a reimagining of the life of Jesus to bring out what to John was his real significance? In short, that it is not really history?

  • agingjbagingjb Shipmate
    I find the story of a universal flood more of a challenge to biblical inerrancy than any discrepancy between the Gospels.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    agingjb wrote: »
    I find the story of a universal flood more of a challenge to biblical inerrancy than any discrepancy between the Gospels.

    The one that made me start questioning the concept back in my evangelical days was the parallel accounts of David's census in Samuel and Chronicles; the former fingers God as the instigator; the latter says it was Satan.
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Purgatory Host, Dead Horses Host
    Fair points. Even if it is possible to argue that the different chronology of John's gospel does not prove error, there is an awful lot of other stuff.

    I came across an interesting couple of quotes in the commentary of John's gospel in Peake.
    John was more of an historian than an imaginative mystic and the synoptic writers too were concerned about the theological significance of what they described
    ... bald historicism was as alien to his purpose as unhistorical mysticism
    .

    They seem pretty fair to me.
  • MPaulMPaul Shipmate
    is an awful lot of other stuff
    Pretty well all of it only amounts to ‘error’ if you want to circumscribe it with restrictive criteria such as ..chronology is important ..when there is no indication that it is, in all of the Gospels. The more I read them the more I realise that the authorial selective process is pretty well always in play. If you have a copy of a Broadus harmony or the version of it by AT Robertson, ‘A Harmony of the Gospels,’ the notes at the back make interesting reading.
    BTW I apologise for the c3 violation. I tend to feel a bit besieged here at times and I got a bit snappy..no excuse.
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Purgatory Host, Dead Horses Host
    I'm happy to cut you some slack, MPaul, and would be grateful if you would do the same for me. So far as John's gospel is concerned, it is probably best to leave the argument where it is.

    On the more general issue of chronology, what do you make of the apologetics of young earth creationists? Those seem focused on using timelines like Ussher's to date the creation of the heavens and the earth to about 6-10 thousand years ago. One consequence of this is considerable scepticism about the evidence from the sky and the rocks.

    In that context, unlike John's gospel, the evidence of the biblical chronology is taken as definitive.

    Now not everyone I know with an inerrantist view sees things that way, and their position mostly is that the creation accounts are a kind of artistry or poetry, designed to underpin the statement that in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. That's pretty much my opinion.

    If portrait painting, poetry, or artistry are primary in John's gospel, chronology and sequence secondary, can a similar argument be applied to Genesis 1 and 2?

    It's not in any way a trick question. I'm interested in how you see it.
  • @Barnabas62
    I'd have to see their arguments and what else they address. It is fucking hard here, though, because this splitting of topics makes getting a firm hold on the overall issue difficult.* If what you present is accurate, then I think inerrant is the wrong word. Things like Jonah, Adam and Eve and the Flood are easily put down to allegory. Things like stoning children, never, no how eating X except its OK now, the role of women etc. not so much. Those are wrong or they are not. If they are wrong, the Bible is not inerrant.

    *Not contesting the directive.
  • @Nick Tamen

    People who believe X, Y and Z are wrong because the Bible says so and vote this way are part of the same group. Even if they have other differences amongst themselves. What I am referencing are the actions and consequences of those actions.
    I do not believe all Trump supporters are racist bigots, but their actions supporting him support racism.
    B62 seems to think it is possible to be inerrantist and not be effectively oppressive. I think the two things are mutually exclusive. I am wiling to listen to an explanation of how they are not.
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    @Nick Tamen

    People who believe X, Y and Z are wrong because the Bible says so and vote this way are part of the same group. Even if they have other differences amongst themselves. What I am referencing are the actions and consequences of those actions.
    I do not believe all Trump supporters are racist bigots, but their actions supporting him support racism.
    I understand seeing it that way. I was commenting on how your posts are coming across, at least to me, and I suspect, to others.
    B62 seems to think it is possible to be inerrantist and not be effectively oppressive. I think the two things are mutually exclusive. I am wiling to listen to an explanation of how they are not.
    To me, at least, this post did not convey that willingness , especially with the Dr. Seuss link:
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Then I cannot let go the contention that you all belong in the same catagory. Where you see differences,I see similarities.
    I am not trying to be mean, I am trying to let you see how I see this issue.
    That comes across to me like “Inerrantists are bad. Explain to me why I should think you’re not just as bad as the others.”



  • Nick Tamen wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    @Nick Tamen

    People who believe X, Y and Z are wrong because the Bible says so and vote this way are part of the same group. Even if they have other differences amongst themselves. What I am referencing are the actions and consequences of those actions.
    I do not believe all Trump supporters are racist bigots, but their actions supporting him support racism.
    I understand seeing it that way. I was commenting on how your posts are coming across, at least to me, and I suspect, to others.
    B62 seems to think it is possible to be inerrantist and not be effectively oppressive. I think the two things are mutually exclusive. I am wiling to listen to an explanation of how they are not.
    To me, at least, this post did not convey that willingness , especially with the Dr. Seuss link:
    The Seuss link was to demonstrate that people on the inside see the differences between themselves whilst the people on the outside see the similarities. I might of even actually said this.
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Then I cannot let go the contention that you all belong in the same catagory. Where you see differences,I see similarities.
    I am not trying to be mean, I am trying to let you see how I see this issue.
    That comes across to me like “Inerrantists are bad. Explain to me why I should think you’re not just as bad as the others.”
    Well, it kinda is, but it is more nuanced than that. FOr one, I would not say "bad". I would say can cause harm, regardless of intention. Inerrantists, IME, are typically supporters of viewpoints that affect the lives of others in a negative way. Both in what they teach and what they support. Simply because they do not go all Westboro Baptist doesn't change this.
    Now if B62 is correct and supporting people's rights can coexist with inerrantism, then I am wrong. But I'm not yet convinced. As far as Steve Chalke, I have not read his writings, but I have heard a bit about him here. Enough to know his definition of inerrancy is not universally accepted.
    I actually agree with MPaul and Steve Langton that there are passages in the Bible that condemn certain things. Where I disagree is how that reconciles with Jesus.
    Personally, I think those who call themselves inerrantists but are more socially liberal are trying to reconcile biblical authority with Jesus message but I think they need to let go of that word. Not only is it confusing, but I think it is the wrong definition of what they are.
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Purgatory Host, Dead Horses Host
    edited February 3
    I've added another post in the homosexuality thread but put briefly here, what I think Steve Chalke pointed to was an uneasy conscience over justice issues. People really do not want to be unfair to others and yet they see that the traditional interpretations of scripture do seem unfair. If you believe in the truth of scripture, what can you do about that sense of unease?

    Within inerrancy there is general acceptance of the principle of weighing scripture with scripture when they seem to contradict. So within inerrancy the possibility of shifting the point of balance as a result of looking deeper is a very real one. And of course Steve Chalke was quite right to point to how that point of balance had shifted conclusively over slavery and race, and markedly over the role of women. Weighing scripture with scripture had brought about a revised understanding of scriptural principles re justice.

    Without wishing to reopen the debate about chronology in John's gospel, the view that the gospel is more about a portrait than a history actually came to the fore as a result of primarily liberal theologians wrestling with the obvious differences between John's gospel and the Synoptics. That's an example of weighing of scripture with scripture and coming to a general conclusion. Inerrancy can allow that within limits, but I don't think those limits are defined, other than to deny the use of the words error or contradiction. Both are red rags to a bull.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    Is it not that inerrancy just becomes less and less literal, more and more metaphoric, deconstructed. Is there a spectrum of inerrancy in which even deist but for incarnation, existentialist, rationalist Christians like me are at one extreme and YECists at the other? That looks absurd but doesn't feel like it to me.
  • Somewhere in that is the "bible as terms and conditions, lift a single verse in isolation to answer any question" tendency. This feels like a form of inerrantism to me, in that the bible is held up as an infallible guide, but it doesn't look at the text in anything like the way Lamb Chopped has described.
  • Barnabas62 wrote: »
    Without wishing to reopen the debate about chronology in John's gospel, the view that the gospel is more about a portrait than a history actually came to the fore as a result of primarily liberal theologians wrestling with the obvious differences between John's gospel and the Synoptics.
    It isn't just John. Paul is a massive problem for every Christian. He speaks categorically against marriage and women as leaders. Not allegorically, just bloody plain. The OT passage about killing naughty children is not an allegory, nor is not eating certain things. The fact that Peter can handwave the latter away suggests even the explicitly literal can be challenged.
    The movement necessary to follow Jesus message and the typical Christian portrait of God is sufficiently far from inerrant to render that word false. Well, one can do so with magical thinking, but not remaining grounded in the observable reality.
  • lilBudda :notworthy:
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    Aye, scripture wasn't inerrant to Jesus after all. He played so fast and loose with it it's breathtaking. It's the only hope! He winged it all the way in ways that cannot work for us at all. Thank God!
  • MPaulMPaul Shipmate

    Martin54 wrote: »
    Aye, scripture wasn't inerrant to Jesus He winged it all the way in ways that cannot work for us at all. Thank God!
    So.. did he rise from the dead Martin 54?
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    MPaul wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Aye, scripture wasn't inerrant to Jesus He winged it all the way in ways that cannot work for us at all. Thank God!
    So.. did he rise from the dead Martin 54?

    Who knows? Not me, not you, not Martin...
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    MPaul wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Aye, scripture wasn't inerrant to Jesus He winged it all the way in ways that cannot work for us at all. Thank God!
    So.. did he rise from the dead Martin 54?

    I hope so. But I don't know. And neither does anyone else as KarlLB said. If God is the ground of being, despite being unnecessary of course, then yes He did.

    I invoke Him as if He did.
  • Martin54 wrote: »
    Aye, scripture wasn't inerrant to Jesus after all. He played so fast and loose with it it's breathtaking. It's the only hope! He winged it all the way in ways that cannot work for us at all. Thank God!

    Perhaps a rather Jewish way of dealing with scripture?
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    Jesus' Midrash? That worked - validly - for Him and a few of His contemporaries? But can't work now?
  • Martin54 wrote: »
    Jesus' Midrash? That worked - validly - for Him and a few of His contemporaries? But can't work now?

    It did work for MLK. Midrash on Moses seeing but not entering the promised land
  • Very true. But not in the same category I would suggest. By a country mile. Which doesn't mean that Jesus wasn't led by the Spirit in His terrible mission, whatever it was.
Sign In or Register to comment.