Why do some believers of Christ feel the bible is withou error?

Blank Stair · Aug 30, 2015

smaneck said:
Recently the mods decided that Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses would not be considered Christian because they reject the Nicaean Creed. So they were banished here.

I was not aware. Thank you.

Why would asking why some Christians think the Bible is inerrant be an invalid question? Or did you have some other question in mind?

That was my question since the author of this thread and their religious identity were questioned. I wondered if that meant there was no point to the query.

ViaCrucis · Aug 30, 2015

fatboys said:
Mark was a companion to Paul. Luke wasn't an apostle either but he didn't write Luke. He was a companion peter. It was two hundred years after the fact that church leaders attributed Matthew and Luke to them as writing them.

Both Luke and Mark were companions to Paul. Tradition further says that Mark learned from Peter and wrote down what Peter said, this being what we know as the Gospel according to St. Mark. The Tradition involving the attributed names to the four gospels doesn't date to 200 years after the fact, but within a generation or two; the earliest attestation comes from the fragmented writings of Papias (generally considered as dating to around 100-120 AD). Papias, of course, seems to be saying something that was already accepted. That doesn't change the fact that, ultimately, the four gospels are anonymous; only that it isn't accurate to say that it was 200 years after their penning, it was only within a generation or two.

-CryptoLutheran

smaneck · Aug 30, 2015

fatboys said:
Mark was a companion to Paul. Luke wasn't an apostle either but he didn't write Luke. He was a companion peter. It was two hundred years after the fact that church leaders attributed Matthew and Luke to them as writing them.

You've got things garbled. Mark was said to be a disciple of Peter, not Paul. Luke is supposed to have been a companion to Paul. The church fathers associated Luke-Acts with Luke the physician around 200 A.D but that isn't 200 years after the gospel was said to have been written.

smaneck · Aug 30, 2015

chaela said:
Makes me wonder if the account was borrowed from the
incident in the (older) Bhagavata Purana. When Kamsa gets
wind of the birth of Lord Krishna (a previous incarnation
of God), Kamsa is said to have ordered all male and
female babies in the land killed to (unsuccessfully)
prevent that from happening.-

Probably not. There is no evidence that anyone in the Roman Empire was familiar with the Puranas at the time. We don't see much evidence of Hindu-Buddhist influence in the area until the rise of the Manichean religion in the third century. A much more likely basis for that story would be the slaughter of male children in Egypt around the time Moses was born. In fact it is pretty obvious that Matthew is deliberately making that connection.

LoAmmi · Aug 30, 2015

ToBeLoved said:
I see there are not facts forthcoming, only more opinion.

lol. It is what I expected. The Word of God stands as none of you can present any facts to say it is in error.

This has been fun. I'll leave you to your opinions now. lol.

Alright, let's have fun.

Matthew, Mark, and Luke have Jesus dying a day after when John has him die. John has him die at the same time the Passover lamb was being slaughtered, which was the day prior to the beginning of Passover, whereas the other three have him die the first day of Passover which would be the day after the lambs were slaughtered. There's an error for you.

smaneck · Aug 30, 2015

LoAmmi said:
Alright, let's have fun.

Matthew, Mark, and Luke have Jesus dying a day after when John has him die. John has him die at the same time the Passover lamb was being slaughtered, which was the day prior to the beginning of Passover, whereas the other three have him die the first day of Passover which would be the day after the lambs were slaughtered. There's an error for you.

And I might add that it only takes one incontrovertible example, no matter how insignificant, to prove the Bible not without error. The fact of the matter is that propositional inerrancy is pretty weak basis upon which to place your faith.

LoAmmi · Aug 30, 2015

smaneck said:
And I might add that it only takes one incontrovertible example, not matter how insignificant, to prove the Bible not without error. The fact of the matter is that propositional inerrancy is pretty weak basis upon which to place your faith.

Indeed it is.

smaneck · Aug 30, 2015

fatboys said:
I believe it happened on a local area.

Matthew indicates the slaughter took place in Bethlehem and the surrounding vicinity on the orders of Herod the Great. Josephus wrote extensively on this man and his atrocities. There is no way he could have committed infanticide on that scale and Josephus ignore it.

The three wise men were specific where this took place.

I hate to be persnickety here but nowhere does the Bible say there were three of them. It simply speaks of three gifts.

There is so little written history on any event at that time. I am also sure that this could have happened more than one time in order to prevent a perceived threat.

See above. Jews were quite happy to enumerate the atrocities of Herodians who they really didn't consider Jews.

fatboys · Aug 30, 2015

smaneck said:
You've got things garbled. Mark was said to be a disciple of Peter, not Paul. Luke is supposed to have been a companion to Paul. The church fathers associated Luke-Acts with Luke the physician around 200 A.D but that isn't 200 years after the gospel was said to have been written.

Dyslexia

fatboys · Aug 30, 2015

smaneck said:
Matthew indicates the slaughter took place in Bethlehem and the surrounding vicinity on the orders of Herod the Great. Josephus wrote extensively on this man and his atrocities. There is no way he could have committed infanticide on that scale and Josephus ignore it.

I hate to be persnickety here but nowhere does the Bible say there were three of them. It simply speaks of three gifts.

See above. Jews were quite happy to enumerate the atrocities of Herodians who they really didn't consider Jews.

I'm glad you caught that. Also they didn't arrive until three years or so after the birth

Robban · Sep 1, 2015

chaela said:
Makes me wonder if the account was borrowed from the
incident in the (older) Bhagavata Purana. When Kamsa gets
wind of the birth of Lord Krishna (a previous incarnation
of God), Kamsa is said to have ordered all male and
female babies in the land killed to (unsuccessfully)
prevent that from happening.

Pharaoh issued a decree of the like that,s why Moses was hidden in a basket and found floating in the nile,

But here is something which may be of intrest,
For copyright reasons, From "Our People" by Jacob Isaacs,
published and copyrighted by Kehot Publication Society 1946-48. (hoping that was done correctly)

Abrams family,
One of the most important persons at Nimrod,s Court in Ur of the Chaldees in Babylon, or Babylonia, was Terah, the son of Nahor, a great-great grandson of Eber.
Terah had Three sons, Abram, Nahor, Haran.
Abrams birth,
The night Before Abram was born, Nimrod,s astrologers were gathered at Terah,s house.

Looking out into the night sky, they read in the constellation of the stars that that the newly born Child was to become the chief and the father of a Mighty nation.

This Discovery was communicated to Nimrod, who became afraid that the new star might darken his own.

(At that time they all worshiped idols).

-

OzSpen · Sep 3, 2015

smaneck said:
Matthew indicates the slaughter took place in Bethlehem and the surrounding vicinity on the orders of Herod the Great. Josephus wrote extensively on this man and his atrocities. There is no way he could have committed infanticide on that scale and Josephus ignore it.

I don't find that to be a satisfactory kind of response, for these reasons:

Gordon Franz's (in an article in Biblical Archaeology) assessment of Herod's killing of the male children in Bethlehem (Matt 2:16) was:

'Unfortunately archaeologists have yet to excavate the archives of the Jerusalem Post from the year 4 BC! Nor does the first century AD Jewish historian, Flavius Josephus record this event in any of his writings. Even though secular history is silent on this event it does not mean it did not occur. When the life of Herod the Great is examined, this event is very consistent with his character and actions so this is pointing to the fact that it did happen as recorded in Holy Scripture' (source).

Josephus records this of Herod:

'He commanded that all the principal men of the entire Jewish nation, wheresoever they lived, should be called to him. Accordingly, they were a great number that came, because the whole nation was called, and all men heard of this call, and death was the penalty of such as should despise the epistles that were sent to call them. And now the king was in a wild rage against them all, the innocent as well as those that had afforded ground for accusations; and when they were come, he ordered them to be all shut up in the hyppodrome [a place for horse races], and sent for his sister Salome, and her husband Alexas, and spake thus to them: "I shall die in a little time, so great are my pains; which death ought to be cheerfully borne, and to be welcomed by all men; but what principally troubles me is this, that I shall die without being lamented, and without such mourning as men usually expect at a king's death. For that he was not unacquainted with the temper of the Jews, that his death would be a thing very desirable, and exceedingly acceptable to them, because during his lifetime they were ready to revolt from him, and to abuse the donations he had dedicated to God that it therefore was their business to resolve to afford him some alleviation of his great sorrows on this occasion; for that if they do not refuse him their consent in what he desires, he shall have a great mourning at his funeral' (Antiquities of the Jews 17.6.5).

So, according to Josephus, Herod the Great had a reputation for rage against the innocent and offenders alike. He was troubled that at his death he would die and people would not lament his death and mourn for him. Why should they when his reputation for violence went with him to the grave?

Wayne Jackson has made these observations:

'The absence of the mention of an historical event in any given document proves nothing.There may be a perfectly legitimate reason for an incident not being recorded among the documents of antiquity, no matter how dramatic it was.The histories of the ancient world were limited in number and in scope.Roman records, for example, dealt principally with matters of interest to the political fortunes of the empire, rather than with isolated tragedies in remote countries that were under the imperial control....

While it is true that Josephus provides considerable data relative to Herod the Great (47-4 B.C.)—even numerous despicable deeds—it likewise is the case that his writings are slanted with a Jewish bias. It is highly unlikely, therefore, that he would have been inclined to record an episode that demonstrated the protective care of God on behalf of his Son, Jesus of Nazareth.

Second, it is not correct to say that history ignored this horrible event.It is recorded in the Gospel of Matthew, and Matthew’s narrative is a reliable first century document. It is neither an honest nor legitimate approach to history to simply eliminate this record because it is in the New Testament. Critics must not be allowed to choose only those sources that meet their personal agenda' (source).

Oz

smaneck · Sep 3, 2015

OzSpen said:
So, according to Josephus, Herod the Great had a reputation for rage against the innocent and offenders alike. He was troubled that at his death he would die and people would not lament his death and mourn for him. Why should they when his reputation for violence went with him to the grave?

The idea that Josephus would have ignored the slaughter of the innocents because it might support Christianity is really absurd. There is no reason to think that an atrocity like this had anything to do with Christianity.

Why do some believers of Christ feel the bible is withou error?

1 Peter 3:16

Confessional Lutheran

Baha'i

Baha'i

Dispassionate

Baha'i

Dispassionate

Baha'i

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

-----------

Regular Member

Baha'i

Similar threads