Can a Christian question the authority and infallability of the Bible?

[Steve Petersen]

Crystal, I think I would trust that Matthew, writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit had a better grasp on fulfillment of prophecy than you. No offense.

Why? Just because? Is your argument so weak you have to fall back on divine inspiration for it to stand?

 

[Albion]

What more should I say? Henry VIII made himself Supreme Leader of the Church of England, thereby creating a new church, just so he could get Anne Boleyn in bed. When he split from the Roman Catholic Church, he excommunicated himself. As the King is the Supreme Leader, then all of those that followed him were also excommunicate.

Is it reallly necessary to launch into a false history of the English church every time a discussion develops over differences between Catholics an Protestants? Realllly? It's becoming the "go to" reply every time that a Catholic is stumped, and it's off-topic in any case.

 

[Silmarien]

We would probably have been made aware of them by now. And if not, then I don't think we should consider them divinely inspired. Luke 11:33

We are aware of them. There's the Sibyl's prophecy: Hamblin & Peterson: An ancient pagan prophecy of Christ?

And Virgil's Fourth Eclogue: A Pagan Prophecy

Hardly conclusive, but no more of a stretch than some of the creative reinterpretation of the Old Testament.

Such as? Is this from Zeitgeist?

It's from Carl Jung, I believe. The Osiris myth is the big one.

 

[CrystalDragon]

So you're saying that Mark (Matthew actually) was wrong?

I'm not saying Matthew was wrong, I'm saying he was taking something out of context and trying to apply it to another one.

Crystal, out of curiosity, do you believe that Jesus is the third member of the Trinity,

I think so—although, the Trinity doctrine didn't fully come about until 300 years later, and there are many points where Jesus prays to the Father, says that no one can call Jesus himself good because only God is good (and there he indicates God as separate, not just saying "God the Father" in all translations), and calls him "your God and my God" so that seems to negate it. However, some passages like "the Word was God" and "the Word became flesh and dwelt among us" seem pretty clear about a Trinity to me, though it could be pointed out that Jesus didn't say those, John did, so...

born of a virgin,

Yeah—though Jesus was described as having brothers and sisters, so Jesus was born of a virgin, but Mary likely wasn't always a virgin afterwards. Unless the text meant "brothers and sisters" in a sense of camaraderie, not biology.

and that he lived a perfect and sinless life,

Don't see any reason to think otherwise (unless you count where he was lost for 3 days because he was preaching, but in that case it was just that his parents didn't know where he was and he said "Didn't you know I'd be in my Father's house?" So that can't count as having sinned)

died on the cross for your sin,

Sure.

rose on the third day,

Yup.

and will one day literally return?

Not sure about this one, as multiple times in the Bible Jesus, the Apostles, and the Biblical writers indicated that they themselves were living in the time that Jesus would return, that some of them would still be alive, that Jesus's coming was right at the door for them, and that it wasn't good to plan for the future because the world would soon end. All points indicate that Jesus would have returned back then.

I ask because I have never seen a single post from you on this forum in which you're doing something other than arguing against basic held Christian beliefs.

I only "argue" (and I don't mean to "argue" more like "clear up vagueness") when it seems like people are taking things out of context or are unaware of it, or don't know the history, which is something I happen to see quite a bit.[/quote]

 

[Halbhh]

The Bible itself makes no attempt to teach all that there is to know of God. We couldn't even comprehend such things. What it does give us is all that God intends for us to know about his will and intentions for us here and now. Much more will be revealed to the soul after death.

As for God being "silent" since the canon was closed, therefore, the question has to be "is there more that he needs to add?" not "how can it be that he isn't adding to it?" And he hasn't been silent, anyway, since Scripture is a timeless revelation to men of all generations and places.

God may want individuals to know certain things they pray to Him to learn, in particular, for their own lives, such as (common example): "Is this the right person for me to marry?" If a person prays with true belief, as Christ instructed, this prayer could be answered quite clearly. But I take your bigger point as correct.

I really like it that you remind people that "The Bible itself makes no attempt to teach all that there is to know of God. We couldn't even comprehend such things."

This is a point we often need to remind people of because of the sometimes event of individuals tying to claim they know more about God than humans can, and trying to take authority that does belong only to Christ.

 

[CrystalDragon]

Crystal, I think I would trust that Matthew, writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit had a better grasp on fulfillment of prophecy than you. No offense.

You're saying you are more the authority on this rather than the man who walked side-by-side with Jesus for several years and knew Mary personally? Laughable.

Then why did Matthew take the clear prophecy completely out of the context it was originally given in, making it seem like that was the only sentence in the prophecy at all?

 

[SeventyOne]

Then why did Matthew take the clear prophecy completely out of the context it was originally given in, making it seem like that was the only sentence in the prophecy at all?

I explained that at the bottom of post 104. He understood it as typology and confirmed to us that it was just that.

 

[Foxfyre]

Legends can develop around real historical figures, George Washington and the cherry tree for instance.

Midrashically means using a wide variety of interpretive methods employed by Jewish teachers to tease out additional meaning from the Biblical texts.

Legends can develop around real historical figures, George Washington and the cherry tree for instance.

Midrashically means using a wide variety of interpretive methods employed by Jewish teachers to tease out additional meaning from the Biblical texts.

I couldn't argue against your comment here.

Consider how a pastor can build an entire sermon around a single Bible verse; how a gifted writer can write an essay or even a book based on a single Biblical concept. I myself have received insight that I believe to be via the Holy Spirit when reading a passage of the Bible; and yet at another time the same passage does not speak to me in the same way.

How many different interpretations have there been for this passage in Matthew 10

34 “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to turn

“‘a man against his father,
a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law
a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.’​

Gunpowder would not be invented for another 900 years or so and the sword was the most fearsome weapon humans carried. Yet we have no information that Jesus himself ever carried a weapon. What metaphor would Jesus have used with that teaching now?

 

[ByTheSpirit]

Don't assume I'm misunderstanding and not open. Read the thread.

Your paragraph above is truth.

I am unaware I accused you of such. Just making a helpful statement.

 

[Hearingheart]

I am unaware I accused you of such. Just making a helpful statement.

Not an accusation, just an assumption. Don't assume that because I'm asking a question it implies my lack of knowledge or faith.

No worries, all is good

 

[Phil 1:21]

Trying to weave the Old Testament in with the religion of Jesus has contaminated and compromised that religion.

When you study the Bible you should realize that the NT fulfilled the OT. The two are not exclusive of each other.

 

[CrystalDragon]

I explained that at the bottom of post 104. He understood it as typology and confirmed to us that it was just that.

All I saw in post 104 was you saying that Matthew said the Angel was fulfilling the prophecy, which I already showed isn't the case if you look at it in context. He may have tried to imply it was typology, but these days we can find where the initial prophecy was, see the surrounding text, and clearly see it was talking about something completely different than the meaning Matthew tried to impress on it by removing any context. And context is key.

And if Matthew really did know Mary personally and walk with Jesus, why is "I" never used in the entire Gospel (same goes for any of the Gospels)? How do we know it's Matthew the disciple? Do we assume that just because the name is Matthew? Matthew is a common name.

 

[Colter]

The theology lawyers of evolved Judaism who rejected Jesus were being loyal to their scripture which taught that salvation was a mater of keeping Gods ordnances. They had made fetish or golden calf out of the scripture which made it very difficult for them to accept Jesus Liberal, new age teaching.

 

[Colter]

When you study the Bible you should realize that the NT fulfilled the OT. The two are not exclusive of each other.

That's the mess that the Jewish converts to the new religion OF Jesus made when they put the old wine into the new wine skins. When they sew the new cloth onto the old in justification of their conversion AND in hopes of converting their Jewish "brethren". Not only did they fail to bring the Jews but they created a new compromised religion ABOUT Jesus in place of the original gospel OF Jesus.

 

[dannheim]

"My God my God why has Thou forsaken me" can't be considered a prophecy just because Jesus said it. People quote things or make literary allusions all the time. Jesus on the cross was echoing a psalm.

As for the latter, sheep need a leader, meaning the people are lost without a leader. While it can refer to Jesus, it's not a phrase that can be exclusively attributed to him.

Are you serious did you actually read Psalm 22 and Isaiah 53 it describes the crucifixion of Jesus what could be more clear than that?

 

[Phil 1:21]

That's the mess that the Jewish converts to the new religion OF Jesus made when they put the old wine into the new wine skins. When they sew the new cloth onto the old in justification of their conversion AND in hopes of converting their Jewish "brethren". Not only did they fail to bring the Jews but they created a new compromised religion ABOUT Jesus in place of the original gospel OF Jesus.

The old cloth and old wine skins in Matthew 9:16-17 represent the Pharisees' corrupt practices, in this case, their penchant for frequent fasting. The new cloth and new wine are God's Truth, which is incompatible with the Pharisees' practices (a pretty repetitive theme in the Gospels). Those verses are not a rejection of the OT by Jesus Christ. Context is very important.

 

[dannheim]

That's the mess that the Jewish converts to the new religion OF Jesus made when they put the old wine into the new wine skins. When they sew the new cloth onto the old in justification of their conversion AND in hopes of converting their Jewish "brethren". Not only did they fail to bring the Jews but they created a new compromised religion ABOUT Jesus in place of the original religion OF Jesus.

First of all, all of the original Christians were all practicing Jews including Jesus.
Secondly Jesus or as they call him Yeshua came for the Jews first as promised in the scriptures as the Messiah the anointed one of God.
Thirdly there was a group of Messianic Jews who practiced the religion of the Jews and recognized the Messiah in Jesus well into the seventh century AD. The same people also recognize the New Testament as a New Covenant to replace the old Covenant which because the temple no longer existed made the Old Testament law without Force.
They were eventually assimilated into the Christian faith because the Christians outnumbered the original Jewish believers who brought these Gentiles into the Christian faith. So as far as I can see you have it backwards

 

[Phil 1:21]

Are you serious did you actually read Psalm 22 and Isaiah 53 it describes the crucifixion of Jesus what could be more clear than that?

It's kind of odd seeing a "Christian" say Jesus didn't fulfill OT prophesies and that at least one Gospel author was wrong.

 

[SeventyOne]

All I saw in post 104 was you saying that Matthew said the Angel was fulfilling the prophecy, which I already showed isn't the case if you look at it in context. He may have tried to imply it was typology, but these days we can find where the initial prophecy was, see the surrounding text, and clearly see it was talking about something completely different than the meaning Matthew tried to impress on it by removing any context. And context is key.

And if Matthew really did know Mary personally and walk with Jesus, why is "I" never used in the entire Gospel (same goes for any of the Gospels)? How do we know it's Matthew the disciple? Do we assume that just because the name is Matthew? Matthew is a common name.

To be honest, if you aren't even to the point where you can affirm the identity of the disciples, they trying to describe the types of prophecy fulfillment we find in scriptures (typology, shadow, direct, etc) might be a bit much at this point. I'd suggest reading some research on such things to get a foundation.

 

[dannheim]

It's kind of odd seeing a "Christian" say Jesus didn't fulfill OT prophesies and that at least one Gospel author was wrong.

Yes, exactly.