.

[StTruth]

I asked based on you questioning the evidences in the NT gospels. It seemed you wrote off the Holy Scriptures as not authoritative and not inspired of God.

Hi redleghunter,

I question the correctness of parts of the Gospels because it's patently obvious that parts of them are in error. I can't conceal from myself what is obvious to me. And God knows what is in my mind. So it makes no difference if I question the Gospels openly because God already knows that I have spotted some errors.

The Bible is a collection of books. It's authoritative. It's also inspired by God. But inspired by God doesn't mean it's 100% correct. I remember reading FF Bruce on this. He says that in the early church, many texts were said to be 'inspired by God' or 'God-breathed' including books like the Shepherd of Hermas which we didn't include into our canon of scriptures. But the early Christians viewed that term differently. They didn't think of a text as dictated by God which is how some people take it to mean today. For them, something is inspired by God if it has the capacity to teach and illumine the believer.

In fact, 2 Tim 3:16-17 is often wrongly quoted to say that all our 66 books are inspired by God. At the time of 2 Tim, the canon had not yet been decided by the church. Some canonical books had not yet been written. The error stems from the fact that we misunderstand the word translated 'Scripture' as our 66-book Bible and not the RC Bible or the Orthodox Bible which has even more books than the RC Bible. But actually 'Scripture' doesn't mean any one of these canonical books. The word which we translate as "Scripture" actually is graphia which simply means 'writing'. So what that biblical text is saying is simply 'All writing which is God-breathed is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting....' which is useful in explaining to us what 'God-breathed' actually means, ie whatever is useful for teaching, rebuking...

In this correct sense, the Bible is God breathed ie it is useful for teaching, rebuking etc.

 

[Philip_B]

I think it is essential to believe that the people who wrote the things we now accept as scripture did not sit down to write scripture. They were people, who having an encounter with God, in person or in spirit, who had come to a position of faith and were inspired and/or felt impelled to record something of that experience.

I think it is sensible to see the scriptures as be inspired, but not expired. The people who wrote were not robots, or secretaries taking dictation from God.

The Church ultimately embraces these works as the inspired collection - the library - or to use another word The Bible.

I must admit I find this an odd phrase that you use

I have spotted some errors.

I don't think we should read scripture to mark it. I wonder does that mean that you have found something that you disagree with, or is your expectation of scripture that it will speak truth only in a single dimension. Think carefully about Pilates question before you answer.

I for one do not hold a theology that God breathed and scripture came to birth. Some will be disappointed that I do not hold a view that scripture is inerrant, in such a way that it becomes inseparable from God and the Bible itself becomes the object of worship. The Bible is ready for literary criticism in order that we can fully understand both it and the context that brought it to birth. The Islamic perception that the Koran is that actual words of Allah spoken to Mohamed is not how I would understand Christian Scripture. For me, the notion of scripture as the primary record of the revelation of God, and specifically of the work of Jesus Christ, is enough.

I have much to learn, and I think one of the things about how we read scripture, is with an expectation that there is truth there for us to find today. Having found the truth of Christ in Word and Sacrament, we may then have the absolute joy of recognising him in our encounters with friends and strangers.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

.

 

[Philip_B]

If you cannot find Christ in the beggar at the church door, you will not find Him in the chalice.
St John Chrysostom

Each one of us, made in the image and after the likeness of God, carries within our being that very truth. If you can not find that in worship and prayer and study, in word and sacrament, then you will not recognise him in the people who cross your path, and you will be the poorer for that.

I have not for one moment taken a line that scripture lacks authority. What I suggested was that the truth found in scripture is not a single dimensional truth. I am not altogether fond of labels, and I wear few of them. 'Liberal Protestant' and 'Roman Catholic' are labels that I choose not to wear. I have friends who wear them (not at the same time) and I am convinced that the arms that reach out upon the cross embrace them, and also I the unworthy.

I find it interesting that you did not respond the StTruth's post that I responded to.

Peace be to you.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

.

 

[StTruth]

​

I don't think we should read scripture to mark it. I wonder does that mean that you have found something that you disagree with, or is your expectation of scripture that it will speak truth only in a single dimension. Think carefully about Pilates question before you answer.

Hi Philip B,

Thanks for your response which is very well-written. I believe I come from the same religious tradition as you.

No, when I say I spotted errors, I meant errors. Just because I disagree with something on a matter of principle does not necessarily make it an error. I meant real error such as contradictions, errors of fact, historical errors, etc.

Cheers,

StTruth

 

[afishamongmany]

Hello St Truth, Welcome to CF.
How to read the Bible? With reason certainly but with reason that is humble and prayerful, believing God.

You say the following -

Finally, your question on my personal belief. I don't know what I believe. I've spoken to my mum. She thinks it's safer to believe in what the Church has decreed. I was an altar boy until recently so I know the liturgy very well. Whenever I say the Creed, I accept every word in my heart but when I sit down in my bedroom and think about it honestly, I can't mentally reconcile an obvious historical error with the reality of our Lord's virgin birth. But I'm willing always to accept the position of the Church and suspend my thoughts. I'm still young so I don't have to decide on these things yet. I will decide when I'm older.

You are honestly admitting to what James calls, doubting and double-mindedness.
Read and meditate carefully on what he says in James 1:5-8. But if you do not read with an attitude of 'asking God' with humility and faith it will not profit you. God's word is given to to enlighten and cleanse our sin stained minds not for our prideful minds to pronounce prideful judgements on it.
You also says, "I will decide when I'm older.". Think carefully on what James, by the Spirit of God, says in James 4:13-16. and what Paul and the writer of Hebrews say in 2 Corinthians 6:1,2 and Hebrews3:7-19.
¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤ Now is the day of salvation. ¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤

Again, welcome to CF,
><>

 

[StTruth]

Hello St Truth, Welcome to CF.
How to read the Bible? With reason certainly but with reason that is humble and prayerful, believing God.

You say the following -



You are honestly admitting to what James calls, doubting and double-mindedness.
Read and meditate carefully on what he says in James 1:5-8. But if you do not read with an attitude of 'asking God' with humility and faith it will not profit you. God's word is given to to enlighten and cleanse our sin stained minds not for our prideful minds to pronounce prideful judgements on it.
You also says, "I will decide when I'm older.". Think carefully on what James, by the Spirit of God, says in James 4:13-16. and what Paul and the writer of Hebrews say in 2 Corinthians 6:1,2 and Hebrews3:7-19.
¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤ Now is the day of salvation. ¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤

Again, welcome to CF,
><>

Hi afishamongmany,

Thank you for your reply and your warm welcome.

I accept that I am doubting but I don't think I'm double-minded. My mind is very clear about what the errors of the Bible are. It's my heart (emotion) that cannot accept what my mind so clearly perceives. It's a tussle between my head and my heart. So, it's not double-mindedness.

An error is an error and no amount of humility on my part can change it or make the error right. I don't think my attitude before reading the Bible can make an error true or can make a truth erroneous. At the very most, a pious and unquestioning attitude may simply make the errors not so apparent to the reader. You are in that sense right. If I had a totally pious never-doubting, never-questioning attitude towards the Bible, I would not have noticed any error or even if I had noticed it, I would have insisted against all logic that it's right and I'm wrong. But that doesn't change the errors one bit. That would only make me ignorant of the errors which are still there.

So, the question is should I have been ignorant of the errors? I sometimes wish I had not read up on the Bible nor gone so deeply into the matter by reading books which my vicar says are not meant for people my age. But my mind tells me it's silly to turn a blind eye to an error so that I can continue in a belief without doubt.

My mum thinks I should hold on to the teachings of the Church and decide what I want to be when I'm older. As matters stand, I want to remain in the Church forever. Just because a Christian now knows that the Bible is riddled with errors is no reason for that Christian to be so traitorous as to leave the Church. I think I'm the loyal kind and will remain in Christ's holy church and be in His flock whatever I may discover about the Bible.

Thanks again for the welcome.

Cheers,

StTruth

 

[redleghunter]

I question the correctness of parts of the Gospels because it's patently obvious that parts of them are in error. I can't conceal from myself what is obvious to me. And God knows what is in my mind. So it makes no difference if I question the Gospels openly because God already knows that I have spotted some errors.

An assertion. Share with us where you believe the Gospels are in error.

 

[StTruth]

An assertion. Share with us where you believe the Gospels are in error.

I did. In post no. 124 and post no. 128, I gave examples of the errors. I can give more if you like. The errors are usually contradictions. One evangelist may say Jesus did this and another says Jesus did something quite different. If the event is repeatable, the apologist has no problem. He can assert that these are two different events and one evangelist was talking about one event and the other a different event. But where the event is single and not repeatable, such as the crucifixion or the entry into Jerusalem or our Lord's birth, then the apologist has to be really fanciful and inventive in trying to reconcile the two conflicting stories.

 

[PapaZoom]

I did. In post no. 124 and post no. 128, I gave examples of the errors. I can give more if you like. The errors are usually contradictions. One evangelist may say Jesus did this and another says Jesus did something quite different. If the event is repeatable, the apologist has no problem. He can assert that these are two different events and one evangelist was talking about one event and the other a different event. But where the event is single and not repeatable, such as the crucifixion or the entry into Jerusalem or our Lord's birth, then the apologist has to be really fanciful and inventive in trying to reconcile the two conflicting stories.

I looked back but don't see where there are actual contradictions that you've shared. Just that you have a different understanding of the text. Just offer up ONE contradiction. Just one. The best you have so we can examine it. Explain exactly how the text is contradictory.

 

[redleghunter]

I did. In post no. 124 and post no. 128, I gave examples of the errors. I can give more if you like. The errors are usually contradictions. One evangelist may say Jesus did this and another says Jesus did something quite different. If the event is repeatable, the apologist has no problem. He can assert that these are two different events and one evangelist was talking about one event and the other a different event. But where the event is single and not repeatable, such as the crucifixion or the entry into Jerusalem or our Lord's birth, then the apologist has to be really fanciful and inventive in trying to reconcile the two conflicting stories.

I have to agree with @PapaZoom . You gave assertions and commentary in posts #124 and #128. You entered those posts with the air of "I know this to be true, because" then don't do any exegesis at all. I can probably go to the skeptics bible site and find the same.

Present your case for contradictions.

 

[StTruth]

I looked back but don't see where there are actual contradictions that you've shared. Just that you have a different understanding of the text. Just offer up ONE contradiction. Just one. The best you have so we can examine it. Explain exactly how the text is contradictory.

Hi PapaZoom,

Thanks for your reply. OK, I will give one good contradiction.

First, I need to have a preamble. I've read what a scholar says about the early Christians. They tried very hard shortly after Jesus' death to look for something in the OT and squeeze some prophecy out of it to refer it to Jesus. Some of their attempts can be quite ludicrous. Others are downright dishonest. These are prophecies which have already been fulfilled but the early Christians nonetheless forced Christ into these fulfilled prophecies so that theologians have to come up with the concept of "double" prophecy. But it's just plain dishonesty. For example, the young woman shall be with child prophecy was actually meant for someone else because the prophecy clearly identified that the event should take place between two kings which died long before Jesus was born. And yet, the early Christians truncated this prophecy and applied a small portion of it to Jesus. This is not in line with established method of reading a prophecy as was done in the OT times.

Anyway, the evangelists saw Zechariah 9:9 and immediately wanted to apply it to Jesus. Mark and Luke got it right. They spoke about one donkey being brought to Jesus. See Mark 11:1-7 and Luke 19:28-35. John of course went on his own little excursion and told a totally contradictory story in John 12. But I'll leave that for the moment.

I'll look at St Matthew instead. Now Zech 9:9 is written in a typical Hebrew poetic style which is called parallelism. The word donkey is again repeated in the last line. The writer of St Matthew who I have already said was a Hellenistic Jew who knew no Hebrew must have thought that there were two donkeys, one of which was a foal. So he wrote a story about Jesus telling the disciples to bring him a donkey and a foal. And he even had Jesus placing a cloth over both animals and ride on both of them which is quite hilarious.

When I was very young, I had this very uncomfortable feeling when I first read the Gospels, especially the Synoptic Gospels. I felt as if the evangelists were just trying to see a prophecy fulfilment in everything Jesus did. It was difficult for me to believe what they wrote entirely. That they cooked up some of the stories was palpably clear to me. This story of the donkey confirms my earlier suspicion that the evangelists cooked up some of these stories.

Cheers,

StTruth

 

[PapaZoom]

Hi PapaZoom,

Thanks for your reply. OK, I will give one good contradiction.

First, I need to have a preamble. I've read what a scholar says about the early Christians. They tried very hard shortly after Jesus' death to look for something in the OT and squeeze some prophecy out of it to refer it to Jesus. Some of their attempts can be quite ludicrous. Others are downright dishonest. These are prophecies which have already been fulfilled but the early Christians nonetheless forced Christ into these fulfilled prophecies so that theologians have to come up with the concept of "double" prophecy. But it's just plain dishonesty. For example, the young woman shall be with child prophecy was actually meant for someone else because the prophecy clearly identified that the event should take place between two kings which died long before Jesus was born. And yet, the early Christians truncated this prophecy and applied a small portion of it to Jesus. This is not in line with established method of reading a prophecy as was done in the OT times.

Anyway, the evangelists saw Zechariah 9:9 and immediately wanted to apply it to Jesus. Mark and Luke got it right. They spoke about one donkey being brought to Jesus. See Mark 11:1-7 and Luke 19:28-35. John of course went on his own little excursion and told a totally contradictory story in John 12. But I'll leave that for the moment.

I'll look at St Matthew instead. Now Zech 9:9 is written in a typical Hebrew poetic style which is called parallelism. The word donkey is again repeated in the last line. The writer of St Matthew who I have already said was a Hellenistic Jew who knew no Hebrew must have thought that there were two donkeys, one of which was a foal. So he wrote a story about Jesus telling the disciples to bring him a donkey and a foal. And he even had Jesus placing a cloth over both animals and ride on both of them which is quite hilarious.

When I was very young, I had this very uncomfortable feeling when I first read the Gospels, especially the Synoptic Gospels. I felt as if the evangelists were just trying to see a prophecy fulfilment in everything Jesus did. It was difficult for me to believe what they wrote entirely. That they cooked up some of the stories was palpably clear to me. This story of the donkey confirms my earlier suspicion that the evangelists cooked up some of these stories.

Cheers,

StTruth

You're actually not making a case here. You're just making assertions. You have to offer evidence for what you are saying. I'm not seeing anything to be concerned with here. Could you please quote the biblical scholars that support your view or did you come up with this on your own?

You said this: They tried very hard shortly after Jesus' death to look for something in the OT and squeeze some prophecy out of it to refer it to Jesus.

But I see no proof of this offered.

What I was hoping to see is something more concrete. You've posted a lot but have said nothing to support your claim. You'll need to do more to actually show a bona fide contradiction. Proof. Not conjecture.

 

[StTruth]

You're actually not making a case here. You're just making assertions. You have to offer evidence for what you are saying. I'm not seeing anything to be concerned with here. Could you please quote the biblical scholars that support your view or did you come up with this on your own?

You said this: They tried very hard shortly after Jesus' death to look for something in the OT and squeeze some prophecy out of it to refer it to Jesus.

But I see no proof of this offered.

What I was hoping to see is something more concrete. You've posted a lot but have said nothing to support your claim. You'll need to do more to actually show a bona fide contradiction. Proof. Not conjecture.

I think you only read the first two paragraphs. After that, I gave specific biblical verses where the contradiction appears. Please read it again.

 

[PapaZoom]

Less than 6 minutes of viewing.

 

[civilwarbuff]

I'll look at St Matthew instead. Now Zech 9:9 is written in a typical Hebrew poetic style which is called parallelism. The word donkey is again repeated in the last line. The writer of St Matthew who I have already said was a Hellenistic Jew who knew no Hebrew must have thought that there were two donkeys, one of which was a foal. So he wrote a story about Jesus telling the disciples to bring him a donkey and a foal. And he even had Jesus placing a cloth over both animals and ride on both of them which is quite hilarious.

If the writer knew no Hebrew how did he read it? And if it were read to him (meaning someone knew how to read Hebrew) would the meaning not be made clear? And if he truly thought that Isaiah was saying Messiah was riding a donkey and a colt at the same time don't you think he would have asked for clarification? I mean, this must have been an educated man in order to write the Gospel of Matthew so it follows he would have tried to get the prophecy correct (which he also knew about). Now PapaZoom and redleghunter are more accomplished and skilled bible scholars than I am so I will let them answer your contradiction but my questions were easy for me to come up with; they most certainly should have occured to you.

 

[StTruth]

Less than 6 minutes of viewing.

Haha! Did you pick the video because it was in response to the point raised by the chap's 16-year-old grandson? We see contradictions and we don't gloss over them because we haven't yet learnt to be politically correct. LOL

But I can't hear the reply because the guy is mumbling and his accent is really tough to follow and my laptop has a problem with its in-built speakers. A contradiction is a contradiction and there are many in the Bible. What I have pointed out here about the donkeys is more serious. It shows that an evangelist is not above cooking up a story just so it could fit an OT prophecy. In this case he's found out because he cooked up a story that fitted what he wrongly thought was the requirement of an OT prophecy.

 

[StTruth]

If the writer knew no Hebrew how did he read it? And if it were read to him (meaning someone knew how to read Hebrew) would the meaning not be made clear? And if he truly thought that Isaiah was saying Messiah was riding a donkey and a colt at the same time don't you think he would have asked for clarification? I mean, this must have been an educated man in order to write the Gospel of Matthew so it follows he would have tried to get the prophecy correct (which he also knew about). Now PapaZoom and redleghunter are more accomplished and skilled bible scholars than I am so I will let them answer your contradiction but my questions were easy for me to come up with; they most certainly should have occured to you.

As I have said in an earlier post, the writer of St Matthew probably read the Septuagint which is the Old Testament in badly translated Greek. How do scholars know this? Whenever he quotes from the OT, he quotes the Septuagint precisely. Just as he did in the story about Jesus' birth. He quoted Isaiah from the Septuagint which uses the word "parthenos" which means virgin for the Hebrew "almah" which simply means young woman. That's a wrong translation. He felt compelled to bring in stories about a virgin birth just because he thought the Isaiah prophecy (which incidentally is a fulfilled prophecy and mentions two kings who died way before Jesus was born) required the young woman to be a virgin.

The mistake the writer of St Matthew made with regard to the donkeys is more to do with his failure to understand the use of parallelism in Hebrew poetry so that when he read the OT in Greek, the same parallelism which is repeated in the Septuagint was taken by him to mean that two donkeys were required. My point is he actually told a story about the two donkeys because of this mistake of his.

 

[PapaZoom]

Haha! Did you pick the video because it was in response to the point raised by the chap's 16-year-old grandson? We see contradictions and we don't gloss over them because we haven't yet learnt to be politically correct. LOL

But I can't hear the reply because the guy is mumbling and his accent is really tough to follow and my laptop has a problem with its in-built speakers. A contradiction is a contradiction and there are many in the Bible. What I have pointed out here about the donkeys is more serious. It shows that an evangelist is not above cooking up a story just so it could fit an OT prophecy. In this case he's found out because he cooked up a story that fitted what he wrongly thought was the requirement of an OT prophecy.

No, I picked it because I've heard RC explain what an actual contradiction is. It's a specific thing but I don't think you really understand what one is. The 16 year old part is irrelevant. What matters is the answer.

You could have saved us a lot of time by just focusing on the story of the donkey. Just state your case plainly. Too much blah, blah, blah. You are saying that Mark and Luke say one thing and Matthew another. I can work with that.

BTW, I have a hearing problem but have no problem hearing what RC said. He had a challenge from a well educated and very bright man who argued in the same way you argued. The man claimed there a contradictions throughout the Bible. RC said ok, bring 50 examples. They shouldn't be hard to find if there are so many.

The man returned the next day with 30. That's all he could come up with. Both men were philosophy students and understood how logic works. They went through each contradiction. In each case, to the other man's satisfaction, RC showed how the apparent contradiction was not actually a contradiction.

Your claim is that the accounts in Mark, Luke, and Matthew are not in concert with each other and in fact Matthew contradicts the other two. If that is not the case, let me know and I will work to show how that is not the case.