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

[CrystalDragon]

Psalm 22 my God my God why has Thou forsaken me
Isaiha 53 we like sheep have gone astray... snd the lord has laid upon him the iniquity of us all.

"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.

 

[CrystalDragon]

I haven't read the Quran but I do know it reads like a war manual in some instances and that the promotion of war is not in alliance with the true nature of God.

So does the Bible. War seems pretty in-line with plenty of God-commanded things in the Old Testament to me.

 

[Silmarien]

The Bible was written over a span of 1600 years by different people from each generation and Jesus fulfilled 350+ prophecies in the span of a a 3 year Ministry. As a Christian, this is proof that God inspired the Bible and that there would be no need for other holy books.

An interesting wrench to throw into the question of fulfilling prophecies--what if Christ fulfilled prophecies outside of Judaism as well? I know there's some Greco-Roman stuff that people have claimed pointed towards Christ, you've got the dying god trope in a whole bunch of ancient mythologies, even something as simple as the cross was a holy symbol long before Christianity showed up. Toss in threefold gods and Vishnu's avatars, and I start wondering if we don't have an event that was reverberating throughout all of human history. Perhaps most strongly in the Jewish tradition, but it makes me look at the idea of inspiration very differently.

 

[SeventyOne]

The prophecy refers to a boy named Immanuel who will not reach the age of knowing right from wrong before the land of the two dreaded kings of that age would be gone.

Don't believe me? Let's look at Isaiah 7, shall we?

7 When Ahaz son of Jotham, the son of Uzziah, was king of Judah, King Rezin of Aram and Pekah son of Remaliah king of Israel marched up to fight against Jerusalem, but they could not overpower it.

2 Now the house of David was told, “Aram has allied itself with Ephraim”; so the hearts of Ahaz and his people were shaken, as the trees of the forest are shaken by the wind.

3 Then the Lord said to Isaiah, “Go out, you and your son Shear-Jashub, to meet Ahaz at the end of the aqueduct of the Upper Pool, on the road to the Launderer’s Field.4 Say to him, ‘Be careful, keep calm and don’t be afraid. Do not lose heart because of these two smoldering stubs of firewood—because of the fierce anger of Rezin and Aram and of the son of Remaliah. 5 Aram, Ephraim and Remaliah’s son have plotted your ruin, saying, 6 “Let us invade Judah; let us tear it apart and divide it among ourselves, and make the son of Tabeel king over it.” 7 Yet this is what the Sovereign Lord says:

“‘It will not take place,
it will not happen,
8 for the head of Aram is Damascus,
and the head of Damascus is only Rezin.
Within sixty-five years
Ephraim will be too shattered to be a people.
9 The head of Ephraim is Samaria,
and the head of Samaria is only Remaliah’s son.
If you do not stand firm in your faith,
you will not stand at all.’”

10 Again the Lord spoke to Ahaz, 11 “Ask the Lord your God for a sign, whether in the deepest depths or in the highest heights.”

12 But Ahaz said, “I will not ask; I will not put the Lord to the test.”

13 Then Isaiah said, “Hear now, you house of David! Is it not enough to try the patience of humans? Will you try the patience of my Godalso? 14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel. 15 He will be eating curds and honey when he knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, 16 for before the boy knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, the land of the two kings you dread will be laid waste. 17 The Lord will bring on you and on your people and on the house of your father a time unlike any since Ephraim broke away from Judah—he will bring the king of Assyria.”

Immanuel wasn't the important one, merely a sign that soon the kings that Ahaz and the house of David feared would soon be rid of, and after that the king of Assyria would help the house of David.

Nothing related to Jesus, only cherry-picking verse 14 to make it seem that way.

Except the Angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream and declared this prophecy was fulfilled by the birth of Jesus.

Mat 1:20-23 But as he considered these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary as your wife, for that which is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.” All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet: “Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel” (which means, God with us).

 

[Albion]

And you don't use tradition?

(For about the fifteenth time in recent days) We use tradition (and reason) in order to comprehend or understand Scripture, but those aids are not considered to be equal to Scripture when it comes to defining or determining doctrine.

You have told me several times about the history of Christianity in England, going back to the 1st century, as I recall. And you have defended the Apostolic origin of the Church of England based on that. Really? You don't believe in tradition at all, now?

Is this history telling you about some doctrine that isn't known from the Bible? Well, no. Does it pertain to doctrine at all? That's what "Sacred Tradition" does in the churches which adhere to that concept.

Okay Catholic and Orthodox Christians do have Church Tradition. We believe, for instance, that the (at least) first seven of the Ecumenical Councils were a work of God. We do NOT give them the same precedence of place as the Bible.

Indeed you do. Or shall I say, more precisely, that that is what the church you belong to teaches and believes.

 

[Steve Petersen]

Can you explain what you meant by:



Also, what does midrashically mean? I tried to look it up but it seems like a very obscure term.

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.

 

[Monk Brendan]

Indeed you do. Or shall I say, more precisely, that that is what the church you belong to teaches and believes.

Wrong!

 

[friend of]

what if Christ fulfilled prophecies outside of Judaism as well?

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

you've got the dying god trope in a whole bunch of ancient mythologies

Such as? Is this from Zeitgeist?

even something as simple as the cross was a holy symbol long before Christianity showed up

It's an extremely simplistic shape that I don't think anyone should have the right to copyright, but is certainly known as a Christian symbol now.

 

[CrystalDragon]

Except the Angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream and declared this prophecy was fulfilled by the birth of Jesus.

Mat 1:20-23 But as he considered these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary as your wife, for that which is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.” All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet: “Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel” (which means, God with us).

No, the Angel of the Lord never said that it fulfilled the prophecy, Mark simply did in his narration. If anything, it was assumption. And notice how he only says Isaiah 7:14, and absolutely no context before or after that single verse that shows the full context.

 

[Foxfyre]

Well luckily we don't serve the Bible, we serve Jesus.

I have questioned the Bible's infallibility at points in time, but the overarching theme of scripture still rings true that Christ came, he died, and by faith in Him we are saved. That is what saves us not if we pledge blind loyalty to the Bible.

Now that being said, questioning scripture is a starting point to questioning God which absolutely can lead to a dangerous path.

Just ask God to help you in your misunderstanding and be open to him.

Good advice, but those who sincerely question scripture may indeed be doing the bidding of God. What was meant in 1 Thessalonians 5 when we read: ". . .19Do not quench the Spirit. 20Do not treat prophecies with contempt 21but test them all; hold on to what is good,. . ."?

There were only Old Testament scriptures, and those not all that well organized, when that was written. Oral tradition and perhaps some sayings and notes were prepared for reading and teaching in the congregations, but these had not yet been gathered and edited into what we know as the New Testament scriptures.

Consider in Deuteronomy 25 (NIV):

. . .5 If brothers are living together and one of them dies without a son, his widow must not marry outside the family. Her husband’s brother shall take her and marry her and fulfill the duty of a brother-in-law to her. 6 The first son she bears shall carry on the name of the dead brother so that his name will not be blotted out from Israel.

7 However, if a man does not want to marry his brother’s wife, she shall go to the elders at the town gate and say, “My husband’s brother refuses to carry on his brother’s name in Israel. He will not fulfill the duty of a brother-in-law to me. Then the elders of his town shall summon him and talk to him. If he persists in saying, “I do not want to marry her,” 9 his brother’s widow shall go up to him in the presence of the elders, take off one of his sandals, spit in his and say, “This is what is done to the man who will not build up his brother’s family line.”10 That man’s line shall be known in Israel as The Family of the Unsandaled. . . ."​

I rather believe that nobody in the present state of Israel nor anybody at all here in the USA would want that requirement to still be the law.

I do believe the Holy Spirit allows us quite a bit of latitude in applying common sense. Both Jesus and the Apostle Paul were really big on common sense which I attribute to the Holy Spirit.

 

[friend of]

...either that or the authors created a story of Jesus constructed around prophecies rather than real history about him.

Sorry, but in the first quote you are talking about creating a story that is constructed around knowledge of prophecies. Ergo, making up a story. Or, ascribing things to Jesus which did not take place in His life, which asserts that the story of Jesus is falsified to some extent.

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

Legends are embellished. As a Christian, I do not believe that the biblical account of Jesus' ministry was ever embellished in any way.

 

[eldios]

I never know if I'm posting in the correct place....that's my disclaimer and I'm sticking to it.

Say one believes in One God, One Creator and also Jesus as the Messiah and Son of God and even uses and reads the Bible but sees the Bible as a useful tool as well as other ancient writings without giving it a place of uncontested infallibility.

Understanding that man has a sin nature and throughout history has exhibited the ability to manipulate, maim, murder and steal in order to procure what he wants, how do we know the Bible is really the only source available through which God would speak?

Is a Christian who doesn't hold to the infallibility of the Bible still considered a Christian?

Many of the religious Jewish laws were added to the original prophecies that God's servants wrote for Him. The New Testament was all written by religious people who had no idea what God's voice sounds like. They stole the original writings of God's servants and memorized some of their gospel words to add to their religious traditions and pagan doctrines that you can find in the New Testament.

If the New Testament contained only the original writings of God's servants, no one would understand those writings except for God. This is why the religious people who produced the New Testament didn't put any of those original writings in it. All the readers of it would be thoroughly confused if the gospel of Thomas and similar writings were added to the New Testament.

 

[SeventyOne]

No, the Angel of the Lord never said that it fulfilled the prophecy, Mark simply did in his narration. If anything, it was assumption. And notice how he only says Isaiah 7:14, and absolutely no context before or after that single verse that shows the full context.

It was Matthew, and it does say precisely that it fulfills the prophecy. Sorry, but you are grasping at air here.

All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet: “Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel”​

I'm guessing you don't realize that a lot of prophecy is type and shadow, as well as literal fulfillment. That's why Adam and Jesus can be compared, as well as the life of Joseph to the ministry of Jesus, or the exodus of the Jews was a type of Jesus being called back from Egypt. Sometimes there's an immediate fulfillment of a prophecy as well as a grander long-term fulfillment. That's just the way some prophecy is written. Preterists fall into this hole a lot.

 

[Albion]

Wrong!

That's it?

 

[SPF]

No, the Angel of the Lord never said that it fulfilled the prophecy, Mark simply did in his narration. If anything, it was assumption. And notice how he only says Isaiah 7:14, and absolutely no context before or after that single verse that shows the full context.

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

Crystal, out of curiosity, do you believe that Jesus is the third member of the Trinity, born of a virgin, and that he lived a perfect and sinless life, died on the cross for your sin, rose on the third day, and will one day literally return? 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.

 

[CrystalDragon]

It was Matthew, and it does say precisely that it fulfills the prophecy. Sorry, but you are grasping at air here.

All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet: “Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel”​

I'm guessing you don't realize that a lot of prophecy is type and shadow, as well as literal fulfillment. That's why Adam and Jesus can be compared, as well as the life of Joseph to the ministry of Jesus, or the exodus of the Jews was a type of Jesus being called back from Egypt. Sometimes there's an immediate fulfillment of a prophecy as well as a grander long-term fulfillment. That's just the way some prophecy is written. Preterists fall into this hole a lot.

It does say that it fulfills the prophecy, but notice the Angel doesn't say that. Only Matthew, who's writing it, states that it is, and he wasn't there, so we can't be sure. And again in any case, that's completely ignoring the context of Isaiah 7, unless Jesus was supposed to be the king of Assyria.

 

[SPF]

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.

 

[Steve Petersen]

Legends are embellished. As a Christian, I do not believe that the biblical account of Jesus' ministry was ever embellished in any way.

That is your choice.

 

[SeventyOne]

It does say that it fulfills the prophecy, but notice the Angel doesn't say that. Only Matthew, who's writing it, states that it is. And again, that's completely ignoring the context of Isaiah 7.

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.

 

[Monk Brendan]

That's it?

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.

And Catholics, Orthodox and other Pre-Reformation Churches do NOT claim that other writings carry the same weight as the Bible.