If inerrancy is the lynchpin of your faith, you will be joining me in the ranks of unbelievers very soon. A reasonable person can only deny the obvious for so long.
Regardless, there are a great, great many Christians who recognize that Biblical inerrancy is incompatible with the truth. The book has a LOT of errors and contradictions. It does not follow that recognizing the existence of actual errors and blatant contradictions will turn you into an atheist. But the cognitive dissonance that comes with dodging, denying, and never admitting an error is an error eventually gets to you.
How much easier is it to say that different people telling a story passed down for decades transposed some of the details than to try to make those errors fit into one cohesive narrative that not a single writer managed to tell?
Inerrancy is the atheist's best friend, I assure you.
It should be noted that "the scripture cannot be broken" in John 10:35 does not refer to the New Testament or the gospels, as (assuming Jesus actually said it) Jesus said it decades before any of the N.T. was written. So we KNOW Jesus wasn't talking about inerrancy in the gospels.
Never underestimate the silliness of inerrancy. If you just accept the fact that gospels can contradict each other, all the problems created by those contradictions disappear.
And don't underestimate the oppressiveness of the fundamentalism that it spawns, for one reason, that in order to buy into fundamentalism, one generally either ordains oneself or some other madman as the end all/be all of "no private interpretation." Which, it naturally follows, can only cause private interpretation.
Nothing but nothing undermines confidence in the integrity of scripture more than the preposterous and easily disprovable notion that it contains no errors or contradictions.
Never heard of it being the "lynchpin" of anything, much less thought it.
18 hours ago, Raf said:
...you will be joining me in the ranks of unbelievers very soon.
Impossible. For starters, I'm well aware of the correlation, and the difference, between the Bible and the Word of God (something which you appear to have little to no regard or concern for.) Yes, I plainly (and perhaps unfairly) shortcut the steps between 1 and 3. Still, there is a fundamental difference in attitude that affects our approach to what is written in the Bible. Some will direct their focus on finding a problem and why it can't be resolved, while others choose to remain focused on finding an answer. Mistaking what the Bible is (and isn't) is a roadblock that many just never seem to be able to really overcome.
Never heard of it being the "lynchpin" of anything, much less thought it.
Surely you jest. This was the main thrust of the first four sessions of PFAL. "If one section doesn't fit, the whole thing falls apart." (or something to that effect)
Inerrancy was the single most critical factor in making Way theology congruent.
And in other news, it's just been discovered that water is wet.
Surely you jest. This was the main thrust of the first four sessions of PFAL. "If one section doesn't fit, the whole thing falls apart." (or something to that effect)
Inerrancy was the single most critical factor in making Way theology congruent.
And in other news, it's just been discovered that water is wet.
Is this not a doctrinal forum, regardless of what was or wasn't in pfal (which itself was a far cry from the "rightly divided" word of truth.)
Is this not a doctrinal forum, regardless of what was or wasn't in pfal (which itself was a far cry from the word of truth being "rightly divided.")
Maybe i misunderstood your meaning. You said something to the effect of never hearing that inerrancy is the lynchpin. What I demonstrated is that if you ever sat through PFAL you must have been bombarded with the general concept. So, yes, I think my comment is relevant to the discussion.
Maybe i misunderstood your meaning. You said something to the effect of never hearing that inerrancy is the lynchpin. What I demonstrated is that if you ever sat through PFAL you must have been bombarded with the general concept. So, yes, I think my comment is relevant to the discussion.
The point was simply that I haven't previously associated the word "lynchpin" with the infallibility of anything, much less to my personal belief in, and foundation in, the resurrection of Christ (which was established well before any exposure to twi or pfal.) Furthermore, prior to pfal, I was also already well aware of the canonization of the Bible, and the differences between what is written on the pages of a book and a personal relationship with the Lord. So, if you think that vpw's "chuck the whole thing out the window" statement had much of an impact or effect on my thinking at the time (or since then)... well then, it does indeed seem you'd be mistaken.
And could have been more. Maybe a lot more. The Romans were in the habit of mass crucifixion, as a means of terrifying the locals.
Quote from Wikipedia, but same information also noted on a number of other websites:
Notorious mass crucifixions followed the Third Servile War in 73–71 BC (the slave rebellion under Spartacus), other Roman civil wars in the 2nd and 1st centuries BC, and the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. Crassus crucified 6,000 of Spartacus' followers hunted down and captured after his defeat in battle.[83] Josephus tells a story of the Romans crucifying people along the walls of Jerusalem. He also says that the Roman soldiers would amuse themselves by crucifying criminals in different positions.
We know from Gospel records that the prisoner Barabbas was released instead of Jesus. In Matt 27:16 Barabbas is called a “notorious prisoner.” In Mark 15:7, echoed in Luke 23:19, he was “in prison with the rebels who had committed murderduring the insurrection” against the occupying Roman forces. John 18:40 describes him as a bandit.
So it may be that there were plenty of others being made a terrifying example of, on the day of Jesus's murder, if the Romans chose to also execute some of the others involved in the insurrection (perhaps that's who some of the "malefactors" were?). A couple of dozen, as a "gentle reminder," would probably suffice to deter many people from wanting to join future rebellions. No need to mention them all, just sketch in a couple of details here and there, as in so many Biblical records. We all know that the Bible cannot, and does not at any time purport to, record every detail of every event.
The problem is that there were historians who recorded events of the time, and there was no tradition in which Pilate released prisoners because of Passover. The gospels give every indication that this happened every year. History gives no indication that it happened any year. Ever. It is a lie.
Pointing to the gospels as evidence for Barabbas is like pointing to the work of Tom Clancy as evidence Jack Ryan was a CIA analyst who became President of the USA after terrorists obliterated Congress.
Yes, Congress exists. Yes, The USA exists, and the head of state is called the president. But Jack Ryan, like Barabbas, is a fictional character.
Nothing but nothing undermines confidence in the integrity of scripture more than the preposterous and easily disprovable notion that it contains no errors or contradictions.
Bullinger(and maybe Wierwille) in addition to 5 crosses in a cemetary, a particular cross was the Jerusalem cross with a central cross and 4 others located NW, NE, SE, and SW corners which I happen to have. These 2 also claimed that Peter's denial occured at different times during the meal, one says cock will crow just once after Peter denies Jesus, other gospel says the cock crows twice. Yes, the gospels have different details and seemingly don't agree with each other, no harmonizations of the Passion gospel. But our salvation is in a person, not a book.Otherwise we have bibliodalatry. sorry for poor spelling errors.
The five crosses in a cemetery photo was not a depiction of Calvary. Bullinger left that part out.
It's really funny how we were taught not to have our doctrine influenced by works of art, only to have a work of art produced in the 18th century presented as evidence of a conspiracy to keep the truth of how many were crucified a secret from the masses!
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
23
10
7
14
Popular Days
Apr 10
16
Apr 9
14
Apr 17
12
Apr 16
7
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 23 posts
Thomas Loy Bumgarner 10 posts
Infoabsorption 7 posts
TLC 14 posts
Popular Days
Apr 10 2019
16 posts
Apr 9 2019
14 posts
Apr 17 2019
12 posts
Apr 16 2019
7 posts
Popular Posts
Raf
Step 2: Employ slippery slope fallacy Step 3: Do the non-sequitur/straw man two-step. If inerrancy is the lynchpin of your faith, you will be joining me in the ranks of unbelievers ve
Infoabsorption
DWBH, the more I read about VPW, the more I realize that he was a scam artist as well as a lunatic. There was nothing that he came up with that was his own material. It was all stolen from others. I c
Infoabsorption
Exactly Raf! However, I made a correction based on other Jewish calendars that I came across on the net. The 34AD date would place Jesus at least 34 years old and 36 years if he was born 3 BC.
TLC
Step 1:
Step 2:
There is no scripture, as scripture cannot be broken. (John 10:35.)
Step 3:
There is no God.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Step 2: Employ slippery slope fallacy
Step 3: Do the non-sequitur/straw man two-step.
If inerrancy is the lynchpin of your faith, you will be joining me in the ranks of unbelievers very soon. A reasonable person can only deny the obvious for so long.
Regardless, there are a great, great many Christians who recognize that Biblical inerrancy is incompatible with the truth. The book has a LOT of errors and contradictions. It does not follow that recognizing the existence of actual errors and blatant contradictions will turn you into an atheist. But the cognitive dissonance that comes with dodging, denying, and never admitting an error is an error eventually gets to you.
How much easier is it to say that different people telling a story passed down for decades transposed some of the details than to try to make those errors fit into one cohesive narrative that not a single writer managed to tell?
Inerrancy is the atheist's best friend, I assure you.
It should be noted that "the scripture cannot be broken" in John 10:35 does not refer to the New Testament or the gospels, as (assuming Jesus actually said it) Jesus said it decades before any of the N.T. was written. So we KNOW Jesus wasn't talking about inerrancy in the gospels.
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
And don't underestimate the oppressiveness of the fundamentalism that it spawns, for one reason, that in order to buy into fundamentalism, one generally either ordains oneself or some other madman as the end all/be all of "no private interpretation." Which, it naturally follows, can only cause private interpretation.
Edited by RockyLink to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Step 4: Tell Straw Man to have a seat and wait for Sir Q. L' Reasoning to arrive.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
How many crosses on Golgotha?
Mathhew: three
Mark: three
Luke: three
John: three
Inerrantists: FIVE!
How many times did Peter deny Jesus?
Matthew: three
Mark: three
Luke: three
John: three
Inerrantists: SIX!!!
Nothing but nothing undermines confidence in the integrity of scripture more than the preposterous and easily disprovable notion that it contains no errors or contradictions.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Never heard of it being the "lynchpin" of anything, much less thought it.
Impossible. For starters, I'm well aware of the correlation, and the difference, between the Bible and the Word of God (something which you appear to have little to no regard or concern for.) Yes, I plainly (and perhaps unfairly) shortcut the steps between 1 and 3. Still, there is a fundamental difference in attitude that affects our approach to what is written in the Bible. Some will direct their focus on finding a problem and why it can't be resolved, while others choose to remain focused on finding an answer. Mistaking what the Bible is (and isn't) is a roadblock that many just never seem to be able to really overcome.
Edited by TLCLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
But your only reward will be heartache and tears if you've cheated the man in the glass.
Honestly, I don't know who you think you're fooling, TLC, but it's not me.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Surely you jest. This was the main thrust of the first four sessions of PFAL. "If one section doesn't fit, the whole thing falls apart." (or something to that effect)
Inerrancy was the single most critical factor in making Way theology congruent.
And in other news, it's just been discovered that water is wet.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Not fooling anyone, Raf. And I'm sure we'll each end [rewarded] appropriately.
Edited by TLCLink to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Is this not a doctrinal forum, regardless of what was or wasn't in pfal (which itself was a far cry from the "rightly divided" word of truth.)
Edited by TLCLink to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Maybe i misunderstood your meaning. You said something to the effect of never hearing that inerrancy is the lynchpin. What I demonstrated is that if you ever sat through PFAL you must have been bombarded with the general concept. So, yes, I think my comment is relevant to the discussion.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
The point was simply that I haven't previously associated the word "lynchpin" with the infallibility of anything, much less to my personal belief in, and foundation in, the resurrection of Christ (which was established well before any exposure to twi or pfal.) Furthermore, prior to pfal, I was also already well aware of the canonization of the Bible, and the differences between what is written on the pages of a book and a personal relationship with the Lord. So, if you think that vpw's "chuck the whole thing out the window" statement had much of an impact or effect on my thinking at the time (or since then)... well then, it does indeed seem you'd be mistaken.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
The point is seeking the truth, not merely doctrine. Because if there's a distinction between doctrine and truth, then doctrine is a lie.
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
point of agreement:
you are not fooling anyone
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
And could have been more. Maybe a lot more. The Romans were in the habit of mass crucifixion, as a means of terrifying the locals.
Quote from Wikipedia, but same information also noted on a number of other websites:
We know from Gospel records that the prisoner Barabbas was released instead of Jesus. In Matt 27:16 Barabbas is called a “notorious prisoner.” In Mark 15:7, echoed in Luke 23:19, he was “in prison with the rebels who had committed murder during the insurrection” against the occupying Roman forces. John 18:40 describes him as a bandit.
So it may be that there were plenty of others being made a terrifying example of, on the day of Jesus's murder, if the Romans chose to also execute some of the others involved in the insurrection (perhaps that's who some of the "malefactors" were?). A couple of dozen, as a "gentle reminder," would probably suffice to deter many people from wanting to join future rebellions. No need to mention them all, just sketch in a couple of details here and there, as in so many Biblical records. We all know that the Bible cannot, and does not at any time purport to, record every detail of every event.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
The problem is that there were historians who recorded events of the time, and there was no tradition in which Pilate released prisoners because of Passover. The gospels give every indication that this happened every year. History gives no indication that it happened any year. Ever. It is a lie.
Pointing to the gospels as evidence for Barabbas is like pointing to the work of Tom Clancy as evidence Jack Ryan was a CIA analyst who became President of the USA after terrorists obliterated Congress.
Yes, Congress exists. Yes, The USA exists, and the head of state is called the president. But Jack Ryan, like Barabbas, is a fictional character.
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
Thomas Loy Bumgarner
Bullinger(and maybe Wierwille) in addition to 5 crosses in a cemetary, a particular cross was the Jerusalem cross with a central cross and 4 others located NW, NE, SE, and SW corners which I happen to have. These 2 also claimed that Peter's denial occured at different times during the meal, one says cock will crow just once after Peter denies Jesus, other gospel says the cock crows twice. Yes, the gospels have different details and seemingly don't agree with each other, no harmonizations of the Passion gospel. But our salvation is in a person, not a book.Otherwise we have bibliodalatry. sorry for poor spelling errors.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
The five crosses in a cemetery photo was not a depiction of Calvary. Bullinger left that part out.
It's really funny how we were taught not to have our doctrine influenced by works of art, only to have a work of art produced in the 18th century presented as evidence of a conspiracy to keep the truth of how many were crucified a secret from the masses!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.