Jump to content
GreaseSpot Cafe

Recommended Posts

49 minutes ago, Raf said:

If you just accept the fact that gospels can contradict each other, all the problems created by those contradictions disappear.

CLICK

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Step 1:

1 hour ago, Raf said:

If you just accept the fact that gospels can contradict each other, all the problems created by those contradictions disappear.

Step 2:

There is no scripture, as scripture cannot be broken. (John 10:35.)

Step 3:

There is no God.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 Raf
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Raf said:

Not

one

gospel

records

two

entries.

 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.

Edited by Rocky
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Raf said:

Step 2: Employ slippery slope fallacy

Step 3: Do the non-sequitur/straw man two-step.

Step 4: Tell Straw Man to have a seat and wait for Sir Q. L' Reasoning to arrive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Raf said:

If inerrancy is the lynchpin of your faith,...

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.

Edited by TLC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, TLC said:

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not fooling anyone, Raf.  And I'm sure we'll each end [rewarded] appropriately.    

Edited by TLC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, waysider said:

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.)

Edited by TLC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, TLC said:

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, waysider said:

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 Raf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, TLC said:

Not fooling anyone, Raf

point of agreement:

you are not fooling anyone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Raf said:

How many crosses on Golgotha?

Mathhew: three

Mark: three

Luke: three

John: three

Inerrantists: FIVE! 

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 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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 Raf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/17/2019 at 8:07 AM, Raf said:

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. 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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! 

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...