Is scripture the infallible Word Of God?

[PureX]

To start with, in answer to the above, let's look at the chain of custody of the word 'Scripture.' It becomes the most important for purposes of this discussion in its 1st century Judaism usage. Christ was raised in 1st century Judaism, and mentioned it in the usual sense, saying the Scriptures cannot be broken. He also spoke of larger themes or motifs being fulfilled in him.

After the resurrection and until the day of Pentecost, he did a lot of teaching that was about Him but from one end of the Scriptures to the other. This is not abstract. There are 2500 usages of the OT by the NT writers, so the 40 day seminar in using them has left a pretty clear trail.

But then we have the fact that what Paul was raised up to teach, and specifically some of his letters is also called the Scriptures. Again, it is not meant to sound like some human beans decided 66 books were a canon list. It is meant to connect to the glorified Christ and his teaching about how the OT was to be used. If you know Paul and how 'riddled' his material is with OT quotes (71 explicit ones in Rom 1-11), then it becomes hopeless to extricate Paul or apostles from Scripture.

To put it another way, 'Scripture' in NT usage means Christ's way of handling the OT, which we would not know without the NT docs. There are docs yes, but the hermeneutic method is what the apostles meant when speaking of the Scriptures.

None of this even remotely validates the claim that scriptures are the "inerrant words of God". The NT writers wrote what they believed to be true. But they were not God, and they were not "inerrant" even when they were "inspired by God", or by stories of Jesus, because none of them actually knew God or Jesus. They only knew OF GOD through their religion, and OF JESUS through stories. So all they could write about was what their religion and their newly minted Christian brethren told them … all based on tradition, speculation, and here-say.

 

[patrick jane]

None of this even remotely validates the claim that scriptures are the "inerrant words of God". The NT writers wrote what they believed to be true. But they were not God, and they were not "inerrant" even when they were "inspired by God", or by stories of Jesus, because none of them actually knew God or Jesus. They only knew OF GOD through their religion, and OF JESUS through stories. So all they could write about was what their religion and their newly minted Christian brethren told them … all based on tradition, speculation, and here-say.

Absolutely not !! The entire Bible is written directly from God by eyewitnesses, not hearsay.

 

[patrick jane]

Neither overrules the other (nor can it), since God's word in one form cannot be pitted against God's word in another form. Your error is in the assumption that one aspect of God's word can "overrule" the other aspect of God's word.

Catholic Bibles are wrong

 

[Interplanner]

None of this even remotely validates the claim that scriptures are the "inerrant words of God". The NT writers wrote what they believed to be true. But they were not God, and they were not "inerrant" even when they were "inspired by God", or by stories of Jesus, because none of them actually knew God or Jesus. They only knew OF GOD through their religion, and OF JESUS through stories. So all they could write about was what their religion and their newly minted Christian brethren told them … all based on tradition, speculation, and here-say.

Total nonsense. We must be speaking of two different Jesuses. I'm referring to the apostles who were with him 3 years and then Paul. The significance of Paul to you is that Paul wanted the movement to fail. You don't get a movement to fail when 500 people have seen its leader resurrected at one instance, and you are trying to say the event and movement were an artifice.

Apparently you don't know how short the timeline is from event to written Aramaic. It's 2-3 years. That's a very turbulent 2-3 years, too, which is why it took that long, even for frequent writers like Matthew (tax accounting) and Luke (physician). For about 5 years then (beginning of ministry to first ink in Aramaic), you have verbal accounts, or what has been called quelle (source) by German writers on the subject.

You don't seem to know what the importance of exact wording would mean. As I said before 71 OT passages are used through Rom 11 (besides allusions). The exact wording mattered. Romans is the 'Constitution' of Christianity, so the exact wording matters, and it matters that it was taught to the apostles and Paul by Christ. What is the point of such precision in your scheme of things? Are you aware that the question of Israel's promises had to be resolved? That the 490 years of Daniel 9 ended with its 7 part Messianic redemption and that had to be explained in detail? That there is a high degree of precision in Christ's description of the destruction of Jerusalem coming some 35 years in the future, so that you actually have material that pushes into the future and can be 'tested' by those who go through those events--for exactness, precision, detail, etc.? What exactly were you expecting an infallible record to be if not these things?

 

[Cruciform]

Catholic Bibles are wrong.

Post your proof.

 

[TulipBee]

Yes, such as sola scriptura, "adults-only" baptism, anti-sacramentalism, sola fide, a 66-book biblical canon, etc.

You have just denied the 66 book to be the complete bible inspired by God. Do we need to go further?

 

[Interplanner]

The entirely non-authoritative assumptions and opinions fed to you by your preferred recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect are noted.

There are distinctions or built in interpretive principles to use. The NT should interpret the OT; there are 2500 examples.

The letters should interpret the Gospels. Otherwise all the NT sounds like is a new ethical system or law.

The complete passages should interpret the incidental references.

The ordinary-language passages should interpret symbolic ones. Ie, a person should spend much more time in 2 Pet 3 than in the Rev.

 

[PureX]

Absolutely not !! The entire Bible is written directly from God by eyewitnesses, not hearsay.

This is simply not true. And not even biblical scholars think this. It's simply childish religious nonsense. Grow up.

 

[PureX]

Total nonsense. We must be speaking of two different Jesuses. I'm referring to the apostles who were with him 3 years and then Paul.

The apostles did not write any scriptures. Jesus did not write or dictate any scriptures. (At least none that has ever been found.) And Paul never met Jesus, nor did he know of Jesus in Jesus' lifetime. So everything we read in scriptures about Jesus has come from copies of copies of texts written, in most cases, hundreds of years after Jesus' death and were based on stories passed down and then translated and interpreted many times by many different linguists and cultural representatives, since. You cannot establish ANY direct line between the scriptures of the NT and Jesus, or anyone who witnessed Jesus' life and death. Because there is none to date. We can't even be certain that Jesus was an actual person, let alone how he lived or what he said or did.

The significance of Paul to you is that Paul wanted the movement to fail. You don't get a movement to fail when 500 people have seen its leader resurrected at one instance, and you are trying to say the event and movement were an artifice.

"Movements" are irrelevant. Lots of people believe lots of things that were never true, never happened, or happened far differently than they believe. Just because the Christian religion exists doesn't mean the "Jesus" they all worship ever did.

Apparently you don't know how short the timeline is from event to written Aramaic. It's 2-3 years. That's a very turbulent 2-3 years, too, which is why it took that long, even for frequent writers like Matthew (tax accounting) and Luke (physician). For about 5 years then (beginning of ministry to first ink in Aramaic), you have verbal accounts, or what has been called quelle (source) by German writers on the subject.

This is a fantasy timeline made up by people who need to idolize scripture. According to most credible biblical scholars, the earliest estimated time of the earliest written text found referring to Jesus is about 65 years after his death. The more realistic estimate for most of the oldest gospel texts ever found is 200 years after his death. So it's not possible that any of these writers knew Jesus, personally, nor witnessed his existence first hand. These texts are copies of copies, written by unknown persons under the names of their theological patriarchs, as was the custom of the time. They were not written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John. They were written by members of their respective followings, in most cases, many years after their respective patriarchs were dead.

You don't seem to know what the importance of exact wording would mean. As I said before 71 OT passages are used through Rom 11 (besides allusions). The exact wording mattered. Romans is the 'Constitution' of Christianity, so the exact wording matters, and it matters that it was taught to the apostles and Paul by Christ. What is the point of such precision in your scheme of things? Are you aware that the question of Israel's promises had to be resolved? That the 490 years of Daniel 9 ended with its 7 part Messianic redemption and that had to be explained in detail? That there is a high degree of precision in Christ's description of the destruction of Jerusalem coming some 35 years in the future, so that you actually have material that pushes into the future and can be 'tested' by those who go through those events--for exactness, precision, detail, etc.? What exactly were you expecting an infallible record to be if not these things?

None of this matters, because the writers were writing it the way they understood it. That doesn't make their understanding of it "infallible", or even accurate. Nor does it make their understanding of it God's unquestionable word on the subject. The authors could tie it all together any way they wanted, and it's still not going to be anything other than their understanding of God and Jesus. And their understanding of God and Jesus is not full nor perfect, is not infallible, and is not the equivalent of "God's words".

No matter how you cut it, pretending that the Bible contains "God's words" is falsely endowing a man-made collection of texts with the authority, wisdom, and power of God. And that's called 'idolatry' by any definition of that term.

 

[Interplanner]

It might be a confusion of sources but not idolatry. Idolatry would be difficult to identify if there is not a 'transcript' of the god's character and actions to go by. So you are really not saying anything.

There are the objective events of Christ in the Gospel, and then there is the training he gave them in explaining what it means to Judaism and to the nations. It's not that I or anyone with a high view of it 'worships' it; it simply makes sense. He came in history; he explained the OT in his ordained sense; he then explained the events of his suffering and resurrection in light of those OT passages (Lk 24, Acts 1) and that material is our NT.

The New Covenant is also a specific meaning and contrasts with the Old. It is also spoken of harmoniously by Paul in 2 Cor 3-5 and in Hebrews. These are authoritative declarations about these things because they were taught by Christ, first between the Resurrection and Pentecost, and then Christ directly to Paul.

It is simply not the case the 'now the righteousness of God is revealed' in the key paragraph of Rom 3 means just about everything to just about everyone. It most certainly cannot, and if you say that, you evacuate all the content that caused the friction between Judaism and the Gospel and so you have no situation whatsoever that has any risk for Paul when he moves from one to the other. Total nonsense and fantasy. You are very ignorant to say so. You are making huge generalizations because I suspect you are very unfamiliar with the material.

 

[Interplanner]

The apostles did not write any scriptures. Jesus did not write or dictate any scriptures. (At least none that has ever been found.) And Paul never met Jesus, nor did he know of Jesus in Jesus' lifetime. So everything we read in scriptures about Jesus has come from copies of copies of texts written, in most cases, hundreds of years after Jesus' death and were based on stories passed down and then translated and interpreted many times by many different linguists and cultural representatives, since. You cannot establish ANY direct line between the scriptures of the NT and Jesus, or anyone who witnessed Jesus' life and death. Because there is none to date. We can't even be certain that Jesus was an actual person, let alone how he lived or what he said or did.
"Movements" are irrelevant. Lots of people believe lots of things that were never true, never happened, or happened far differently than they believe. Just because the Christian religion exists doesn't mean the "Jesus" they all worship ever did.
This is a fantasy timeline made up by people who need to idolize scripture. According to most credible biblical scholars, the earliest estimated time of the earliest written text found referring to Jesus is about 65 years after his death. The more realistic estimate for most of the oldest gospel texts ever found is 200 years after his death. So it's not possible that any of these writers knew Jesus, personally, nor witnessed his existence first hand. These texts are copies of copies, written by unknown persons under the names of their theological patriarchs, as was the custom of the time. They were not written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John. They were written by members of their respective followings, in most cases, many years after their respective patriarchs were dead.
None of this matters, because the writers were writing it the way they understood it. That doesn't make their understanding of it "infallible", or even accurate. Nor does it make their understanding of it God's unquestionable word on the subject. The authors could tie it all together any way they wanted, and it's still not going to be anything other than their understanding of God and Jesus. And their understanding of God and Jesus is not full nor perfect, is not infallible, and is not the equivalent of "God's words".

No matter how you cut it, pretending that the Bible contains "God's words" is falsely endowing a man-made collection of texts with the authority, wisdom, and power of God. And that's called 'idolatry' by any definition of that term.

On the earlier part about dates of docs, see Stroebel and Lane Craig. the German scholars on the 'quelle' are referring to the immediate retellings of Christ's works. You are way off and the NT shows this clearly because the retelling starts immediately Acts 2:22, 3:13. Check to see what year Luke joined Paul and work back from there, because he went back and collected accounts, verbal or otherwise, to organize into two scrolls. The reason for his two compilations was to defend Paul from being thought of as a zealot. The zealot conflict was already underway since 6 AD but in 66 there was the tipping point. And as you can see from the text and hearings of the end of Acts, the Roman admin was already having trouble with them.

You need to immerse yourself in the material before you say anything else. You are utterly unfamiliar with what is going on.

 

[Cruciform]

You have just denied the 66 book to be the complete bible inspired by God. Do we need to go further?

In fact, your 66-book Bible is indeed incomplete, since, during the 16th-century "reformation," Protestant leaders (most notably, Martin Luther) removed seven books from the biblical canon used by Jesus, the apostles, and the early Church Fathers in favor of a canon affirmed by the Jews who rejected both Jesus Christ and the Christian faith that he established.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

 

[TulipBee]

In fact, your 66-book Bible is indeed incomplete, since, during the 16th-century "reformation," Protestant leaders (most notably, Martin Luther) removed seven books from the biblical canon used by Jesus, the apostles, and the early Church Fathers in favor of a canon affirmed by the Jews who rejected both Jesus Christ and the Christian faith that he established.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

Extra books were removed by the holy spirit. That had to happen for it to be complete. The complete bible just happened. Today its complete. Dont worry as about yesterday. It's complete now.

 

[PureX]

It might be a confusion of sources but not idolatry. Idolatry would be difficult to identify if there is not a 'transcript' of the god's character and actions to go by. So you are really not saying anything.

The "transcript" is man-made. Endowing it with infallibility and divine authority is called idolatry. Just as endowing any man-made creation with divine power and authority is called idolatry.

There are the objective events of Christ in the Gospel, and then there is the training he gave them in explaining what it means to Judaism and to the nations.

These are stories written by men. They may or may not be accurate. But reason dictates that they are almost certainly not "infallibly" accurate, as nothing we humans do, is.

It's not that I or anyone with a high view of it 'worships' it; it simply makes sense.

You pretend and presume that the stories you read in the gospels are absolutely and infallibly accurate, and therefor are the equivalent of them having been dictated word for word, by God, Himself. This is idolatry, plain and simple.

He came in history; he explained the OT in his ordained sense; he then explained the events of his suffering and resurrection in light of those OT passages (Lk 24, Acts 1) and that material is our NT.

… According to your interpretation of a collection of man-made stories and theological proclamations. Yet you are attributing to these man-made stories and proclamations the power and authority of God, Himself. This is idolatry.

 

[PureX]

On the earlier part about dates of docs, see Stroebel and Lane Craig. the German scholars on the 'quelle' are referring to the immediate retellings of Christ's works. You are way off and the NT shows this clearly because the retelling starts immediately Acts 2:22, 3:13. Check to see what year Luke joined Paul and work back from there, because he went back and collected accounts, verbal or otherwise, to organize into two scrolls. The reason for his two compilations was to defend Paul from being thought of as a zealot. The zealot conflict was already underway since 6 AD but in 66 there was the tipping point. And as you can see from the text and hearings of the end of Acts, the Roman admin was already having trouble with them.

You need to immerse yourself in the material before you say anything else. You are utterly unfamiliar with what is going on.

It's easy to find people who will lie about the actual historical science so as to support their beliefs (and yours). But the majority of biblical scholars and historians have long agreed on the general times I posted above. No written text ever found referring to Jesus, to date, was written before about 65 years after Jesus' death. Therefor, none of the texts that we have found, to date, could have been written by anyone who actually knew Jesus, or witnessed his existence first hand.

And frankly, even if one of the authors had been a direct witness, that would still not lend much credence to the proposition that his text is "infallibly accurate". Nor would it lend any credence to his proclamations being the equivalent of God's own words.

 

[Interplanner]

Total nonsense. The first thing you are doing is discrediting Luke's work. You don't even deal with why he's writing what he did. He had to provide material to an attorney to prevent Paul from being confused with the zealots. So he's virtually under oath. But no, all these 20th century experts who are 2000 years later don't believe he could possibly have talked to anyone who was there! I get it. In any other circles, this would be called insanity.

I guess you don't read the material. Luke has the most to say against the zealots on several levels and to say that the DofJ is beyond stopping. This is not an issue 65 years later which is in the 90s. It is an issue at that time--that generation immediately after the crucifixion, Lk 23:28+. In fact, it just about doesn't stick the first time the disciples hear it in Mt 24's start and its parallels. Ie, they can't believe what they are hearing.

Another resource you need to see is Wallaces' COLD CASE CHRISTIANITY. He ends up basically at the same timeframe as far as how the verbal accounts became written down, and why.

Are you just hear to make a blanket dismissal of infallibility or do you have particular passages that you have trouble with? As I've said before, when you see what the overall mission of the apostles is (which ties into the overall reason for the making of Luke-Acts), the type of accuracy or authority looks different; what matters is the preaching of Christ in a way that makes Israel its missionaries with a Gospel that can go to the nations (vs an entangled one in Judaism). What you are proposing is that Pentecost never happened, but that starts a domino effect in which the Gentile issue is never an issue when it happened and that the incoming of the Gentiles never happens when it does and on and on. You better have proof, pal.

The interesting thing about the kind of authority I'm addressing is that in Rom 16 the term 'kat' epitagen' is used about the faith which the Gentile believers now have. This is in the early 50s because Claudius evicted Jews from Rome and they are now back, and Paul is speaking pastorally to that group of Christians. The 'kat' epitagen' is a divine order or decree. Meaning that the actual historic reality of so many Gentiles becoming believers is what is showing that the Messianic message of Paul was already embedded in the OT. Not a 'voice from heaven' or any other caricature of religion that is often propped up. It is reality-based.

That is what makes the apostle's teaching the authoritative message. Those guys that deal with dates of documents flying all over the place, don't seem to know what NT history is about, as though the NT is the last place you'd look to find out. The mission existed because there was now the message of justification from our sins available by faith to all who believe. There were no Judaistic barriers to jump over. The event of Pentecost itself kickstarted that mission.

Other dominoes you have to explain is the absence of all the named people from the accounts. Matthew. John. Peter. I guess in your scheme they didn't exist. Or they actually existed 30 years later so that God forbid they weren't eyewitnesses.

You can't move any of this as far back as 90 because the Gentiles did come to faith, and Claudius did evict in 51, and Jews returned to find 'Gentile' Christians doing OK without help from Jews. The 'sign' of the Gentiles coming in that Paul was referring to was his first hand mission work in the 40s and 50s.

I don't know how so much of NT background scholarship go so far from the other major event of the 1st century for Judaism (the DofJ), but the poorly done chronographic work is suffocating. At the master's level where I studied, there basically wasn't any other topic than how Luke-Acts relates to the DofJ. That pins everything very tightly and early.

 

[Cruciform]

Extra books were removed by the holy spirit. That had to happen for it to be complete. The complete bible just happened. Today its complete. Dont worry as about yesterday. It's complete now.

Now go ahead and actually document your above claim. Post your proof now.

 

[TulipBee]

Now go ahead and actually document your above claim. Post your proof now.

Let the bible speak for itself. Its God breathe.

 

[Cruciform]

Let the bible speak for itself.

Go ahead, then, and "let the Bible speak for itself." Simply indicate exactly where the Bible says that---as you claim---"Extra books were removed by the holy spirit...Today its complete."

Post your proof now.

 

[PureX]

Total nonsense. The first thing you are doing is discrediting Luke's work. You don't even deal with why he's writing what he did. He had to provide material to an attorney to prevent Paul from being confused with the zealots. So he's virtually under oath. But no, all these 20th century experts who are 2000 years later don't believe he could possibly have talked to anyone who was there! I get it. In any other circles, this would be called insanity.

This is more make-believe on your part. The "Luke" gospel was not written by Luke. In fact, the "Matthew, Mark and Luke" gospels that we have were basically copies of copies of the same source "Q" document, that has never been found. We know this because they all share many direct quotes which could not have happened if they were each independently written texts. Yet they do contain differences which would not have occurred if they were the direct copies of the "Q" document. So it is speculated that they are copies of the copies, which accounts for the direct similarities, and the variations, at the same time. And these have been placed by scholars at around 200 years after Jesus' death.

Are you just hear to make a blanket dismissal of infallibility or do you have particular passages that you have trouble with?

The whole concept is absurd. The only way the text can be infallible is by some act of divine magic, and even that doesn't work given the many different linguistic interpretations of the texts over the centuries. And anyone who is willing to apply a little common sense, and some honest reasoning to the question, will readily see this.

The interesting thing about the kind of authority I'm addressing is that in Rom 16 the term 'kat' epitagen' is used about the faith which the Gentile believers now have. This is in the early 50s because Claudius evicted Jews from Rome and they are now back, and Paul is speaking pastorally to that group of Christians. The 'kat' epitagen' is a divine order or decree. Meaning that the actual historic reality of so many Gentiles becoming believers is what is showing that the Messianic message of Paul was already embedded in the OT. Not a 'voice from heaven' or any other caricature of religion that is often propped up. It is reality-based.

That is what makes the apostle's teaching the authoritative message. Those guys that deal with dates of documents flying all over the place, don't seem to know what NT history is about, as though the NT is the last place you'd look to find out. The mission existed because there was now the message of justification from our sins available by faith to all who believe. There were no Judaistic barriers to jump over. The event of Pentecost itself kickstarted that mission.

Paul was writing only a generation after Jesus' death, so of course he could write about recent history. That doesn't mean he witnessed it, himself. Nor does that make him infallible.

Other dominoes you have to explain is the absence of all the named people from the accounts. Matthew. John. Peter. I guess in your scheme they didn't exist. Or they actually existed 30 years later so that God forbid they weren't eyewitnesses.

None of this matters because the "John" gospel is the earliest document found and it's estimated to have been written around 65 years after Jesus' death. Since people did not generally live
past 45 or 50 years of age, it is very unlikely that John wrote it himself. And it is far more likely that it was written by a follower of John under his name, after his death, which was a common practice at that time. And in any case, it is not likely that the writer could have been infallible, because the writer was a human being. And no human being is infallible.

I don't know how so much of NT background scholarship go so far from the other major event of the 1st century for Judaism (the DofJ), but the poorly done chronographic work is suffocating. At the master's level where I studied, there basically wasn't any other topic than how Luke-Acts relates to the DofJ. That pins everything very tightly and early.

If you studied at a "master's level" I'm the king of England. So far every argument you've made is based on the flawed assumption that the writers could not write about events that happened in their recent past, so the fact that these events are mentioned proves to you that they must have been writing earlier. Which is an argument based on a false assumption.

I can write about things that happened 200 years ago without my having to have lived 200 years ago. Or I can write about things that happened 40 years ago when I was alive. But in neither case will what I write be "infallible", whether I was alive at the time, or not. Because as a human being, my witness will be limited to my own time and place, and my understanding of the events will be biased accordingly. So that there is no logical way for anyone to claim any written text to be an infallible historical account of events whether the writers were there at the time, or not. And in this case, they were almost certainly not there.