doubtingthomas

I agree with you here, Peter was certainly mistaken. However, I dont think innerantists would be comfortable with this sort of dodge. Paul says in Colosians that Jesus has all knowledge; claiming that Paul was mistaken in this circumstance would be unacceptable to an innerantist.

Joshua Adams

Inerrantists would be comfortable with that sort of dodge because it's entirely reasonable. Peter wasn't infallible, except allegedly when "he wrote" 1-2 Peter, as evidenced by this:
Apologists don't think that the human Jesus had every characteristic associated with God, so he need not have been omniscient.

When you bring Paul into it, though, that is another can of worms. Based on Col 2:2-6 I think there are plausible exegeses that would dispel the problem, but let's see what actual believers have to say. I'm not going to sit here and defend the scripture.

Roland

Luke 24:33 "So they rose up that very hour and returned to Jerusalem and found THE ELEVEN there and those who were with them gathered together..."

Of course this contradicts John's account, for with Thomas gone as John says, only TEN of the disciples could have been present, Judas being long out of the picture by this time.

inquisitive01

No (as explained in my last post regarding this). Whether you "accept" this answer or not is entirely up to you.

inquisitive01

In John 20:26, it says that Thomas was with them at the next meeting with Jesus, eight days after the first meeting (where Thomas was not present), which would match "the Eleven" from Luke 24:33. In other words, only ten (with Thomas not present) were present at the first meeting with Jesus, but all of "the Eleven" disciples were present at the second meeting in John 20:26.

Therefore, the meeting discussed in Luke 24:33 (with all of "the Eleven" present) would be the same meeting in John's account from Verse 26... NOT the same meeting as the one from John 20:24, which happened eight days before this.

Roland

How do you figure that? The appearance in Luke clearly takes place on Easter evening.

24:13 "Now behold, two of them [Cleopas and an unnamed person] were traveling THAT SAME DAY...(What day? The same day Jesus resurrected).

Jesus appears to them without them first realizing it's him.

They talk with Jesus awhile. Jesus opens their eyes to who he is.

33 "So they rose THAT VERY HOUR and returned to Jerusalem, and found THE ELEVEN and those who were with them gathered together..."

Then Jesus appears to them as the two people are reporting what they saw.

The apostles are initially unbelieving (36-45). Why would they be unbelieving if this was Jesus' 2nd appearance to them a week later?

I'm sorry, but Luke 24 is CLEARLY describing an event which took place on the same day Jesus rose from the dead. It is not a week later.

Lord Emsworth

The problem is that the verse flat out disagrees with you. "And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion ..." To me it say yes, it is God who shall send these delusions.

What about 2 Thessalonians 2:13?
"But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth:"

Is it God whom we are bound to give thanks? Or is it "the man of sin/son of perdition"?
Is it God who from the beginning chosen you to salvation ...? Or is it "the man of sin/son of perdition"

If you say it is God in 2:13 I think you should be consistent and say it is also God in 2:11.

DBT

Dennis Mckinsey's Bible errancy site is worth a look,its quite comprehensive!

ccolinh

um - no

4"Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God..."

this one clearly refers to actual God

", or that is worshipped; so that he as God ..."

this one clearly refers to Satan acting like he is God

"sitteth in the temple of God..."

this one refers to Satan borrowing actual God's temple for his own uses

", shewing himself that he is God."

and the last quite clearly shows Satan again trying to use God's name...

So, out of 4 references for GOD - 2 are clearly meaning actual God while the other two are clearly showing Satan using either God's property or name.

There are NO other verses in the entire passage where Satan borrows God's name and every other verse that says "God" CLEARLY means actual God.

so - No (as explained in Lord Emsworth's last post regarding this). Your attempt to apologize for this passage has failed.

Chad

inquisitive01

Verses 9-12 are also talking about Satan who is portraying himself as God, but "sends them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie; that they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness." THEN, Verses 13-17 go back to talking about the actual, true God (not the one impersonating Him).

It's actually not that difficult to follow, especially when common sense should tell which one (God or Satan) would be much more likely to "send strong delusion... that they all might be damned." Verses 13-17 clearly state that the real God (not Satan pretending to be God) "hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation" (NOT damnation, as Satan would attempt to choose for you).

Therefore, I'm not "apologizing" for anything, as it is quite obvious to me.