You've confused faith (belief without evidence) with faith (belief) and faith (trust).
Normally when the Bible talks about faith it means faith (trust), and sometimes faith (belief). I am not sure the Bible ever uses faith to mean belief without reason. Be careful not to confuse the three.

I've never believed in 'the inerrancy crap'. I believe that the writers of the Bible were human and sometimes made mistakes. I believe that they are inspired by God when imparting spiritual truths. I believe the they did their best to record accurately true events in their historical accounts. Basically I believe the bible is correct and I read it as true. It may contain a few mistakes, but overall it's correct. Unfortunately today, inerrancy is so expounded as a required doctrine by fundamentalists that people seem to see all Christians as fundamentalists and miss the majority of traditionalists.

I agree there are some contradictions. But if you're going to point them out, please point out the real contradictions not false ones. I was just pointing out the obviously false contradictions in your list. (Amusingly you don't seem to agree, but anyway)
As for the rest, they're too complex for me to waste time explaining. 3, I will agree is a contradiction. (Or if it isn't, then a possible solution's beyond me)
4,5,6 (I pretty sure I recall correctly) are explainable by considering which source (ie which women or disciple) the writer is getting his information and therefore viewpoint from. (Remember, different viewpoints will result in different information given the same event)

I just think it's funny that you, a mere human, are questioning the reasons why God did things the way he did? I mean, hey, I guess you know God pretty well to be saying that he was foolish in not giving historically accurate information. I think the information in the NT is historical enough to have a "faith" factor. If it 100% deniably true, then what would be the purpose of life on Earth, we would already be in heaven because everyone would believe. No one would the courage to say that it was false. You can only go so far on historical fact until you get to a point where you just have to have faith. That's the deciding factor. If everything matched up, no faith would be necessary. Life is a test of faith, you either believe or you don't.

I just feel bad that when Jesus comes again, it'll be too late to accept him into your heart. Shame. In John, I think, the author describes that judgement day will come when the whole world has heard the Gospel [i'm paraphrasing]. In a time when everyone is hooked up to the Internet and resources are flowing around like nothing, that time is soon to come. I'll be praying for you all.

Andy

Toto

And that will be another failed Biblical prophesy, that fundamentalists will manage to explain away.

How's your essay coming, Andy? Why don't you try reading some of the articles on this site. They might give you some new insights.

Andy

As there are still billions of people on this planet who do not even have electricity and have quite possibly never even heard of the internet, your somewhat USAcentric view that this is a time "when everyone is hooked up to the Internet and resources are flowing around like nothing" is as far off the mark as your muddle headed and ill researched comment that "Q" was a non believers invention.

Is all your research this good?

And you finished up with another variation of Pascal's Wager, How original. Gee it must be a good two hours since I saw that one!

Norm

I've never believed in 'the inerrancy crap'.

Ok, apologies. I was misrepresenting you. But one or two of the points I made were aimed solely at people who do. As I said though, "still dark" and "after dawn" do contradict each other. Not important - in fact even reasonably good agreement - if we are viewing the Gospels as normal historical documents, but still a blow to those who would have us believe that every word of the Bible is inspired, true and perfect. I wish that in saying this I was attacking a man of straw, but that man of straw does sadly still seem to exist, as you point out.

Unfortunately today, inerrancy is so expounded as a required doctrine by fundamentalists that people seem to see all Christians as fundamentalists and miss the majority of traditionalists.

I try to remember that distinction. I've also put forward reasons why I don't hold with the traditionalist or even Christian rationalist positions.

3, I will agree is a contradiction. (Or if it isn't, then a possible solution's beyond me)

I think it's quite valid to say that Matthew like drama, and elaborated events where he felt a bit more drama would be nice. Essentially he was more interested in telling a good story than chronicling only what was absolute truth. For another example, compare the account of the cursed fig tree in Mark and Matthew. Mark just has the disciples coming back the next day to find the tree dead. Matthew (drawing on Mark as a source) thinks it more dramatic to have it withering before their eyes, so tells the story as such. In this he was not too dissimilar to many mainstream historians at the time, but it does mean that his accounts must be read very carefully to distinguish even what he thought really was true and what he put in to make the story better.

4,5,6 (I pretty sure I recall correctly) are explainable by considering which source (ie which women or disciple) the writer is getting his information and therefore viewpoint from. (Remember, different viewpoints will result in different information given the same event)

I agree that different viewpoints will give different accounts, but if the accounts directly contradict each other there is still a problem. I have pointed out why I do not think the accounts given in the Gospels cannot be reconciled. Someone somewhere is getting at least some of their facts wrong.

On a more general note, if the resurrection is true then I am at a loss to understand why the Gospel writers deal with it in such an offhand and throwaway manner. The reappearance of Jesus is by far the greatest part of the story, but Mark does not mention it at all. Why not? Did he not know about it? Did the story only become widespread after his Gospel was written? If so, this would be damning for Christianity.

Why does Luke say that Jesus made many appearances over forty days, but only mentions a couple of them? His is the longest and most detailed of the Gospels. He goes to great lengths to describe what Jesus did when he was alive, but devotes only a single chapter to cover all that he did after he rose from the dead. Something is wrong here. Did he perhaps just have a lot of disordered and contradictory second hand accounts, and was he not sure which ones to believe? And if he wasn't sure, how can we be?

Iain

(Edited for formatting. I still ain't got the hang of this b, /b stuff! )



[This message has been edited by Iain Simpson (edited March 23, 2001).]

Originally posted by AuthenticMan:
I just think it's funny that you, a mere human, are questioning the reasons why God did things the way he did?

Good start. I always like the "humans are worthless ignorant sinful scum who can only be saved by God" arguament. Is your self esteem really that low?

I mean, hey, I guess you know God pretty well to be saying that he was foolish in not giving historically accurate information.

God does not exist. Therefore I know more than him. QED.

I think the information in the NT is historical enough to have a "faith" factor. If it 100% deniably true, then what would be the purpose of life on Earth, we would already be in heaven because everyone would believe.

So have I got this straight. God craetes mankind, and gives us the ability to reason. Then he writes us a book. He puts some deliberate mistakes in it to make it less credible. He sends his son to Earth so we can all believe, but chooses the witnesses carefully so that there is a good chance they will not be believed. Then he allows the growth of many false religions, with just as much evidence for thier claims as the true religion. Finally he calls us all to judgement, and anyone who has used their God-given gift of reason and doubted the truth of this true religion is hateful in the sight of God, and cast into eternal fire.

Next to this, there is no belief held by anyone on Earth which can truly be called absurd.

(Note to Christians - I know this isn't what most of you believe, but it seems to be what Andy and other fundies are argueing for. The much more sensible theory of salvation by good deeds can be found in Matthew 25:34-45, in Jesus' own words.)

You can only go so far on historical fact until you get to a point where you just have to have faith.

Or you could always say it's unknown...

I just feel bad that when Jesus comes again, it'll be too late to accept him into your heart. Shame.

Is this meant to be a reason why I should believe? It simplifies to Pascal's wager again. Remember what happened to him. That's twice you've used it. You are Eternal under a new pseuodonym and I claim my ten dollars.

In John, I think, the author describes that judgement day will come when the whole world has heard the Gospel

In Matthew (24:34) he claims it will come before his generation will pass away. Why should we take the other prophecy any more seriously?

In a time when everyone is hooked up to the Internet

Everyone? I have told you a million times not to exaggerate.

By the way, are you still researching an essay, or are you just trying to convert us now?

I'll be praying for you all.

Prayer. The silliest religious concept of all. Surely God knows what's best, so will do what's best whether you ask for it or not. Or do you think you know better than him?

Save your prayers. Start thinking for me instead.



[This message has been edited by Iain Simpson (edited March 23, 2001).]

P.S. Andy, you still haven't explained why I'm living in a pool of sin. If you make an accusation like that you should be prepared to back it up, or you may be hearing from my lawyer.

Didn't take him long did it?

Alright....

Pools of sin...I exaggerated, like most do. My explanation of sin is defined in the Bible. How about Adam and Eve? A whole new subject that I don't care to discuss at the time because I've got too much other stuff with school. I believe in Creationism, therefore, I believe that Man was created with free will. With free will, comes our choice to either follow God's will, or go against it. Since you don't believe in God, why argue further.

ANd I'm not trying to convert y'all. It would be cool if I could, but I won't. My research is to try find find out what non-belivers think. By arguing with you I'm testing your knowledge (which exceeds my own, i'm 19). I've actually learned a ton about what you argued against and for, and have also testing my own faith in the process, still a strong Christian.

I know you classify me as a fundamentalist, but I'm still young and am still looking for what I truly believe in. What I've argued is my current knowledge (not a lot), and to be quite honest, I've never heard of this Pascal's wager thing. I'm gonna check out the link above.

So, thanks for all the time you guys invested into this. I was also wondering if I could quote some of you in the paper that I'm doing, for counterpoints and such. Let me know.

I know this discussion is starting to go away from the Resurrection, so if there's nothing else to try and convince me about, then I guess that is that.

Thanks again,

Andy