Kasper

Interesting. Why do you call yourself a Christian, if you basically do not believe in what's said in the gospels?

Minimalist

Doug, would not the failure to include a word thus constitute an "errancy" in their "inerrant" texts?

hefdaddy42

I don't believe everything said in the gospels. I see no reason to subscribe to the literalist inerrant viewpoint.

aa5874

But, you may still think that all the plausible stuff are inerrant or likely to be true.

Even if you think Jesus was not born of a virgin without sexual union you may believe the parts that are most mis-leading, that is, the plausible parts.

So, when it is claimed Jesus went to Nazareth from Egypt some may think it was true, or likely, but that could not be when his very conception or existence was impossible or certainly unlikely.

Doug Shaver

Not according to inerrantists. In this particular area, they become hyperlogical. If the writer does not say "immediately," then no inference of immediacy is justified.

Obviously, in this case the context clearly implies an immediate return, but for all that inerrantists like to carry on about the importance of context in interpreting scripture, they make an exception here and anyplace else where defense of their dogma requires an exception to the relevance of context.

Or we can put it another way. To you and me, it is reasonable to assume that Luke intended the reader to understand that the return was immediate if he did not specifically mention any intervening events or otherwise clearly indicate that there was a delay. Inerrantists have their own ideas about what constitutes a reasonable assumption. To their way of thinking, an assumption is reasonable if it supports the Bible, and otherwise it is not a reasonable assumption.

kcdad

That might be a good syllogism to be used elsewhere, too.
Since both Creationism and Evolution (capitalism/communism, Liberal/Conservative, right/wrong, good/evil, etc) are in abject contradiction of each, neither can be taken seriously as historical, but can only be seen as a belief premise.

hefdaddy42

I don't think we can know, or claim to know, with any certainty any details from Jesus's childhood or adolescence. But to claim that his existance is impossible seems rash, and unlikely doesn't seem much more reasonable.

Toto

This is not a good syllogism, and the extension makes even less sense. Christianity and Islam are not in "abject" contradiction - they have many points where they overlap. And whether they are in contradiction or not has nothing to do with being historical. Has IamJoseph corrupted your reason?

Please be serious.

Kasper

Okay, so how do you choose what parts to believe?

kcdad

Sorry... using folly to point out folly.