Failte

No, not really.

14 does not equal 2, for example. That's not about "understanding", that's about the text directly contradicting itself. 'before' does not equal 'after' (see gen 1,2) when putting things in order...that's about the text contradicting itself.

Adding in interpretation to help us "understand" that the three verses about Saul's death do not agree is not taking the text for what it is -- it's changing/interpreting/adding to the text to make it fit what you already believe. That is not an objective or honest analysis of the text at all.

You are not "just" reading the text for what it is -- that is patently obvious. The fact that you have acknowledged that there are, indeed, contradictions in the text in one post, and yet still claim that the bible is not contradictory in others is puzzling.

You are reading the texts with, it appears, the specific purpose of making them agree, no matter what they actually say, and ignoring any examples that do not agree. That is neither honest, nor convincing.

The bible is not the table of elements. It is not something taht we can point to and find a single, empirically-supported answer for anything. There is no one, true interpretation of the bible that can be put forward as "right" and "correct". Not even close, as these various threads have shown clearly. Contradictory verses, unclear meaning, different translations, and the very existence of thousands of different interpretations of the texts mean that there is no "one answer" -- insisting that there is, is just foolish.

simon kole

Addressed above.

schriverja

If you mean post #425, that wasn't even yours, and it reiterates the issue I take with your interpretation. If you mean post #430, you admit that Jesus must not have taught in the Luke 24 passage that the Jewish customs were obsoleted through his death, because the church was acting as though they were still in effect. As you yourself say in post #430, the eventual jettisoning of the Jewish traditions was a decision made by church leaders, decades after the death of Jesus. The church leaders apparently caved to political pressure to make early Christianity more palatable to the ever-increasing percentage of Gentile followers.

Which is essentially the whole point I was making all along, that the theology and doctrines throughout the Bible show evolution of thought, not progressive revelation...

dockeen

Basically, what he is saying, I *think*, obscured at times behind the "purview" terms and "taking the text on it's own terms", and "your argument is with jesus, not me" phrases is this:

Here is what I believe the text says, based on my understanding and beliefs. I
can not prove to you that this is the correct interpretation, as it is based, as I
said, on my beliefs and understanding.

Sheshbazzar

simon, it is written, is it not;

וארא אל־אברהם אל־יצחק ואל־יעקב באל שדי ושמי יהוה לא נודעתי להם׃

And;
אחר הדברים האלה היה דבר־יהוה אל־אברם במחזה לאמר אל־תירא אברם אנכי מגן לך שכרך הרבה מאד׃
ויאמר אליו אני יהוה אשר הוצאתיך מאור כשדים לתת לך את־הארץ הזאת לרשתה׃ויאמר אדני יהוה במה אדע כי אירשנה׃

And;
היפלא מיהוה דבר למועד אשוב אליך כעת חיה ולשרה בן׃


ויברך הגמלים מחוץ לעיר אל־באר המים לעת ערב לעת צאת השאבת׃


ויאמר יצחק אל־בנו מה־זה מהרת למצא בני ויאמר כי הקרה יהוה אלהיך לפני׃


והנה יהוה נצב עליו ויאמר אני יהוה אלהי אברהם אביך ואלהי יצחק הארץ אשר אתה שכב עליה לך אתננה ולזרעך׃

Feel free to provide us with your 'correct understanding' of the content of these texts, and explain to us how it is that they are not contradictory.

simon kole

Read it again, it is addressed there.You say tomato, I say tomahto. . .

Your understanding of this is too one-dimensional.

The issue is law keeping for righteousness' sake.

The NT abolishes law keeping for the sake of righteousness (salvation).

Acts 21 is not about law keeping for righteousness' sake, it's about law keeping for the sake of expediency
in Jews and Gentles getting along together in the local churches.

There is no "evolution of thought" involved.
No new thought "evolved" regarding the relationship of law keeping to righteousness (salvation).
Righteousness (salvation) is by faith alone, through free grace.

Law keeping is replaced by the Holy Spirit indwelling the hearts of Christians, whereby
they obey the law of love of God and love of neighbor, which fulfills the whole law (Ro 13:8-10).

Perspicuo

That seems to be an apt wording of your fundamental axiom.

I'd prefer: "Let all claims be verified on the same terms lest truth die".

simon kole

In their own terms, demonstrate my error regarding the texts.

simon kole

I cannot take you seriously, Sheshbazzar, regarding Biblical contradictions, until you adequately address your own personal contradictions, here,

and then there's that anti-theistic statement, here, bottom of post, beginning at third line.

schriverja

Acts 21 shows that Jesus must not have taught the obsolescence of the Jewish customs, otherwise the Jewish-Christians like James and the others wouldn't have required Paul to do anything. They would have backed him up. Since they didn't, Jesus must not have taught what is taught in Romans.

You'll notice that the Jewish understanding of James and the others dovetails much more cleanly with the plethora of statements made by Jesus to keep the commandments. It lines up much more cleanly to the teaching of the Hebrew scriptures (OT) that the Jewish Law/customs were a permanent arrangement. It dovetails nicely that Jesus himself followed the Jewish customs. Paul is the odd-man out regarding his understanding.

Over time, as the momentum of early Christianity shifted away from the Jewish understanding (as I have stated before, I think the Ebionites probably were more consistent with Jesus and his 12 disciples than what became Orthodox), Paul's influence gained more sway.