The real problem with an inerrant Bible (Jesus, ritual, virgin)

[Jayhawker Soule]

People die (prematurely) all of the time and for a multiplicity of faiths.

I seriously doubt that the author(s) of gMat sat around making up scripture in the hopes of deluding the countryside or collecting royalties, but it was a primitive age, rife with superstition, and, if you accept a circa 85 CE date for gMat, a time when the Christian/Jewish polemics were coming to a head. Given such things as the Markan Appendix, the Johannine Comma, and the Pericope de Adultera, to insist on the impossibility of embellishment and pious fraud is simply wishful thinking run amok.

[Scuba Pete]

to insist on the impossibility

Who did this?

[Jayhawker Soule]

Originally Posted by NetDoc

Who did this?

Certainly not you, Doc. Nor would one expect such a thing from someone capable of leaping from the presumption of inspiration to the assertion of sufficiency, all the while calling this trajectory 'deduction'.

But there are, I suspect, far less acrobatic Christians who, for example, might well consider adherence to the Nicene Creed incompatible with accepting the possibility of embellishment and pious fraud underlying the virgin birth and resurrection claims.

[Mr Spinkles]

Originally Posted by NetDoc

Of course, if you have ACTUAL evidence of such egregious conduct by Matthew, or any of the apostles, please trot it out.

So was fulfilled what was said through the prophets: "He will be called a Nazarene." Mt 2:23 Did any of the Jewish prophets of the Old Testament actually say this, or is this just coming from Matthew's imagination?

There are many more. Herod's slaughter of the innocents and Mary and Joseph's return from Egypt, for example, was clearly added by Matthew to make the story of Jesus' birth appear harmonious with Old Testament mythology. It seems strange that Josephus would choose not to note such a massacre.

[Scuba Pete]

Hnnnn, maybe we don't have those "books" available to us anymore??? Never pursued that angle.

But you have again crossed over from "possible error" to "obvious intent". On what do you base your suspicions of the return from Egypt? Maybe it's not as "clear" as you contend?

[Scuba Pete]

Nor would one expect such a thing from someone capable of leaping from the presumption of inspiration to the assertion of sufficiency, all the while calling this trajectory 'deduction'.

THis from someone who has YET to give me an answer to post #37.

It's EASY to demand of everyone but not be forthcoming with your own proofs. You are obviously more interested in labeling my deduction as anything but rather than taking a reasoned look at it. I've grown used to that.

But there are, I suspect, far less acrobatic Christians

Just as there are more reasonable athiests who at least make the attempt to understand rather than continually making intellectually vapid ad hominids about the person they disagree with.

[Mr Spinkles]

Originally Posted by NetDoc

Hnnnn, maybe we don't have those "books" available to us anymore???

Maybe. And maybe Iraq's WMD were hidden in France as part of a global conspiracy to make Bush look bad. But I doubt it.

Originally Posted by NetDoc

But you have again crossed over from "possible error" to "obvious intent". On what do you base your suspicions of the return from Egypt? Maybe it's not as "clear" as you contend?

Search your history books. See if you can find anything about Herod killing all the infants around 0 C.E. Even at my Catholic high school, in theology class, we learned that Matthew was writing to a Jewish audience, and not everything he wrote was historical fact. We were even specifically taught that the author of Matthew's motivation for including Joseph and Mary coming out of Egypt was to allude to the Exodus.

It's not just atheists who claim that the authors of the gospels included things that are not historical fact.

[Scuba Pete]

It's the "Why" that's important.

Again, I find no scripture that claims infallibility. If he was passing on a tradition or a misunderstanding then that is one thing. If he is actively prevaricating, then that is a horse of a different color.