Is it possible for believers to believe the Bible has mistakes in it?

[savagewind]

Blindly rejecting authority is also dangerous, such as speeding in a school zone. Moral authority comes from God or it's not necessarily moral. What you seem to be saying here is that it is your decision whether or not to kill your children and morality is relative.
Moral Relativism Refuted

He did not say "moral authority". Anyone can stand up as an authority on morality and they DO.
There is only ONE moral authority imo. Even my Lord obeys That One.

 

[savagewind]

I am asking where I can find disciple means "us". Please.
I don't disagree with the premise Jesus taught "make them us" which means accepting everyone who would be accepted by God. I believe it! But I think it is not what Matthew 28:19 is saying. OK?

 

[savagewind]

It is OK to say it has no answer. I think it is not OK to ignore the question. Also, please, for me saying this do not conclude I am being impatient as I can see you are not online. And I am.

I hear you saying Matthew 28:19 says "Go therefore and make them us (loas)" but I do not see that word there.

 

[metis]

Blindly rejecting authority is also dangerous, such as speeding in a school zone. Moral authority comes from God or it's not necessarily moral. What you seem to be saying here is that it is your decision whether or not to kill your children and morality is relative.
Moral Relativism Refuted

That's not a proper connection with what I stated. The issue of "authority" need not be either/or. However, neither am I certain that moral authority necessarily comes from God largely because such a connection simply cannot be firmly established. Plus there's the issue of which earthly authority is to be followed? Concepts of "God" and what "God" supposedly taught is hardly monolithic.

 

[kepha31]

Matthew 28:
16 Now the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus had directed them. 17 And when they saw him they worshiped him; but some doubted. 18 And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age.”

Verse 16 does not say "all believers". It was the Apostles. Period. That is who Jesus is talking to. In verse 19, it says "...go therefore..." therefore what? It must have something to do with authority. It is a unitive statement, or Jesus would have said, "“All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me BUT make disciples of all nations..." which is how some read it. Clearly, Jesus is granting HIS AUTHORITY to the Apostles.

Furthermore, it would be impossible for 11 men to literally "teach all nations" without jets and helicopters. Logically, Jesus is also talking to the successors of the Apostles or Jesus is issuing an impossible directive.

When Jesus says, "I am with YOU always..." Who is "you" in this context?

AUTHORITY:
Matt. 16:19 - for Jesus to give Peter and the apostles, mere human beings, the authority to bind in heaven what they bound on earth requires infallibility. This is a gift of the Holy Spirit and has nothing to do with the holiness of the person receiving the gift.

Matt. 18:17-18 - the Church (not Scripture) is the final authority on questions of the faith. This demands infallibility when teaching the faith. She must be prevented from teaching error in order to lead her members to the fullness of salvation.

Matt. 28:20 - Jesus promises that He will be with the Church always. Jesus' presence in the Church assures infallible teaching on faith and morals. With Jesus present, we can never be deceived.

Mark 8:33 - non-Catholics sometimes use this verse to down play Peter's authority. This does not make sense. In this verse, Jesus rebukes Peter to show the import of His Messianic role as the Savior of humanity. Moreover, at this point, Peter was not yet the Pope with the keys, and Jesus did not rebuke Peter for his teaching. Jesus rebuked Peter for his lack of understanding.

Luke 10:16 - whoever hears you, hears me. Whoever rejects you, rejects me. Jesus is very clear that the bishops of the Church speak with Christ's infallible authority.

Luke 22:32 - Jesus prays for Peter, that his faith may not fail. Jesus' PRAYER for Peter's faith is perfectly efficacious, and this allows Peter to teach the faith without error (which means infallibly).
source of citations

 

[savagewind]

Great. What is "go" for please? If therefore is linked by Jesus Christ to "all authority in Heaven and earth has been given me" then why does he say "Go!"? To confuse me? WHY?

All authority in Heaven and earth has been given me therefore

all authority in Heaven and earth has been given me go therefore

Why go? AND WHERE?

 

[savagewind]

Jeremiah 25:31-33
31 ‘A noise will resound to the ends of the earth,For Jehovah has a controversy with the nations.He will personally pass judgment on all humans.And he will put the wicked to the sword,’ declares Jehovah.
32 This is what Jehovah of armies says:‘Look! A calamity is spreading from nation to nation,And a great tempest will be unleashed from the remotest parts of the earth.
33 “‘And those slain by Jehovah in that day will be from one end of the earth clear to the other end of the earth. They will not be mourned, nor will they be gathered up or buried. They will become like manure on the surface of the ground.’


The New World translation says Jehovah God the Father of the prince of peace will slay the wicked.

But what does the Bible really teach?

הָרְשָׁעִ֛ים them wicked
נְתָנָ֥ם he will give
לַחֶ֖רֶב to the sword

If they were listening to Jesus who says "whatever a man is sowing he will also reap it" and "those who take up the sword shall be killed by the sword" they would know that הָרְשָׁעִ֛ים נְתָנָ֥ם לַחֶ֖רֶב means he will give them over to the sword. That means that in the day the sword, which the nations put their trust in, COMES, Jehovah will not prevent it coming upon them, no matter how many prayers they might pray. OK?

It is not Jehovah doing the killing like they say it is Jehovah who will do the killing.

 

[Desert Snake]

The framework and the correct context of the material?
How would being a believer grant someone knowledge over that? :sarcastic

Here I was thinking that this knowledge would be acquired through study...

Oh, I noticed where you are mistaken , here; No, many Religious things are actually pretty difficult to learn from study, especially creating a framework for interpretation, of the texts. That usually comes from tradition, and personal knowledge of, since it is not the zeitgeist of non-religious study. It's more complicated than you think, you aren't going to be able to re-create, that framework, from asking people questions, on RF, or even reading specific Jewish, or, Xian, opinion, etc/ //it's unlikely, because there is too much material to circumvent the inevitable mistakes, made in false assumptions therefore logic parameters, hence false conclusions.

anyways, hope that clears some stuff up.

 

[outhouse]

Clearly, Jesus is granting HIS AUTHORITY to the Apostles.

Written by people who were rhetorically writing.

People that were not witness to any event in all of the NT

 

[Koldo]

Oh, I noticed where you are mistaken , here; No, many Religious things are actually pretty difficult to learn from study, especially creating a framework for interpretation, of the texts. That usually comes from tradition, and personal knowledge of, since it is not the zeitgeist of non-religious study. It's more complicated than you think, you aren't going to be able to re-create, that framework, from asking people questions, on RF, or even reading specific Jewish, or, Xian, opinion, etc/ //it's unlikely, because there is too much material to circumvent the inevitable mistakes, made in false assumptions therefore logic parameters, hence false conclusions.

anyways, hope that clears some stuff up.

You replied to a very old post.
Anyway...
There are two major problems here:

1) Being raised within a certain religion is more than enough to grant you such a framework. You don't need to be a believer right now to have it.
2) Having this framework doesn't mean you have the correct framework and that you actually comprehend the proper context of the material. That should be obvious from merely looking at denominations within Christianity that have completely different teachings regardings some points.

 

[Desert Snake]

You replied to a very old post.
Anyway...
There are two major problems here:

1) Being raised within a certain religion is more than enough to grant you such a framework. You don't need to be a believer right now to have it.

Here is the issue with this. There are, actually, certain reasons why someone would leave their belief/faith, granted. But, it can be from a perspective of non-involvement, in a zeitgeist sense, from the get-go. So, these instances, can, not always, but can, and /I have observed this, lead to a false sense of knowledge about ones, left, religion, or even, the 'same' problem as a biased theistic or religious stance, in that, that one perspective is the 'basis', of judgment, for religious beliefs. I encounter this, all the time, from ex-Xians. They think that they are disproving my beliefs/reasoning, in fact, they are disproving their own. /disproving their former religious beliefs/

2) Having this framework doesn't mean you have the correct framework and that you actually comprehend the proper context of the material. That should be obvious from merely looking at denominations within Christianity that have completely different teachings regardings some points.

Theists are often incorrect, in their interpretations, that is true. I'm talking best case scenario, really. This is a hypothetical, after all.

 

[Koldo]

Here is the issue with this. There are, actually, certain reasons why someone would leave their belief/faith, granted. But, it can be from a perspective of non-involvement, in a zeitgeist sense, from the get-go. So, these instances, can, not always, but can, and /I have observed this, lead to a false sense of knowledge about ones, left, religion, or even, the 'same' problem as a biased theistic or religious stance, in that, that one perspective is the 'basis', of judgment, for religious beliefs. I encounter this, all the time, from ex-Xians. They think that they are disproving my beliefs/reasoning, in fact, they are disproving their own. /disproving their former religious beliefs/

Theists are often incorrect, in their interpretations, that is true. I'm talking best case scenario, really. This is a hypothetical, after all.

What all of this means is that whether you are an atheist or theist right now doesn't mean anything when it comes down to having a proper interpretation of the scriptures.

 

[Desert Snake]

What all of this means is that whether you are an atheist or theist right now doesn't mean anything when it comes down to having a proper interpretation of the scriptures.

Hypothetical, say we have five theists. or members of a certain very broad category of religious adherence.

then say we have five atheists who never were part of that religion, or left it because they thought that it was 'wrong'.

What are the probabilities, of correct interpretation, going by group?

I would go with the theistic group, even if I think that many of them could be incorrect.

 

[Koldo]

Hypothetical, say we have five theists. or members of a certain religion.

then say we have five atheists who never were part of that religion, or left it because they thought that it was 'wrong'.

What are the probabilities, of correct interpretation, going by group?

I would go with the theistic group, even if I think that many of them could be incorrect.

What exactly do you mean by 'correct interpretation' on this context ?

 

[Desert Snake]

What exactly do you mean by 'correct interpretation' on this context ?

Well, wouldn't that be, what do you mean by it? I recognize that my interpretation, is subjective.

 

[Desert Snake]

And yet you find yourself sufficiently qualified to judge whether people are aware of the context and framework in which scriptures were written. Not judging just a few individuals, but entire groups.
.

Do you?

Of course I'm going to 'judge', whether people are correct, in their interpretations, but only as it relates to my belief. I'm not condemning groups for their belief, just for having different beliefs.

 

[Koldo]

Well, wouldn't that be, what do you mean by it? I recognize that my interpretation, is subjective.

On that case, without knowing the specifics of each individual in the groups, there is an equal likelihood that they will have the correct interpretation.

 

[Koldo]

Do you?

Of course I'm going to 'judge', whether people are correct, in their interpretations, but only as it relates to my belief. I'm not condemning groups for their belief.

Your judgement only serves to make your own bias clear, even to yourself.

This actually explains why you think it is safer to bet on the theist group. Obviously, since you are a theist yourself, the likelihood that you will find someone with a similar interpretation to your own is much higher in a theist group.

 

[Desert Snake]

On that case, without knowing the specifics of each individual in the groups, there is an equal likelihood that they will have the correct interpretation.

Nah, because, the atheist group is always going to have a higher percentage of incorrect framework by which to interpret the texts.

 

[Desert Snake]

Your judgement only serves to make your own bias clear, even to yourself.

This actually explains why you think it is safer to bet on the theist group. Obviously, since you are a theist yourself, the likelihood that you will find someone with a similar interpretation to your own is much higher in a theist group.

so, I should assume myself incorrect? That makes no sense, many things I hold as opinions are from study, which you brought up earlier, not from a biased perspective of Theism.