Inerrancy Shminerrancy

[Asimov]

What exactly do you (that is, Christians) hope to gain from claiming biblical inerrancy? Just because a story has no plot holes or contradictions doesn't mean it's true. How does it follow that because you can harmonize the Gospels suddenly it's the inspired word of God and everything it says it literally true?

 

In order to disprove your claim of inerrancy (historical accuracy), all I would have to do is provide ONE historical account that is claimed by the Bible to have happened and yet didn't. Just one and your entire inerrancy belief is destroyed.

 

Even if the bible was historically accurate AND completely harmonious it doesn't validate Christianity. Let's take a look at the Iliad.

 

It claims that the city of Troy had a war and that Troy was destroyed. Recent archaeological finds have shown that Troy exists and was destroyed many times in wars, and one of those wars is most probably the Trojan War.

 

So, because we have found that the Trojan War actually happened....does that mean Zeus exists?? Does that mean Achilles exists and that he is the son of a God??

 

Christians = pwned

[Guest Abram]

The bible is most certainly not inerrant. Any Christian who has gone through any sort of critical NT scholarship curriculum has to admit that, or lie to themselves I suppose. I think what did it for me was when I was in the library viewing microfilm of various facsimile reproductions of manuscript fragments and I saw with my own eyes how many variations there were. And they weren’t all merely scribal errors. There was very definitely a creative writing process going on all throughout the centuries, which leads us to our present problem of trying to reconstruct what the Bible once was based on the best, and most ancient texts available.

[Mythra]

So, you determined (correctly) that the texts have been altered over the early years of christianity. Doesn't that affect your ability to believe it to be true? Or do you?

[MQTA]

Just reading now about the history of the Bible and creation of this new religion http://www.jovialatheist.com/biblehistory.html

 

This new composite (federated) religion would become the official state (political) religion. It would be coequal and fused with the Mithraic religion (worship of God through his crucified, anointed, savior Son, Mithra). It would also be fused with the official Roman derivation of the Mithraic religion, the Sol Invictus (Unconquered Sun) religion. This was the worship of God And the Emperor through Apollo and/or Mithra as the Savior Anointed (the Jesus Christ). Apollo and Mithra were symbolized as the Son of the Sun. The Sun was the visible sign of the invisible God. The soldiers and Greeks worshiped through the Persian name, Mithra, while the elite Romans worshiped through his Roman name, Sol Invictus. This was the largest and most popular religion in the Roman world.

 

          Sol Invictus was the religion that worshiped God And the Emperor through Apollo or Mithra. This savior God also carried the title of Savior Anointed (Jesus Christ in English). Constantine’s new religion would become the only religion the state would recognize. All other religions that refused to join would become outlawed, persecuted and eradicated - and it became so.

 

          Now Constantine (who was naturally a Sol Invictus worshiper) attached himself, as a student, to the Eastern part of the early Jewish church called "The Way." They taught a Spiritual Jesus. He became friends with Eusebius of Caesarea who worshiped this Spiritual Jesus. He also became friends with Hosius of Rome, who worshiped a materialized Human Jesus. Note this conflict!

 

          These men were interested in solving the question of the divinity of the Savior (the Jesus). Was this Savior (Jesus) just a regular man with special prophetic and healing powers, or was he a spiritual being of God who did his work in the spiritual realm. Was he begotten from God, or was he God himself? Was he composed of the same stuff as God himself? Did God preexist Jesus or were they eternally one together? Eusebius was in favor of the reasoning of one, Arias, who said, the Spiritual Jesus was begotten by God. He was coequal with God but was not The God himself. Jesus was the Son of God. Therefore, he could not be The God. This Spiritual Savior did all his work in the spiritual realm.

 

However, the religion of Mithra, whose doctrines were being studied by the leaders of The Way, also worshiped their Jesus Christ (Savior Anointed) named Mithra. They had already solved this problem. Their Savior Anointed (Jesus Christ) was Mithra, a human man divinely born, in whom God (at his baptism) had been incarnated into his flesh to suffer and die for the sins of man. Thus, Mithra died in the Flesh to save the world from sin and Satan.

 

Up to this point in time, the church of The Way never claimed that their Spiritual Jesus (Savior), or their human Jesus was The God. He was the example, the pointer of the way to salvation, the first born of God and the prophet of salvation. He was the way, the truth and the life that should be followed, and thereby, one would receive God’s salvation.

 

          It is said that Constantine, while in battle, looked up one day and saw a sign in the heavens. That sign was a "Cross " (the Persian instrument of death upon which Mithra died). Then into his head came the notion (or revelation) that said, "In this sign (of the cross) conquer." Without doubt, Constantine was well acquainted with the Mithraic Church because he was also a soldier and Mithras was known as the soldier's religion (the earlier form of Sol Invictus). They worshiped God though Mithra, the Persian crucified Jesus Christ (Savior Anointed). Mithra embodied God’s light, truth, justice and salvation.

 

          The problem Christians of today must face at this point is this. The sign of the "Cross" was not used at all by the early Jewish church called, The Way. They worshiped the Jewish Spiritual Savior Anointed (Jesus Christ) who resided and acted only in the spirit world and they used the symbol of the Lamb or the Fish. The Only religion in the Roman Empire that used the "Cross" (the Persian instrument of death) as its symbol of faith was the Mithraic religion, called "Christian” (little anointed ones) by their enemies. Christians were “little-know-it-alls” who worshiped a Savior Anointed (Jesus Christ). The Sol Invictus religion used the image of a “sun spray” that looked a bit like a cross but it was never intended to represent an instrument of death. Rather, it symbolized the divine connection between heaven and earth with Apollo/Mithra at the center.

 

          Even before the Council of 325 AD, leaders of "The Way" were envious of the Cross used by the Mithraic church because it indicated a physical life for Mithra, their Jesus (Savior). The Mithraic religion worshiped Mithra, their Persian crucified Jesus Christ (Savior Anointed). Their Jesus Christ (Mithra) was claimed to have physically died on a "Cross" in the old Persian method of execution several hundred years before the Jewish Jesus Christ (Savior Anointed) was later claimed to be executed in the Roman method of execution. The Romans executed their victims by "poling" (impaling).

 

 

...

 

Constantine began immediately to lay the groundwork for his New State Church. In 321 AD, he enacted the Edict of Tolerance. This gave Christians (Mithraic, The Way, Sol Invictus and other Savior worshipers) new freedom. In addition, he declared that all businesses, courts, shops, transactions and entertainments were to be closed on Sun-day in honor of the Sun God (Apollo and/or Mithra, the saviors anointed). All Savior Gods were to be worshiped on that day. He also declared that all Savior Gods’ birthdays (including Mithra, the Jewish Savior and Apollo) were to be celebrated on the third day after the winter solstice. That is when the Sun begins to return north (by our calendar, December 24th - 25th). This is the first day astronomers can observe the return north of the sun. All of the Gods were to be celebrated at that time with festivals and worship.

[Clergicide]

I think the moral for today, as expressed by Abram, was 'beware the internet scholarship that doesn't post his sources'.

 

While an interesting read, I am very curious where this information is coming from.

[pandora]

I find that article a little questionable because we know that the Romans crucified people... (don't we?) I didn't think that was a point of contention. While they may use the cross in order to have a symbol that was relatable to other religions, Romans did execute criminals on the cross.

[pandora]

I think the moral for today, as expressed by Abram, was 'beware the internet scholarship that doesn't post his sources'.

 

While an interesting read, I am very curious where this information is coming from.

99534[/snapback]

 

 

Exactly. Footnotes and bibliographies are a good thing.

[Clergicide]

I find that article a little questionable because we know that the Romans crucified people... (don't we?)  I didn't think that was a point of contention.  While they may use the cross in order to have a symbol that was relatable to other religions, Romans did execute criminals on the cross.

99535[/snapback]

 

Hundreds of crucifixions, and there is a more than a bit of evidence for it. The number of crucifixions occurring is one of the things that makes the least sense about the Passion. If you've crucified hundreds of people, and you're doing this regularly, how likely is it that you'll have them haul crosses each time? It would mean bringing them down each time so they could be carried back up. To my mind, given the scarcity of wood in that region, and the efficiency of the Roman empire, they would have just taken the bodies off the crosses and nailed up new victims. If the couple hundred crosses on the hill are full..fine, you make the next batch of victims sit in cells til they're freed up.

[Asimov]

Thanks for the derailment guys.

[Clergicide]

Thanks for the derailment guys.

99546[/snapback]

 

Sorry, what I meant to say is: Churches are most interested in Biblical inerrancy, if you open the door to multiple interpretations, or worse sections of errant and thus dismissable scripture, the Church loses it's grounds as it's access point to God. The parishoner is now free to worship as they choose, or interpret. This is bad for donations. Your average Christian is interested in inerrancy because it's an affront on the faith they've paid for. They don't want to be free from their Church, they are just as interested in believing in their Churches interpretation as the Church is in having them subscribe to it, only the motivation is different. We all know and understand the psychological satisfaction organized religion can offer, and that's what they want from the access point they've chosen.

[Asimov]

Sorry, what I meant to say is:  Churches are most interested in Biblical inerrancy, if you open the door to multiple interpretations, or worse sections of errant and thus dismissable scripture, the Church loses it's grounds as it's access point to God.  The parishoner is now free to worship as they choose, or interpret.  This is bad for donations.  Your average Christian is interested in inerrancy because it's an affront on the faith they've paid for.  They don't want to be free from their Church, they are just as interested in believing in their Churches interpretation as the Church is in having them subscribe to it, only the motivation is different.  We all know and understand the psychological satisfaction organized religion can offer, and that's what they want from the access point they've chosen.

99554[/snapback]

 

It doesn't matter...if the bible is admittedly errant then there is no reason to believe it.

[Guest Abram]

It doesn't matter...if the bible is admittedly errant then there is no reason to believe it.

99596[/snapback]

 

I don't necessarily believe everything in it, but I still enjoy reading it. It's the mythology, history, and morality of the ancient Hebrew people. And they were certainly an interesting lot.

[MQTA]

I don't necessarily believe everything in it, but I still enjoy reading it.  It's the mythology, history, and morality of the ancient Hebrew people.  And they were certainly an interesting lot.

99617[/snapback]

 

Right, it's the mythology of the history and morality of

 

It's what they'd like you to believe, Be a Lie Lover

[Vixentrox]

I don't necessarily believe everything in it, but I still enjoy reading it.  It's the mythology, history, and morality of the ancient Hebrew people.  And they were certainly an interesting lot.

99617[/snapback]

I liked reading Pet Cemetary...does that mean Steven King should be worshiped?

[MQTA]

I liked reading Pet Cemetary...does that mean Steven King should be worshiped?

99637[/snapback]

Some people do!

[Gnosis of Disbelief]

I liked reading Pet Cemetary...does that mean Steven King should be worshiped?

99637[/snapback]

 

 

Um, I think I've read most of the posts that he's made tonight,

and I don't seem to recall that he's said he worships any of it?

Have I missed something? He's only saying that he enjoys

reading it here, sort of the way someone might like reading

Greek mythology. Seems like he views most of the bible to

be symbolic/allegorical and not literal, so I'm not sure what

he'd really be worshipping in that context.

[Vixentrox]

The author of the good parts of the "bible". The parts Satan didn't mess up.

[Thurisaz]

exists??  Does that mean Achilles exists and that he is the son of a God??

 

Why stop at Homer?

 

Mein Kampf tells of a country called "Germany" that still exists, and of real other countries and military/political leaders et cetera.

 

I guess this proves that the moustached numbnut was right and that we need to start gassing the jews again, eh?

 

By fundie "logic", you bet it does.

[Gnosis of Disbelief]

I think that christians who claim biblical inerrancy do so because

they are emotionally insecure and need something to cling to that

they believe is "solid" and tells them what they want to hear (e.g.,

"if I talk to gawd, I can change an undesirable outcome"; "if I

believe, I won't ever really die"; etc.) The emotional need of

having something to cling to is greater than the logical need of

not believing in anything that has been disproven.

[MQTA]

It's all fantasyland, so if you gonna accept some fantasy as fact, why not accept it all.

 

I had someone chew me out for daring to convince them that the stuff in genesis that they believed their whole like wasn't true. They acted as if it would be the end of the world. They were shocked anyone did NOT believe it, it was the foundation of their world.

 

A/E/C/A/-A/S->Noah->flood->Babel->S&G, and all the rest