Search results

Well, I don't want to be the source of anyone's irritation. I'll stop posting for a while.

OK, tell me how the Holy Spirit has resolved the ones I mentioned.

Oh sister -- the different Bible writers who wrote different and contradictory accounts of the same thing had ears to hear what the SPIRIT is saying too.

The witnesses mentioned in these passages had to be EYE-witnesses. Otherwise their testimony would be rejected as hearsay. Can we agree on that much?

I happen think the Bible IS God-breathed -- on its own merits, not because it says so. I share your faith that Jesus is the Son of God, died to atone for sin and was raised from the dead. The early Church got that right, well before the very first book of the NT was written. It's true because...

Wow. Paul tells Timothy in a letter that all Scripture is God-breathed, and THEREFORE all Scripture is God-breathed. Wow. Is lifting yourself up by your own boot straps your daily exercise routine? You might profit from this little tidbit on circular reasoning. Is all Scripture...

Sorry, that explanation for Matthew's error won't fly. Matthew just blew this one. I'll quote Jerome: "“This passage is not found in Jeremiah at all but in Zechariah.” Perhaps Matthew was just having a senior moment when penning 27:9, thought he knew which OT writing contained the story, and...

Is all Scripture is God-breathed because it says so? (That would be circular reasoning, don't you think?)

OK, I will post links next time. What version do you favor? (I'm a NRSV guy myself.)

My point is that the text contains errors. Example: Matthew 27:9 mistakenly attributes the story of the purchase of the potters’ field to Jeremiah rather than Zechariah. That's not Matthew's only slip-up. In Matt. 23:35 Matthew confuses two Zechariahs, the prophet Zechariah who was the son...

Actually, it was the author of the gospel of John who said that Jesus said scripture cannot be broken. Did that author accurately record Jesus's actual words? Maybe. Did Jesus move his pen across the parchment? No. John's words are his own. Good idea! Let's start by comparing these...

But the TEXT does not originate from God Himself. The MESSAGE that the text writers were inspired to write does. If the TEXT originated from Him, Bible stories would never contradict each other. Yet they do. I agree that "IF the text originates from God Himself" it would be factually...

Yup, he was married. Yup, the RCC thinks he was the first Pope. The RCC instituted the clergy celibacy rule much later. But I see no inconsistency between Peter's marital status and the ban on married priests instituted centuries later. And I can't accept your conclusion that "thus not...

You mention "another scripture which testifies about the scriptures" (I assume 2 Tim. 3:16). Clearly Paul was referring to the OT in that verse, not the NT. Was he correct? I happen to believe he was -- not because he said so (that would be circular reasoning; the Bible is not self-proving!)...

You did -- with a limiting reference to "prophecy" in 2 Peter that I was trying to discuss with you before we got derailed. I don't know what portions of the OT you think the author was referring to as prophecy. The OT contains history, precepts, poems, praises, predictions (which might be...

I thought I already did -- in Post #561.

Do you want to have an intelligent discussion on this, or would you rather just lump me in with whatever group you feel are on this site just to "cause people to doubt what God has said?" Because if it's the latter, I won't waste my time and yours. But if it's the former, you need to be open...

Thanks for the clarification. When Second Peter uses the word προφητεία (prophecy), what portions of the Old Testament do you suppose the author had in mind?

Let me push back just a bit. When I look at 1 Tim. 4:1-3, I see Paul ranting against an ascetic cult which would denounce the appetites of the flesh and forbid its members to marry. Obviously Catholics are not forbidden to marry. If Catholic men choose to be priests, which is their free...

I think Catholics distinguish worshiping Mary from honoring Mary -- and claim to do only the latter. At least that's the party line from the clergy and the intellectuals in the RCC. The rank and file Catholic likely can't tell the difference.