|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 59 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,927 Year: 4,184/9,624 Month: 1,055/974 Week: 14/368 Day: 14/11 Hour: 2/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: A Problem With the Literal Interpretation of Scripture | |||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.6 |
quote: So you believe that Jesus said that the scripture in question was about him but you insist that he didn't mean it. How exactly does that help?
quote: Nice try at changing the subject. But you should have learnt by now that I'm not that easily tricked. It doesn't matter what other things Jesus said. That's not the issue we're discussing.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.6 |
quote: We're not arguing about that verse or anything else that Jesus might have said. So I'd class that as changing the subject.
quote: That's not what he was quoted as saying. So either he was misquoted, didn't mean what he said or you are directly contradicting the verses you supposedly believe.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.6 |
quote: It looks more like you saying "Look over here!" in an attempt to distract the conversation from the verses in question. It seems pretty obvious to me that we can't plausibly say that the Pharisees didn't believe that at some time (maybe even in the past) that there would be a prophet equal to Moses. But so far that's the only thing suggested. So come on, what was it that Moses supposedly wrote about Jesus that the Pharisees did not believe. Chapter and verse please.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.6 |
quote: Obviously that's not true because I'm not making a general point - only discussing a few verses - and I'm not ignoring the context. It just doesn't change the meaning of the verses to what you want them to say.
quote: Then Jesus was wrong to say that they didn't - if he said it. It really is that simple. So you're left with either arguing that he didn't mean those verses (your only candidate) arguing that Jesus didn't say it (after affirming that he did) or admitting that Jesus was wrong.
quote: I'm really not bothering to argue about this because it is beside the point.
quote: But it ISN'T a rabbit hole. It IS the central point of the discussion.
quote: But that DOES seem to be a rabbit hole. I'm not making a general discussion of whether the Pharisees were entirely right about the Torah or whether they disagreed with Jesus about it. I am simply defending my point that one particular claim attributed to Jesus which doesn't seem to be true. The specific claim that Jesus is alleged to have made is that the Pharisees did not agree with what Moses wrote ABOUT HIM. So all you need to do is find verses that are plausibly about Jesus that the Pharisees did not believe. You've already admitted that they did believe the only candidate you've put forward. The messiah issue really is something of a rabbit hole because the major messianic prophecies aren't even in the Torah. Even the verses you mention only talk about a prophet equal to Moses, without specifying what that prophet is going to do or giving any way to recognise him. That's why it is so difficult to say that the Pharisees didn't believe it - it just says far too little.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.6 |
It's straightforward, but irrelevant. You are ignoring the fact that in this case the writings in question are supposed to be about Jesus. Pointing to verses that you believe to be about Jesus isn't enough. Pointing to verses which (Jesus would say) the Pharisees didn't believe us not enough. You need verses which fit both criteria. That should be both simple and obvious.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.6 |
quote: Why not ? If someone says that there are writings of Moses that are about Jesus and which the Pharisees did not believe, it can only be true if there are writings of Moses that are about Jesus which the Pharisees did not believe. How can you possibly disagree with that ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.6 |
quote: So you're saying that you have to pretend that Jesus was right - even though he was wrong - because you support his beliefs over those you attribute to the Pharisees ? Certainly I can't see any reason to deny a logical truth in there.
quote: I'm not doing anything particularly clever here, just repeating an obvious and simple truth which you seem determined to deny for no good reason. This seems to be like your suggestion that actually supporting your position would be a "rabbit" hole"
quote: Really I haven't. NoNukes started this subtopic. You've chosen to drag it out with evasion and denial of the truth. I'd say that you've done far more to drag yourself off topic than I have.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.6 |
I don't think his reasoning is very sound. It's odd that if his view of inerrancy is such an important doctrine it isn't clearly expressed anywhere in the Bible. Does't his view rely on assuming that God intended things to be the way that he believes they are ?
And what about 1 Corinthians 14:16 ?
14 I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, 15 so that no one would say you were baptized in my name. 16 Now I did baptize also the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized any other.
Now, if God intended every word to come out as it did then why would there need to be the correction and the admission of poor memory in verse 16 ? God could easily provide the correct details. If God intended the words to come out this way, then surely God intended us to recognise that Paul was fallible, and that his writing is not guaranteed to be entirely correct. Or maybe it's just a mistake on Paul's part, meaning that God isn't guiding every little detail.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.6 |
quote: That, of course is not the question. The question is why would God make Paul's writings look unreliable if he meant us to take them as absolutely reliable ? Doesn't it make more sense to accept that Paul's writings are not reliable in absolutely every detail ? And is it not therefore the case that the Bible actually supports the view that Greg Koukl is arguing against ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.6 |
quote: Is there ? Paul wrote that he only baptised Crispus and Gaius, then he remembers that he baptised the household of Stephanius then he adds that he may have baptised others he doesn't remember. So his claim, in writing that he only baptised Crispus and Gaius is wrong.
quote: It would mean that I made a spelling mistake. If I argued that God was guiding my spelling and therefore the spelling was correct I would be wrong.
quote: And now you are taking exactly the position that Koukl argues against. Congratulations !
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.6 |
quote: But this is simply your opinion of what God wants and the methods He ought to use. It's not much of an argument in itself.
quote: Of course this is a misrepresentation. In reality I simply pointed out that the Bible itself seems to contradict Greg Koukl's opinions. If you think that Greg Koukl's opinions are more important than the Bible - as you clearly do - why not be honest enough to admit it ?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024