/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>843547

Pilpul, lies, appeals to authority, bandwagon fallacy, and other emotionally manipulative bulls— instead of admitting the truth.

John 1, the Word is Christ.

>>843551

Okay, so what if the person is a hyper-charismatic. They say "Yes, I know. He tells me what to do in my head. I don't need the Bible because he speaks to me directly." Great Job, you've helped them to double down on their belief that Jesus is telling them what to do all day in their head.

The different accounts are not contradictory so it's not a problem. If they were it would be an issue.

Here's an explanation of the Judas example

https://carm.org/bible-difficulties/matthew-mark/how-did-judas-die-hanging-or-falling-down

>>843551

It is also appropriate to refer to scripture as the word of God. Your comment isn't helpful.

>>843553

And what about what he did with the 30 pieces of silver. Did he buy land or give it back?

>>843552

Making up absurdities to pierce definitions does not make them less true, as this game can be done anytime.

>>843564

>absurdities

You don't know the half of it…

>>843554

It's not the word by itself, but because of Christ. One can say that it is the word due to the Holy Spirit that through Christ guides the reader.

>>843566

He's a lolcow but Christ says something similar in John 5:37-40. It is possible to read the Scriptures without taking the word.

>>843568

Sure but no Christian would speak against the reliability of the Bible

>>843556

https://carm.org/bible-difficulties/potters-field

>>843567

You can say scripture is the word of God because it is literally words which were inspired by God. Jesus is the logos, which means word but in a different sense.

>>843575

Okay and who was at the empty tomb?

>>843576

https://carm.org/do-the-gospels-disagree-who-discovered-the-empty-tomb

>>843577

Okay, so your contention by now is surely that there are no such contradictions, however trifling because God literally wrote the bible by proxy? Well, that's one approach but you're going to have to remember a lot of fairly unconvincing apologetics.

>>843578

The burden of proof is on the person asserting that there is a contradiction. It is not a good argument to say that God had men write the words therefore it has mistakes or contradictions.

>>843579

Why is it not a good argument? I mean the words of Jesus are preserved, there are no inconsistencies in the messages of scripture. Why should accounts of Judas' death, what he did with the land or which women were there at the tomb be pristine? If anything such inconsistencies would be a great way for God to blind the eyes of the unbelieving. Yet, you think addressing every little piece of minutia in the Bible, operating under the assumption if such contradictions exist it also cannot be the word of God. Why is your faith so weak?

>>843580

with the silver*

>>843580

>Why should accounts of Judas' death, what he did with the land or which women were there at the tomb be pristine?

Because all scripture is God breathed

>Yet, you think addressing every little piece of minutia in the Bible, operating under the assumption if such contradictions exist it also cannot be the word of God.

You are no longer asking what the Bible teaches but arguing what you think God ought to have done

>Why is your faith so weak?

Projection

>>843584

I was an unbeliever. I put the Bible to the test. I know there are contradictions. Kent Hovind or Carm are no less of a joke, just because I'm a believer. The miracle of scripture is that what is important in it has been maintained. Meanwhile the atheist is free to bring up doubtful disputations because, yes, its not a perfectly self-consistent text. But the historicity of the Bible is remarkable in spite of this and this is what a lot of protties don't appreciate. However its also a book fraught with minor, insignificant errors. Also you're the one saying God should have made a book so historically pristine that literally nobody could deny its authenticity. If he did that, it would be an embarrassment of riches for this world. What would faith mean if the perfect historicity of a book compelled everyone to believe?

>>843585

I'm not saying God ought to have done anything. I'm reading 2 Tim 3 and observing that there are no errors.

There is a whole movement of people who take your argument and right now they are appointing transgender bishops and giving offering money to anti white usurpers.

>>843586

There is a whole movement of people who take your argument and make creationist museums, making us all look like idiots.

>>843575

That's not why it can be called word, as the original Greek does not have spaces between vocables. A vocable in Greek is called lexi, not logos. The vocables are infused with grace but are created, to skip Christ is to treat God's word as created.

>>843591

>>843586

No seriously. Unlike your ridiculous strawman, what I said was the truth. I don't even know if I would have been lost for so long without people like Ken Ham and Kent Hovind and Sye Ten Bruggencate and Ray Comfort (who I find to be a wonderful evangelist) making a total joke of apologetics.

I just like the Bible because it says the peoples who compose subversive liberals like gays, racemixers, and kikes are bad. If anyone wants to use the Bible to tell me justice is bad they can get winnie the poohed. Of course it has contradictions. It's a record by stupid people that's gone through stupid changes and stupid retranslations. Something more recent like the Silmarillion having a more coherent theology at this point is anything but a surprise. Anything describing God is just a human depiction of Him not God Himself who exists in reality instead of a story.

>>843619

I love this filter. Get winnie the poohed sounds so epic.

>>843612

Where and who did I strawman? Is there a reason you're so upset?

>>843622

>mimimimimimimi transgender bishops mimimimimi muh white heritage mimimimi

>>843626

comparing people who admit there are minor inconsistencies in scripture (like probably every ex-skeptic) to these other boogeymen taking up residence in your brain.

>>843627

The central issue of evangelicalism is inerrancy. It's no boogeyman. Denying inerrancy places you in the mainline protestant movement.

Furthermore, you have failed to demonstrate a contradiction in scripture, just postured.

>>843628

I wouldn't call them errors. They are there to blind the unbelieving hearts. Not as an explicitly worked design, but God simply did not give us a work of such an extreme level of historicity it makes scripture impossible to deny as a divinely inspired book. People are perfectly capable of doing that and in fact do do that. And why would God want a book of that level of historicity anyway? He wants to provide the message of the gospel and give us a map for how to live our Christian lives, not compel us into idolizing a magic book, which is what you actually do.

>>843629

You have done nothing but project this whole time. I think we're done.

>>843630

I don't think we're done. I think you're done because you have no arguments and your like Gene Kim, you think the smallest anomaly in scripture is going to destroy your faith. If your faith is based on the Bible being a such a magic book, its not very good faith.

It's not inconsistent. You just don't understand.

>>843553

Look, I might grant you this if Luke thought he exploded based on some account. But nobody is going to say he fell headlong and burst open when only his body did that.