Please Make This Make Sense?

[POI]

According to John 20, Mary went to the tomb and finds it empty. It is clear that she is presented to be alone here, as John 20:1 only mentions Mary, and also that John 20:2 states that she ran, rather than stating that they ran. Alternatively, Matthew 28:1 states Mary was with another, and also that Matthew 28:8 states that they left.

Theists will argue, "well, some of these (small) details don't really matter. All that really matters is that Jesus was found missing and later appeared to others." For which a skeptic might reply... "It does matter because Christians argue that THIS collection of events is said to be the most important storyline presented within mankind's history. If the believers cannot even get the basic set of accounts consistent, then why should the skeptic lend credence to ANY of the Bible's claims?"

For debate: Since the Biblical accounting of events is not reliable, where it is argued to matter the most, (via the storyline surrounding a resurrection event), why should a skeptic still take this collection of books seriously?

[Jester]

[Replying to RBD in post #38]

[N]or am I sure why we can insist that God is the author of these books. Setting aside the debate over religion, that is more of a muslim view of scripture than one that I'd recognize from the christian scholars I know. I'd say that this is mostly irelevant.

Sola Scriptura was long before Muhammed:

Sola Scriptura was developed in the sixteenth century, and does not claim that God is the direct author of the Bible.

I've cut the direct quotations, but merely note that none of them claim that God authored the Bible. Their claims are on different points than that.

Scripture says that Scripture is the only revelation for Jesus Christ. Someone either believes the Scriptures, or they don't believe Jesus Christ.

One can believe the claims of the Bible without believing that God directly authored the Bible. Are you claiming that scriptures which are written to different purposes won't sometimes refer to different details?

If anyone wants to challenge any part of the Bible not being the Scriptures of Jesus Christ, then prove they contradict any Scriptures in the Bible, and they can be struck from the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Quite apart from our line of discussion, this is an argumentum ad consequentium fallacy.
In a debate, it's better to present the case for the scriptures in question than to appeal to judgement.

I'm not sure that follows. Can something be inspired, but have a mistake introduced to it on the way to being written down? I don't claim to know.

Then why question it? And object to insisting all the books of the Bible are Scriptures of God?

I'm naturally a questioning sort. I find that refraining from questioning openly only makes the question fester. I'm sure that the truth isn't afraid of my questions, and will instead have answers for them.

In any case, if any of the Bible is suspect, then prove any book/verse contradicts any Scriptures.

I never claimed that there were contradictions. I seem to recall that I was specifically asking POI to make the case that they were there.
That being the case, I have no idea why you're suddenly asking me to provide contradictions. I was actively arguing against the idea that they existed.

And of course, since no words of the Bible do contradict any other words, then they are all words of God's Scriptures.

I don't see any contradictions in the Bible, but this simply does not follow.

That is the reason many people seek to find contradiction, in order to prove not all words are Scripture, and the Bible is not the unerring words of the perfect and true God.

I don't pretend to know the psychology of everyone who proposes a contradiction. I try to stick to evaluating whatever case they can make.

He that doubts the Scriptures of Jesus Christ, must doubt Jesus is the risen Christ of God.

I'd agree there.

To me, the main question is "are the central claims true". Debates about innerrancy are important, to be sure, but less important than that.

The two go hand in hand; otherwise, any of the words in detail can be dismissed as unimportant to the claim that Jesus is the true Christ of God, and risen Lord of heaven and earth.

They can definitely be said to be less important.
But no, the central claims don't depend on the details. I'd say that it is the other way around.

People either believe all the scriptures of God, or they don't. Even as transgressing one commandment, transgresses them all, so also rejecting one Scripture rejects them all.

I'm not convinced that being unconcerned about a particular detail amounts to "rejecting" a scripture.

I agree, but don't yet see that inerrancy is the basis of biblical authenticity. If it were, I'd have no idea how we'd establish it as inerrant before we'd even considered its central claims.

Back to proving any verse of Scripture contradicts Scripture, so that some verses or even books, do not belong with Scripture of God.

I don't remotely see how this is what was going on. I was saying that we should first look at the central claims to see if they are true. We can't claim inerrancy before we've first decided that those claims are true.

Only then can anyone teach the 'central' claims of Scripture. The claim of Scripture, is that if any words of God are rejected, then all His 'central' words of commandment and gospel of Jesus Christ, are broken:

I don't see how.
Were the central claims of Christianity true before the Bible was written? If so, then those claims precede the details, not the other way around.

The point is simple and obvious: No one can believe Jesus Christ in general, while disbelieving Him in practice.

No one was proposing otherwise. I was claiming that not every detail about who was present in which moment might not have been recorded by every gospel writer. I have no idea how that is "disbelieving him in practice".

[RBD]

You study the Scriptures diligently because you think that in them you have eternal life. These are the very Scriptures that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life

Refrain from fulfilling what Jesus said in the shaded text in bold.

Exactly. Anyone refusing to come to Jesus Christ through the Scriptures, is refusing to come to Jesus Christ of the Scriptures.

Anyone seeking a Christ apart from the Scriptures, is not finding Jesus Christ.

[OneJack]

,
You study the Scriptures diligently because you think that in them you have eternal life. These are the very Scriptures that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to me to have lifeHRefrain from fulfilling what Jesus said in the shaded text in bold.

Exactly. Anyone refusing to come to Jesus Christ through the Scriptures, is refusing to come to Jesus Christ of the Scriptures.

Anyone seeking a Christ apart from the Scriptures, is not finding Jesus Christ.

It should read,

'Anyone refusing to come to Jesus Christ is refusing to come to Jesus Christ Himself, the real and forever living Almighty God across all generations and in eternity to eternity.’

Anyone seeking Christ through anything [be it the Bible or any other scriptures] is definitely not finding the real and forever living Christ Jesus since the Lord Jesus is not the Bible.'

[RBD]

[Replying to RBD in post #38]

[N]or am I sure why we can insist that God is the author of these books. Setting aside the debate over religion, that is more of a muslim view of scripture than one that I'd recognize from the christian scholars I know. I'd say that this is mostly irelevant.

Sola Scriptura was long before Muhammed:

Sola Scriptura was developed in the sixteenth century, and does not claim that God is the direct author of the Bible.

Sola Scriptura was long before Muhammed, who was long before 16th century.

Already given Scriptures for Bible Sola Scriptura.

I've cut the direct quotations, but merely note that none of them claim that God authored the Bible. Their claims are on different points than that.

The Scriptures of God preaching Sola Scriptura can't be without God.

Scripture says that Scripture is the only revelation for Jesus Christ. Someone either believes the Scriptures, or they don't believe Jesus Christ.

One can believe the claims of the Bible without believing that God directly authored the Bible.

Of course. Plenty of unbelievers in the God of the Bible, acknowledge much of the Bible is proven factually true.

And some of those unbelievers declare parts of the Bible contradicts itself, so that the God of the Bible is not the only true God.

Are you claiming that scriptures which are written to different purposes won't sometimes refer to different details?

??? Say again?

If anyone wants to challenge any part of the Bible not being the Scriptures of Jesus Christ, then prove they contradict any Scriptures in the Bible, and they can be struck from the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Quite apart from our line of discussion, this is an argumentum ad consequentium fallacy.
In a debate, it's better to present the case for the scriptures in question than to appeal to judgement.

For the believer, presenting the 'case' of the Scriptures, is the gospel argument to repent and believe Jesus Christ is risen.

That is not the case here, where Scriptures are being presented as errant and false. Therefore, they must give examples to argue from the Bible itself.

[RBD]

I'm not sure that follows. Can something be inspired, but have a mistake introduced to it on the way to being written down? I don't claim to know.

Then why question it? And object to insisting all the books of the Bible are Scriptures of God?

I'm naturally a questioning sort. I find that refraining from questioning openly only makes the question fester. I'm sure that the truth isn't afraid of my questions, and will instead have answers for them.[/quote]
Questioning the revelation and truth of what is written, is not questioning if it is true. Questioning the spirit and intent of the law, is not questioning the law.

If anyone is questioning whether all the Scriptures of God are true or not, they simply need to acknowledge their own unbelief in the God of the Bible, and not fester around anymore about whether they believe Him or not. Doubting is unbelief to God:


Luk 24:25
Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken: Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory?
And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

Rev{3:16}
I would thou wert cold or hot. So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.

In any case, if any of the Bible is suspect, then prove any book/verse contradicts any Scriptures.

I never claimed that there were contradictions. I seem to recall that I was specifically asking POI to make the case that they were there.

No problem. Let's clarify:

Do you believe all Scriptures of God in the Bible are true? Do you believe any words of the Bible are not, or may not, be Scriptures of God?

And of course, since no words of the Bible do contradict any other words, then they are all words of God's Scriptures.

I don't see any contradictions in the Bible, but this simply does not follow.

So, all the words in the Bible are Scriptures of God. True?

That is the reason many people seek to find contradiction, in order to prove not all words are Scripture, and the Bible is not the unerring words of the perfect and true God.

I don't pretend to know the psychology of everyone who proposes a contradiction. I try to stick to evaluating whatever case they can make.

No problem. FYI there are those who only seek fault in the Bible, in order to seek fault with the God of the Bible. They are enemy disbelievers. The Lord convicts them to repent.

There are those who say they believe the Bible is from God, but also say the Bible has fault in it. They are lukewarm believers with the lips only. The Lord spues them out to repent.

No person believing in the God of the Bible, can possibly believe any words of the Bible are not true, and not from the true God: If the God of the Bible is who He says he is: The perfect and true Lord God Almighty, then He does not allow any false words not of His own, to be written in His own Book, that He calls by His name Jesus Christ.

He that doubts the Scriptures of Jesus Christ, must doubt Jesus is the risen Christ of God.

I'd agree there.

Amen brother.

Apocrypha, church traditions, Eastern Orthodox writings, etc...are not necessarily untrue, but they certainly are not Scriptures of God for salvation, justification, instruction in righteousness, and law of commandments of God by Jesus Christ. I know this, not because of any Nicene Creed, but by study. The same as I know Sola Scriptura is from Scriptures, not from any 16th century confirmation of it...

I also know any so-called Bible 'scholar' that pronounces any part of the Bible to be untrue or out of place, are false teachers that object to some Scriptures of God, and only giving lip service to others:

2 Timothy{6:20}
O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane [and] vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: Which some professing have erred concerning the faith.

[RBD]

To me, the main question is "are the central claims true". Debates about innerrancy are important, to be sure, but less important than that.

The two go hand in hand; otherwise, any of the words in detail can be dismissed as unimportant to the claim that Jesus is the true Christ of God, and risen Lord of heaven and earth.

They can definitely be said to be less important.
But no, the central claims don't depend on the details. I'd say that it is the other way around.

??? Examples?

If you mean the gospel of Jesus Christ does not depend on Magdalene having been alone at the tomb at dark, then of course not. She did not need to be there for Jesus to rise from the dead, but only to be the first to see Him alive again.

However, if you mean an error in the account of those visiting the tomb, has nothing to do with the truth of Jesus' resurrection, then you're wrong. If any of the words of the Bible are at fault, then all are not Scriptures of truth. And so, any words of the Bible can be rejected as unscriptural error, including Jesus Christ rising from the dead.

People either believe all the scriptures of God, or they don't. Even as transgressing one commandment, transgresses them all, so also rejecting one Scripture rejects them all.

I'm not convinced that being unconcerned about a particular detail amounts to "rejecting" a scripture.

Not at all. And we'll conclude such things only has to do with unbelief in words of the Bible. Not questioning what they teach.

Act 17:11
These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

All believers ought question the teaching of Scripture by study for ourselves. No believer questions the Scripture is true.

I agree, but don't yet see that inerrancy is the basis of biblical authenticity. If it were, I'd have no idea how we'd establish it as inerrant before we'd even considered its central claims.

Back to proving any verse of Scripture contradicts Scripture, so that some verses or even books, do not belong with Scripture of God.

I don't remotely see how this is what was going on. I was saying that we should first look at the central claims to see if they are true. We can't claim inerrancy before we've first decided that those claims are true.

To see if they are true?...And so, here's the separation of faith between us. Faith that is waiting to see if the Scripture is true, is not the faith of God toward His words all being true. It's the doubting of skeptics that do not yet believe:

2Co 5:7
For we walk by faith, not by sight.

Let's be clear: if you still hold doubtful reservations about whether any of the Bible is true, then we are not at all of the same faith toward the Bible God and Jesus Christ.

Your 'wait and see' faith is not faith toward Jesus Christ, but is unbelief. Even as unwilling to marry before the sex, with a wait and see trial run before the marriage...

Luk 24:25
Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken: Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory?
And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

Only then can anyone teach the 'central' claims of Scripture. The claim of Scripture, is that if any words of God are rejected, then all His 'central' words of commandment and gospel of Jesus Christ, are broken:

I don't see how.
Were the central claims of Christianity true before the Bible was written? If so, then those claims precede the details, not the other way around.

When the only record of the event is doubted, then the event must be doubted.

And if faith in the event is not according to the only record, then the faith is in a different event than the record: Any faith in any Christ, that is not according to the Scripture, is not any faith in Jesus Christ:

1 Cor 15:2
For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

Luk 24:25
Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken: Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory?
And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

The point is simple and obvious: No one can believe Jesus Christ in general, while disbelieving Him in practice.

No one was proposing otherwise. I was claiming that not every detail about who was present in which moment, might not have been recorded by every gospel writer.

??? No one is saying that every detail of the time is recorded, nor that all the same details are recorded by every writer...??

The goal of unbelievers here, is to prove error in the only recorded details, which would prove error in the recorded event.

Believing an event 'in general' but not necessarily in every detail, is certainly the case for historical events of men and women, but not for the resurrection of the only true God and Son of the Father.

Saying the details of Jesus' resurrection from the dead, are not 'as important' as the event, is saying the event of His resurrection, is no more important than other events of men and women on earth...

The true God of the Bible ensures ever detail is perfectly true, in order to ensure every reader can believe and trust, that His Son is Jesus Christ, and is indeed risen from the dead, with all-power to save eternal souls from death, and justify men and women with God forever.

Heb 3:14
For we are made partakers of Christ, if we hold the beginning of our confidence stedfast unto the end;


The beginning of our confidence in Jesus Christ can only be His written gospel according to the Scriptures. If our confidence is not in the only record of His resurrection in the beginning, then neither can it be in the end:

1 Cor 15:2
For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

The Scriptures of Jesus' death, burial, and resurrection, are not the only Scriptures important to His gospel.

I have no idea how that is "disbelieving him in practice".

Doing God's words must begin with the practice of believing all His words are true. And if any words of the Bible are not the true God's words, then any part of the Bible can be dismissed as not true of God, including Jesus Christ risen from the dead...

Faith in the all the Scriptures is all important faith in any words of the Bible. If any part of the Bible is false, then any part of the Bible can be false.

[Jester]

[Replying to RBD in post #44-46]

Sola Scriptura was developed in the sixteenth century, and does not claim that God is the direct author of the Bible.

Sola Scriptura was long before Muhammed, who was long before 16th century.

That is simply untrue. The Christian scriptures were written before the birth of Muhammed, but the doctrine of sola scriptura emerged as part of the Protestant reformation in the sixteenth century.

One can believe the claims of the Bible without believing that God directly authored the Bible.

Of course. Plenty of unbelievers in the God of the Bible, acknowledge much of the Bible is proven factually true.

That isn't remotely what I was saying. The traditional Christian view is that scripture is inspired by God, but authored by the people who wrote the original manuscripts.

It seems that, in the view you're presenting here, over 99% of people who go to church, profess faith in Jesus, and serve as missionaries are "unbelievers in the God of the Bible".

Are you claiming that scriptures which are written to different purposes won't sometimes refer to different details?

??? Say again?

This was the entire point I was making. Each book in the Bible is written for a somewhat different purpose—that is why we need all of them.
Because they are written for a different purpose, they will include different details.
That is to say that they won't all have exactly the same details.

But, my saying this somehow convinced you that I don't believe in scripture. I honestly have no idea why.

So, I'm now asking: are you trying to make the case that all the books of the Bible will include all the same details, and that anyone who believes in scripture will claim that they include all the same details?

That seems very strange to me, but that's the only way I can make sense of why you're declaring that my earlier claim amounts to not believing in scripture.

Quite apart from our line of discussion, this is an argumentum ad consequentium fallacy.
In a debate, it's better to present the case for the scriptures in question than to appeal to judgement.

For the believer, presenting the 'case' of the Scriptures, is the gospel argument to repent and believe Jesus Christ is risen.

That is simply untrue. Paul of Tarsus specifically tailored his message to his audience (as in the Mars Hill presentation).

Or are we claiming that Paul also didn't believe in scripture?

If anyone is questioning whether all the Scriptures of God are true or not, they simply need to acknowledge their own unbelief in the God of the Bible, and not fester around anymore about whether they believe Him or not. Doubting is unbelief to God:

So, if a Christian is experiencing a time of doubt, your advice to that person is not to acknowledge that while trying to hang on to belief—and instead simply declare themselves apostate?

You seem eager to remove as many people as possible from the Christian religion. Why is that?

And of course, since no words of the Bible do contradict any other words, then they are all words of God's Scriptures.

I don't see any contradictions in the Bible, but this simply does not follow.

So, all the words in the Bible are Scriptures of God. True?

I was saying that this logic does not follow. I think we can at least agree that the words you type into your comments are not automatically scripture. We can't just defend everything you say as divinely inspired, which means that you need to actually make a logical case.

I don't pretend to know the psychology of everyone who proposes a contradiction. I try to stick to evaluating whatever case they can make.

No problem. FYI there are those who only seek fault in the Bible, in order to seek fault with the God of the Bible. They are enemy disbelievers. The Lord convicts them to repent.[/quote]
I'm sure there are. I'm sure there are also genuine questioners. It is not my job to figure out which category a given person fits. Rather, I stick to evaluating their claims as best I can.

If you mean the gospel of Jesus Christ does not depend on Magdalene having been alone at the tomb at dark, then of course not. She did not need to be there for Jesus to rise from the dead, but only to be the first to see Him alive again.

However, if you mean an error in the account of those visiting the tomb, has nothing to do with the truth of Jesus' resurrection, then you're wrong. If any of the words of the Bible are at fault, then all are not Scriptures of truth. And so, any words of the Bible can be rejected as unscriptural error, including Jesus Christ rising from the dead.

I mean that I'm not claiming that there is an error, but I am claiming that an error in the reporting wouldn't change the central fact. I'm more interested in the events that scriptures report than the reports themselves.

No believer questions the Scripture is true.

Many believers question their beliefs from time to time. That doesn't mean they reject them.

I don't remotely see how this is what was going on. I was saying that we should first look at the central claims to see if they are true. We can't claim inerrancy before we've first decided that those claims are true.

To see if they are true?...And so, here's the separation of faith between us. Faith that is waiting to see if the Scripture is true, is not the faith of God toward His words all being true.

I didn't literally mean "wait and see". I meant that one has to decide about the central claims before one can decide about inerrancy.

Let's be clear: if you still hold doubtful reservations about whether any of the Bible is true, then we are not at all of the same faith toward the Bible God and Jesus Christ.

So says some people, but I see no such claim from God.
I'm reminded of Mark 9:23-25, where Jesus refuses to turn away a man who answers his call to belief with "I believe. Help my unbelief." He certainly didn't demand that the man strip himself of all doubt before accepting him.

Were the central claims of Christianity true before the Bible was written? If so, then those claims precede the details, not the other way around.

When the only record of the event is doubted, then the event must be doubted.

Even then, it is the claim and the event that matters. The record is important as it relates to the event—not the other way around.

The point is simple and obvious: No one can believe Jesus Christ in general, while disbelieving Him in practice.

No one was proposing otherwise. I was claiming that not every detail about who was present in which moment, might not have been recorded by every gospel writer.

??? No one is saying that every detail of the time is recorded, nor that all the same details are recorded by every writer...??

Then I'm not sure why all the disagreement. That was all I was saying to POI.

Believing an event 'in general' but not necessarily in every detail, is certainly the case for historical events of men and women, but not for the resurrection of the only true God and Son of the Father.

I've met people in Asia who have very little access to scripture. They lack a lot of knowledge of the details. Are they not genuine Christians?

The Scriptures of Jesus' death, burial, and resurrection, are not the only Scriptures important to His gospel.

No one claimed otherwise.

Doing God's words must begin with the practice of believing all His words are true.

There are people in the Bible who began elsewhere.

And if any words of the Bible are not the true God's words, then any part of the Bible can be dismissed as not true of God, including Jesus Christ risen from the dead...

This seems to betray a low trust in the ability of God to bring people to grace in surprising ways.

In general, we need to be less strict about how we assume God works. If we aren't careful, we can slip into speaking for God when we should be silent.

[RBD]

,
You study the Scriptures diligently because you think that in them you have eternal life. These are the very Scriptures that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to me to have lifeHRefrain from fulfilling what Jesus said in the shaded text in bold.

Exactly. Anyone refusing to come to Jesus Christ through the Scriptures, is refusing to come to Jesus Christ of the Scriptures.

Anyone seeking a Christ apart from the Scriptures, is not finding Jesus Christ.

Anyone seeking Christ through anything [be it the Bible or any other scriptures] is definitely not finding the real and forever living Christ Jesus since the Lord Jesus is not the Bible.'[/color][/i]

Jesus is not a Unitarian.

[RBD]

The Christian scriptures were written before the birth of Muhammed, but the doctrine of sola scriptura emerged as part of the Protestant reformation in the sixteenth century.

Scripture establishes Sola Scriptura long before men agree in the 16th century. The same as Scripture establishes the Godhead of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost long before men agree in the 4th century.

I only teach from Scripture, not from traditions of men.

Act 17:11
These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

Sola Scriptura is not due to men teaching it, but due to Scripture declaring it.

That isn't remotely what I was saying. The traditional Christian view is that scripture is inspired by God, but authored by the people who wrote the original manuscripts.

Right. Your Christian tradition says so.

Col 2:8
Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

Scripture says that God is the Author and the Writer, and His prophets and apostles are only pens His Hand:

Psa 45:1
My heart is inditing a good matter: I speak of the things which I have made touching the king: my tongue is the pen of a ready writer.

Num 16:28
And Moses said, Hereby ye shall know that the LORD hath sent me to do all these works; for I have not done them of mine own mind.

Men's tradition that the writings were only from men, is why men doubt all the writings are perfectly true from God. The inspiration of God is perfect light, not uncertain surmising of men.

This was the entire point I was making. Each book in the Bible is written for a somewhat different purpose—that is why we need all of them.
Because they are written for a different purpose, they will include different details.
That is to say that they won't all have exactly the same details.

Once again, you're in the wrong place here. It's not about the obvious, that there are many things recorded in the Bible, and not all in the same books.

This is where unbelievers come to accuse the Bible of details that contradict themselves.

For the believer, presenting the 'case' of the Scriptures, is the gospel argument to repent and believe Jesus Christ is risen.

That is simply untrue. Paul of Tarsus specifically tailored his message to his audience (as in the Mars Hill presentation).

On Mar's hill, Paul preached the gospel of repentance and Jesus Christ risen from the dead:

Act 17:18
Then certain philosophers of the Epicureans, and of the Stoicks, encountered him. And some said, What will this babbler say? other some, He seemeth to be a setter forth of strange gods: because he preached unto them Jesus, and the resurrection.

Acts 17:30
And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:

Act 17:31
Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.

So, if a Christian is experiencing a time of doubt, your advice to that person is not to acknowledge that while trying to hang on to belief—and instead simply declare themselves apostate?

Doubting any words of the Bible is Christian unbelief, the same as non-Christian unbelief.

Doubting what the Scriptures reveal and teach is Christian Bible study.

You seem eager to remove as many people as possible from the Christian religion. Why is that?

If Christian religion is doubting any words of the Bible, then Christian religion needs to be removed from Bible faith and teaching, including their false Christian teachers...

So, all the words in the Bible are Scriptures of God. True?

I was saying that this logic does not follow. I think we can at least agree that the words you type into your comments are not automatically scripture.

Other than when quoting Scripture, true.

So, all the words in the Bible are Scriptures of God. True?

I mean that I'm not claiming that there is an error, but I am claiming that an error in the reporting wouldn't change the central fact.

But if there is error, is not a claim against error. Faith toward the God of the Bible is not with exceptions.

I'm more interested in the events that scriptures report than the reports themselves.

Nonsensical.

No believer questions the Scripture is true.

Many believers question their beliefs from time to time. That doesn't mean they reject them.

Many religious Christians doubt their own faith. All Christian saints stand by their faith.

Heb 10:38
Now the just shall live by faith: but if any man draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him.

Many claim faith in the Bible, but doubt the Bible is all true. All doers of the word know all the Bible is true.

James{1:22}
But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves.

The simple difference between doubtful believers and sure believers, is doing the word, vs only hearing.

Jhn 7:17
If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.

The simple difference between doing the word and hearing only, is those who repent to believe, and those who wait to believe.

I didn't literally mean "wait and see". I meant that one has to decide about the central claims before one can decide about inerrancy.

No once can decide to believe the event, without first deciding to believe the record of the event.

Deciding if the event is true or not, is not faith in the true record of God:

1Jo 5:10
He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son.

Anyone still deciding whether the Bible record is true or not, is not someone having the witness of the Spirit, who assures us all the Bible record is true.

I'm reminded of Mark 9:23-25, where Jesus refuses to turn away a man who answers his call to belief with "I believe. Help my unbelief." He certainly didn't demand that the man strip himself of all doubt before accepting him.

He had doubts about the miraculous works of God, not about God Himself.

Mar 9:23
Jesus said unto him, If thou canst believe, all things are possible to him that believeth. And straightway the father of the child cried out, and said with tears, Lord, I believe; help thou mine unbelief.

Christians doubting miracles in their own life, is not doubting Jesus Christ is the truth in our own life:

Jhn 14:4
And whither I go ye know, and the way ye know. Thomas saith unto him, Lord, we know not whither thou goest; and how can we know the way? Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also:

I've met people in Asia who have very little access to scripture. They lack a lot of knowledge of the details. Are they not genuine Christians?

If you met them, why did they not then have access to the Bible?

Christian believers without access to the Bible, are not Christians doubting the Bible.

All Christian believers need the Bible, and do not need Christian doubters of the Bible.

Doing God's words must begin with the practice of believing all His words are true.

There are people in the Bible who began elsewhere.

All sinners begin elsewhere without God. No one begins with God, without first believing all His words are true.

No one is with God nor learns of God, by doubting any of His words are true.


Acts 3:19
Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord; And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you:

No one that has Jesus Christ, can possibly doubt any of the words of His own Book.

This seems to betray a low trust in the ability of God to bring people to grace in surprising ways.

This says God's grace is by any other way than Jesus Christ's own words. Not surprising they're all false ways and Christs:

Jhn 10:1
Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber. But he that entereth in by the door is the shepherd of the sheep.

All the words of the Shepherd are His door. Faith in general, and not in detail, is faith in a Christ in general, not in Jesus Christ Himself.

In general, we need to be less strict about how we assume God works. If we aren't careful, we can slip into speaking for God when we should be silent.

Tell me about it...Such as those who presume to speak for God in general, but not in detail.

And so, I've given many Scriptures to speak for God and Jesus Christ by His own words in detail. You've given much traditional generalizations without a single Scripture, when trying to make any of God's words less important to believe on Him.

[OneJack]

,
You study the Scriptures diligently because you think that in them you have eternal life. These are the very Scriptures that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to me to have lifeHRefrain from fulfilling what Jesus said in the shaded text in bold.

Exactly. Anyone refusing to come to Jesus Christ through the Scriptures, is refusing to come to Jesus Christ of the Scriptures.

Anyone seeking a Christ apart from the Scriptures, is not finding Jesus Christ.

Anyone seeking Christ through anything [be it the Bible or any other scriptures] is definitely not finding the real and forever living Christ Jesus since the Lord Jesus is not the Bible.'[/color][/i]

Jesus is not a Unitarian.

What is Jesus then, and how did you know that?