A curious problem, and a curious solution

[polonius]

Fundamentalists use interesting reasoning when arguing that the the New Testament is "God breathed" and thus proof for any point and cannot be in error.

When a strongly suspected error is identified, they can claim that only the original autographs (original editions) are completely true. If an error is found it must have been introduced by a later copyist.

However, to so argue, one has to concede that one cannot prove any scripture is an autograph and not a copy and therefore subject to error.

Thus fundamentalists cannot credibly establish that a scriptural passage which they quote is infallible proof of their point.

[ElCodeMonkey]

[Replying to post 1 by polonius]

I don't think they ever brush off an entire verse as wrong or suspect. There may be small detail errors in their minds, but the overall concept is still perfect. Otherwise, they'd have to allow for all verses to be suspect at all times (which I still argue is the better disposition to hold).

[bjs]

Fundamentalists use interesting reasoning when arguing that the the New Testament is "God breathed" and thus proof for any point and cannot be in error.

When a strongly suspected error is identified, they can claim that only the original autographs (original editions) are completely true. If an error is found it must have been introduced by a later copyist.

Who makes this argument? I have never heard it come from any self-described fundamentalist

[polonius]

RESPONSE:

OK. Let’s begin at the beginning, and since it’s getting near Christmas, let’s use as examples the Nativity Narratives, in both Matthew and Luke, chapters 1 and 2. And compare them. Keep in mind these are “God breathed� and hence can have no contradictions or errors.

1. Two completely different genealogies for Joseph.

2. Luke places the date Jesus’ birth ten years later than Matthew. (4 BC vs 6 A.D.) .See the death of Herod and Judean 6 AD census.

3. Matthew has no birth in a manger story. Luke says they were living in Nazareth and traveling to Bethlehem for a census and Jesus was born in a manger.)

4. Matthew says that Jesus’ family fled to Egypt after the birth and moved to Nazareth only after the death of Herod. Luke says they were living in Nazareth, not Egypt, and returned there immediately after Jesus was circumcised,

5. Luke know nothing of Herod’s slaughter of the Innocents or a flight to Egypt. In fact, by Luke’s chronology, Herod was already dead when Jesus was born.

ElCodeMonkey says:

[/quote]
I don't think they ever brush off an entire verse as wrong or suspect. There may be small detail errors in their minds, but the overall concept is still perfect. Otherwise, they'd have to allow for all verses to be suspect at all times (which I still argue is the better disposition to hold). [/quote].

RESPONSE: "small detain errors" you say?????

"Otherwise, they'd have to allow for all verses to be suspect at all times " Now you understand!

[ElCodeMonkey]

[Replying to post 4 by polonius]

There are ways to make it all jive with the travel and the point in exact time that each thing was stated. They can ALL be true facts given time slices. The geneologies are Joseph's for one and Mary's for the other. You can argue that lineage is always the fathers, but Jesus' case is unique since Joseph isn't the biological father. So one saw Josephs's as pertinent while the other saw Mary's as pertinent.

I don't care to find the workarounds for the rest, but a quick note that "not saying" something isn't the same as "claiming it didn't happen." I'll let someone else argue the workarounds if they know them offhand or care to look them up since I obviously don't buy them myself .

[polonius]

[Replying to post 4 by polonius]

There are ways to make it all jive with the travel and the point in exact time that each thing was stated. They can ALL be true facts given time slices. The geneologies are Joseph's for one and Mary's for the other. You can argue that lineage is always the fathers, but Jesus' case is unique since Joseph isn't the biological father. So one saw Josephs's as pertinent while the other saw Mary's as pertinent.

I don't care to find the workarounds for the rest, but a quick note that "not saying" something isn't the same as "claiming it didn't happen." I'll let someone else argue the workarounds if they know them offhand or care to look them up since I obviously don't buy them myself .

RESPONSE: Trying to avoid the facts might only work with someone who does not know the facts.

Matthew, who reported Jesus birth claimed it was during the life of King Herod who died 4 BC. His son inherited Judea from his estate. In 6 AD the Roman Quirinius, expells Herod's son and Judea under direct Roman control.

Luke, who also reported the birth of Jesus, claimed it was during the 6 AD Roman census of Judea conducted by Quirinius when he assumed power, the newly appointed Roman governor of Judea.

Claiming a "walk around" does excuse these scriptures being in error which conflicts with their "God breathed" status.

But you hit upon an interesting problem. Joseph was of Davidic descent but supposedly wasn't Jesus' biological father. Luke tells us the Mary was a "cousin" of Elizabeth who was "a child of Aaron." If true, doesn't this mean that Jesus too was a "child of Aaron" and not Davidic. Where did Jesus get his Davidic blood? And where did he get a Y chromosome for maleness?

[brianbbs67]

[Replying to post 6 by polonius]

Christ gets his Davidic line thru his "adoptive" father. In Hebrew culture, once adopted, you were of that line. And without limiting God, Could He have not put David's DNA into Yeshua?

[polonius]

[Replying to post 6 by polonius]

Christ gets his Davidic line thru his "adoptive" father. In Hebrew culture, once adopted, you were of that line. And without limiting God, Could He have not put David's DNA into Yeshua?

RESPONSE:

This claim is untrue but attempted by some fundamentalists.

"King David". Jewishvirtuallibrary.org. Retrieved 2 January2015.

While the adopted child may be permitted to take on the name of the assuming family, according to Jewish law the child is hereditarily tied to his (or her) biological parents. If the child’s biological father is a Cohen or Levi by Jewish tradition, and the child is a boy, so too must he accept these priestly customs.

"King David". Jewishvirtuallibrary.org. Retrieved 2 January2015.

If he was adopted, they argue, based on a distinction between full-blooded Jews and half-blooded Jews in the scripture,(Numbers 1:18-44, 34:14; Leviticus 24:10) under Jewish law certain family and tribal affiliations must be through the birth father and cannot be claimed by adoption.[22]

Moreover, Jews argue that the Messiah must descend through David's son Solomon (2 Sam 7:12-16, Psalm 89:28-38, 1 Chronicles 17:11-14, 22:9-10, 28:6-7). Luke's genealogy of Joseph is traced back to David through his son Nathan (who was not a king). They argue this eliminates Jesus' genealogy in Luke. In addition, to presume that Mary was of Davidic descent in Luke presents the problem that Mary could not pass on what she did not possess: (1) Maternal connection does not enter into consideration for succession to the [b]throne of David which is passed on only through a continuous male line[/b]: "There shall not be cut off from David a man to sit upon the throne of the house of Israel" (Jeremiah 33:17); (2)

Biblically, the right of lineal privilege, that is, kingship and priesthood, are exclusively passed on through the male line.[23] Matthew's genealogy of Joseph is traced back to David through his son Solomon, but ultimately down to the cursed Jeconiah, son of Jehoiakim who was also cursed in Jeremiah 36:30. Jeconiah was told that none of his descendants could ever sit on the throne of David.(Jeremiah 22:30) Jews thus argue the Messiah must descend from King Solomon but not from King Jeconiah. Jews point out that Jeconiah's grandson, Zerubbabel, held power granted by God, though he was never king.[20] Jews argue that on top of Nathan not being king, Luke 3:27 includes Shealtiel and Zerubbabel, both of whom are descendants of the cursed Jeconiah in Matthew 1:12.

This is part of the reason Jews give for rejecting Jesus as the promised future descendant of David who would once again rule over Israel.[24]





[/u]

[polonius]

Fundamentalists use interesting reasoning when arguing that the the New Testament is "God breathed" and thus proof for any point and cannot be in error.

When a strongly suspected error is identified, they can claim that only the original autographs (original editions) are completely true. If an error is found it must have been introduced by a later copyist.

Who makes this argument? I have never heard it come from any self-described fundamentalist

QUESTION:

What about an undercover fundamentalist?

Do you think some of those posting on this website may be?

[polonius]

“John 12:1 states that he was in Bethany six days before the passover. In the synoptic gospels, Jesus sends two disciples ahead to the village over against them in order to retrieve a donkey (or, in Matthew, two animals: a donkey and a colt) that had been tied up but never ridden, and if questioned, to say that the donkey was needed by the Lord (or Master) but would be returned.[1][2][3]

“Jesus then rode the donkey into Jerusalem, with the three Synoptic gospels stating that the disciples had first put their cloaks on it (presumably to make it more comfortable). Matthew 21:7 maintains that the disciples laid their cloaks on both animals: they brought the donkey and the colt, laid their clothes on them, and set Him (or he sat) on them�

“Say to daughter Zion,
‘Behold, your king comes to you,
meek and riding on an ass,
and on a colt, the foal of a beast of burden.’�

The New American Bible admits:

“ The ass and the colt are the same animal in the prophecy, mentioned twice in different ways, the common Hebrew literary device of poetic parallelism. That Matthew takes them as two is one of the reasons why some scholars think that he was a Gentile rather than a Jewish Christian who would presumably not make that mistake�
So there is no word “and� in the prophecy. Matthew wanted another “prophecy� fulfilled but Matthew made (or God breathed) a mistake.