If the gospels cannot be shown to be accurate . . .

[Zzyzx]

.
If (since) the gospels cannot be shown to be accurate . . .

From a current thread:

I’m not interesting in proclaiming the Gospels are a 100% accurate and precise account of Christ’s ministry on Earth since I can’t prove they were.

Since the Gospels cannot be shown to be truthful and accurate, would it be wise to “take them with a grain of salt� (or a boatload)?

Why regard them as truthful and accurate if they cannot be shown to be so?

Wishful thinking? Desire to believe? Indoctrination?

[polonius]

Don't know if they're false either. Proof of contradiction indicates the not all the accounts are true.

#1 – You have a novel interpretation of contradiction and discrepancy as defined by Merriam-Webster and Oxford. #2 – An “incomplete� account that leaves out some details doesn’t mean that there’s a contradiction in accounts. Leaving out an animal in the entry of Jerusalem is an example.

For Herod and Quirinius – an obvious error was made; hwoever, the fact that two historical people that were contemporarites are mentioned doesn’t decrease the authority for me.

Was Jesus crucified on the day before Passover (John) or on Passover (Matthew, Mark, Luke)?

The Passover is celebrated over several days, Dude, and the failure of prophecies to be fulfilled presupposes a canonical OT. We already know that there was no Jewish canon as such in Christ’s time.

RESPONSE: The Passover supper is only eaten once on the eve of the Passover. According to John, Jesus was already dead. Also note that there is no mention of the institution of the Eucharist in John's gospel. According to the other three Gospels, that took place at the Passover meal. Hence it's institution is absent in John's account which reported the Last Supper to be on the eve of the Day of Preparation for the Passover not the Passover supper.

[JLB32168]

But the Passover meal is only eaten once on the eve of the Passover.

Okay – and this is important to a non-inerrantist because . . .

[polonius]

JLB posted:

polonius.advice wrote:
But the Passover meal is only eaten once on the eve of the Passover.

Okay – and this is important to a non-inerrantist because . . .

RESPONSE: Matthew's, Mark's, and Luke's gospels report that Jesus shared the Passover meal with his apostles at which Jesus instituted the Eucharist

On the other hand, John's gospel has the Last Supper occurring on the Day before, the Day of Preparation.

Hence we can demonstrate yet another contradiction an historical error in supposedly divinely inspired scripture.

[JLB32168]

Hence we can demonstrate yet another contradiction an historical error in supposedly divinely inspired scripture.

Okay – and this is important to a non-inerrantist because . . .

I’m still waiting on an answer.

[polonius]

Hence we can demonstrate yet another contradiction an historical error in supposedly divinely inspired scripture.

Okay – and this is important to a non-inerrantist because . . .

I’m still waiting on an answer.

RESPONSE: Please read the previous message.

And here's yet another error, perhaps a contradction.

Matt 27:9-10 “Then was fulfilled what had been said through Jeremiah the prophet,* “And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the value of a man with a price on his head, a price set by some of the Israelites,10d and they paid it out for the potter’s field just as the Lord had commanded me.�


[27:9–10] Cf. Mt 26:15. Matthew’s attributing this text to Jeremiah (c. 626 BC) is puzzling, for there is no such text in that book, and the thirty pieces of silver thrown by Judas “into the temple� (Mt 27:5) recall rather Zec 11:12–13. [New American Bible Revised Edition]

Zec 11:12-13 Then I said to them, “If it seems good to you, give me my wages; but if not, withhold them.�c And they counted out my wages,d thirty pieces of silver. 13 Then the LORD said to me, Throw it in the treasury—the handsome price at which they valued me. So I took the thirty pieces of silver and threw them into the treasury in the house of the LORD.

Note:

Coinage had long replaced “pieces of silver’ by Jesus’ day. The two coins in use were the Roman denarius and the Jewish shekel.

Zec 11 describes a wage dispute not the price of a betrayal.

This is yet another of the errors in supposedly inspired scripture.

Also:

JLB

Okay – and this is important to a non-inerrantist because . . .

Can't a "non-inerrantist" accept or reject pretty much any scripture he disagrees with?

[JLB32168]

And here's yet another error, perhaps a contradiction.

Is there any reason you’re not using “discrepancy� – since the terms are equivalent? . . . but I digress.

Can't a "non-inerrantist" accept or reject pretty much any scripture he disagrees with?

A non-inerrantist is obliged to abide by those things that his/her church has dogmatized. Everything else is a theological opinion. If s/he wishes to reject dogmatized things then s/he ceases to be identified with his/her Church since she’s the rule-maker.

[polonius]

JLB posted:

A non-inerrantist is obliged to abide by those things that his/her church has dogmatized. Everything else is a theological opinion. If s/he wishes to reject dogmatized things then s/he ceases to be identified with his/her Church since she’s the rule-maker.

RESPONSE: So if a “church� accepts a “theological opinion,� it’s then “dogmatized� and one has to believe it?

Thus a church is the “rule maker�? And one gets to pick what rule maker they want without examining the evidence for that decision and then deciding for themselves?

“It is true that there are some additional books (such as 3 & 4 Maccabees) which are commonly (but not necessarily formally) found in modern, published Eastern Orthodox Old Testaments. Now, I make this distinction between "commonly" and "formally" because the simple reality is that the modern Eastern Orthodox Church does not possess a formal, universally-approved Biblical canon. Rather, there is some confusion among Eastern Orthodox as to which books properly constitute the canon of the Bible.�

http://catholicbridge.com/orthodox/why_ ... tholic.php

So do the different Orthodox churches have different dogmas? And one can join the one he likes best?

[JLB32168]

So if a “church� accepts a “theological opinion,� it’s then “dogmatized� and one has to believe it?

Assuming that the Church’s opinions are defined by God (which if they’re not then all bets are off) then yes, one must accept the Church’s/God’s opinion since God is the rule maker. The only time that the Orthodox Church dogmatizes things is when there is a soteriological motive for it.

“Rather, there is some confusion among Eastern Orthodox as to which books properly constitute the canon of the Bible.�

Okay so your RC author finds the EOC’s treatment of Deuterocanonical/Apocryphal books to be an issue of confusion. Since there is no issue of salvation with the books in question and they don’t change doctrine/dogma one iota then the EOC sees no reason to put much energy into addressing them. It has addressed other books such as “the Acts of Pilate� and stuff like that but there’s nothing harmful in Psalm 151 or 3 & 4 Macc., so why get neurotic over it.

[polonius]

So if a “church� accepts a “theological opinion,� it’s then “dogmatized� and one has to believe it?

Assuming that the Church’s opinions are defined by God (which if they’re not then all bets are off) then yes, one must accept the Church’s/God’s opinion since God is the rule maker. The only time that the Orthodox Church dogmatizes things is when there is a soteriological motive for it.

“Rather, there is some confusion among Eastern Orthodox as to which books properly constitute the canon of the Bible.�

Okay so your RC author finds the EOC’s treatment of Deuterocanonical/Apocryphal books to be an issue of confusion. Since there is no issue of salvation with the books in question and they don’t change doctrine/dogma one iota then the EOC sees no reason to put much energy into addressing them. It has addressed other books such as “the Acts of Pilate� and stuff like that but there’s nothing harmful in Psalm 151 or 3 & 4 Macc., so why get neurotic over it.

RESPONSE:

Definition of soteriology
- theology dealing with salvation especially as effected by Jesus Christ.

New Revised Standard Version: Book of Jude 14-15

"14 It was also about these that Enoch, in the seventh generation from Adam, prophesied, saying, “See, the Lord is coming[m] with ten thousands of his holy ones, 15 to execute judgment on all, and to convict everyone of all the deeds of ungodliness that they have committed in such an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things that ungodly sinners have spoken against him.�

Thus, Enoch appears to be quoted as fact in the Bible.

Of note:

“The Orthodox Church is a communion of 14 autocephalous (that is, administratively completely independent) regional churches,[2] plus the Orthodox Church in America, which is recognized as autocephalous only by the Russian, Bulgarian, Georgian, Polish, the Czech-Slovak churches. Each has defined geographical boundaries of its jurisdiction and is ruled by its Council of Bishops or Synod presided by a senior bishop – its Primate (or First Hierarch). The Primate may carry the honorary title of Patriarch, Metropolitan (in the Slavic tradition) or Archbishop (in the Greek tradition).�

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_O ... _communion


Merriam Webster defines “dogma’ thus:

Simple Definition of DOGMA: a belief or set of beliefs that is accepted by the members of a group without being questioned or doubted, a belief or set of beliefs that is taught by a religious organization

Doesn't some "dogma" differ among Orthodox Churches? An example is the canonicity of the Book of Enoch.

“The Book of Enoch (also 1 Enoch;[1] Ge'ez: መጽ�� ሄኖክ mätṣḥäfä henok) is an ancient Jewish religious work, ascribed by tradition to Enoch, the great-grandfather of Noah, although modern scholars estimate the older sections (mainly in the Book of the Watchers) to date from about 300 BC, and the latest part (Book of Parables) probably to the first century BC.[2]

By the 4th century, the Book of Enoch was mostly excluded from Christian canons, and it is now regarded as scripture by only the Ethiopian Orthodox Church and the Eritrean Orthodox Church.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Enoch#Judaism


In this case:

".. it (Book of Enoch) is now regarded as scripture by only the Ethiopian Orthodox Church and the Eritrean Orthodox Church.

The acceptance of “dogma� of the Book of Enoch is not accepted by all Orthodox churches. Just some. Evidently "dogma" varies.