How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?

[otseng]

From the On the Bible being inerrant thread:

How can you trust something that's written about god that contradictory, contains errors and just plain wrong at times? Is there a logical way to do so, or do you just want it to be god's word so much that you overlook these things like happens so often through the history of christianity?

The Bible can still be God's word, inspired, authoritative, and trustworthy without the need to believe in inerrancy.

For debate:
How can the Bible be considered authoritative and inspired without the need to believe in the doctrine of inerrancy?

While debating, do not simply state verses to say the Bible is inspired or trustworthy.

----------

Thread Milestones

• Case study of Hezekiah
• Start discussing global flood / Flood Model summary
• Recap arguments of authority of the Bible
• Start discussing Tower of Babel / Tower of Babel summary
• Start discussing archaeology / Philosophy of science / Origin of alphabet / End of discussion on archaeology
• Start discussing cosmology / Concluding cosmology
• Start discussing Shroud of Turin / Summary top TS imaging theories / Created DefendingChristianity.com and TS subforums / Shroud of Turin summary
• Start discussing Bible and resurrection
• Start discussing the Messiahship of Jesus / Messiahship of Jesus wrap up
• Start discussing Old Testament ethics
• Summary argument of atheism and morality / God basis for objective morality
• Start discussing genocide / Genocide summary argument
• Start discussing slavery / Slavery summary argument
• Start discussing homosexuality / Homosexuality summary argument
• Old Testament ethics summary argument
• Start discussing philosophy / Summary argument on philosophy
• Start discussing creation of universe / Summary argument universe was created

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to otseng in post #2934

Since there were differences of interpretation between the Shammai and Hillel, why should it be unusual for another rabbi, Jesus, to have another interpretation?

All well and good----if you recognize Jesus as just another rabbi.

[oldbadger]

Evidence please that Jesus survived the scourging, crucifixion, and burial and did not die. With the evidence of the TS and the Bible, it is clear he had died.

But he did survive. His friends even saw him again. He was taken from that rock vault within hours of being taken there. Magdalene found that he had gone on Sunday morning. Claims that he did die are just that......... claims.

The Cornish people have held that Jesus reached Cornwall with Joseph of Arimathea, they also claim that he founded the first church here upon Glastonbury Tor. As I said before, we used to sing a hymn about this.

[otseng]

Let me see if I understand you correct I am not allowed to come with another and better source than the Bible? May I talk about the book Toward the Light and quote from it?

Here's what wikipedia says about Toward the Light:

Toward the Light (in Danish, Vandrer mod Lyset!) was first published in Copenhagen, Denmark in 1920 by the Danish author Michael Agerskov. The content of the book is said to have been received through intuitive thought-inspiration from the transcendental world by Michael Agerskov's wife, Johanne Agerskov, who was an intermediary.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toward_the_Light

A source based on "intuitive thought-inspiration from the transcendental world" would not be considered a credible source anymore than someone coming here and saying they have direct revelation from God.

What if people want to read the book? May I then link to the site where they can download the book?

How about this? Create a thread in Non-Christian Religions and Philosophies to debate why Toward the Light should be accepted as a source better than the Bible.

[otseng]

The Catholic Church, which has a vested interest in the Turin cloth being genuine, doesn't place as much stock in the "evidence" as you do.

Your statement contradicts itself. If they have a vested interest in it being genuine, then they must believe it is genuine. But then you say they don't place much stock in the evidence for it being genuine. On what basis do they believe it's genuine if they don't place much stock in the evidence?

And why would the RCC have a vested interest in it being genuine, or even not genuine? I would dare say most Catholics, esp those under 40, know very little, if anything, about the TS. A few weeks ago I went to a Catholic monastery which has a large book store hoping to buy some books on the shroud and they had none. Why would the church care either way if most don't even know much about it?

I'm referring to Deuteronomy 4:2.

Here's the passage:
Deut 4:1-2 (KJV)
1 Now therefore hearken, O Israel, unto the statutes and unto the judgments, which I teach you, for to do [them], that ye may live, and go in and possess the land which the LORD God of your fathers giveth you.
2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish [aught] from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.

Torah is not mentioned in this passage. So, technically the passage does not refer to the Torah.

But let's run with your argument of Moses giving the commandments and Jesus (as well as others) adding to the commandments. I think there's at least two ways to approach this passage and its application.

One would be a highly literalistic approach and nobody can add any words, interpretations, or expansions to the commandments. However, not even the Jews do this. They can't even say the name of God. Where did Moses command people not to say the name of God? Instead, it is an expansion of the commandment to not to take the Lord's name in vain. So to prevent any possibility of not taking his name in vain, no Jew is allowed to even say it. And of course Christians as well do not take the commandments literally. Few Christians practice resting on the Sabbath. And nobody is practicing the sacrificial system.

Another approach is a more dynamic method and there can be interpretations that do not take the commandments absolutely literally. I would argue this is how everyone (Jews and Christians) who accepts the scriptures as authoritative view the commandments.

If one wants to even take a more hyper literal approach, one can even argue Moses was contradicting himself. The commandments are really the 10 commandments on the two tablets of stone.

Deu 4:13 (KJV)
And he declared unto you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform, even ten commandments; and he wrote them upon two tables of stone.

Then he added many more laws in addition to these 10 commandments.

Jesus himself didn't literally follow the commandments either. The religious leaders accused him many times of breaking the Sabbath.

Mar 2:24
And the Pharisees said unto him, Behold, why do they on the sabbath day that which is not lawful?

Jesus replied by saying we should follow the spirit of the law, not the letter of the law.

Mar 2:27
And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath:

I think we can even interpret this as "the law was made for man, and not man for the law".

Then was Muhammed "expanding the Torah"? Was Joseph Smith "expanding the Torah"?

Yes, they do claim to present their own scriptures as authoritative and adding to the Bible.

The Torah, prophets and writings together are the Tanakh, but the Torah (law) is still the Torah.

Yes, Torah is the Torah. But as I argued, the Torah is much more than "law".

Jesus isn't just "expanding"; he's contradicting. And he isn't just contradicting Moses; he's contradicting himself. He says that every jot and tittle of the law is still in effect and then disregards the jots and tittles commanding that nothing be added to the law.

If one takes a hyper literal approach to the Bible, perhaps so. But, nobody is really in that camp.

Jesus contradicts himself again in Matthew 22:37-40....

Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

If that last statement is true, then Jesus had no legitimate criticism of their practice of giving their wives bills of divorce as Moses directed.

Don't really follow your argument. Yes, all the laws hang on the top two commandments. Jesus was teaching love should be the basis of all we do, including marriage.

There's also the inconsistency of Matthew having Jesus allow divorce for sexual immorality and Mark having him not do so.

There are few verbatim wording among the gospels about many teachings.

"Keep" is another word many people have a misunderstanding of.

That's a convenient assumption when the word's obvious meaning weakens your position.

I've taught as well on "keep" in my church. But before I share what I taught, what do you think "keep" means?

So why should your "interpretation" be preferred over another?

I don't think my interpretation of the Torah is much different than how most Jews and Christians interpret it. But, fundamentally, the reason we should accept anything is evidence and rational argumentation.

Well, I'm pretty much stating the evangelical interpretation of John 14:6. What other interpretation of the passage do you have in mind?

Why couldn't it be "interpreted" as having been true in Jesus's time but not after that?

If that verse has only one interpretation, how does any other verse have any more than that?

I didn't say there's only one interpretation. I acknowledge there are others. So I'm asking you what's your interpretation if you do not accept mine?

Since there were differences of interpretation between the Shammai and Hillel, why should it be unusual for another rabbi, Jesus, to have another interpretation?

All well and good----if you recognize Jesus as just another rabbi.

Yes, he was a rabbi. But he was also the only rabbi that resurrected.

[otseng]

Evidence please that Jesus survived the scourging, crucifixion, and burial and did not die. With the evidence of the TS and the Bible, it is clear he had died.

But he did survive. His friends even saw him again. He was taken from that rock vault within hours of being taken there. Magdalene found that he had gone on Sunday morning. Claims that he did die are just that......... claims.

Aren't you just making a claim as well? What evidence do you have that Jesus did not die? Again, the TS is tangible evidence Jesus had died.

The Cornish people have held that Jesus reached Cornwall with Joseph of Arimathea, they also claim that he founded the first church here upon Glastonbury Tor. As I said before, we used to sing a hymn about this.

It is an interesting legend. More details on that legend:

when Jesus died, Joseph thought it prudent to flee Palestine, and after many travails, he came to Britain with a company of followers. He brought with him the Holy Grail, the cup used by Jesus at the Last Supper. Some versions of the legend have it that the Grail contained two drops of blood captured from Jesus' side when he was wounded on the cross.

When Joseph came to Britain he was granted land at Glastonbury by the local king. When he arrived at Glastonbury, Joseph stuck his thorn staff in the earth, whereupon it rooted and burst into bloom. A cutting from that first tree was planted in the grounds of the later Glastonbury Abbey, where it continued to bloom every year thereafter at Christmas time. There is still a thorn tree in the Abbey grounds, of a variety native to the Holy Lands, and it does indeed bloom around Christmas time.

https://www.britainexpress.com/Myths/Glastonbury.htm

According to legend, Joseph of Arimathea visited Glastonbury with the Holy Grail and thrust his staff into Wearyall Hill, which then grew into the original thorn tree.[4][5] Early writers do not connect Joseph to the arrival of Christianity in Britain, and the first literary source to place him in Britain appeared in the thirteenth century.[6] The historicity of Joseph's presence in Glastonbury remains controversial, but the thorn is first mentioned in a pamphlet published by Richard Pynson in 1520 called Lyfe of Joseph of Armathie, which was almost certainly commissioned by Glastonbury Abbey. In this account, the miraculous winter-flowering Thorn is paired with an equally remarkable walnut tree that grew in the Abbey grounds and was said to flower on Midsummer's Day. Both were seen as marks of divine favour, proof that Glastonbury was 'the holyest erth of Englande'.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glastonbury_Thorn

The legend of Joseph of Arimathea going to Britain with the Holy Grail raises several questions. What is the Holy Grail? Why would Joseph go all the way to Britain? Why is it not mentioned before the 13th century? Why should people accept the miracle of the thorn? How did this legend originate?

[otseng]

Dale Allison, in his book, The Resurrection Of Jesus: Apologetics, Polemics, History (2021), makes this observation - "New Testament scholars have generally failed to broach the topic [of the Shroud of Turin]". He does mention John Robinson, but the reference is quite dated with a publication of 1977. I know Gary Habermas has written on the subject in the past, but I haven't seen anything recent that he was written about the shroud. So, the only recent comments on the shroud from a Biblical scholar that I've read is in Allison's 2021 book on the resurrection.

Allison does not believe the shroud is authentic. He states, "I wager against authenticity. The default setting for medieval relics is, without question, fake: and unless the evidence for the authenticity of an alleged relic is uniformly beyond cavil - which it definitely is not in this case - skepticism is sensible."

I agree over 99.99% of medieval relics are most likely fake. But I disagree the evidence for the authenticity of the shroud is lacking.

His main argument seems to be there is no general acceptance of what the shroud is, therefore we should accept the skeptical position.

And so it goes, back and forth, like a tennis match, leaving an observer wondering if the arguments - which incessantly exemplify what psychologists call 'confirmation bias,' the all-too-human tendency to interpret evidence so that it confirms what one already believes - will recede indefinitely.

At the end of the day, maybe no verdict fully satisfies. If one opts for authenticity, the testimony of the Bishop d'Arcis remains embarrassing, as does the carbon-14 dating, which matches that testimony. Yet those defending a medieval origin should perhaps be uneasy with the fact that, so far, modern attempts to reproduce the Shroud are less than compelling, and also stumped because nothing else quite like it may survive from the Middle Ages.

I argued at length against the d'Arcis memo with a summary at:
viewtopic.php?p=1110516#p1110516

I argued even longer against the 1988 C-14 dating with a summary at:
viewtopic.php?p=1114068#p1114068

As Allison correctly notes:

One hurdle to responding intelligently to these words is that sindonology has become a vast and complex field in its own right. Robinson, writing in 1977, observed that "there is a daunting literature on the subject." That literature has become far more daunting in the decades since he wrote."

This is an understatement since after 1977, the 1978 STURP investigation has provided the most amount of scientific data on the shroud and the 1988 C-14 data has also produced a lot of literature.

Allison adds:

How is a historian of early Christianity supposed to evaluate such publications? Most of us know nothing - absolutely nothing - about maillard reactions, colorimetric measurements, low-energy radiography, thermal neutron flux, or pyrolsis mass spectrometry.

Which Biblical scholar has the time and background to deeply investigate the shroud? I would venture not many, including Allison, which only devoted a few pages of his book on the shroud.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to otseng in post #2944

The Catholic Church, which has a vested interest in the Turin cloth being genuine, doesn't place as much stock in the "evidence" as you do.

Your statement contradicts itself. If they have a vested interest in it being genuine, then they must believe it is genuine. But then you say they don't place much stock in the evidence for it being genuine. On what basis do they believe it's genuine if they don't place much stock in the evidence?

They have an interest in anything which would bolster their claim of ecclesiastical authority.

A few weeks ago I went to a Catholic monastery which has a large book store hoping to buy some books on the shroud and they had none.

Another indication that they lack confidence in claims of its authenticity.

Torah is not mentioned in this passage. So, technically the passage does not refer to the Torah.

The passage is in the introductory chapters of Deuteronomy (Devarim), which is the last book of.....the Torah.

However, not even the Jews do this. They can't even say the name of God. Where did Moses command people not to say the name of God? Instead, it is an expansion of the commandment to not to take the Lord's name in vain. So to prevent any possibility of not taking his name in vain, no Jew is allowed to even say it.

That's how they follow the command. It isn't taking the command away or adding any other.

And of course Christians as well do not take the commandments literally. Few Christians practice resting on the Sabbath.

What Christians do with the Torah's commands is irrelevant.

And nobody is practicing the sacrificial system.

The Jews aren't practicing the sacrifical system because they don't have a temple. That's addressed in the prophets.

If one wants to even take a more hyper literal approach, one can even argue Moses was contradicting himself. The commandments are really the 10 commandments on the two tablets of stone.

Deu 4:13 (KJV)
And he declared unto you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform, even ten commandments; and he wrote them upon two tables of stone.

The command not to add or detract refers to everything in Deuteronomy, not just to the commands given at Sinai:

"And thou shalt return and obey the voice of the Lord, and do all his commandments which I command thee this day.

And the LORD thy God will make thee plenteous in every work of thine hand, in the fruit of thy body, and in the fruit of thy cattle, and in the fruit of thy land, for good: for the LORD will again rejoice over thee for good, as he rejoiced over thy fathers:

If thou shalt hearken unto the voice of the LORD thy God, to keep his commandments and his statutes which are written in this book of the law, and if thou turn unto the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul."
(Deut. 30:8-10)

Jesus himself didn't literally follow the commandments either.

He certainly had no excuse not to:

"Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven....." (Matthew 5:19)

If he broke even the least of the commandments, that right there disqualifies him from "sitting at the right hand of the Father".


Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

If that last statement is true, then Jesus had no legitimate criticism of their practice of giving their wives bills of divorce as Moses directed.

Don't really follow your argument. Yes, all the laws hang on the top two commandments. Jesus was teaching love should be the basis of all we do, including marriage.

He was teaching that all of the law met the highest moral standard, undermining his earlier statement that divorce was allowed because men's "hearts were hard".


"There's also the inconsistency of Matthew having Jesus allow divorce for sexual immorality and Mark having him not do so.

There are few verbatim wording among the gospels about many teachings.

And when they lead to opposite conclusions, they're contradictory.

I've taught as well on "keep" in my church. But before I share what I taught, what do you think "keep" means?

In the context of the passage, it obviously means "follow" or "adhere to".

I didn't say there's only one interpretation. I acknowledge there are others. So I'm asking you what's your interpretation if you do not accept mine?

I gave an example of another interpretation.

Yes, he was a rabbi. But he was also the only rabbi that resurrected.

You're trying to skip to the conclusion you want to reach without addressing all of the obstacles.

[oldbadger]

The legend of Joseph of Arimathea going to Britain with the Holy Grail raises several questions. What is the Holy Grail? Why would Joseph go all the way to Britain? Why is it not mentioned before the 13th century? Why should people accept the miracle of the thorn? How did this legend originate?

I did read all of your post, otseng, and as previously explained, all those sightings of Jesus after the attempted execution do prove that he survived.

I don't know much about the holy grail, but I know why Joseph would go to Cornwall.
Joseph was a merchant and for hundreds of years the bronze age had depended upon the Cornwall mines.....for tin!
Traders from Phoenician ports such as Sidon and Tyre had sailed to Cornwall to trade.
For Joseph to travel to Cornwall in trade makes so much sense.

But in my opinion a deceased person coming back to life just is not.

That hymn which which we sang and still do made mentions of all this and nearly became the British National Anthem!

[Waterfall]

[Replying to otseng in post #2943]

Namaskaram otseng

What do you think the story about Adam and Eve is? Direct revelation from God? What about the Book of Revelation? How do you think God and Christ and all the other spirits communicate with people?

Why do I not like your proposal? Because Toward the Light has to do with all the religions - including the Christian religion. Did you not read the preface...

The main purpose of this work is to enlighten human beings on their origin, God's relationship to them, and the struggle between Good and Evil, Light and Darkness; and also to impart the true teachings of Christ, freed from the inventions and distortions of the centuries. In this respect it continues and concludes the work of the reformers of the Church.

Why should it be in - Non-Christian Religion and Philosophies - when it has to do with Christ and Christian religion? I understand that you have not read the book and therefore can not say anything about its credibility. But I have given you some quotes from it to get you interested and to show you that it is a credible source.

Here is a quote more to think over...

10.
Was the Birth of Jesus Supernatural?
Was he Conceived by the Holy Ghost?

The earthly body of Jesus was conceived and born of the desire and will of man and woman.
And the eldest of the Youngest was bound unto this body, bound with the life-giving cord of the Light; for thus are all spirits of Light bound unto earthly bodies by the Will of God.
But God Himself guided and protected him in his arduous journeyings through life upon the Earth.

The commentary...

X
About eighteen centuries before the eldest of the Youngest was incarnated as Jesus of Nazareth, he was embodied as a human being for the fourth time as a priest in northern India.

In this human embodiment he became the true founder of Brahmanism, although not in the form that is known today.
Only a fraction of his original teaching has survived in the old myths and songs. A few highly distorted remnants of his ethical tenets can still be found in the scripture called „The Code of Manu“.

Jesus was born in Nazareth — at the home of his parents — and not, as tradition has it, in Bethlehem. The year of his birth has been established about five years later than the actual event. Since the 24th December has come to be honoured as the birthday of Jesus, the eldest of the Youngest does not wish this date to be changed. The correct date of his birth will therefore not be disclosed.

The accounts of the three wise men and the flight into Egypt are legend. Neither in a dream nor as a vision was the birth of Jesus announced to Mary or to Joseph. Everything on this subject is legend. None of God’s Servants (see the legend of Gabriel) has ever appeared before human beings, since no human being would be able to perceive these radiant beings of the Light, neither with the eye of the human body nor with the spirit’s eye.
However, God’s Servants have often spoken to human beings as an intensified voice of conscience, when the thoughts of the Youngest were unable to penetrate the Darkness.

The Angels mentioned in the ancient Scriptures have mostly been the Youngest, who with God’s permission and for some specific reason have appeared before human beings. But not all these accounts and legends are in accordance with the truth. In several cases what has been handed down is no more than fiction — figments of the human imagination.
Also the Eldest have appeared before human beings with the purpose of gaining greater credence or gaining greater power over them.
No human being has seen God, and no human being, incarnated or disincarnated, will ever be able to see Him until the journey to His Kingdom has been completed.

In the incarnations through which the eldest of the Youngest lived, God was his personal guardian spirit and guide (conscience) ᴐ: in constant thought-connection with the son. No one else has ever had God as guardian spirit from the moment they were born to life on Earth. But because of their unshakeable trust in God many of the incarnated Youngest have placed themselves under His guidance and protection and thereby rendered the guardian spirit superfluous, since God always takes into His care anyone who trusts Him implicitly. Only very few human spirits have ever become one with God’s Thought and Will during their life on Earth, and thus made Him their guardian spirit. But God watches over everyone and follows their earthly lives, just as through His Thought He often intervenes if the guardian spirits or His Servants fail in their attempts to guide human beings. However, God does this in such a way that He never applies any pressure on human free will .

Your friend forever

Waterfall

[otseng]

They have an interest in anything which would bolster their claim of ecclesiastical authority.

Doesn't make sense either. How would not having a position on any relic bolster their ecclesiastical authority?

A few weeks ago I went to a Catholic monastery which has a large book store hoping to buy some books on the shroud and they had none.

Another indication that they lack confidence in claims of its authenticity.

Again, they have no official position on the shroud whether it's legit or a fake. Book stores stock books with what people want. So it's more of an indication nobody really knows about the shroud or is out to looking to buy books for more information on it (except people like me).

The passage is in the introductory chapters of Deuteronomy (Devarim), which is the last book of.....the Torah.

Yes, the passage is in the Torah. But that passage doesn't specifically use the word Torah. So, it's a leap to say that passage is referring to the entire Torah.

However, not even the Jews do this. They can't even say the name of God. Where did Moses command people not to say the name of God? Instead, it is an expansion of the commandment to not to take the Lord's name in vain. So to prevent any possibility of not taking his name in vain, no Jew is allowed to even say it.

That's how they follow the command. It isn't taking the command away or adding any other.

If you say this is true for the Jews and the 3rd of the 10 commandments, then your example of Jesus and divorce would apply as well, he was not taking away or adding to it.

And of course Christians as well do not take the commandments literally. Few Christians practice resting on the Sabbath.

What Christians do with the Torah's commands is irrelevant.

It's relevant because obviously no Christian follows the law in its entirety, so no Christian interprets the law literally. Yet you are espousing a hyper literalistic that really no one holds to.

The Jews aren't practicing the sacrifical system because they don't have a temple. That's addressed in the prophets.

There's nothing really from stopping them from building a temple. Now, they might be prevented to build it on a particular spot, but there's no commandment in the Bible that I know of that says the temple must be built at a specific location.

Jesus himself didn't literally follow the commandments either.

He certainly had no excuse not to:

"Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven....." (Matthew 5:19)

Which commandment did he break?

Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

If that last statement is true, then Jesus had no legitimate criticism of their practice of giving their wives bills of divorce as Moses directed.

Which is more loving? To divorce simply because a man has an issue with his wife or to stay with his wife in any situation except for infidelity?

Don't really follow your argument. Yes, all the laws hang on the top two commandments. Jesus was teaching love should be the basis of all we do, including marriage.

He was teaching that all of the law met the highest moral standard, undermining his earlier statement that divorce was allowed because men's "hearts were hard".

I see Jesus as applying an even higher standard than the law of Moses. But the method he used was directing more to the heart of the law than to the letter of the law.

I've taught as well on "keep" in my church. But before I share what I taught, what do you think "keep" means?

In the context of the passage, it obviously means "follow" or "adhere to".

You'll need to dig deeper. How do dictionaries and lexicons define the word in the Hebrew and the Greek?

I didn't say there's only one interpretation. I acknowledge there are others. So I'm asking you what's your interpretation if you do not accept mine?

I gave an example of another interpretation.

Here's what you said:

Why couldn't it be "interpreted" as having been true in Jesus's time but not after that?

That's not an interpretation. What do you think Jesus meant by what he said?

You're trying to skip to the conclusion you want to reach without addressing all of the obstacles.

What conclusion are referring to? That Jesus was resurrected? The conclusion of this was based on the TS. I never even presented scripture as evidence for the TS. Your arguments about divorce is interesting as a side trail to look at, but it's not an obstacle to how I'm arguing for the resurrection since it really has no relevance. Note that I've never argued for the resurrection of Jesus using textual evidence, unlike all other apologists. I've only brought up artifact evidence to argue for the resurrection. So, you'll need to base your counterarguments against the artifact evidence, not textual claims.