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

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to boatsnguitars in post #2970]

That's a good job. The Shroud is what it is, and has a darn sight more persuasive evidence than the Bible. But for what? A crucified man? Is it even Jesus? If it was, was he dead? The crucifixion story reads very well as a plan to save Jesus alive. I suppose one could argue that the disciples swiping the body during the night (before the Tomb guard arrives, apart from it being doubtful there was one and it was nothing more than Matthew invented to squash this story that the disciples took the body) put the shroud in the disciples' hands. It could even have been regarded as result of the resurrection, since they surely believed in a resurrection of Some kind, even if not the gospel accounts.

The stories about how the shroud got to Edessa, then Constantinople and then France are a bit sketchy as well as speculative. There's a need for further checking. Not least the date. The long ignored point that this could never have been a shroud intended for a dead person but at the most generous a draped temporary covering, shouts that the body was moved, intentionally, it didn't walk. And we can forget John and swaddling bands. Aside from efforts to make wrapping bandages into a shroud and napkin (and only one of them could have got the magic image on ) we have a spear thrust unknown to the synoptics and rather denied by Luke. Faithbased denial aside, the synoptics could not have ignored the leg breaking no more than John could not have ignored the angel at the tomb.

Possibly John might be right, though having to scrap Lazarus (the most descriptive event in John) I have to ask whether the image had the blood splash added later to fit with John. That would explain the chemical traces on an image that should have no chemical traces as it was done by an atomic flash. Supposedly. As well as it doesn't figure on the pilgrim seal or for that matter, the Pray manuscript.

So, STURP, Schmurp, retesting is badly needed, but we don't look like getting it.

[earl]

Transponder wrote above,"shouts that the body had been moved...."
Interesting that you said this .
It Did
From the Urantia Book .C.1955
Page 2023,par 2 states, paraphrasing it..
with numerous celestial personalities
par.3
they made ready to remove the body of Jesus from the tomb
preparatory according it dignified and reverent disposal of near instantaneous dissolution.
It was assigned the midwayers to roll away the stones ( not one but two stones)from the tomb
Page 2024.par.1
The mortal remains of Jesus underwent the same natural process of elemental disintegration as characterizes all human bodies on earth except that ,in point of time,this natural mode of dissolution was greatly accelerated,hastened to the point where it became well nigh instantaneous.

If the guards at the tomb would have stayed after they saw the stones being rolled away from the opening they could have seen Jesus' body in movement to outside the tomb and then disappear.

Yes ,the body had been moved according to the author .The shroud had been imaged .The same grave clothes were neatly placed in the tomb for Peter and John to later discover.

[earl]

Returning to Jesus as the Messiah quibble
Peter said to Jesus ,you are the Christ,the Son of God
This is not a normal statement
The messiah ,Christ is a human militant deliverer and the Son of God is a divine deliverer
During the course of Jesus' ministry there developed a new alternate view of the definition of the messiah.
It began to take root away from a militant human deliverer messiah to a Son of God divine deliverer messiah.
The NT reflects such a turning or redefining even when Jesus refused to be king and he said this world is not his home.
He however did not rebuke anyone who misunderstood his ministry.
The crystalized Jews maintained their original definition and the new believing Jews and gentiles swung over to the new definition usage.
Except for the two major requirements for the messiah Jesus performed what the then observers saw as miraculous and miracles by him which the original definition of a messiah would have been expected to perform under the original definition.
The common Jews and gentiles were drawn to his ministry irrespective of crystalized teachings and concluded Jesus is the messiah as it is tradition today.
When Peter called Jesus the Christ,the Son of God it was then an interwoven definition of two natures of Jesus,human and divine where as the Messiah was human in the line of David.
This interwoven nature branching off a second definition is what stumped the Jewish world.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to otseng in post #2967

The Torah has not been expanded. The Prophets, Writings and Talmud have elaborated on how the law (torah) was followed, but Deuteronomy was the last book of the Torah and remains so.

All of these are also considered part of the Torah.

Then tell me this: Is there anything in the prophets, writings or Talmud which contradicts commands in Deuteronomy?

But let's go with your argument. Let's say the prophets, writings, and Talmud are not part of the Torah and are just elaborations, then Jesus was doing the same thing. He was not adding to the Torah, but simply elaborating on it.

When a law permits the swearing of oaths and prohibits the making of a rule against the swearing of oaths and someone says, "Do not swear any oaths", they're not "elaborating" on the law. They're nullifying it.


"Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you."

What was the intent of that law?

I believe fundamentally the Torah was given for us to experience shalom.

That's a sweet sentiment, but really not an answer to the question. The answer to the question is clear enough, even if you don't want to give it.

And since you have not provided the Hebrew definition of "keep", you do not truly understand what this passage means.

To the best of my recollection, you haven't provided a definition either. Why is that?


Does that mean that you place no stock in this statement......?

"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness"

Of course I accept that statement. However, the question is what does "inspired" really mean? Nobody has a good answer for this.

So suddenly the highly popular and often-proclaimed "God-breathed" isn't a good answer? How murky these definitions get when you find them inconvenient!

But I will say what it does not necessarily mean is it is inerrant.

If scripture isn't inerrant, how can it be profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction and instruction in righteousness?


Jesus's teaching is some of that contradiction.

And if Jesus's teaching did "contradict" the OT, his teachings would supercede the OT.

According to Matthew, he said he came to fulfill the law----not to "supercede" it.


Then what explains the fact that Jewish scholars who have looked at it in the original languages reach the same conclusion that I reach?

Please cite them.

Are you seriously suggesting that no Jewish scholars have ever rejected the messianic claim of Jesus? I believe you named one of them yourself: Tovia Singer. Bentzion Kravitz and Michael Skobac also come to mind, but they're only among the modern ones following in the footsteps of generations of scholars who have pointed out the fallacies in the Christian narrative.


Jhn 14:6
Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.

I think he meant exactly what he said.

I also think he meant what he said. So we are in agreement with my interpretation.

But you don't think he meant what he said in Matthew 5:19, so your interpretations are slanted.


For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. 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"

The Torah is no ordinary book. It has the power to outlast anything in the material world. The truth in it is even contained in each individual letter in the Torah. We are to study all of it, dive deeply in it, treasure it, make it a part of us, teach it, and love it.

This is fluffy spin-doctoring, an excuse for taking the parts you like and leaving the parts you don't.


There's the empirical evidence of the image gap at the head which you've tried to dismiss with the scientifically unreproducible "cloth collapse" notion.

I've already explained it

You've bought into the fanciful conjuring-up of a body oddly and conveniently disappearing in layers, leaving an image which happens to look like an artist's rendering.

I argue the artifact evidence with the support of textual evidence makes a very powerful argument that skeptics cannot really refute.

The textual evidence runs against your position, so it doesn't support what tenuous artifact evidence there may be.

[oldbadger]

I discussed this in detail here:
viewtopic.php?p=1122800#p1122800

Yes, I read some of your link; I think of a grail is a drinking vessel, it's just occurred to me that I don't know what language 'grail' is...... now I wonder what the aramaic was for such a vessel as Jesus might have supped from? That might be worth researching later on.

I agree.

Fair enough.

[otseng]

The stories about how the shroud got to Edessa, then Constantinople and then France are a bit sketchy as well as speculative.

Yes, the historical trail is speculative. I only offered one theory and there are many others. But my argument for the authenticity of the shroud does not rely on the historical evidence, but on the scientific evidence.

[otseng]

Then tell me this: Is there anything in the prophets, writings or Talmud which contradicts commands in Deuteronomy?

There could be contradictions. Again, in this thread, the Bible is treated like any other book. Inerrancy is not assumed, so it can contain contradictions.

What was the intent of that law?

I believe fundamentally the Torah was given for us to experience shalom.

That's a sweet sentiment, but really not an answer to the question. The answer to the question is clear enough, even if you don't want to give it.

Handwaving away my answer as a "sweet sentiment" is not rationally debating and another indicator you have no understanding of the Torah. My interpretation of the Torah is exactly how the Jews interpret the Torah.

In Judaism, shalom is one of the underlying principles of the Torah: "Her ways are pleasant ways and all her paths are shalom".[3] The Talmud explains, "The entire Torah is for the sake of the ways of shalom".

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

And since you have not provided the Hebrew definition of "keep", you do not truly understand what this passage means.

To the best of my recollection, you haven't provided a definition either. Why is that?

Cause I'm waiting for you first to provide the Hebrew definition, not simply a definition that you made up.

So suddenly the highly popular and often-proclaimed "God-breathed" isn't a good answer? How murky these definitions get when you find them inconvenient!

What exactly are you claiming? That "God breathed" literally means "inerrancy"? That is not literally what the Bible says. If you believe that, aren't you also adding to the Bible?

If scripture isn't inerrant, how can it be profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction and instruction in righteousness?

Because it is authoritative.

According to Matthew, he said he came to fulfill the law----not to "supercede" it.

Another purpose of the law was to serve as a tutor to lead us to Christ. He both fulfilled the law and superseded it.

Galatians 3:24 (KJV)
Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster [to bring us] unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
https://simple.uniquebibleapp.com/bible ... ns/3#v3_24

Then what explains the fact that Jewish scholars who have looked at it in the original languages reach the same conclusion that I reach?

Please cite them.

Are you seriously suggesting that no Jewish scholars have ever rejected the messianic claim of Jesus? I believe you named one of them yourself: Tovia Singer. Bentzion Kravitz and Michael Skobac also come to mind, but they're only among the modern ones following in the footsteps of generations of scholars who have pointed out the fallacies in the Christian narrative.

What we're discussing is what is the Hebrew definition of the word "keep", not about why Jews should accept Jesus as the Messiah. That discussion is another huge topic for a later debate.

so your interpretations are slanted.

I agree my interpretation is slanted, but it is slanted towards how most Christians interpret the Bible. I've never met, heard, or read of anyone that has a hyper literalistic view of the Bible that you are proposing.

This is fluffy spin-doctoring, an excuse for taking the parts you like and leaving the parts you don't.

No, I accept all of the Bible as God's word, perhaps even more than many other Christians, whom many have spent little time in the Hebrew scriptures. Do I interpret each passage in the Bible hyperliterally? No. Do I accept each passage as God's words? Yes.

You've bought into the fanciful conjuring-up of a body oddly and conveniently disappearing in layers, leaving an image which happens to look like an artist's rendering.

If that's what the evidence supports, then there's nothing odd about the cloth collapse theory. As for the shroud being artwork, it is the least likely out of all the possibilities as I've extensively argued.

The textual evidence runs against your position, so it doesn't support what tenuous artifact evidence there may be.

Your argument using the textual evidence is quite convoluted. Nothing you have brought up is remotely related to the resurrection. Instead, what you have focused on are passages on divorce.

[otseng]

Richard Carrier on The Case Against the Resurrection:



Carrier claims extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

1:13
Therefore the claim that Jesus rose from
the dead is an extraordinary claim. So just like a claim to own a starship it requires our extraordinary evidence not
because it's impossible but because it's incredible we have no more evidence of miraculous resurrections on our planet
than we have for starships on our planet.

25:43
That the probability that any amazing story will be false is higher than the probability it will be true. That doesn't
mean every amazing story is false, only that this is more likely. Nor does this mean that we can never prove an amazing
story true. It only that we need especially strong evidence to overcome their low probability.

There is insufficient evidence to overcome the low probability that the empty tombs is true. Being an amazing story it is
already likely to be false. To prove it is not, we need some good evidence.

With the Turin Shroud, we have the extraordinary evidence that skeptics keep demanding for.

5:48
God who also died and rose from the dead the kind of story was clearly popular at the time. Everyone was making up versions
of it. So I have to ask myself why should I believe that Jesus story is any different from those stories. The
similarities are too suspicious for me.

What is different about the claim of Jesus is we have an artifact evidence to back it up, whereas other claims do not have any artifact evidence to corroborate those claims.

6:06
Now there are only two sources of historical evidence for the Jesus story - the Gospels and the epistles.

With the TS, there is now also artifact evidence.

7:05
Earliest Christians were hallucinating on a regular basis entering ecstatic trances and prophesying and having
visions and relaying the communications of spirits and speaking in tongues so much in fact that Paul had to set up
rules of order to control the din and he says Outsiders would think they were lunatics if they behaved out of order
that tells me the first Christians were schizotypal which means we should be very suspicious of anything incredible.

Proposing all the Christians were hallucinating is an ad hoc explanation. Sure, it is possible they could all be hallucinating, but there is no evidence to support this.

12:30
Now we actually know we actually have established in psychology certain phenomena like this one of which is
called cognitive dissonance. Cognitive dissonance is when you start to have two beliefs that conflict with each other
and this become this actually creates an agitating discomforting state. And you struggle to get out of this state by
reconciling or picking one side of the contradiction or finding a way to harmonize them. If your schizotypal if
you're prone to hallucinations, as Paul clearly was, he talks about having visions and revelations all the time having conversations with Jesus the way
out, and we know that from scientific studies the way out of that is to hallucinate something, that resolves the contradiction. Because one
thing they've studied in schizotypal personalities is that having the hallucinations actually reduces stress in their lives. They actually live better
lives more comforting lives because of it so this is one of the strategies it would be readily apparent to someone
like Paul.

11:51
This applies even to Paul. You might think this outsider this persecutor of the church is an
unusual occurrence. Why would he see Jesus? Well but obviously whatever the explanation is it has to be a rare
explanation because there was one. It only happened once. There are hundreds of persecutors of the Christians, millions
of outsiders, and Jesus only appears to one of them. So obviously whatever the cause was it has to be something very
rare.

14:11
Again Paul is a rare
case. He's like the only outsider that was actually converted by a direct revelation from Jesus.

Proposing Paul had cognitive dissonance is also an ad hoc explanation. What actual evidence is there to support this claim? And as Carrier admits, it only happened once in history. And using Carrier's own logic, it is highly improbable this could have happened since nobody else have had this happen to them.

16:30
Shortly after the death of Jesus, his disciples prayed
meditated and searched the Scriptures for some meaning to justify the tragedy. In some way, to preserve and promote the
noble program of moral reform Jesus had died for. As a result some had prophetic
dreams or visions in which Jesus appeared to them reassuring them and telling them just what they wanted to
hear. That he had been raised by God so all who attached themselves to him and his moral program would participate in
his resurrection as soon as this good news was preached to all Israel.

This is another ad hoc explanation.

14:35
I don't have to come up with ad hoc hypotheses.

Carrier severely contradicts himself. His proposals of mass hallucination, Paul's cognitive dissonance, and the disciples fabricating a story are all ad hoc explanations.

14:46
The existence of God is not a widely accepted fact nor is the existence of a particular God a widely accepted fact.

15:22
Now maybe if you have if you're convinced God exists and
you're convinced you know that he would raise Jesus from the dead and perhaps you have a spiritual experience yourself.
You of experiencing Jesus that would be a different scenario but that wouldn't be a historical argument.

Actually a belief in a god is widely accepted. However, nobody is claiming God exists because it's a widely accepted fact.

Also, nobody is claiming a spiritual experience is evidence something is true either.

So, these are strawman arguments.

10:29
If God Himself were really appearing to people and really was on a compassionate
mission to reform and save the world, he could have visited Pilate, Herod, the Sanhedrin, the masses of Jerusalem, the
Roman legions, even the Emperor and Senate of Rome. He could have flown to America as actually the Mormons believe he did and
even China preaching in all the temples and courts of Asia. In fact being God he could have appeared to everyone on earth.
He could visit me right now or you. He could appear right now and settle this debate. Done. If Jesus was a God and
really wanted to save the world he would have appeared and delivered his gospel personally to the whole world and would
still be doing so. I would do so if I were in his position and God can't be more compassionate than I am in that
respect. It's much less probable he'd appear only to one small group of believers and only one lone outsider in
one tiny place just one time 2,000 years ago and then give up.

With the TS, God has revealed the crucifixion, death, and resurrection of Jesus for the entire world to see. In Carrier's words, the debate is now settled. Done.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to otseng in post #2977

So, now.....

in this thread, the Bible is treated like any other book.

....when a few posts back.....

The Torah is no ordinary book. It has the power to outlast anything in the material world. The truth in it is even contained in each individual letter in the Torah. We are to study all of it, dive deeply in it, treasure it, make it a part of us, teach it, and love it.

Handwaving away my answer as a "sweet sentiment" is not rationally debating

You were the one doing the handwaving by not addressing the passage I brought up.

My interpretation of the Torah is exactly how the Jews interpret the Torah.

The Jews interpret the Torah as not saying that Jesus was their Messiah.

And since you have not provided the Hebrew definition of "keep", you do not truly understand what this passage means.

To the best of my recollection, you haven't provided a definition either. Why is that?

Cause I'm waiting for you first to provide the Hebrew definition, not simply a definition that you made up.

".....that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you."

How can I have made up a definition when I haven't given one?

I'm letting the text speak for itself.

What exactly are you claiming? That "God breathed" literally means "inerrancy"? That is not literally what the Bible says. If you believe that, aren't you also adding to the Bible?

The text says that all scripture is "God-breathed", and that "God-breathed" means "profitable for doctrine". It can't all be profitable for doctrine if it isn't inerrant.

If scripture isn't inerrant, how can it be profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction and instruction in righteousness?

Because it is authoritative.

How can it be authoritative if it isn't all profitable for instruction in righteousness?

Another purpose of the law was to serve as a tutor to lead us to Christ. He both fulfilled the law and superseded it.

Galatians 3:24 (KJV)
Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster [to bring us] unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.

Using Christian text to prove Christian theology----definitely circular arguing.


Are you seriously suggesting that no Jewish scholars have ever rejected the messianic claim of Jesus? I believe you named one of them yourself: Tovia Singer. Bentzion Kravitz and Michael Skobac also come to mind, but they're only among the modern ones following in the footsteps of generations of scholars who have pointed out the fallacies in the Christian narrative.

What we're discussing is what is the Hebrew definition of the word "keep"

.....which you yourself still haven't given, presumably because you know that its meaning clearly fits the context of Deut. 4:2.

I agree my interpretation is slanted, but it is slanted towards how most Christians interpret the Bible.

That carries no argumentative weight.

I've never met, heard, or read of anyone that has a hyper literalistic view of the Bible that you are proposing.

Jesus waffles back and forth between departing from the law and insisting that every jot and tittle of it should be followed.

No, I accept all of the Bible as God's word, perhaps even more than many other Christians, whom many have spent little time in the Hebrew scriptures. Do I interpret each passage in the Bible hyperliterally? No. Do I accept each passage as God's words? Yes.

You seem to be trying to have it both ways at once.

It isn't about me interpreting hyperliterally; it's about Jesus hyperliterally flogging the law in Mt. 5:18-19 after being dismissive of it just a few verses earlier. That's double-mindedness. You can't paint something black on one side and white on the other and call it gray. It isn't hyperliteral to point out Jesus's double-mindedness.

If that's what the evidence supports, then there's nothing odd about the cloth collapse theory.

The evidence doesn't support it. The lack of airtightness in the cloth would allow for vacuum beneath it to be filled all at once, making "angle encoding" implausible. You've responded to this by simply denying it.

Your argument using the textual evidence is quite convoluted. Nothing you have brought up is remotely related to the resurrection. Instead, what you have focused on are passages on divorce.

Again, you're in denial. The inconsistency in Jesus's teaching has a direct bearing on the claim that he was a divine Messiah, and that claim has a direct bearing on whether or not he would have been resurrected.

[otseng]

....when a few posts back.....

The Torah is no ordinary book. It has the power to outlast anything in the material world. The truth in it is even contained in each individual letter in the Torah. We are to study all of it, dive deeply in it, treasure it, make it a part of us, teach it, and love it.

I don't think even the Jews would have much disagreement with this view of the Torah.

Handwaving away my answer as a "sweet sentiment" is not rationally debating

You were the one doing the handwaving by not addressing the passage I brought up.

What passage are you referring to?

The Jews interpret the Torah as not saying that Jesus was their Messiah.

Of course. And this is evidence people can interpret the Torah in different ways.

To the best of my recollection, you haven't provided a definition either. Why is that?

I've already answered this multiple times, because I'm waiting for you to give me the Hebrew lexicon definition first. Why are you not willing to do this and instead repeatedly ask the same question? If you have no idea what the words really means, how can you justify your interpretation?

I'm letting the text speak for itself.

The text was originally written in Greek and Hebrew. So, to truly understand it, one needs to understand what the words meant in the original languages. This is not so hard to do. There are many freely accessible Greek and Hebrew lexicons.

The text says that all scripture is "God-breathed", and that "God-breathed" means "profitable for doctrine". It can't all be profitable for doctrine if it isn't inerrant.

Yes, this is what inerrantists claim. But, sure, I can grant it can't all be profitable for doctrine.

If scripture isn't inerrant, how can it be profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction and instruction in righteousness?

How can it be authoritative if it isn't all profitable for instruction in righteousness?

Same as any other document. There are no documents that are inerrant, yet they can still be used authoritatively.

Using Christian text to prove Christian theology----definitely circular arguing.

No, it's not circular reasoning. Christian text is used to create Christian theology. What other text should be used? Non-Christian texts? Hindus use their own text to create their own theology. Muslims use their own text to create their own theology.

Now, if Christian text is used to prove Christianity is true, then I would tend to agree that is circular. And again, this is why I'm primarily using artifact evidence to argue for the truthfulness of Christian claims.

What we're discussing is what is the Hebrew definition of the word "keep"

.....which you yourself still haven't given, presumably because you know that its meaning clearly fits the context of Deut. 4:2.

Deut 4:2
Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.

My main argument against your interpretation of Deut 4:2 is that nobody really has your hyper literal interpretation of it. No Christians or Jews has literally not added or subtracted from the words out of Moses mouth. Even Christian critical scholars do not believe only Moses wrote the Torah, but believe others have modified what Moses originally wrote.

I agree my interpretation is slanted, but it is slanted towards how most Christians interpret the Bible.

That carries no argumentative weight.

And on what basis does your hyper literal view carry any weight?

Jesus waffles back and forth between departing from the law and insisting that every jot and tittle of it should be followed.

Where does he state "every jot and tittle of it should be followed"?

No, I accept all of the Bible as God's word, perhaps even more than many other Christians, whom many have spent little time in the Hebrew scriptures. Do I interpret each passage in the Bible hyperliterally? No. Do I accept each passage as God's words? Yes.

You seem to be trying to have it both ways at once.

It isn't about me interpreting hyperliterally; it's about Jesus hyperliterally flogging the law in Mt. 5:18-19 after being dismissive of it just a few verses earlier. That's double-mindedness. You can't paint something black on one side and white on the other and call it gray. It isn't hyperliteral to point out Jesus's double-mindedness.

We all have to interpret the text. You have your interpretation of it and I have mine. You cannot just simply assert your interpretation is the correct one without analyzing what does it say in the original languages, how does it fit within the entire context of the Bible, and what are the views of others who has studied the Bible.

If that's what the evidence supports, then there's nothing odd about the cloth collapse theory.

The evidence doesn't support it. The lack of airtightness in the cloth would allow for vacuum beneath it to be filled all at once, making "angle encoding" implausible. You've responded to this by simply denying it.

I already addressed this by dematerialization by layering...

Another reason I propose a layered dematerialization. It would be a "controlled" imaging where the cloth is collapsed through the body. It would be analogous to a body moving through a MRI machine. A layered dematerialization would move the cloth fairly uniformly through the body.

As mentioned before, it could've dematerialized in layers, like an MRI. If it was by layers parallel to the front and back cloth and from the outside of the body inward, then there would've been little vacuum at the top of the head.

Having something dematerialize in a MRI/CRT like fashion is not unreasonable. As a matter of fact, if we were to invent some sort of teleportation device, most likely it would follow this principle. If we were to design a teleporter, if an object was not teleported by layers, what other way would it be done?

The path of dematerialization by layers is perpendicular to the plane of the body. The effect is like an elevator falling, so most of the pressure would be downward for the top part of the cloth and the reverse for the bottom part.

Your argument using the textual evidence is quite convoluted. Nothing you have brought up is remotely related to the resurrection. Instead, what you have focused on are passages on divorce.

Again, you're in denial. The inconsistency in Jesus's teaching has a direct bearing on the claim that he was a divine Messiah, and that claim has a direct bearing on whether or not he would have been resurrected.

Well, I don't think I'm the one in denial, but we can agree to disagree on how literally one should interpret the Bible. I believe Jesus's teachings has no contradiction with the Torah based on the original language meanings, the intent of the teachings, how most Christians (and even Jews) view the Torah, and what is the commonly accepted views of Bible teachers and scholars.