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

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20745
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 206 times
Been thanked: 355 times
Contact:

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

Post #1

Post by otseng »

From the On the Bible being inerrant thread:
nobspeople wrote: Wed Sep 22, 2021 9:42 amHow 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?
otseng wrote: Wed Sep 22, 2021 7:08 am 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

Athetotheist
Prodigy
Posts: 3087
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2019 5:24 pm
Has thanked: 19 times
Been thanked: 555 times

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

Post #3291

Post by Athetotheist »

[Replying to otseng in post #3290
Out of all these other alleged virgin births, how many of them claimed to be a messiah?
I don't know how many of them have claimed it
You're the one claiming there's "19,999,999 other Messiahs to contend with". So if you don't know then your claim is unsubstantiated.
You're the one who claimed that
otseng wrote:it would still be an exceptional case even if 200 woman had virgin births.
As messiahs go, 20,000,000 isn't that exceptional.


but in the cases of virgin-born figures such as Tammuz, Attis and Krishna, others have claimed that they were messiahs.
Do they have empirical evidence they've existed and performed anything special?
They have "testiimonial evidence".

See? "Testimonial evidence" doesn't count for anything.


Why don't you accept it as authoritative when it can be defended with your own logic?
My own logic is spending years on this single thread in providing evidence and arguments for the authority and reliability of the Bible.
That doesn't keep the BoM from being defensible with your own logic.


Never claimed the Jews have nullified the Torah or the commandments. Likewise, Jesus, who has expounded on the Torah, has not nullified it either.
You've already admitted that you can't find a command not to swear at all in the Torah. There is a command not to add to the law easily found in the Torah (Deut. 4:2).

Merriam Webster (with bolding mine):

EXPOUND
1 a : to set forth : STATE

b : to defend with argument

2 : to explain by setting forth in careful and often elaborate detail

COUNTERMAND
1: to revoke (a command) by a contrary order

2 : to recall or order back by a superseding contrary order


When Jesus says, "Do not swear at all", is he "expounding" on Deut. 4:2 or is he countermanding it?



Have the Jews ever said, "Do not swear at all"? Have they ever claimed that Moses gave them the "commandment of the Lord" allowing divorce because of their "hardness of heart"?
Do we need to go into the details of all the things the Jews have added in the Mishnah, Midrash, and Talmud to the Torah?
No. If they didn't violate Deut. 4:2 with the above as Jesus did, that's enough to make the point.

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20745
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 206 times
Been thanked: 355 times
Contact:

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

Post #3292

Post by otseng »

Athetotheist wrote: Sun Oct 29, 2023 9:28 pm [Replying to otseng in post #3290
Out of all these other alleged virgin births, how many of them claimed to be a messiah?
I don't know how many of them have claimed it
You're the one claiming there's "19,999,999 other Messiahs to contend with". So if you don't know then your claim is unsubstantiated.
You're the one who claimed that
Here's what you stated:
Athetotheist wrote: Fri Oct 27, 2023 6:53 pmJesus would still have 19,999,999 other Messiahs to contend with.
I only claim Jesus has been a Messiah born from a virgin.
As messiahs go, 20,000,000 isn't that exceptional.
You have no support for 20,000,000 virgins births claiming to be a Messiah. So again, it's a speculative accusation.
Do they have empirical evidence they've existed and performed anything special?
They have "testiimonial evidence".
I asked for empirical evidence. So, the answer is no, they don't have any.

The primary evidence I've been presenting for the crux of Christianity (crucifixion, death, and resurrection of Jesus) has been the shroud. What you want to do is avoid debating this because all the arguments against it are lacking. Instead, you want to pick an ancillary doctrine, the virgin birth, because you know there's no empirical evidence for it so it's easier to attack.
See? "Testimonial evidence" doesn't count for anything.
Yes and no. Testimonial evidence is allowable evidence in any court. So, it's not totally discounted as you claim. But, I would agree empirical evidence has stronger weight than testimonial evidence. So, that's why my entire approach on Jesus and the truthfulness of the NT has been through the shroud.

Myself, though I believe in the virgin birth, I don't believe it is a primary doctrine, but a secondary doctrine. It's not like God will send people to hell if they don't believe Jesus was born of a virgin. However, if they don't believe Jesus was raised from the dead, it's questionable if they are truly saved.
Why don't you accept it as authoritative when it can be defended with your own logic?
My own logic is spending years on this single thread in providing evidence and arguments for the authority and reliability of the Bible.
That doesn't keep the BoM from being defensible with your own logic.
Nothing is keeping them from creating such a thread of their own on the BoM.
When Jesus says, "Do not swear at all", is he "expounding" on Deut. 4:2 or is he countermanding it?
It would be a countermand if there was a passage that says, "You must swear to the Lord". What passage says this?
Do we need to go into the details of all the things the Jews have added in the Mishnah, Midrash, and Talmud to the Torah?
No. If they didn't violate Deut. 4:2 with the above as Jesus did, that's enough to make the point.
So neither the Jews nor Jesus violated Deut 4:2.

Athetotheist
Prodigy
Posts: 3087
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2019 5:24 pm
Has thanked: 19 times
Been thanked: 555 times

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

Post #3293

Post by Athetotheist »

[Replying to otseng in post #3292
I asked for empirical evidence. So, the answer is no, they don't have any.
I asked for empirical evidence of a virgin birth and there isn't any.

The primary evidence I've been presenting for the crux of Christianity (crucifixion, death, and resurrection of Jesus) has been the shroud. What you want to do is avoid debating this because all the arguments against it are lacking. Instead, you want to pick an ancillary doctrine, the virgin birth, because you know there's no empirical evidence for it so it's easier to attack.
The virgin birth doctrine is central to Christian belief. It's what the Christian Church came up with to give Jesus a divine origin and remove him from "original sin". Without the virgin birth, Jesus is just an ordinary human, so you can't conveniently downplay it just because it was supposed to be a sign but there couldn't be such a sign because it would have been unobservable.

Yes and no. Testimonial evidence is allowable evidence in any court. So, it's not totally discounted as you claim.
Yes, it's allowed in court, but no, it doesn't count for anything when a miraculous virgin birth is claimed. That would take expert [medical] testimony to confirm, if even that would be enough.

So, that's why my entire approach on Jesus and the truthfulness of the NT has been through the shroud.
And that's the problem with your approach. You've founded your whole case for the Christian Bible on an artifact of questionable merit* while ignoring related details which undermine the case. The complete absence of evidence of Jesus's "virgin birth" along with the inconsistency of his teaching constitute fairly strong evidence that the Turin cloth image is of natural origin, even if the mechanics of it haven't been fully determined. With a process of elimination, you don't have to know what an answer is in order to know what it isn't.

*(The dubious proposals made to explain away the shortcomings in the image don't help any.)


When Jesus says, "Do not swear at all", is he "expounding" on Deut. 4:2 or is he countermanding it?
It would be a countermand if there was a passage that says, "You must swear to the Lord". What passage says this?
You're dodging the issue. "Do not add to the law" is no less a command than "you must swear" would be.


If they didn't violate Deut. 4:2 with the above as Jesus did, that's enough to make the point.
So neither the Jews nor Jesus violated Deut 4:2.
Non sequitur. My point doesn't lead to your conclusion.

I've pointed out where and how Jesus did violate it.

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20745
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 206 times
Been thanked: 355 times
Contact:

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

Post #3294

Post by otseng »

Athetotheist wrote: Mon Oct 30, 2023 7:57 pm The virgin birth doctrine is central to Christian belief. It's what the Christian Church came up with to give Jesus a divine origin and remove him from "original sin".
Can you cite any source that says one must believe in the virgin birth or original sin in order to be saved?
Without the virgin birth, Jesus is just an ordinary human, so you can't conveniently downplay it just because it was supposed to be a sign but there couldn't be such a sign because it would have been unobservable.
Even with a virgin birth, it's still entirely possible to be an ordinary human. With your numbers, even if we have 20 million virgin births, would they all be divine children?

Practically, it would be unobservable, but theoretically, it could've been observable if someone witnessed every moment of the virgin's life. So, are you saying unless someone had watched Mary for every minute of her life to verify she was a virgin then it must be discounted?
Yes and no. Testimonial evidence is allowable evidence in any court. So, it's not totally discounted as you claim.
Yes, it's allowed in court, but no, it doesn't count for anything when a miraculous virgin birth is claimed. That would take expert [medical] testimony to confirm, if even that would be enough.
Well, Luke was a doctor and testified to it.

[Luk 1:27 KJV] 27 To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name [was] Mary.
The complete absence of evidence of Jesus's "virgin birth" along with the inconsistency of his teaching constitute fairly strong evidence that the Turin cloth image is of natural origin, even if the mechanics of it haven't been fully determined. With a process of elimination, you don't have to know what an answer is in order to know what it isn't.
You would have a point if Jesus had claimed his authority was based on a virgin birth, but he did not. The virgin birth was just one of the many prophecies in the OT that the NT authors referred to.

For sake of argument, even if all parties are lying about the virgin birth, I'm not so sure it would invalidate Jesus being the Messiah. Do Jews believe their Messiah must be born of a virgin?
When Jesus says, "Do not swear at all", is he "expounding" on Deut. 4:2 or is he countermanding it?
It would be a countermand if there was a passage that says, "You must swear to the Lord". What passage says this?
You're dodging the issue.
I've been addressing the issue in many posts.
"Do not add to the law" is no less a command than "you must swear" would be.
There would only be a countermand if the Torah had said "You must swear" and then Jesus says "Do not swear".
I've pointed out where and how Jesus did violate it.
Your argument has to be consistent and not employ special pleading. If you believe the Jews did not violate it, you cannot then say Jesus did violate it. Only if you accept the Jews have also violated it, then your argument would be consistent.

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20745
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 206 times
Been thanked: 355 times
Contact:

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

Post #3295

Post by otseng »

Bart Ehrman comments on Isaiah 53 - Does Isaiah 53 Predict Jesus' Suffering and Death or Has Isaiah 53 Been Debunked?

Ehrman notes Isaiah 53 is the foremost Old Testament passage referred to by Christians pointing to Jesus as the Messiah.
Isaiah 53 is the ONE passage, above all others, that has been used over the centuries by Christians to be a prediction that the messiah will suffer and die for the sake of others.
https://ehrmanblog.org/does-isaiah-53-p ... and-death/

He points out the concept of a bodily resurrection was unique during that time.
This idea, that we would live forever in our bodies (if we were among the "righteous") was repugnant to just about everyone in the ancient world. But it became a widely held view among Jews, and was taken up with passion by the early Christians.
In addition to Isaiah, this was affirmed by Dan 12:2.

[Dan 12:2 KJV] 2 And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame [and] everlasting contempt.

The earliest Christians intepreted Isaiah 53 as referring to Jesus.
The reason this has been of such importance to Christian interpreters is that since the times of the New Testament, Christian readers have thought that Isaiah was describing the crucifixion of Jesus for the sins of the world.
In the publically accessible portion of his blog, he makes 5 points about Isaiah 53.
1. It is to be remembered that the prophets of the Hebrew Bible are not predicting things that are to happen hundreds of years in advance. They are speaking to their own contexts and delivering a message for their own people to hear, about their own immediate futures;
Yes, Isaiah was addressing people at that time and for a near future. But, that does not mean it is only addressed to them and only has a near fulfillment. As Erhman points out, even the early Christians believed in a far fulfillment and so it is not a modern invention.
2. The author is not predicting that someone will suffer in the future for other people's sins at all. Many readers fail to consider the verb tenses in these passages. They do not indicate that someone will come along at a later time and suffer in the future, they are talking about past suffering. The Servant has already suffered - although he "will be" vindicated. And so this not about a future suffering messiah.
Not even do the modern Jews interpret it this way. Erhman even self refutes this with a later point he makes that the prevailing Jewish interpretation is the nation of Israel has been and will be suffering for the nations.

And if the propecy had a near fulfillment, who was it referring to?
3. In fact, it is not about the messiah at all. This is a point frequently overlooked in discussions of the passage. If you will look, you will notice that the term messiah never occurs in the passage. This is not predicting what the messiah will be.
That's technically correct, however, just because a messiah is not explicitly mentioned does not mean it cannot refer to one. As pointed out by Rabbi Skobac, "the Messiah" is also never mentioned in the OT, yet both Jews and Christians believe in "the Messiah".

But let's grant it's not talking about a messiah. The Isaiah 53 passage still has a remarkable similarity with what Jesus went through. So, we can simply interpret the passage as a prophecy of what someone would be like, even if he was not a messiah.
4. It is important as well to note that Jews *never* interpreted this passage as referring to a future messiah and was never read messianically. Until the Christians began doing so, as a prediction of Jesus. When they did so, they were saying that the messiah fulfilled a passage that no one had ever thought was talking about a messiah.
Jews practically never read Isaiah 53 in the first place, so they rarely had any interpretations of it.

However, it's not true they never had any interpretations of it. There were some early Jews that held to a suffering servant redeemer.
Jewish tradition of the late, or early post-Second Temple period alludes to two redeemers, one suffering and the second fulfilling the traditional messianic role, namely Mashiach ben Yosef, and Mashiach ben David.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messiah_in_Judaism
5. If the passage is not referring to the messiah, and is not referring to someone in the future who is going to suffer - who is it talking about?

Here there really should be very little ambiguity. As I mentioned, this particular passage - Isaiah 53 - is one of four servant songs of Second Isaiah. And so the question is, who does Second Isaiah himself indicate that the servant is? A careful reading of the passages makes the identification quite clear: "But now hear, O Jacob my servant, Israel whom I have chosen" (44:1); "Remember these things, O Jacob, and Israel, for you are my servant" (44:21); "And he said to me, 'You are my servant, Israel, in whom I will be glorified" (49:3).
Ehrman alludes to the suffering servant to be the nation of Israel and cites passages in earlier passages referring the Israel as the servant.

However, the servant is referred to as an individual in later passages.

Isa 49:6-7 And he said, It is a light thing that thou shouldest be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the preserved of Israel: I will also give thee for a light to the Gentiles, that thou mayest be my salvation unto the end of the earth. Thus saith the LORD, the Redeemer of Israel, his Holy One, to him whom man despiseth, to him whom the nation abhorreth, to a servant of rulers, Kings shall see and arise, princes also shall worship, because of the LORD that is faithful, the Holy One of Israel, and he shall choose thee.

Isaiah 50:5 The Lord GOD hath opened mine ear, and I was not rebellious, neither turned away back.

And looking at the passage itself, it unambiguously refers to an individual, not a group. Just count how many times it refers to "he", "his", "him" and not "they".

[Isa 53:2-10 KJV] 2 For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, [there is] no beauty that we should desire him. 3 He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were [our] faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not. 4 Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. 5 But he [was] wounded for our transgressions, [he was] bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace [was] upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. 6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all. 7 He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth. 8 He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken. 9 And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither [was any] deceit in his mouth. 10 Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put [him] to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see [his] seed, he shall prolong [his] days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.

Athetotheist
Prodigy
Posts: 3087
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2019 5:24 pm
Has thanked: 19 times
Been thanked: 555 times

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

Post #3296

Post by Athetotheist »

[Replying to otseng in post #3294]
Can you cite any source that says one must believe in the virgin birth or original sin in order to be saved?

"The doctrine that Mary was the sole natural parent of Jesus is based on the infancy narratives contained in the Gospel accounts of Matthew and Luke. It was universally accepted in the Christian church by the 2nd century, was enshrined in the Apostles’ Creed, and, except for several minor sects, was not seriously challenged until the rise of Enlightenment theology in the 18th century. It remains a basic article of belief in the Roman Catholic, Orthodox, and most Protestant churches. Muslims also accept the Virgin Birth of Jesus."

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Virgin-Birth

Even with a virgin birth, it's still entirely possible to be an ordinary human. With your numbers, even if we have 20 million virgin births, would they all be divine children?
Any of them who were male would have to be, since none of them would have a Y chromosome from a biological parent.

Practically, it would be unobservable, but theoretically, it could've been observable if someone witnessed every moment of the virgin's life. So, are you saying unless someone had watched Mary for every minute of her life to verify she was a virgin then it must be discounted?
Not every minute of her life, just every minute of the time during which she could have had intercourse.


Yes, it's allowed in court, but no, it doesn't count for anything when a miraculous virgin birth is claimed. That would take expert [medical] testimony to confirm, if even that would be enough.
Well, Luke was a doctor and testified to it.
Does Luke testify to having examined Mary?

You would have a point if Jesus had claimed his authority was based on a virgin birth, but he did not.
It's not about Jesus basing his "authority" on a virgin birth. It's about the claim that he had a virgin birth. You still seem to be trying to sweep the alleged virgin birth under the rug because there wasn't such a sign as there was supposed to be.

For sake of argument, even if all parties are lying about the virgin birth, I'm not so sure it would invalidate Jesus being the Messiah. Do Jews believe their Messiah must be born of a virgin?
They most definitely do not, and that's only one reason they don't believe that Jesus was their Messiah. I've been pointing out others as well.


"Do not add to the law" is no less a command than "you must swear" would be.
]There would only be a countermand if the Torah had said "You must swear" and then Jesus says "Do not swear".
You're claiming that what Jesus adds to the law doesn't violate the part of the law which says, "Do not add to the law".

"You shall not add to the law" doesn't have to mention any specific commandment. It's a blanket statement prohibiting any expansion of what the law itself prohibits.


I've pointed out where and how Jesus did violate it.
Your argument has to be consistent and not employ special pleading. If you believe the Jews did not violate it, you cannot then say Jesus did violate it. Only if you accept the Jews have also violated it, then your argument would be consistent.
If the Jews have said, "Do not swear at all", then they have violated the law. If they have prohibited any divorce which the law allows, then they have violated the law. But this isn't about the Jews violating the law. It 's about Jesus violating the law.

Athetotheist
Prodigy
Posts: 3087
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2019 5:24 pm
Has thanked: 19 times
Been thanked: 555 times

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

Post #3297

Post by Athetotheist »

[Replying to otseng in post #3295
But let's grant it's not talking about a messiah. The Isaiah 53 passage still has a remarkable similarity with what Jesus went through. So, we can simply interpret the passage as a prophecy of what someone would be like, even if he was not a messiah.
It bears a remarkable similarity to what everyone who's been despised and rejected and later vindicated has gone through.

And looking at the passage itself, it unambiguously refers to an individual, not a group. Just count how many times it refers to "he", "his", "him" and not "they".

[Isa 53:2-10 KJV] 2 For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, [there is] no beauty that we should desire him. 3 He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were [our] faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not. 4 Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. 5 But he [was] wounded for our transgressions, [he was] bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace [was] upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. 6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all. 7 He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth. 8 He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken. 9 And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither [was any] deceit in his mouth. 10 Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put [him] to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see [his] seed, he shall prolong [his] days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.
"For, when Israel was young, I loved him, and from Egypt I called My son."
(Hosea 11:1)

"Israel has forgotten his Maker" (Hosea 8:14)

Do you acknowledge that these verses refer to the same "individual"?

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20745
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 206 times
Been thanked: 355 times
Contact:

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

Post #3298

Post by otseng »

Athetotheist wrote: Tue Oct 31, 2023 9:47 pm [Replying to otseng in post #3294]
Can you cite any source that says one must believe in the virgin birth or original sin in order to be saved?
"The doctrine that Mary was the sole natural parent of Jesus is based on the infancy narratives contained in the Gospel accounts of Matthew and Luke. It was universally accepted in the Christian church by the 2nd century, was enshrined in the Apostles’ Creed, and, except for several minor sects, was not seriously challenged until the rise of Enlightenment theology in the 18th century. It remains a basic article of belief in the Roman Catholic, Orthodox, and most Protestant churches. Muslims also accept the Virgin Birth of Jesus."

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Virgin-Birth
I'm not disputing the virgin birth is a doctrinal position. I'm disputing it is a core doctrine that would be essential for salvation. Your own source confirms my assertion that belief in the virgin birth is not required to be saved. It wasn't even universally accepted until the 2nd century.
Even with a virgin birth, it's still entirely possible to be an ordinary human. With your numbers, even if we have 20 million virgin births, would they all be divine children?
Any of them who were male would have to be, since none of them would have a Y chromosome from a biological parent.
So Jesus would've had to have been divine if he was born of a virgin.
Practically, it would be unobservable, but theoretically, it could've been observable if someone witnessed every moment of the virgin's life. So, are you saying unless someone had watched Mary for every minute of her life to verify she was a virgin then it must be discounted?
Not every minute of her life, just every minute of the time during which she could have had intercourse.
So there must be an eyewitness to every minute of her life that she could've had intercourse in order to confirm if she was a virgin? Yes, this would prove if she was a virgin or not. But this high level of proof is not practical.
Does Luke testify to having examined Mary?
Physically examined? Probably not. But examined her testimony? Probably so.
You would have a point if Jesus had claimed his authority was based on a virgin birth, but he did not.
It's not about Jesus basing his "authority" on a virgin birth. It's about the claim that he had a virgin birth. You still seem to be trying to sweep the alleged virgin birth under the rug because there wasn't such a sign as there was supposed to be.
All I'm arguing for is what has been claimed for his authority. If he never made a claim that his authority is based on his virgin birth, then it's not relevant.

What I am dismissing is your charge that the virgin birth needs to be empirically proven to be true in order to accept Jesus as the Messiah. We have testimonial evidence, so for me that is sufficient.
Do Jews believe their Messiah must be born of a virgin?
They most definitely do not, and that's only one reason they don't believe that Jesus was their Messiah. I've been pointing out others as well.
If Jews do not believe the Messiah must be born of a virgin and still accept him as their Messiah, then it doesn't matter if Jesus was born of a virgin or not. If Jesus was not born of a virgin, he can still be the Messiah. If Jesus was born of a virgin, then it'd be additional confirmation he was divine.
You're claiming that what Jesus adds to the law doesn't violate the part of the law which says, "Do not add to the law".
Yes, that is what I claim.
But this isn't about the Jews violating the law. It 's about Jesus violating the law.
This is the heart of my argument. We have to apply the law equally to the Jews and Jesus. Again, it would be special pleading if you claim there's any difference. Since you do not believe the Jews have sinned by adding to the Torah, then neither has Jesus.
Athetotheist wrote: Tue Oct 31, 2023 9:49 pm It bears a remarkable similarity to what everyone who's been despised and rejected and later vindicated has gone through.
No, it does apply to everyone that's suffered. This person has also gone through vicarious suffering that was initiated by God.
"For, when Israel was young, I loved him, and from Egypt I called My son."
(Hosea 11:1)

"Israel has forgotten his Maker" (Hosea 8:14)

Do you acknowledge that these verses refer to the same "individual"?
Not sure what you're getting at. Are you claiming since Matthew refers to the passage that he's saying Jesus has left his maker?

[Mat 2:15 KJV] 15 And was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son.

What I do claim is Matthew is referring to Hosea 11:1 as a fulfillment of prophecy for Jesus. I'm not claiming Hosea 8:14 has anything to do with Jesus.

In addition, I believe it has symbolic meaning where all believers of Jesus have been called out of the land of slavery and saved from bondage and into a new life.

Athetotheist
Prodigy
Posts: 3087
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2019 5:24 pm
Has thanked: 19 times
Been thanked: 555 times

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

Post #3299

Post by Athetotheist »

[Replying to otseng in post #3298]

I'm not disputing the virgin birth is a doctrinal position. I'm disputing it is a core doctrine that would be essential for salvation. Your own source confirms my assertion that belief in the virgin birth is not required to be saved. It wasn't even universally accepted until the 2nd century.
How can any doctrine not be "core"? If Christians don't believe in the virgin birth, what point is there to believing anything else in the Christian Bible?

So Jesus would've had to have been divine if he was born of a virgin.
And his virgin conception would have had to be observable in order to be a sign. Since his conception wasn't observable, it couldn't have been the sign Isaiah was talking about.

So there must be an eyewitness to every minute of her life that she could've had intercourse in order to confirm if she was a virgin? Yes, this would prove if she was a virgin or not. But this high level of proof is not practical.
The burden of proof isn't on the claim that Jesus wasn't born to a virgin. It's on the claim that he was.


Does Luke testify to having examined Mary?
Physically examined? Probably not. But examined her testimony? Probably so.
Testimony gives nothing but someone's word to examine, so it's useless as evidence of a miraculous event.

What I am dismissing is your charge that the virgin birth needs to be empirically proven to be true in order to accept Jesus as the Messiah. We have testimonial evidence, so for me that is sufficient.
It's sufficient for you because you choose to accept it.

If Jews do not believe the Messiah must be born of a virgin and still accept him as their Messiah, then it doesn't matter if Jesus was born of a virgin or not. If Jesus was not born of a virgin, he can still be the Messiah.
1) He must be Jewish. (Deuteronomy. 17:15, Numbers 24:17)

2) He must be a member of the tribe of Judah (Genesis 49:10) and a direct male descendant of King David (I Chronicles 17:11, Psalms 89:29-38, Jeremiah 33:17, II Samuel 7:12-16) and King Solomon. (I Chronicles 22:10, II Chronicles 7:18)

3) He must gather the Jewish people from exile and return them to Israel. (Isaiah 27:12-13, Isaiah 11:12)

4) He must rebuild the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem. (Micah 4:1)

4) He must rebuild the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem. (Micah 4:1)

5) He must bring world peace. (Isaiah 2:4, Isaiah 11:6, Micah 4:3)

6) He must influence the entire world to acknowledge and serve one G-d. (Isaiah 11:9, Isaiah 40:5, Zephaniah 3:9)

All of these criteria for the Messiah are best stated in chapter 37:24-28 of the book of Ezekiel:

“and My servant David will be a king over them, and they will all have one shepherd, and they will walk in My ordinances, and keep My statutes, and observe them, and they shall live on the land that I gave to Jacob My servant...and I will make a covenant of peace with them; it will be an everlasting covenant and I will set my sanctuary in their midst forever and My dwelling place shall be with them, and I will be their G-d and they will be My people. And the nations will know that I am the Lord who sanctifies Israel, when My sanctuary is in their midst forever.” (Ezekiel 37:24-28)

Emphasis: If an individual fails to fulfill even one of these conditions, then he cannot be the Messiah!


https://jewsforjudaism.org/knowledge/ar ... he-messiah


You're claiming that what Jesus adds to the law doesn't violate the part of the law which says, "Do not add to the law".
Yes, that is what I claim.
I'll let that speak for itself.

This is the heart of my argument. We have to apply the law equally to the Jews and Jesus. Again, it would be special pleading if you claim there's any difference. Since you do not believe the Jews have sinned by adding to the Torah, then neither has Jesus.
How Jesus handles the Torah and how the rabbis handle it are separate issues. If the Jews violate the Torah, it doesn't weaken my case. I've shown where and how Jesus violates the Torah.


It bears a remarkable similarity to what everyone who's been despised and rejected and later vindicated has gone through.
No, it does apply to everyone that's suffered. This person has also gone through vicarious suffering that was initiated by God.
That can be claimed about anyone who's despised and rejected.

What I do claim is Matthew is referring to Hosea 11:1 as a fulfillment of prophecy for Jesus. I'm not claiming Hosea 8:14 has anything to do with Jesus.
Have you ever wondered why Matthew starts quoting Hosea literally in mid-sentence? Could it have been because he wanted to avoid using the name "Israel" because the context of Hosea shows that there's nothing messianic about 11:1?
In addition, I believe it has symbolic meaning where all believers of Jesus have been called out of the land of slavery and saved from bondage and into a new life.
That's all well and good if you're content to believe in Jesus as a symbolic Messiah.

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20745
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 206 times
Been thanked: 355 times
Contact:

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

Post #3300

Post by otseng »

Athetotheist wrote: Thu Nov 02, 2023 12:42 am
I'm not disputing the virgin birth is a doctrinal position. I'm disputing it is a core doctrine that would be essential for salvation. Your own source confirms my assertion that belief in the virgin birth is not required to be saved. It wasn't even universally accepted until the 2nd century.
How can any doctrine not be "core"? If Christians don't believe in the virgin birth, what point is there to believing anything else in the Christian Bible?
I do not view the Bible as a monolithic entity where everything in it has equal weight and importance. Obviously some things stated in the Bible are more important than others. Even the laws are not equally important. The highest of the laws are to love God and to love others. These are the foundation and core of all the other laws. And built on top of the Torah are the other books of the Tanakh. Without the Torah, the rest of the Bible would make no sense. But it's possible to throw out other books (Esther, Song of Solomon, Micah, etc) and the Bible would still make sense.

For the virgin birth, I'm not claiming Christians should not believe in it or that I don't believe in it. I'm simply claiming it is not a core doctrine and not necessary for salvation or Christian living.
The burden of proof isn't on the claim that Jesus wasn't born to a virgin. It's on the claim that he was.
I've already carried the burden of proof by providing the textual evidence Jesus was born of a virgin. What you are arguing for is the level of burden of proof. Since you do not accept testimonial evidence, you categorically reject the virgin birth. Since testimonial evidence is acceptable evidence in any court, I've carried my burden of proof.
Testimony gives nothing but someone's word to examine, so it's useless as evidence of a miraculous event.
I've never claimed it is evidence of a miraculous event. And I've never claimed the virgin birth was a confirmation of who Jesus claimed to be. All I claim is there is evidence to support Jesus was born of a virgin. You might discount it, but it doesn't mean I have not provided any evidence.
It's sufficient for you because you choose to accept it.
Yes, I chose to accept it. But it is not based on blind faith, but on testimonial evidence. If you don't choose to accept it, it's a non-issue for me. Even if another Christian doesn't accept it, I don't make a big deal out of it either since I don't believe it's a core doctrine.
1) He must be Jewish. (Deuteronomy. 17:15, Numbers 24:17)
Obviously Jesus is Jewish.
2) He must be a member of the tribe of Judah (Genesis 49:10) and a direct male descendant of King David (I Chronicles 17:11, Psalms 89:29-38, Jeremiah 33:17, II Samuel 7:12-16) and King Solomon. (I Chronicles 22:10, II Chronicles 7:18)
He was also a descendant of David.
3) He must gather the Jewish people from exile and return them to Israel. (Isaiah 27:12-13, Isaiah 11:12)
The nation of Israel has been reestablished and Jews are free to return.
4) He must rebuild the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem. (Micah 4:1)
Jesus himself is the temple and those in him are also part of the temple.
5) He must bring world peace. (Isaiah 2:4, Isaiah 11:6, Micah 4:3)
Jesus himself is our peace.
6) He must influence the entire world to acknowledge and serve one G-d. (Isaiah 11:9, Isaiah 40:5, Zephaniah 3:9)
Christianity is among the top evangelistic religions, if not the top one.
Emphasis: If an individual fails to fulfill even one of these conditions, then he cannot be the Messiah!
Since he's fulfilled all of them, he must be the Messiah.
If the Jews violate the Torah, it doesn't weaken my case. I've shown where and how Jesus violates the Torah.
I'll let the jury assess. Note, we are addressing a Jewish jury. And with your argument, it casts a negative light on all the Jews.
That can be claimed about anyone who's despised and rejected.
Yes, anyone can claim it. And how would one confirm if it was actually true?
Have you ever wondered why Matthew starts quoting Hosea literally in mid-sentence? Could it have been because he wanted to avoid using the name "Israel" because the context of Hosea shows that there's nothing messianic about 11:1?
Could be. It's no big deal either way for me if Matthew appropriated it correctly or not. I don't see Jesus being called out of Egypt as necessary for him to be the savior.
That's all well and good if you're content to believe in Jesus as a symbolic Messiah.
That could be too. It could be Jesus is simply at this point a symbolic Messiah. He certainly never claimed to be "the Messiah". And it could be at the messianic age, he will return again as the literal Messiah.

Post Reply