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 #3300

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.

Yes, Jesus himself says so......after saying that anyone who breaks even the least commandment will be called least in the kingdom of heaven.

Without the Torah, the rest of the Bible would make no sense.

If Jesus could add to the law in spite of the law's command not to add to it, the Torah would make no 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.

Then why should anything be considered a "core doctrine"? If Matthew and Luke were wrong about the virgin birth, then they may have been wrong about everything else. And that means Mark and John may have been wrong about everything as well.

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.

The textual evidence you cite has a proof "level" of zero, since it doesn't prove a virgin birth.

Since testimonial evidence is acceptable evidence in any court, I've carried my burden of proof.

This isn't a court of law. This is the court of logic, and in the court of logic, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

And even if it were a court of law, its simply being admissible doesn't prove it to be true since testimony can be impeached under cross-examination.

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.

The only evidence you have is hearsay evidence from gospel writers who may or may not have known the apostles personally.

Yes, I chose to accept it. But it is not based on blind faith, but on testimonial evidence.

That testimonial "evidence" itself must be accepted on faith.


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.

And no Messiah was around to do it, so the UN had to do it instead.


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.

Q: If you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have?

A: Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg.


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

Jesus himself is our peace.

Your peace isn't world peace.


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.

"Among the top" doesn't cut it.


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 imaginative responses you give above are your idea of what would fulfill the criteria in question, I don't know what to say.


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.

My statement is conditional, beginning with "if".

You're the one casting Jews in a negative light by accusing them of rejecting their Messiah.


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?

It would take more than "testimonial" evidence.


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.

Again----if Matthew's Egypt story is bogus, how can you trust anything he says?

"Whoever can be trusted with very little can also be trusted with much, and whoever is dishonest with very little will also be dishonest with much."
(Luke 16:10)


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.

You're trying to be slippery. Either he's the literal Messiah or he's not, and there's a fairly strong case that he's not, isn't there?

[otseng]

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.

Yes, Jesus himself says so......after saying that anyone who breaks even the least commandment will be called least in the kingdom of heaven.

Never said we should break them. Just claiming there is precedence and ordering in the laws of some being more important than others.

When they asked Jesus, which is the greatest of the commandments, he did not say, "There is no greatest. They are all equally the same importance." Instead, he said:

[Mat 22:36-40 KJV] 36 Master, which [is] the great commandment in the law? 37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. 38 This is the first and great commandment. 39 And the second [is] like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

Even here Jesus says there is ordering in the kingdom of heaven. When they asked Jesus, who is the greatest in the kingdom, he did not say, "Everyone is the same and nobody is greater than another." He said:

[Mat 18:1, 4 KJV] 1 At the same time came the disciples unto Jesus, saying, Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven? ... 4 Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven.

Then why should anything be considered a "core doctrine"?

If there's ordering and precedence, then there exist the most important core things. The question is what should be considered core? It certainly cannot be based on personal preference and what one would like it to be. For me, core contains what one must believe in order to be a Christian. I don't think any Christian would disagree what Rom 10:9 states is a core belief.

[Rom 10:9 KJV] 9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

Is the virgin birth a core belief? I don't think so. Yes, it's a doctrine, but nowhere is it stated in the Bible one must believe that in order to be saved.

If Matthew and Luke were wrong about the virgin birth, then they may have been wrong about everything else. And that means Mark and John may have been wrong about everything as well.[

No, that's a false dichotomy as I've argued many times.

The textual evidence you cite has a proof "level" of zero, since it doesn't prove a virgin birth.

Never said I can "prove" it. I'm saying I carried the burden of proof.

The burden of proof is the obligation on a party in a dispute to provide sufficient warrant for its position.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of ... hilosophy)

Since testimonial evidence is acceptable evidence in any court, I've carried my burden of proof.

This isn't a court of law. This is the court of logic, and in the court of logic, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Of course we're not literally in a court of law, I'm speaking metaphorically. Even in the area of logic, my argument is still valid since I brought up evidence.

Yeah, skeptics continually say "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". This is not a requirement of "logic", but a requirement of skeptics.

Is there "extraordinary evidence" to support the virgin birth? No, I do not claim there is. All I've produced is testimonial evidence which is sufficient for logical reasoning.

Do people need to believe in a virgin birth because there is only testimonial evidence? They can if they want or they can reject it. And if they reject it, I don't think it matters since it's not a core doctrine.

And even if it were a court of law, its simply being admissible doesn't prove it to be true since testimony can be impeached under cross-examination.

Again, never claimed I can "prove" it to be true. As for cross examination, what testimonial evidence is there that claims Mary was not a virgin?

The only evidence you have is hearsay evidence from gospel writers who may or may not have known the apostles personally.

As you say, since we're not technically in a court of law, so there is no "hearsay evidence". Hearsay evidence only applies in a court where evidence is from an out-of-court statement. But even in a court of law, there are situations where hearsay evidence is allowable.

As for if the gospel writers knew the apostles personally, we don't really know. But the same goes with any historical document. Do those authors personally know those who they wrote about? In the vast majority of cases, no. Do we categorically reject them since they didn't know? No.

That testimonial "evidence" itself must be accepted on faith.

There's always a level of faith involved in believing something since nothing can be proven to be true. But, it's not based on blind faith where there is absolutely no evidence.

And no Messiah was around to do it, so the UN had to do it instead.

Well, it was more complicated than that. But the sheer fact a nation has not existed for thousands of years and then come back to exist is a miracle to me, even if you do attribute it to the UN.

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.

Q: If you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have?

A: Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg.

It is not speaking literally, but metaphorically.

Ultimately, what is the purpose of the temple? It was the place on earth where the Israelites and Yahweh met and dwelled together. And through Jesus, believers have a union with Yahweh.

Your peace isn't world peace.

Ultimately, God will tabernacle among all men and bring world peace.

[Rev 21:3-4 KJV] 3 And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God [is] with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, [and be] their God. 4 And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.

Christianity is among the top evangelistic religions, if not the top one.

"Among the top" doesn't cut it.

OK, then Christianity is the top one.

Religion	Adherents	Percentage
Christianity	2.382 billion	31.0%
Islam	1.907 billion	24.9%
Hinduism	1.161 billion	15.2%
Buddhism	506 million	6.6%

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... opulations

If the imaginative responses you give above are your idea of what would fulfill the criteria in question, I don't know what to say.

I'll let the jury decide.

Note, we are addressing a Jewish jury. And with your argument, it casts a negative light on all the Jews.

My statement is conditional, beginning with "if".

You need to be consistent with your argument. If you're going to be conditional with the Jews, then you need to also be conditional with Jesus.

You're the one casting Jews in a negative light by accusing them of rejecting their Messiah.

There's a lot to unpack here. No, I do not cast Jews is a negative light. I honor the Jewish people and the Tanakh. I might not agree with everything they believe, but disagreement does not mean dishonoring.

Also, most of the Jews don't even believe in the Messiah. I'll create another post for more details about this.

And even among the Jews, there are those who do believe in Jesus as the Messiah.

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?

It would take more than "testimonial" evidence.

I agree. That's why at the onset I started with empirical evidence.

Again----if Matthew's Egypt story is bogus, how can you trust anything he says?

Based on looking at all the available evidence.

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.

You're trying to be slippery. Either he's the literal Messiah or he's not, and there's a fairly strong case that he's not, isn't there?

I'm just agreeing with you that he could just be a symbolic Messiah when he was here on earth. But, to be clear, which I've already stated multiple times, I do believe Jesus is the Messiah. And the case I've been presenting is the empirical evidence of the shroud to support it.

[otseng]

Most Jews don't believe in a Messiah and think it's an archaic belief.

For so many contemporary Jews, though, traditional notions of a Messiah (Moshiach) and future Redemption have become archaic and vaguely embarrassing notions, even though they are woven throughout the daily prayers, the Bible and rabbinic texts.

https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news ... cher-rebbe

In the modern world, Reform Judaism has long denied that there will be an individual messiah who will carry out the task of perfecting the world. Instead, the movement speaks of a future world in which human efforts, not a divinely sent messenger, will bring about a utopian age.

https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/the-messiah

If any Jew would believe in a personal messiah, it would be the Orthodox Jews.

Orthodox Judaism, therefore, advocates a strict observance of Jewish law, or halakha, which is to be interpreted and determined exclusively according to traditional methods and in adherence to the continuum of received precedent through the ages. It regards the entire halakhic system as ultimately grounded in immutable revelation, essentially beyond external influence. Key practices are observing the Sabbath, eating kosher, and Torah study. Key doctrines include a future Messiah who will restore Jewish practice by building the temple in Jerusalem and gathering all the Jews to Israel, belief in a future bodily resurrection of the dead, divine reward and punishment for the righteous and the sinners.

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

Even among the Orthodox Jews, there is not a widely held belief in a personal messiah. Orthodox Judaism is divided between the Haredi (ultra-Orthodox) and the Modern Orthodox.

Modern Orthodox emphasizes the nation of Israel and would lean towards a nationalistic messiah than a personal messiah.

Modern Orthodoxy also assigns a central role to the "People of Israel". Here two characteristics are manifest: in general, Modern Orthodoxy places a high national, as well as religious, significance on the State of Israel, and institutions and individuals are, typically, Zionist in orientation;

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

In the US, Orthodox Jews is a minority among the Jews.

The National Jewish Population Survey of 1990 asked 4.5 million adult Jews to identify their denomination. The national total showed 38% were affiliated with the Reform tradition, 35% were Conservative, 6% were Orthodox, 1% were Reconstructionists, 10% linked themselves to some other tradition, and 10% said they are "just Jewish."

In 2013, Pew Research's Jewish population survey found that 35% of American Jews identified as Reform, 18% as Conservative, 10% as Orthodox, 6% who identified with other sects, and 30% did not identify with a denomination.[79]

A follow-up survey in 2013 showed that 14% of all Jews were actually affiliated with Reform communities, 11% with Conservative, 10% with Orthodox communities and 3% with other communities.

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

So, many Jews do not believe in a personal Messiah.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to otseng in post #3302

If there's ordering and precedence, then there exist the most important core things. The question is what should be considered core? It certainly cannot be based on personal preference and what one would like it to be. For me, core contains what one must believe in order to be a Christian. I don't think any Christian would disagree what Rom 10:9 states is a core belief.

"For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven."
(Matthew 5:18-19)

Do you believe that Matthew 5:18-19 states a core belief?


If Matthew and Luke were wrong about the virgin birth, then they may have been wrong about everything else. And that means Mark and John may have been wrong about everything as well.

No, that's a false dichotomy as I've argued many times.

It's not a false dichotomy, because I'm saying that they may be wrong about everything. If they're wrong about anything, everything is suspect.

The burden of proof is the obligation on a party in a dispute to provide sufficient warrant for its position.

Hearsay isn't sufficient warrant just because you want it to be.

Yeah, skeptics continually say "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". This is not a requirement of "logic", but a requirement of skeptics.

Yeah, apologists continually say that extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary evidence isn't a requirement of logic. That 's a requirement of apologists.

As for cross examination, what testimonial evidence is there that claims Mary was not a virgin?

Mary not being a virgin doesn't rely on testimonial evidence. It's supported by the empirical evidence of the human species being biologically designed to reproduce through intercourse.

As you say, since we're not technically in a court of law, so there is no "hearsay evidence". Hearsay evidence only applies in a court where evidence is from an out-of-court statement.

Hearsay is anything received by anyone indirectly. It's not limited to the judicial sphere.

As for if the gospel writers knew the apostles personally, we don't really know. But the same goes with any historical document. Do those authors personally know those who they wrote about? In the vast majority of cases, no. Do we categorically reject them since they didn't know? No.

Believing George Washington's biographers isn't "required for salvation", as you would say.

There's always a level of faith involved in believing something since nothing can be proven to be true. But, it's not based on blind faith where there is absolutely no evidence.

As there is an "ordering" of beliefs, as you say, so there's an ordering of evidence, and hearsay is the weakest evidence there is.

the sheer fact a nation has not existed for thousands of years and then come back to exist is a miracle to me, even if you do attribute it to the UN.

There's nothing miraculous needed for a nation to be established or re-established, no matter how long it takes. All it takes is for people in power to decide to make it happen. And if there's already a "prophecy" of it happening, then it can easily be a self-fulfilling prophecy.

It is not speaking literally, but metaphorically.

You're not speaking literally, but metaphorically.


"Among the top" doesn't cut it.

OK, then Christianity is the top one.

The "top" one doesn't cut it either. The Messiah is supposed to bring the entire world to belief in a single deity.


If the imaginative responses you give above are your idea of what would fulfill the criteria in question, I don't know what to say.

I'll let the jury decide.

I guess that's all you can do.

You need to be consistent with your argument. If you're going to be conditional with the Jews, then you need to also be conditional with Jesus.

It's past the point of being conditional with Jesus because we can look at what he says, look at what the law says and see that he violates it.

Jesus is highly meticulous when he says that no jot or tittle has passed from the law and that anyone who breaks even the least commandment is least in the kingdom of heaven. If he's going to be that meticulous about how others follow the law, then we can----and should----be that meticulous about how he follows it.


It would take more than "testimonial" evidence.

I agree. That's why at the onset I started with empirical evidence.

And it's undermined by other empirical evidence. You have to invoke the "cloth collapse" notion to explain the image on the Turin cloth, and even that requires an outlandish exercise in theoretical gymnastics to get it to match the image we see.


Again----if Matthew's Egypt story is bogus, how can you trust anything he says?

Based on looking at all the available evidence.

The available evidence certainly doesn't include a virgin birth, which is supposed to have been one of the greatest miracles in human history. How quickly and conveniently it becomes a trivial side note when it turns out to be indefensible.

I'm just agreeing with you that he could just be a symbolic Messiah when he was here on earth. But, to be clear, which I've already stated multiple times, I do believe Jesus is the Messiah. And the case I've been presenting is the empirical evidence of the shroud to support it.

See above.

[Athetotheist]

Most Jews don't believe in a Messiah and think it's an archaic belief.

For so many contemporary Jews, though, traditional notions of a Messiah (Moshiach) and future Redemption have become archaic and vaguely embarrassing notions, even though they are woven throughout the daily prayers, the Bible and rabbinic texts.

https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news ... cher-rebbe

In the modern world, Reform Judaism has long denied that there will be an individual messiah who will carry out the task of perfecting the world. Instead, the movement speaks of a future world in which human efforts, not a divinely sent messenger, will bring about a utopian age.

https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/the-messiah

If any Jew would believe in a personal messiah, it would be the Orthodox Jews.

Orthodox Judaism, therefore, advocates a strict observance of Jewish law, or halakha, which is to be interpreted and determined exclusively according to traditional methods and in adherence to the continuum of received precedent through the ages. It regards the entire halakhic system as ultimately grounded in immutable revelation, essentially beyond external influence. Key practices are observing the Sabbath, eating kosher, and Torah study. Key doctrines include a future Messiah who will restore Jewish practice by building the temple in Jerusalem and gathering all the Jews to Israel, belief in a future bodily resurrection of the dead, divine reward and punishment for the righteous and the sinners.

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

Even among the Orthodox Jews, there is not a widely held belief in a personal messiah. Orthodox Judaism is divided between the Haredi (ultra-Orthodox) and the Modern Orthodox.

Modern Orthodox emphasizes the nation of Israel and would lean towards a nationalistic messiah than a personal messiah.

Modern Orthodoxy also assigns a central role to the "People of Israel". Here two characteristics are manifest: in general, Modern Orthodoxy places a high national, as well as religious, significance on the State of Israel, and institutions and individuals are, typically, Zionist in orientation;

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

In the US, Orthodox Jews is a minority among the Jews.

The National Jewish Population Survey of 1990 asked 4.5 million adult Jews to identify their denomination. The national total showed 38% were affiliated with the Reform tradition, 35% were Conservative, 6% were Orthodox, 1% were Reconstructionists, 10% linked themselves to some other tradition, and 10% said they are "just Jewish."

In 2013, Pew Research's Jewish population survey found that 35% of American Jews identified as Reform, 18% as Conservative, 10% as Orthodox, 6% who identified with other sects, and 30% did not identify with a denomination.[79]

A follow-up survey in 2013 showed that 14% of all Jews were actually affiliated with Reform communities, 11% with Conservative, 10% with Orthodox communities and 3% with other communities.

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

So, many Jews do not believe in a personal Messiah.

If they're right, then you're wrong.

[otseng]

Do you believe that Matthew 5:18-19 states a core belief?

Do I believe it's true? Yes. Do I think it needs to be a core belief? No. It's certainly not in any doctrinal statement. The closest related thing would be the doctrine of inerrancy.

It's not a false dichotomy, because I'm saying that they may be wrong about everything. If they're wrong about anything, everything is suspect.

Everything claimed is open to scrutiny and each thing should be assessed individually. Sure, some other things might have little to no support. But other things might have good or strong support.

Mary not being a virgin doesn't rely on testimonial evidence. It's supported by the empirical evidence of the human species being biologically designed to reproduce through intercourse.

Yes, that's how humans are designed. But nobody is claiming the virgin birth was a naturalistic phenomenon.

Hearsay is anything received by anyone indirectly. It's not limited to the judicial sphere.

Then practically everything we learn is from hearsay evidence. How much do we learn from direct sources, esp historical events?

As for if the gospel writers knew the apostles personally, we don't really know. But the same goes with any historical document. Do those authors personally know those who they wrote about? In the vast majority of cases, no. Do we categorically reject them since they didn't know? No.

Believing George Washington's biographers isn't "required for salvation", as you would say.

So only matters related to salvation requires direct testimonial evidence while everything else can have indirect testimonial evidence?

There's always a level of faith involved in believing something since nothing can be proven to be true. But, it's not based on blind faith where there is absolutely no evidence.

As there is an "ordering" of beliefs, as you say, so there's an ordering of evidence, and hearsay is the weakest evidence there is.

Yes, I believe there is an ordering of evidence as well. That's why I started with empirical evidence in the discussion, not testimonial evidence.

There's nothing miraculous needed for a nation to be established or re-established, no matter how long it takes. All it takes is for people in power to decide to make it happen.

How many other nations have existed thousands of years ago, ceased to exist as a nation, and then reestablished?

The Messiah is supposed to bring the entire world to belief in a single deity.

I don't know about that. What support is there for this?

look at what the law says and see that he violates it.

If you want to argue he "violated" the law, there are actually better examples than his teachings on divorce. A better one would be healing people on the Sabbath. The Jewish leaders even wanted to stone Jesus for such a violation. And there are many other "violations" that Jesus did. So, how can all of these be explained? Fundamentally, Jesus's interpretation of the Torah is different than the Pharisaical rabbis' view of the Torah. So, the question is whose view is correct?

I agree. That's why at the onset I started with empirical evidence.

And it's undermined by other empirical evidence. You have to invoke the "cloth collapse" notion to explain the image on the Turin cloth, and even that requires an outlandish exercise in theoretical gymnastics to get it to match the image we see.

I don't claim the cloth collapse theory can fully explain everything, but I do claim out of all the theories, it best explains the most features of the shroud. So, it is the most viable explanation.

The available evidence certainly doesn't include a virgin birth, which is supposed to have been one of the greatest miracles in human history. How quickly and conveniently it becomes a trivial side note when it turns out to be indefensible.

Christians more often claim Jesus's resurrection is the greatest miracle.

For for being indefensible, it's only because of your requirement that only empirical evidence or direct testimonial evidence are allowed.

If they're right, then you're wrong.

Don't get your point. Who is "they"? Jews as a whole? The Haredi Jews? How are they right? How am I wrong?

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to otseng in post #3306

Do you believe that Matthew 5:18-19 states a core belief?

Do I believe it's true? Yes. Do I think it needs to be a core belief? No. It's certainly not in any doctrinal statement. The closest related thing would be the doctrine of inerrancy.

How can anyone believe that Matthew 5:18-19 is true but not believe that it's necessary for salvation?

Yes, that's how humans are designed. But nobody is claiming the virgin birth was a naturalistic phenomenon.

Right. The claim is that it was a sign, but it couldn't be a sign because Jesus's conception wasn't observable.


Hearsay is anything received by anyone indirectly. It's not limited to the judicial sphere.

Then practically everything we learn is from hearsay evidence. How much do we learn from direct sources, esp historical events?

If George Washington's biographers were wrong, no big deal. If Jesus's biographers were wrong, yes, big deal.

So only matters related to salvation requires direct testimonial evidence while everything else can have indirect testimonial evidence?

See above.

How many other nations have existed thousands of years ago, ceased to exist as a nation, and then reestablished?

Name a Native American tribe, just off the top of your head. They existed for thousands of years before being decimated through colonization and are now officially recognized as sovereign nations. How's that for miraculous?


The Messiah is supposed to bring the entire world to belief in a single deity.

I don't know about that. What support is there for this?

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

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

If you want to argue he "violated" the law, there are actually better examples than his teachings on divorce. A better one would be healing people on the Sabbath. The Jewish leaders even wanted to stone Jesus for such a violation. And there are many other "violations" that Jesus did. So, how can all of these be explained? Fundamentally, Jesus's interpretation of the Torah is different than the Pharisaical rabbis' view of the Torah. So, the question is whose view is correct?

Since it's the law of Moses, the answer has to be that Moses's view is correct. Moses didn't say not to swear at all. He didn't say that he suffered the Israelites to divorce their wives for their "hardness of heart". He did tell them not to add to the law. He did tell them not to turn aside from the law to the right or to the left (Deuteronomy 28:14). So regardless of where the Pharisaical rabbis stood, Jesus's view violates the law of Moses.

I don't claim the cloth collapse theory can fully explain everything, but I do claim out of all the theories, it best explains the most features of the shroud. So, it is the most viable explanation.

A miraculous explanation should cover everything. That's the only way it can stand out as miraculous. If it falls short, if it's not miraculous enough to explain everything, then it's no better than any other hypothesis.

For for being indefensible, it's only because of your requirement that only empirical evidence or direct testimonial evidence are allowed.

Only empirical evidence is sufficient.

There is no "direct testimonial" evidence.

Don't get your point. Who is "they"? Jews as a whole? The Haredi Jews? How are they right? How am I wrong?

You believe in a personal Messiah. You said, as your wrap -up point:

So, many Jews do not believe in a personal Messiah.

I said that if they're right, then you're wrong. That's clear, isn't it?

[otseng]

Do I believe it's true? Yes. Do I think it needs to be a core belief? No. It's certainly not in any doctrinal statement. The closest related thing would be the doctrine of inerrancy.

How can anyone believe that Matthew 5:18-19 is true but not believe that it's necessary for salvation?

Because the text does not say those who breaks a commandment will not be in the kingdom of heaven, but will be the least in the kingdom of heaven.

[Mat 5:18-19 KJV] 18 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. 19 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: but whosoever shall do and teach [them], the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

If George Washington's biographers were wrong, no big deal. If Jesus's biographers were wrong, yes, big deal.

It's not just Washington's history, but practically all of history as we know it.

As for Jesus's accounts, it depends on the importance of what is claimed. If it's not a core doctrine, I don't see it as a big deal.

So only matters related to salvation requires direct testimonial evidence while everything else can have indirect testimonial evidence?

See above.

You didn't answer the question. But what you are implying is the answer is yes. It's no big deal about secular history, so indirect testimonial evidence is sufficient. Whereas for Christian claims, only direct testimonial evidence is allowed. I argue this is more special pleading.

Name a Native American tribe, just off the top of your head. They existed for thousands of years before being decimated through colonization and are now officially recognized as sovereign nations. How's that for miraculous?

They did not disappear for thousands of years as a nation. The US has only existed for hundreds of years after Europeans first settled in America and took over from the Native Americans.

The Messiah is supposed to bring the entire world to belief in a single deity.

I don't know about that. What support is there for this?

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

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

Here's Isaiah 11:

[Isa 11:9 KJV] 9 They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain: for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD, as the waters cover the sea.

Verse 9 does say the earth will be full of the knowledge of God, but it says nothing of everyone acknowledging and serving God. Later, it instead points to more of a political conquest of the Gentile nations.

[Isa 11:14 KJV] 14 But they shall fly upon the shoulders of the Philistines toward the west; they shall spoil them of the east together: they shall lay their hand upon Edom and Moab; and the children of Ammon shall obey them.

Here's Isaiah 40:

[Isa 40:5 KJV] 5 And the glory of the LORD shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see [it] together: for the mouth of the LORD hath spoken [it].

Yes, the glory of God will be revealed to all, but it doesn't say everyone will believe in God.

Here's Zephaniah 3:

[Zep 3:8-9 KJV] 8 Therefore wait ye upon me, saith the LORD, until the day that I rise up to the prey: for my determination [is] to gather the nations, that I may assemble the kingdoms, to pour upon them mine indignation, [even] all my fierce anger: for all the earth shall be devoured with the fire of my jealousy. 9 For then will I turn to the people a pure language, that they may all call upon the name of the LORD, to serve him with one consent.

It's more like God is pouring out his judgement on the nations rather than a cosmic altar call to the nations.

If you want to argue he "violated" the law, there are actually better examples than his teachings on divorce. A better one would be healing people on the Sabbath. The Jewish leaders even wanted to stone Jesus for such a violation. And there are many other "violations" that Jesus did. So, how can all of these be explained? Fundamentally, Jesus's interpretation of the Torah is different than the Pharisaical rabbis' view of the Torah. So, the question is whose view is correct?

Since it's the law of Moses, the answer has to be that Moses's view is correct. Moses didn't say not to swear at all. He didn't say that he suffered the Israelites to divorce their wives for their "hardness of heart". He did tell them not to add to the law. He did tell them not to turn aside from the law to the right or to the left (Deuteronomy 28:14). So regardless of where the Pharisaical rabbis stood, Jesus's view violates the law of Moses.

Nobody is debating the authority of the law of Moses. The issue is whose interpretation of the law of Moses is correct? Plus, your view of the law of Moses is even different from the Pharisaical rabbis. Even they added to the Torah. So why is your view correct? Jesus was challenging the rabbis' strict observance of the Torah. But you even have a stricter view than the rabbis.

A miraculous explanation should cover everything. That's the only way it can stand out as miraculous. If it falls short, if it's not miraculous enough to explain everything, then it's no better than any other hypothesis.

By definition, a miraculous event does not have a naturalistic explanation. So you cannot assert a miracle must require a complete naturalistic explanation because that is contrary to the definition of a miracle.

For for being indefensible, it's only because of your requirement that only empirical evidence or direct testimonial evidence are allowed.

Only empirical evidence is sufficient.

There is no "direct testimonial" evidence.

Of course there is direct testimonial evidence. If it doesn't exist, then what are you suggesting?

Also don't know what you mean by only empirical evidence is sufficient. Many times we have instances where only testimonial evidence is available and it is sufficient.

Don't get your point. Who is "they"? Jews as a whole? The Haredi Jews? How are they right? How am I wrong?

You believe in a personal Messiah. You said, as your wrap -up point:

So, many Jews do not believe in a personal Messiah.

I said that if they're right, then you're wrong. That's clear, isn't it?

No, it's not clear and you didn't answer my questions.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to otseng in post #3308

How can anyone believe that Matthew 5:18-19 is true but not believe that it's necessary for salvation?

Because the text does not say those who breaks a commandment will not be in the kingdom of heaven, but will be the least in the kingdom of heaven.

Then Jesus's own violations make him least in the kingdom of heaven by his own definition.

It's no big deal about secular history, so indirect testimonial evidence is sufficient. Whereas for Christian claims, only direct testimonial evidence is allowed. I argue this is more special pleading.

It's not special pleading, because secular histories don't claim to be the Word of God.

They did not disappear for thousands of years as a nation. The US has only existed for hundreds of years after Europeans first settled in America and took over from the Native Americans.

That matters not a whit. Their survival in the face of so much adversity is no less miraculous than the founding of the modern state of Israel is said to be.

Verse 9 does say the earth will be full of the knowledge of God, but it says nothing of everyone acknowledging and serving God.

That's exactly what it would mean.

Yes, the glory of God will be revealed to all, but it doesn't say everyone will believe in God.

That's exactly what it would mean.

It's more like God is pouring out his judgement on the nations rather than a cosmic altar call to the nations.

You seem to have missed verse 9:

For then will I turn to the people a pure language, that they may all call upon the name of the LORD, to serve him with one consent.

Nobody is debating the authority of the law of Moses. The issue is whose interpretation of the law of Moses is correct?

You put far too much stock in "interpretation".

Yes, Your Honor, the missing items were found in my client's home and the law does prohibit theft. But it was not theft when my client took the items, because he interprets the law differently.

The Defense rests.

Plus, your view of the law of Moses is even different from the Pharisaical rabbis. Even they added to the Torah.

We've been over this. Adding to scripture doesn't add to the commandments.

So why is your view correct? Jesus was challenging the rabbis' strict observance of the Torah. But you even have a stricter view than the rabbis.

Jesus was challenging the Torah itself. He advocated strict adherence to every jot and tittle of the law while scrapping entire commandments. It's like the gospel writers were having him say whatever was politically expedient at the moment.

By definition, a miraculous event does not have a naturalistic explanation. So you cannot assert a miracle must require a complete naturalistic explanation because that is contrary to the definition of a miracle.

If a miracle doesn't look entirely miraculous, that's an indication that it isn't a miracle.

Of course there is direct testimonial evidence. If it doesn't exist, then what are you suggesting?

Testimony is always indirect.

Also don't know what you mean by only empirical evidence is sufficient. Many times we have instances where only testimonial evidence is available and it is sufficient.

That can't be the case where signs and miracles are concerned.


I said that if they're right, then you're wrong. That's clear, isn't it?

No, it's not clear and you didn't answer my questions.

I think it is, and I think I did.

[otseng]

Then Jesus's own violations make him least in the kingdom of heaven by his own definition.

Of course I'd disagree.

It's no big deal about secular history, so indirect testimonial evidence is sufficient. Whereas for Christian claims, only direct testimonial evidence is allowed. I argue this is more special pleading.

It's not special pleading, because secular histories don't claim to be the Word of God.

I'm not assuming the Bible is the "word of God" either. My approach in this entire thread is to treat the Bible as any other text.

It's more like God is pouring out his judgement on the nations rather than a cosmic altar call to the nations.

You seem to have missed verse 9:

For then will I turn to the people a pure language, that they may all call upon the name of the LORD, to serve him with one consent.

Depends on who "all" is referring to. As I mentioned, in the preceding verse, there is a judgment against the nations. In the passage after it, Zeph 3:12-20, it is talking about the remnant of Israel.

[Zep 3:12-13 KJV] 12 I will also leave in the midst of thee an afflicted and poor people, and they shall trust in the name of the LORD. 13 The remnant of Israel shall not do iniquity, nor speak lies; neither shall a deceitful tongue be found in their mouth: for they shall feed and lie down, and none shall make [them] afraid.

You put far too much stock in "interpretation".

Understanding the Bible requires interpretation.

Adding to scripture doesn't add to the commandments.

Not so sure about that. One example of where laws have been added is the extensive kosher laws.

Kashrut (also kashruth or kashrus, כַּשְׁרוּת) is a set of dietary laws dealing with the foods that Jewish people are permitted to eat and how those foods must be prepared according to Jewish law.

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

Kashrut is the body of Jewish law dealing with what foods can and cannot be eaten and how those foods must be prepared.

https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/ov ... egulations

Perhaps the most distinctive aspect of Jewish practice is the special diet. The food Jewish people are permitted to eat is known as Kosher (which means “fitting” or “correct”). The Kashrut Laws cover the type of animals a Jew can eat; how they are prepared; the prohibition of consuming blood and certain forbidden fats and sinews; the prohibition of consuming flies and insects, the mixing of meat and milk and many other aspects of diet and food preparation.

https://www.jvisit.org.uk/jewish-dietary-laws/

A specific example of a kosher law is a kosher kitchen must have two sets of cookware and utensils, one for meat and one for dairy. This is not commanded in the Torah, but a later addition.

The Torah forbids eating meat and milk in combination, and even forbids the act of cooking them together (as well as deriving benefit from such a mixture). As a safeguard, the Sages disallow the eating of meat and dairy products at the same meal, or preparing them with the same utensils. Therefore, a kosher kitchen must have two separate sets of pots, pans, plates and silverware ― one for meat/poultry and the other for dairy foods.

https://aish.com/48958906

The requirement to keep meat and dairy products separate necessitates that they be prepared with their own designated utensils. Accordingly, a kosher kitchen can be characterized by duplicates: two sets of pots, two sets of dishes, and sometimes even two ovens or two sinks.

https://www.kosher.com/jewish-learning/ ... er-kitchen

The entire requirement is based on "not seething a kid in his mother's milk". The Torah doesn't say anything about having two sets of cookware and utensils.

[Exo 23:19 KJV] 19 The first of the firstfruits of thy land thou shalt bring into the house of the LORD thy God. Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother's milk.

[Deu 14:21 KJV] 21 Ye shall not eat [of] any thing that dieth of itself: thou shalt give it unto the stranger that [is] in thy gates, that he may eat it; or thou mayest sell it unto an alien: for thou [art] an holy people unto the LORD thy God. Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother's milk.

Jesus was challenging the Torah itself. He advocated strict adherence to every jot and tittle of the law while scrapping entire commandments. It's like the gospel writers were having him say whatever was politically expedient at the moment.

That's what you assert, but it's much more complicated than what you're asserting. And why exempt yourself from saying things that are expedient for you?

By definition, a miraculous event does not have a naturalistic explanation. So you cannot assert a miracle must require a complete naturalistic explanation because that is contrary to the definition of a miracle.

If a miracle doesn't look entirely miraculous, that's an indication that it isn't a miracle.

There is no requirement that a miracle "look" miraculous either. I don't even know what would constitute a "miraculous look".

Of course there is direct testimonial evidence. If it doesn't exist, then what are you suggesting?

Testimony is always indirect.

Don't know what you are referring to. Can you provide a definition that says a testimony is always indirect?

Here's definitions of testimony:

1: something that someone says especially in a court of law while formally promising to tell the truth
2: proof or evidence that something exists or is true

https://www.britannica.com/dictionary/testimony

1. testimony (to something) a thing that shows that something else exists or is true
2. a formal written or spoken statement saying what you know to be true, usually in court

https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries. ... /testimony

Also don't know what you mean by only empirical evidence is sufficient. Many times we have instances where only testimonial evidence is available and it is sufficient.

That can't be the case where signs and miracles are concerned.

That's debatable. One area that some accept testimony alone as sufficient is near-death experiences. As far as I'm aware, there is no empirical evidence to support it. It's all testimonial evidence. Yet, it's accepted as sufficient.

I said that if they're right, then you're wrong. That's clear, isn't it?

No, it's not clear and you didn't answer my questions.

I think it is, and I think I did.

I'll let the jury assess.