Doesn't the New Testament contain many errors?

[polonius]

Beginning with the Gospel of Matthew (and particularly in Matthew), aren't there many obvious errors and contradictions? Would these exist in a divinely inspired writing?

[Elijah John]

Beginning with the Gospel of Matthew (and particularly in Matthew), aren't there many obvious errors and contradictions? Would these exist in a divinely inspired writing?

I think it's a given here, (as has been demonstrated time and time again) that the NT contains many errors and contradictions. However, this is not incompatible with the notion of Divine inspiration. There is a human element in all this, and that accounts for the imperfections.

Inspired is not the same as dictated.

[bjs]

[Replying to polonius]

You seem to be saying that there are internal contradictions and errors in the gospel of Matthew. Could you demonstrate one?

Just one will do. Long lists usually just confuse the issue. Choose one internal contradiction in Matthew that you consider to be indisputable; the very clearest example of a contradiction found in Matthew.

[polonius]

Beginning with the Gospel of Matthew (and particularly in Matthew), aren't there many obvious errors and contradictions? Would these exist in a divinely inspired writing?

I think it's a given here, (as has been demonstrated time and time again) that the NT contains many errors and contradictions. However, this is not incompatible with the notion of Divine inspiration. There is a human element in all this, and that accounts for the imperfections.

Inspired is not the same as dictated.

RESPONSE:

If the NT contains erors and contradictions it obviously was not written by God.



"I conclude that the Catholic Church teaches the absolute inerrancy of Holy Scripture, that is, that the Bible is wholly and entirely free from all error. This is “the ancient and unchanging faith of the Church� affirmed by Pope Leo XIII’s Providentissimus Deus, Pope Benedict XV’s Spiritus Paraclitus, Pope Pius XII’s Divino afflante Spiritu, and Vatican II’s Dei Verbum.

[Elijah John]

Beginning with the Gospel of Matthew (and particularly in Matthew), aren't there many obvious errors and contradictions? Would these exist in a divinely inspired writing?

I think it's a given here, (as has been demonstrated time and time again) that the NT contains many errors and contradictions. However, this is not incompatible with the notion of Divine inspiration. There is a human element in all this, and that accounts for the imperfections.

Inspired is not the same as dictated.

RESPONSE:

If the NT contains erors and contradictions it obviously was not written by God.



"I conclude that the Catholic Church teaches the absolute inerrancy of Holy Scripture, that is, that the Bible is wholly and entirely free from all error. This is “the ancient and unchanging faith of the Church� affirmed by Pope Leo XIII’s Providentissimus Deus, Pope Benedict XV’s Spiritus Paraclitus, Pope Pius XII’s Divino afflante Spiritu, and Vatican II’s Dei Verbum.

Not written, but inspired. Written is like dictated, or penned. It was neither. Inspired is a different matter altogether, and as such, there is room for error in the human element.

Also, I think your RCC sources are outdated. Now the Church considers the Bible to be an error free source for all that we need for salvation, faith and morals, but the RCC does not consider the Bible a book of science or literal history anymore.

[polonius]

[Replying to polonius]

You seem to be saying that there are internal contradictions and errors in the gospel of Matthew. Could you demonstrate one?

Just one will do. Long lists usually just confuse the issue. Choose one internal contradiction in Matthew that you consider to be indisputable; the very clearest example of a contradiction found in Matthew.

RESPONSE: Sure. Matthew claims that Jesus sent for two animals (ass and her coat) and rode them into Jerusalem. (There are others of course).

Excerpted from A Concise History of the Catholic Church
By Father Thomas Bokenkotter, SS

"The Gospels were not meant to be a historical or biographical account of Jesus. They were written to convert unbelievers to faith in Jesus as the Messiah of God, risen and living now in his church and coming again to judge all men. Their authors did not deliberately invent or falsify facts about Jesus, but they were not primarily concerned with historical accuracy. They readily included material drawn from the Christian communities' experience of the risen Jesus. Words, for instance, were put in the mouth of Jesus and stories were told about him which, though not historical in the strict sense, nevertheless, in the minds of the evangelists, fittingly expressed the real meaning and intent of Jesus as faith had come to perceive him. For this reason, scholars have come to make a distinction between the Jesus of history and the Christ of faith."

[polonius]

Elijah John posted:

[quote]Also, I think your RCC sources are outdated. Now the Church considers the Bible to be an error free source for all that we need for salvation, faith and morals, but the RCC does not consider the Bible a book of science or literal history anymore.

RESPONSE: Wow! Is that a self-contradiction!

An "error free source" but not "literal history"? So what the Bible says about Jesus may be correct or incorrect?

[Elijah John]

Elijah John posted:

Also, I think your RCC sources are outdated. Now the Church considers the Bible to be an error free source for all that we need for salvation, faith and morals, but the RCC does not consider the Bible a book of science or literal history anymore.

RESPONSE: Wow! Is that a self-contradiction!

An "error free source" but not "literal history"? So what the Bible says about Jesus may be correct or incorrect?

-Faith morals and salvation, error free.
-Science and history, not a reliable source.

You don't see the difference? Two different realms here.

And regarding the Jesus of history, even Catholic historical Jesus scholar (like Raymond Brown) admit the Gospel accounts are not literal history. Rather, they are evangelical propaganda, and that is not a pejorative term. They were written to win people to the notion that Jesus is Messiah and savior, the Son of God.

Why else would the narrative sequence of the GoJ differ so much from the Synoptics? And the RCC still accepts them both? They cannot both be accepted as literal history, the narrative contradictions are too apparent.

Answer? The RCC does not consider either literal history, but it does consider both sources of Spiritual truth. THAT is how the Church reconciles them.

[Tcg]

-Faith morals and salvation, error free.
-Science and history, not a reliable source.

And yet I have seen some argue that the story of Abraham's willingness to sacrifice Isaac can't be a proper inclusion in the cannon not because they consider it non-historical, but because they dislike the lesson it teaches concerning God's morality.

If one is to accept that the Bible is error free in issues of faith, morals and salvation, the story would have to be accepted as both literal and acceptable morally. There are of course many other issues than this one that some reject on moral grounds. Given this, it is clear that the Bible is not accepted as error free when it addresses morals.


Tcg

[polonius]

[Replying to polonius]

You seem to be saying that there are internal contradictions and errors in the gospel of Matthew. Could you demonstrate one?

Just one will do. Long lists usually just confuse the issue. Choose one internal contradiction in Matthew that you consider to be indisputable; the very clearest example of a contradiction found in Matthew.

RESPONSE: Sure. But there are many. Here's a popular one. Matthew has Jesus send for and ride TWO animals when entering Jerusalem. That's a mistake Matthew made.

Chapter 21
The Entry into Jerusalem.[a] 1 When they drew near Jerusalem and came to Bethphage on the Mount of Olives, Jesus sent two disciples, 2 saying to them, “Go into the village opposite you, and immediately you will find an ass tethered, and a colt with her.[c] Untie them and bring them here to me. 3 And if anyone should say anything to you, reply, ‘The master has need of them.’ Then he will send them at once.� 4 [d]This happened so that what had been spoken through the prophet might be fulfilled:


5 “Say to daughter Zion,
‘Behold, your king comes to you,
meek and riding on an ass,
and on a colt, the foal of a beast of burden.’�

6 The disciples went and did as Jesus had ordered them. 7 [e]They brought the ass and the colt and laid their cloaks over them, and he sat upon them. 8 [f]The very large crowd spread their cloaks on the road, while others cut branches from the trees and strewed them on the road. 9 The crowds preceding him and those following kept crying out and saying:
“Hosanna[g] to the Son of David;
blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord;

Matthew misunderstood. There is no word "and" in the prophecy he quoted. It's the same animal. In Hebrew, it's common to describe something twice. It should have read "on a colt of an ass" so it would agree with Mark, Luke, and John.