Whether humans can be righteous and meet God's standards

[Tassman]

You have a very poor, incorrect understanding of theology, and possibly of science as well.

Theological claims are tested and validated against Scripture, analogous to how scientific claims are tested and validated against nature. The theological method is highly analogous to the scientific method.

Augustine called theology "the queen of the sciences".

He did, but this was long before modern science began to emerge at the Renaissance and Enlightenment.

Perhaps you missed it. He gave a short explanation of why inerrancy is a logical consequence of divine inspiration.

[Tassman]

show me how every historical event has been multiply tested and validated so it can be confidently acted upon as if they were true facts.

It was Kbertsche making that analogy, I disagreed with it.

Tassy, historical events can't be tested and validated. They happened only once and all we have are the records, documents and archeological left behinds.]

[Sparko]

That's worth bearing in mind in general. History is not a reliable field like science is. Believe in it over-credulously at your own peril.

It is a science Starlight. Just more like forensics than experimental science. We use clues to piece together the past: buildings, artifacts, documents and records. It is pretty reliable, but it is not repeatable. At least until we invent time travel. So you can't test it experimentally in a lab (other than things like carbon dating of course)

[Sparko]

It was Kbertsche making that analogy, I disagreed with it.

so you disagree that historical events can be tested in a lab and validated. Then why did you make that claim?


We have thousands of pieces of evidence
we have documents and archeological support for what the documents claim.
We have sources from multiple people, some not even Christian.
The evidence was written close to the event. Much closer than for most accepted historical events.
The evidence is consistent.

so pretty much your claim fails on all points.

[rogue06]

That's worth bearing in mind in general. History is not a reliable field like science is. Believe in it over-credulously at your own peril.

So you would simply throw forensics into the trash as unreliable?

[Tassman]

so you disagree that historical events can be tested in a lab and validated. Then why did you make that claim?

We have thousands of pieces of evidence
we have documents and archeological support for what the documents claim.
We have sources from multiple people, some not even Christian.

The evidence was written close to the event. Much closer than for most accepted historical events.

The evidence is consistent.

The evidence is contradictory.

so pretty much your claim fails on all points.

You wish!

[37818]

More to the point Biblical inerrancy has never been proved.

It has never been proved to you.

John 7:17,
. . . If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, . . .

The question is why attribute any books to a deity?

The claims are being made.

[Sparko]

Tassy, you have been told these things multiple times. We have over 4,000 manuscripts full and partial of the NT alone, not to mention the OT. Each book of the bible is a separate document, a separate book too. We have sources like Tacitus, Josephus who are not Christian. We have evidence from Paul, Mark, Matthew, John, Luke, James who were Christians. They were eye witnesses. Matthew and John were there, Paul witnessed the events he wrote about. Mark wrote as Peter's scribe and he was also there during Jesus' time. Luke interviewed eye witnesses and also wrote about events he witnessed personally with Paul. The books of the OT were written by the people who witnessed those events. None of them were Christian. And there are plenty of historical documents that contain miracles. And the evidence is not contradictory.

I suggest you go read "the Case for Christ" by Lee Strobel for a good overview of the evidence. If you can't read, I hear the movie that just came out is pretty good.

[RumTumTugger]

So you would simply throw forensics into the trash as unreliable?

If this is Starlights view then he should never serve on a jury since he won't believe any evidence that was not done by the scientific methods of the hard sciences.

[Tassman]

Tassy, you have been told these things multiple times.

We have over 4,000 manuscripts full and partial of the NT alone, not to mention the OT.

Each book of the bible is a separate document, a separate book too. We have sources like Tacitus, Josephus who are not Christian.

We have evidence from Paul, Mark, Matthew, John, Luke, James who were Christians. They were eye witnesses. Matthew and John were there,

Scholarly consensus is that they were NOT eyewitnesses.

Paul witnessed the events he wrote about.

Mark wrote as Peter's scribe and he was also there during Jesus' time. Luke interviewed eye witnesses and also wrote about events he witnessed personally with Paul. The books of the OT were written by the people who witnessed those events. None of them were Christian. And there are plenty of historical documents that contain miracles. And the evidence is not contradictory.

What are your sources? None of this is established, reliable history.

I suggest you go read "the Case for Christ" by Lee Strobel for a good overview of the evidence. If you can't read, I hear the movie that just came out is pretty good.

Lee Strobel is an unqualified, apologist hack preaching to the faithful!

[37818]

No, not for that reason.

What is your reason? Inerrancy has never actually been disproven. As I also stated, it has been denied with numerous claims. None of which eliminated mere arguments of unbelieving interpretations, translation issues or known textual copyist issues.

[37818]

The evidence as you accept evidence a priori disallows the miraculous.

Mark 12:2,
. . . And Jesus answering said unto him, Seest thou these great buildings? there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down. . . .

Which took place in 70 AD.

[Sparko]

they are from eye witnesses and 40 years is contemporary. Especially considering in history most documentary evidence is several hundred years old and written third or even fourth hand.


no.

Scholarly consensus is that they were NOT eyewitnesses.

simply saying that doesn't make it true. Most biblical scholars say that it is written by eyewitnesses.


yeah and that is what he wrote about. He was an eyewitness to the events in his letters. And he was alive during Jesus time and knew of him and the Christians. He hunted them down.

What are your sources? None of this is established, reliable history.

https://www.lds.org/new-era/2007/01/...-john?lang=eng

Lee Strobel is an unqualified, apologist hack preaching to the faithful!

His book interviews some of the leading scholars in biblical history. The evidence is laid out so even someone like you can understand. Strobel is not the person making the arguments or presenting the evidence, his book merely strings it together.

[Sea of red]

Augustine called theology "the queen of the sciences".

Please tell me you don't believe this.

[Sea of red]

https://www.lds.org/new-era/2007/01/...-john?lang=eng





His book interviews some of the leading scholars in biblical history. The evidence is laid out so even someone like you can understand. Strobel is not the person making the arguments or presenting the evidence, his book merely strings it together.

So how exactly are the authors of the Gospels privy to details of Jesus's life that they didn't witness? How do they know verbatim what was said in conversations they were not present for like those of Herod, Pilate, Mary, Mary Magdalene, Joseph, Satan, etc?