From: bobb@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Bob Beauchaine)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: NT harmonizations/inerrancy
Date: 19 Aug 92 19:55:33 GMT
Organization: Tektronix Inc., Beaverton, Or.


In article <1992Aug18.172557.27380@bmerh85.bnr.ca, dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham) writes:

 Doug:

 >> Pardon me.  I do get confused at times.

 Jim: 

 >That's understandable.  For many Christians the terms "Son of God" and
 >"God" are synonomous, especially in the context you used, namely, "...Jesus,
 >who was God?"  Some Christians place more distinctions on the term "Son
 >of God", so Gregg's correction is understandable although trivial in this
 >context where your usage was essentially and functionally correct.

  Unless I'm mistaken, Doug made that statement rather tongue in
  cheek.  

>>Christianty holds that he does not override
>>Jesus.  Jesus said that he would not change the law ("jot and tittle,"
>>as you say).  Paul says the penalties have been paid.  The law remains
>>unchanged.
 

>I am not criticizing you, so I hope you understand that I mean no offense
>when I say that your understanding of Christianity, its doctrines, and
>harmonizations of the gospels and the epistles in the NT is quite lacking.

  Mine understanding, however, is not lacking, yet I too agree with Doug 
  in principle.

>There is no contradiction whatever between the teachings of Jesus and Paul.

  In terms of advice for living a Christian
  life, Jesus had very little to say, and what he did say was
  usually very clear and simplistic.  "Take up your cross and follow
  me".  "Sell everything you have and give it to the poor."  "Love
  you neighbor as you love yourself."  Jesus ate with lepers,
  prostitutes, and tax collectors, and was (at least as far as the
  Bible tells us) quite tolerant of everyone except hypocrites.  

  Paul, on the other hand, saw it necessary to be a whole lot more
  specific in giving instruction to the gentiles on how to live.
  Jesus had almost nothing to say about sexuality (aside from his
  comments on lust), yet Paul devotes endless page and verse
  addressing the supposed sexual immorality of the believer and
  pagan alike.  Of course these teachings don't directly contradict
  what Jesus had to say, since he had essentially nothing to say.
  The real question is are they in agreement with what Jesus *would
  have said*?  We will never know.  Did Paul have the authority to
  add as much as he did to the foundations of Christianity? 

>Nor is there a contradiction between Paul and James.  Nor between, Jesus,
>Paul, James, and John.  Etc.  The cohesive structure of the NT is well
>established in Christian philosophy and thought.  

  The cohesive structure of the NT has come about through centuries
  of intense theological scrutiny, appraisal, and theorizing, and to
  this day is not universally agreed upon.  Unless you choose to
  ignore a very large section of the Christian world, particularly
  those who view the Bible allegorically, you cannot make this
  claim.  

  And what if you can?  It has *still* taken centuries of work to
  come up with the onion-like structure of current Christian
  thought.  Much of it is not at all self evident to the average lay
  Christian, and none of it is objectively verifiable short of
  death.  Sure, I've heard how Judas hanged himself, the rope broke,
  and he burst on the ground.  That explanation, however, is an
  extrapolation of the data as presented in the Bible, where two
  disparate accounts of his death are provided.  You may not see
  this as a contradiction, but that is because the idea of having a
  contradiction in the Bible is more repugnant to you than is the 
  practice of jumping through theological hoops to preserve it's 
  innerancy.  

  What about books like Revelations and Daniel?  I dare you to find 
  just two bible scholars who agree on the details of the interpretation 
  and implications of this book.  

>Any imagined contradiction
>in the NT is trivial at best, and the real work of harmonization remains,
>admittedly, between the NT and portions of the Old.  
  
  These contradictions are only trivial if you assume from the get
  go that they are not contradictions.  Jesus' lineage.  Judas'
  death.  These are not trivial, and only intellectual dishonesty
  saves you from having to admit that there is a real possibility
  that they are indeed mistakes.

>Whether you or others
>wish to accept Christian harmonizations in the NT, is of course, up to you.
>But arguments as to whether Christians obey Jesus or Paul (or James or John)
>really carry little weight for the well-grounded Christian who is aware of
>the context and harmonizations of these various teachings.  You might as
>well assert that Jesus never lived, or that Christianity is "immoral" for
>all the good it will do.  All you will succeed in doing is to convince other
>non-believers, as lacking in their understanding of Christianity as you, of
>the "truth" of these assertions.

  And you have to understand that the harmonizations of the NT beg
  the question.  Harmonizers do not approach the question from the
  perspective of "is the NT harmonious? Let's see".  They approach
  it from the perspective "the NT is harmonious, here's how I prove
  it."   

  Why is it so dangerous for many Christians to admit that perhaps they
  are wrong?  I am quite willing to admit that God may exist, and
  will change my opinion accordingly if new evidence becomes
  available.  Why do you have to cling to the idea that the Bible
  can't have inconsistencies and errors?  There is, even allowing
  for Biblical errors, a clear core message to Christianity that
  would not be compromised by the loss of innerrancy.  So what's the
  problem?


/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ 

Bob Beauchaine bobb@vice.ICO.TEK.COM 

"If I have to resurrect you, I'll resurrect you, whether you like it
or not!"
	 Paul to Jesus, _The_Last_Temptation_of_Christ_

"For dying is not to be feared--it is the final comfort.  As we all
learn, eventually."

  --Robert Heinlein
Newsgroups: alt.atheism