Quote:
Originally Posted by Igzy
Okay, I'm going to go ahead with my first instinct of what the point of this post was.
Basically you are saying that if any record claims to be inerrant and it records errors made by others then it is in fact errant.
Such an assertion is ridiculous, of course.
Example: A newspaper reports a story about a terrorist group which claimed it placed a bomb in a mall. The paper quotes some of the people in the mall as saying, "We don't believe there is bomb in the mall." The bomb explodes. Therefore the newspaper is in error because it reported the erroneous declaration of the disbelieving people.
This is zeek's point. I think. I wish it wasn't because...well...you know.
Anyway, anything else anybody? Because if this is as good as it gets we are wasting our time.
|
No you're way off. I'm saying that Jesus' question "Who do people say I am...who do you say I am" is itself Biblical. To reject the question is to reject part of the inerrant Bible. It would be a significant- red- letter- words- -of Jesus part. If you believe the Bible is inerrant, how can you reject the question? I have never questioned the inerrancy of the Bible on this thread. I even supplied you with a detailed definition of inerrancy when no one else did. You're welcome. I have asked how it is inerrant because I don't know.
The Bible documents that not everyone accepted Jesus as the messiah. So, he must have been messiah in a way that was not unambiguously clear to everyone. If he had been a messiah in the way the jews expected him to be it would have been apparent to everyone. He would have overthrown the Romans and taken the throne of Israel. That didn't happen in any unambiguously apparent way. The inerrant bible records that such is the case.
So, I am not questioning if Jesus is the messiah or not. I am noting that the way in which he is the messiah is different than the way that was expected. Perhaps the Bible is inerrant in a way different than people expect it to be.