In your opinion is the entire Bible "inerrant" or "infallible" as it relates to scripture?
- Thread starter biblestudent78
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Might I ask as to where you gained the knowledge of how long the gentiles had been members of the church from? There is ample, but obscure, evidence that some gentiles were believers beginning as early as 33 CE, or shortly after the resurrection, one of the early ones being named Pontius Pilate. There is also evidence that the issue of circumcision for gentiles was addressed by Jews and determined to not be an issue by some Jewish groups, but clearly not all, by the mid 1st century BCE but still not fully resolved as late as 64 CE.
I literally quoted you the verses that SAYS he did.
The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray. - Galatians 2:13
Why are you ignoring that verse?
You're also still arguing against a point I never made.
I never claimed the issue of circumcision wasn't resolved. I never claimed Peter permanently taught a false doctrine. I never claimed Peter rejected the correction.
I said Peter was corrected.
That's it.
You even acknowledge it:
Exactly.
If Peter, an apostle, could be corrected by God's word, then Peter was not infallible. That is my point.
Whether the issue was circumcision, eating with Gentiles, or hypocrisy is irrelevant to the principle I'm making. The context changes what he was corrected about, not the fact that he was corrected.
So please stop responding as though I'm arguing that Peter continued teaching error. I'm not. I'm arguing that an apostle was capable of error and therefore capable of correction which makes him fallible.
Human is what we all are yes amen. in Relationship with Christ, we are new in him. FYI Holy means set apart.
I think the free will argument is ridiculous to me. What I believe as what I see in scripture that GOD himself keeps His word, all of it.
I think also your questioning "are you claiming to now be perfect and no longer sinning?" is an argument of your real agenda in your questioning. Again, those who wrote were men set apart by God. They were in a relationship with God therefore it is understood they were in obedience willfully to GOD. Jesus Himself willfully endured the Cross.
The context of the word of God is God said it, had it written down and we obey or don't. Yet man's free won't Change what Gosd said. Paul did not do that. Peter did not do that. IF you see that in the full context of Scripture old and new, your understanding is misplaced.
The Gospel is The Lord Jesus Christ. Death burial and resurrection. Faith in the work of the Cross. Both Peter and Paul were 1000% inn agreement on this Foundational Truth.
again context. this was about circumcision not lead away from Christ. Or salvation. Paul explains Peter was afraid of the Jews who were pressuring him. Paul called him on it. The issue was put to rest. They were in agreement. Is that not a great thing that men of God can come together and be corrected? Was this issue in that day taken to mean Peter was teaching error or Heresies'? No.
2000 year forward did they think those who read this would take it out of context and use it to discredit each other? Yes. That is why Peter said in 2pet chapter 2 Paul's Epistles were scripture.
Is that why Paul had to correct Peter, his elder in the faith?
What believers are not set apart by God, what believers are incapable of sin, or rebellion against God. John tells us in 1 John 1:8 "If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us " Now, which of the apostles is exempt from this statement of scripture written by an apostle, likely written well after both Peter and Paul were dead. And please support your claim with scripture, and note that Paul considered himself to be a sinner well after his conversion as noted in his letters.
If you cannot support that neither Peter nor Paul was free from sin, then you cannot support your argument that they passed on God's word without potential corruption from the sin still residing within them.
are you saying Peter was unable to be corrected by Paul based on the truth of what Paul presented in the text? Or are you suggesting Paul was incapable of speaking on Jewish culture and religious regulations of which he was superior in over Peter?
You literally just brought up again, something I asked you to stop bring up because it has zero relevance to my point. So, please go back to my previous post because that literally just addresses your response to me since you want to continue down the argument trail of stuff I'm not even making. And I will quote myself this last time...
"The context changes what he was corrected about, not the fact that he was corrected."
Unless your response to me actually moves the conversation forward instead of me just repeating myself, I'm just going to stop replying.
when the question is:
Any other humanistic, secular, or position from anon believing in or faith in the Lord Jesus Christ can not be given to the person who is carnal minded or Hostile to the faith. They need the conviction of the Spirit of God to create the need for God so they can be saved.
it is all foolishness to the carnal minded.
In your opinion is the entire Bible "inerrant" or "infallible" as it relates to scripture?
The context of the Word of God from Genesis to Revelation is fully and completely the word of God. Without error and infallible.Any other humanistic, secular, or position from anon believing in or faith in the Lord Jesus Christ can not be given to the person who is carnal minded or Hostile to the faith. They need the conviction of the Spirit of God to create the need for God so they can be saved.
it is all foolishness to the carnal minded.
Peter flip-flopped over his understanding of Jewish regulations, accepting that gentiles did not need to be circumcised until some, apparently forceful, Jews who maintained that circumcision was necessary arrived. So, it was not ignorance on Peter's part, it was an unwillingness to stand firm.
As for Jewish regulations and culture, these were not monolithic. There were multiple, often differing Jewish interpretations of the regulations ranging from fairly lax to very strict as well as different Jewish cultures depending on where one was. Thus, the issue was not over regulations and customs but over inconsistency, and that puts a nail in your argument that Peter was a "holy one" of God and thus in compliance with what God wanted, and if Peter failed, who else was capable of failing?
Okay, a very specific question for you, and please directly answer not try to deflect. In Isaiah 19:18 it references a city, variously called "the city of destruction", "the city of the sun", "the city of righteousness" and "the city of righteousness destined for destruction" depending on which OT text one looks at. Now two of these differing text date from the Christian era and two date from before Jesus was born. Which text is the correct one and which ones were corrupted, and since God preserves His word uncorrupted, how did such variant texts come to be preserved?
You completely danced around my question. And I think you are also holding Peter to a standard you can not nor I can live up to.
Are you saying Peter was unable to be corrected by Paul based on the truth of what Paul presented in the text?
Or are you suggesting Paul was incapable of speaking on Jewish culture and religious regulations of which he was superior in over Peter?
GWH,
Deep waters but too many undefended assumptions. Your statement "Both theism and atheism are unproven opinions or opposite subjective conclusions requiring faith concerning ultimate reality." This in my opinion is a common but perverted dialectic. These are not the dialectic families that exist and are perhaps the least important. Christianity is not a theory. It has nothing to do with "theism." Christianity is a way of life or it is nothing at all. It far less about abstractions like theism than it is about the reality of loving God and loving your neighbor as yourself. Atheism is not a philosophy. It the opposite of a philosophy as philosophies have structure, hierarchy, rules, borders and conditions for acceptance. Atheism has none.
"The problem for truthseekers is evaluating the various teachers or claimants to knowledge, especially when their messages are contradictory." Most, if not all, Christian "knowledge and Messages" are contradictory. A precondition for ruling out in or out knowledge is valid only for those who declare that only the NT contains all valid knowledge. It excludes any possibility of truth from the OT and itself is a dogma looking for validation...not supplied. You claim the NT is the most credible collection of writings "purporting to be a communique from God."
If tens of thousands of Christian religions cannot agree on what the communique from God is or what it means, how can that be the "most valid" evidence? Accepted evidence is a product of a wide, if not universal, acceptance of all its details. That is not the case even within the broader Christian community. There is no single set of biblical evidence that is accepted universally. If fact, there is more disagreement than agreement. If those who claim to "believe the bible" do not agree on what it means, how can it be Universal evidence of anything?
Descendants of Abraham include Judaism, Islam and Christianity, thus there is no unique lineage here. All claim validation via "a unique religious heritage.
If contradiction of ones Dogmas is a sure sign of an invalid faith, then keep in mind that everything you believe is a contradiction to other Christians. So where is there validation in your dogma vs some other believers dogmas?
"A UMI to love everyone by reflecting His love, beginning with God and continuing with one-self and one’s neighbors (whether Jew or Gentile)" is dead wrong and potentially racist. Jesus defined your neighbor as someone in need of your help, be they black, white, Muslim, Hindu, Jehovah's Witness, Mormon or atheist. Jesus used the example of a Samaritan, which to Jewish eyes were those practicing the ultimate false religion.
I fully accept that Peter was corrected, but not on the basis of Jewish customs or regulation, but on the charge of flip flopping. I doubt Paul would have corrected Peter if Peter had consistently declined to eat with the uncircumcised, in fact Paul himself, based on what he says about not leading a fellow believer into what they perceive as sin, might have declined to eat with the uncircumcised in Peter's presence. But when Peter suddenly backtracked and refused to eat with the uncircumcised because some other believers arrived and said that such was not acceptable, especially if they cited James who had reportedly already agreed that such was acceptable, Peter was clearly in the wrong.
As for Paul being superior in knowledge of Jewish regulations and culture, that is questionable. We simply do not know the extent of Peter's knowledge. Peter might have been Paul's equal in some specific aspects, but since Jewish customs and regulations were not monolithic, Paul likely had greater overall knowledge, even if Peter was his possible equal on the specific point. In some traditions Peter is linked to the servant of the high priest, and if so, would have been fairly knowledgeable.
Now, how about you address my question about which city title is the proper one in Isaiah 19:18.
So your argument is that Paul is fallible enough to need correction, but infallible enough that his teachings cannot be questioned? And we're supposed to resolve that by saying 'the human part can be in error, but the writing part can't'? Because that sounds like what your argument is. That somehow, when it's written down, it automatically becomes infallible just because the topic of the text is scripture/gospel based.
What about Mark 16 where passed verse 8, in the older records, verses 9-20 don't even exist? Why do some translations include them and others don't?
What about John 7:53–8:11 Where in some manuscripts, the woman caught in adultery is there and in older ones, she's not and also some manuscripts she appears in other places?
What about Matthew 16, the end of the Lords prayer, "For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, forever. Amen." Which isn't found in the earliest manuscripts?
The existence of textual questions shows that humans have always had to examine, compare, and discern writings rather than simply assume every transmission, interpretation, or claim of authority is automatically correct.
rewriter
You are woefully lacking in referring to the Dead Sea texts as a validation for versions of the Old Testament because modern Jews and Christians reject the cannon of the Essenes.
The non-canonical books most frequently found at Qumran were the Book of Jubilees and the Book of Enoch (1 Enoch). These apocalyptic texts were incredibly popular with the Essene community, surviving in multiple manuscript copies.
Other widely read non-canon writings at Qumran included:
The Book of Tobit: A deuterocanonical book found in six copies.
The Wisdom of Sirach (Ben Sira): Found in several Hebrew fragments.
Testaments of the Patriarchs: Including various copies and adaptations of the Testaments of the Twelve, such as the Testament of Levi.
Sectarian Qumran Writings: Original compositions unique to the settlement, such as the Community Rule, the War Scroll, and the Temple Scroll.
You quote Codex Sinaiticus as a source but The Codex Sinaiticus (c. 330–360 CE) is another nearly identical early manuscript. It holds the oldest surviving complete copy of the New Testament, along with roughly half of the Old Testament. Codex Sinaiticus conversely and uniquely includes books like the Epistle of Barnabas and The Shepherd of Hermas as sacred books.
A more complete listing of versions of the Hebrew Bible include:
The Septuagint (LXX): The earliest translation of the Hebrew Bible, rendered into ancient Greek in Alexandria, Egypt, between the 3rd and 2nd centuries BCE. It contains variations in text and order compared to the Masoretic Text and includes additional writings (often called the Apocrypha).
The Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS): Discovered in caves near Qumran between 1947 and 1956, these ancient scrolls date from the 3rd century BCE to the 1st century CE. They contain fragments of every book of the Hebrew Bible (except Esther) and provide vital evidence that multiple textual versions circulated concurrently in antiquity.
The Samaritan Pentateuch: An ancient Hebrew version of only the first five books of Moses (the Torah), preserved by the Samaritan community. It is written in a paleo-Hebrew script and features unique textual variants that emphasize the sanctity of Mount Gerizim.
The Targums: Aramaic translations and paraphrases of the Hebrew Bible that arose after the Babylonian exile when Aramaic became the common spoken language of Jewish communities.
The Peshitta: The standard Syriac translation of the Bible, created for the Aramaic-speaking Christian communities in the 2nd and 3rd centuries CE.
The Vulgate: A 4th-century CE Latin translation by Jerome, who translated the Old Testament directly from original Hebrew manuscripts, which became the standard text of the Catholic Church
Beekeeper
Literary Hebrew was possible after the 8th century. The Ketef Hinnom Scrolls (c. 650–587 BCE): Two tiny, rolled-up 99% pure silver foils discovered in an ancient First Temple–period burial cave. They predate the Dead Sea Scrolls by roughly 500 years. It is a Priestly Blessing (Numbers 6:24–26) and are recognized as the oldest surviving fragments of biblical text.
Paul was a Pharisees of the highest sect. Peter was a Fishermen. WE know they were seen as Ignorant and unlearned men.
Acts: 4: 13 Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were unlearned and ignorant men, they marvelled; and they took knowledge of them, that they had been with Jesus
The truth is this was about circumcision for SAVED Gentiles. The Jews did what they always did become legalistic. Paul knew this oh to well. I remind you what Jesus Told Peter before this issue in the Book of Acts. Peter was not told by Jesus to ensure they gentiles were circumcised in the vision. Jesus said Don't call unclean what Ihave made clean did he not?
To answer you Isaiah 19:18
18 In that day five cities in the land of Egypt will speak the language of Canaan and swear by the Lord of hosts; one will be called the City of Destruction.
which city title is the proper one in Isaiah 19:18.
depending on the translation it would seem to be speaking about a place in Egypt that worshiped the sun god then possibly God the one true one was worshiped. We do know that Eypyt became a Christian nation at one time. Prior to the Islamic takeover.
In prophecies as Isiah chapter 19 is we see darkly. There is a forthtelling and foretelling in Prophecies. I am not sure what the "proper one is. Yet it is not a foundational truth that weakens faith or the autorotative word of God.