Who said they were drafting from the same source? Matthew was a disciple of Jesus while Luke was not. Like was a traveling companion of Paul. Nothing suggests they were drawing from the same source.
Only Gospel of Luke talks about thief on the cross getting saved. (and about Jesus' birth, some big details don't overlap between Matthew and Luke)
- Thread starter Multicolored Lemur
- Start date
It seems as though you give the Bible a privileged position as if it’s already 3 miles down the road, which is fine. I think you’ve already pretty much directly said that you’re a spiritual person and are committed to the Christian faith, which is A-okay with me.
I mean, why wouldn’t it be?
I generally want people to be more effective- whatever they are, bring out their inner good guy, that kind of thing.
Just me personally, I don’t give the traditional Christian Bible a privileged position.
Yep, the bible is true because the bible tells us it is true. You cannot argue with that logic. Or to be more accurate, if you do argue with that logic, you had better be prepared for some sort of ad hominem attack to come your way.
For example, accusing you of “rejecting” God, or some other kind of bad faith on your part.
The former preacher now atheist Dan Barker [who’s now way old-school!] said religious people will explain away most contradictions. Course they will, they have too much riding on it. But the part about Solomon having 4,000 stables for horses, whereas this other part says 40,000 stables, that sticks in their craw. It’s hard to explain away just a raw number. And same for this part about the age of this other king when he first sat on the throne.
You and I know it’s just scribal error, no big deal. But if someone believes the Bible is inspired every step of the way, it’s a prob.
Most average Christians don’t really believe Jonah was swallowed by the whale or Joshua made the sun stand still. It’s mainly just the highly religious, and probably just a subset of those.
The Bible is probably errant period. Regardless of what any person of faith may believe.
(Just showing you that anyone can play the gme of stating opinion as if it were evidence)
(Just showing you that anyone can play the gme of stating opinion as if it were evidence)
Ok so now you need to validate your claim that the Bible is errant. I’ve shown that it isn’t so now the ball is in your court.
You have yet to present a persuasive case that the bible is not errant. You go first. (I was not making any claim. just demonstrating how vapid a case it was that you had made).
I am not required to prove anything to you. God never commanded believers present a persuasive case that the word of God is inerrant. I offer the truth of the Bible and it’s up to you to believe it or not.
I do not choose: I simply have no reason to accept your opinion as a basis for me changing my worldview. I understand the reluctance of people of faith to present a persuasive case, for if there was one it would have been set out well before now.
