Catholics & Inerrancy

Sorry, but that's gone right over my head. I do view the resurrection as an historical event if you are misreading what I wrote.

I was referring to this paragraph:

I absolutely am convinced that the resurrection was an historical event. I can't prove it so as I said "if it is an historical event".The resuurection is the essential part of the Christian faith. Without it Christianity would not have come into existence IMHO.

You know what I love about that paragraphe? How it exhibits reasoning with a clear presupposition that the bible is relevant. The keyword here is IF. All I see you and other theists do is simply assume that jezus, the human, existed. Assume he was crucified, assume he was born of a virgin, assume he was resurected, assume he was the son of god,...It's all the same old blind faith. You are not justifying anything here. You are just repeating your faith. And here you changed your blind faith into a statement of fact - for no apparant reason - and continue on from there. Actually, that's very false. I don't see how one follows from the other. And it still requires you to trust on "fallible humans" to make the distinction. So I don't see how it changes anythng.
Also, you are clearly making an assumption that somehow, for some unspecified reason, the new testament is more thrustworthy then the old testament. Yet, it was also written by "fallible humans".
By the reasoning you give me, it could just as well be that the new testament is not thrustworthy and that the true god is the vengefull, hatefull, genocidal sociopath we all know from the old testament. No. A good place to start would be to demonstrate the relevance/truthfullness of the bible ... without using the bible. I heavily disagree with that. I do not "choose" what I believe. I don't even know how one would go about that.Honestly, could you "choose" to believe in Thor?
I believe whatever convinces me. It seems physically impossible for me to simply "choose" to believe some idea on face value alone, let alone if there is a wealth of evidence to the contrary. And here we are at the core of the issue. You do not have a rational methodology to do this picking and choosing. It's all based on whatever "feels good". Emotions, fuzzy feelings and blind faith are not pathways to truth. Do you consider this to be intellectually honest?
What's the use of blindly believing such things? How is it different from believing the same about the pink transcendend dragon under my house?
Again it boils down to rational reasoning. Blind faith is not a virtue, it's gullibility. This is again completely meaningless. And beside the point.
We were talking about the laws written in the old testament, not about imaginary laws written on our poetic heart. Poetic, because my heart has no writing on it - it just pumps blood.

You don't see anything wrong with that sentence?Let me help you...How can you EVER be "absolutely" convinced of something... if you are unable to verify it...

Well seeing as how it's the largest selling book of all time I think we can assume it's relevant. Yes it is faith, but then we have faith in all sorts of things that can't be proven. You can't prove your wife loves you. You can't prove that the world is 14 billion years old. You can't prove that evolutionary theory is correct. You just look at what evidence there is and draw your own conclusions. When it comes to the veracity of the Christian faith we have come to different conclusions. I'm not trying to change your mind I'm just giving my views on Biblical inerrancy as we were asked to do in the opening post. Well I did have an apparent reason. I explained how I had come to the conclusion about the resurrection. I didn't claim that I could prove it as fact but that was my conclusion. Based on the conclusion that I came to I assumed it to be true and went on from there. As you reject the idea that the resurrection ever happened you would then presumably come to the conclusion that the rest would be rejected as well. Others have done that and that isn't the point of this thread. I would suggest if you are really interested that you read "The Abolition of Man" by CS Lewis. You do love to argue don't you? You choose not to believe in God or gods. (I'm assuming your atheist based on your statements.) Any time you vote in an election you choose to believe that one party or individual is a better choice than another. Would that be like the blind faith that the material world is all there is and that there is no god(s)? From Webster’sa : PERSONALITY, DISPOSITION b obsolete : INTELLECT
: the emotional or moral as distinguished from the intellectual nature: as a : generous disposition : COMPASSION b : LOVE, AFFECTION c : COURAGE, ARDOR

I'm absolutely convinced that the sun will rise tomorrow and that I'll be alive to see it. Verifying that is a little tougher.

Again you are talking about faith. That isn't what ScientificBob was referring to.Bob is referring to something you believe happened that is unverifiable. The future, by virtue of being the future, is unverifiable. Not the same thing at all.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

Hmmmmmm.... that's me trying to think of a good come back when I know you're right and I'm wrong.How about Caesar crossing the Rubicon? I believe it happened but I can't verify other than by what someone else has recorded.

Nope.
There are many contemporary sources for Caesar crossing the Rubicon. There are none for the resurrection. None.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

I'm not sure how you figure that. The contemporay sources would all be based on the original stories, as are contemporary sources that write about the resurrection.

No you are wrong. We know the provenance of many sources that were contemporary to Caesar that write about and attest to his life. We also have Caesars writings that we have provenance for.We ain't got crap for Jesus. There is nothing AT ALL about the resurrection or anything about the life of Jesus until at least 40 years after his supposed death. Paul tells us almost nothing about the life of Jesus.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

OK I see what you're getting at. There would still be eyewitnesses around when the first letters were written even if the stories weren't being told by those who were witnesses which is most likely the case.The guys that got involved in this dedicated their lives to it which I can't see happening if they weren't convinced of the truth of the resurrection. In addition the faith grew rapidly and sustained that growth which I can't see happening if the resurrection is just a fable.However, I think we're off topic and the stories are there. We can choose to believe or not. I personally find I believe.

So all the rest of the moral teachings of the Bible are suspect? Which just seems to bring everything back to if the Bible can be wrong in complete swatches of text, where is the justification for viewing it as nothing more than the work of tribal myth. Where is the authority?

The bible is not literally inerrant in that it contains many historical errors, embellishments, omissions and contradictions. However, these errors are converted to ‘non-errors’ when considered as part of a whole work. Much like taking a shot of tequila might be considered an error until you follow it with some salt and lemon. Or if you looked at a picture like this and said that the horse and dragon are not anatomically correct but then you see that they are precisely what was intended. So the ‘truth’ or perfect message is in there but it is only ‘knowable’ after you believe that it is the perfect message and therefore faith is required. A shot of ether to get the engine going. After you accept it the authority is revealed.