Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: PetroniusMaximus
Rather, a shallow, prejudiced and shortsighted response!

I'm sorry if I seem shallow, prejudiced or shortsighted.

You're right that you can find scholars for any point of view on the scriptures.

But may I offer one more argument: Luke 1:1-4 gives a statement by its author indicating it is third-hand in nature: Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught. It is clear that Luke is writing as a reporter; he worked hard to verify his sources to tell as complete and correct an account as he could. But I very much doubt Luke would have claimed to have produced an inerrant account!

Let me please conclude our friendly debate by saying what I think we both agree on: Jesus died, Jesus is risen, Jesus will come again! I base my faith in part on my own experience of the Holy Spirit, convicting me of sin and leading me away from it. But I also base my faith on the Scriptures. For example: All scholarship agrees 1 Corinthians is genuine. Paul wrote this wonderful epistle in the mid to late 50s. In it he affirms that Jesus rose from the dead and appeared to certain followers (Chapter 15). Paul was converted to Christianity only several years after Jesus, so from this it becomes absolutely clear that belief in the resurrection was present at the very beginning of the church.

326 posted on 08/30/2004 7:27:21 PM PDT by megatherium
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 323 | View Replies ]


To: megatherium
***I'm sorry if I seem shallow, prejudiced or shortsighted.***

No fault of your's, you've just swallowed some bad theology - or bought into a persuasive (but deceptive) critical view. No disrespect intended.


***Luke 1:1-4 gives a statement by its author indicating it is third-hand in nature:***

Right, (and interestingly Luke/Acts switches to from first to third in Acts 16:10) 3rd hand info doesn't negate inerrancy.


***But I very much doubt Luke would have claimed to have produced an inerrant account!***

He does! In the very verse you quoted!
here...

"...that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught."

His word for "certainty" is asphalia or in Greek a- (negatitive particle, sphallo - to err or fail). He wrote so Theophilis could know "without error" those things he had been taught.



***I think we both agree on: Jesus died, Jesus is risen, Jesus will come again!***

Everything you know for certain about Jesus, you know because of the Bible. If you start picking away at the Bible using feeble human reasoning (and not taking your questions about the Bible to the Lord himself for wisdom and guidance) after a while you will be left with nothing.

This path of criticizing the Bible is not of the Lord. It will eventually lead you away from him.


I was a Bible-shreading liberal myself at one point before He got my attention and called me back to Himself.
329 posted on 08/30/2004 8:21:07 PM PDT by PetroniusMaximus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 326 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson