Which Old testament events are historically accurate?

[John Wells]

Joshua,

In Matthew, we read:

After the Sabbath, at dawn on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to look at the tomb. There was a violent earthquake, for an angel of the Lord came down from heaven and, going to the tomb, rolled back the stone and sat on it. His appearance was like lightning, and his clothes were white as snow. (Mat 28:3 NIV)

Now you obviously infer that the author intended to say that the Marys saw this earthquake. That is amazingly presumptious of you! I don't see that we can deduce one way or the other whether the author meant what you have concluded.

These nit-picking attacks at the credibility of the Bible are all futile, weak arguments. Just because one account doesn't mention "the other angel" doesn't mean he wasn't there. Only one spoke, so mention of or omission of the other is irrevelant to the communication of the event.

The only credibility you raise is your own!

John

 

[Rev. Joshua]

John,

First of all, I'm not nitpicking the credibility of the Bible. A majority of the folks here hold to the bizarre notion that the Bible was written by God and does not contain even the tiniest contradiction.

As for the two Mary's seeing the angel, read the whole narrative. It goes like this:

- 2 Mary's go to tomb
- there's an earthquake
- an angel descends, rolls back stone, and sits on it
- the guards faint, but the angel speaks to the women

What person reading this passage would think that these things happened before the women arrived?

Regarding the issue of how many angels, if God is writing the account shouldn't God have gotten it right?

Joshua

 

[John Wells]

Joshua,

Matthew's writing style was not "historian/chronological" like Luke. I read the passage as he starts telling of the women going to visit the tomb, and says (adlib) "oh, by the way, an earthquake rolled back the stone and two angels had positioned themselves by the entrance." Then he proceeds with the events when they arrived.

You have not convinced me of the need for the other authors to mention the other angel just because Matthew did, since the other angel was a passive bystander! Pick some more!

John

 

[C.S. Murphy]

Originally posted by Rev. Joshua Villines:
Larry, I have a feeling that this discussion of the necessity of inerrancy is going to go around in circles. The bottom line is that I don't need the Bible to be inerrant to be convinced that Jesus is the Son of God who died for my sins and to be convinced that he was resurrected. That is the gospel.

If inerrancy is one of the steps that some peopel need to take to get to the gospel, then fine; but that does not make the two inseparable. The gospel stands on its own.

(As for how essential the virgin birth is to the gospel - I'm not aware of a single time when Paul mentions it in his understanding of the gospel or salvation. I know how important it was to Augustine, but he had issues.)

Joshua

Joshua I will say one thing for you, you aren't afraid or maybe a better term would be ashamed to stand alone. Over the course of this thread you have used so many outrageous quotes that it was tough to pick one but I believe here is the best example of your misunderstanding and error. Above you say that you don't need an inerrant Bible or the virgin birth to believe that Jesus is the Son of God. Now that may sound good but If you say you believe he is the Son but don't believe in His virgin birth how did God's son get here? And if God lied about the birth why do we believe that Jesus is who he says he is. As another person has noted all that can come from your teaching is a move toward doubt. Why do we need that?
Murphy

 

[John Wells]

Joshua: A majority of the folks here hold to the bizarre notion that the Bible was written by God and does not contain even the tiniest contradiction.

All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness. (2 Timothy 3:16, NIV)

"no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God" (2 Pet. 1:20-21).

It's only natural for one who defends homosexuality and abortion to question the authority and accurateness of the Holy Bible. There's a lot that the Bible says that I don't necessarily like (my flesh doesn't), but I accept it because God is God. You have decided that where you disagree with God you'll be your own god.

Do I listen to Joshua's "bizarre notions" or do I trust in the Word of God? Sorry Joshua, you loose. And as more time and more hearing you and your beliefs goes by, the more I'm convinced that (as stated earlier by me) you are in need of salvation.

John

 

[David Cooke Jr]

Well, I see while I was gone nothing really changed. Joshua, the backflips you predicted have come to pass. Its amazing how anyone could dispute that there are glaring contradictions in the bible. But you come to this place and they stand in line to do it. Its also amazing how jarring it is to return after being away from this place for only a few days. It makes me wonder if the inerrantists actually read the book that they make such claims for. Folks, don't mistake the biography for the person. Even if you think its the "authorized" version.

 

[rhoneycutt]

Originally posted by David Cooke, Jr.:
Well, I see while I was gone nothing really changed.

And we see while John Wells was gone nothing changed. He is back and questioning peoples salvation again. Ho Hum ....sigh....

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by Ernie Brazee:
The Bible contains exactly what God wants us to know.

Unfortunately, the Bible we know today only contains what the Council of Nicea wanted to include. There are other writings that were excluded, and 6 books whose exclusion have been disputed to this day.

I don't doubt the divine inspiration of scripture, but the final word rests with God, not the Council of Nicea.

Remember that the Bible should be the beginning of our relationship with God, not the end.

[ August 08, 2002, 06:25 PM: Message edited by: Johnv ]

 

[John Wells]

rhoneycutt,

When a man who calls himself an ordained minister of God doesn't change from a homosexual, pro-abortion, flawed Bible agenda, you are dog-goned right I won't change my tune either. I can see your attitude toward conservative Baptists hasn't changed either. Ho, Hum!

 

[Rev. Joshua]

Actually John, it was God who called me and the church which ordained me. I did neither of those things.

Joshua

 

[Daniel David]

Josh, are you sure that call wasn't for salvation?

 

[C.S. Murphy]

Originally posted by PreachtheWord:
Josh, are you sure that call wasn't for salvation?

BUMP

Murphy

 

[Rev. Joshua]

Preach & Murphy - are you genuinely questioning my salvation of just being witty?

Joshua

 

[Daniel David]

Josh, in all fairness to you and all you hold dear in the theological realm. I do not question your salvation. I never entertained the thought you were saved.

 

[rhoneycutt]

Originally posted by wellsjs:
rhoneycutt,
I can see your attitude toward conservative Baptists hasn't changed either.

You are right John it has not changed much towards conservative Baptists. I still consider them my brothers and sisters in Christ, I still respect where they are in their faith journey, I still believe they have the freedom to interpret the scripture as the Holy Spirit leads them and I still respect their freedom to speak out on any issue they feel strongly about.

FYI my attitude towards fundamentalists has not changed either. (see position regarding conservatives, it is the same)

I do have problems when people question a fellow believers salvation. I don't know guess I am just funny that way.

Russell
(Who never realized he was a liberal until he found BB.)

 

[Baptist Believer]

Originally posted by PreachtheWord:
Josh, in all fairness to you and all you hold dear in the theological realm. I do not question your salvation. I never entertained the thought you were saved.

Have you ever entertained a thought about what the book of Galatians teaches? Salvation is not about holding to certain doctrines -- it is about knowing Christ!

Your habit of labeling those who disagree with you as not belonging to Christ is offensive to God.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Baptist Believer:
Salvation is not about holding to certain doctrines -- it is about knowing Christ!

You are creating a false dichotemy. We are given the doctrines of the Bible for a reason. So that we may know Christ and grow in truth. The Bible is clear that a Christian is identified by his actions and his beliefs (doctrines). How can we say that someone "knows" Christ if they deny biblical truths?

This is not intended to be shot a Joshua at all. I am just responding to your dangerously false post. Being Christian is more than some nondescript spiritual enlightenment. Our faith is based on what the Bible teaches. If the Bible is false then your foundation of "knowing Christ" lacks any real meaning. Therefore the authority and reliability of scripture is critical.

Your habit of labeling those who disagree with you as not belonging to Christ is offensive to God.

Since you have chosen to speak for God, how do you know that this judgment is offensive to God? The Bible teaches us ways to identify true believers and gives examples of judging others as non-believers- there are distinctive traits of both. Discerning who is or is not a Christian is not a light matter but it is also not forbidden like many think.

How can we avoid fellowship with false Christians if we are not to judge? What is the minimum doctrinal agreement for fellowship? The Bible establishes a fairly high threshold.

 

[Daniel David]

Originally posted by Baptist Believer:
Have you ever entertained a thought about what the book of Galatians teaches? Salvation is not about holding to certain doctrines -- it is about knowing Christ!

Your habit of labeling those who disagree with you as not belonging to Christ is offensive to God.

I would just like to point out the irony and obvious trap that libs put themselves in.

On one side, a person is free to believe as the "spirit" leads them. They can believe pretty much what they want in regards to essential doctrines. They champion this right and force acceptance from others.

On the other side, a fundi such as myself, is not free to do the same. You see, I can believe what I want to about essential doctrines, I just can't make them mean anything to anyone else. I am not free in my interpretation to say that others are not saved if they deny certain truths. Here is where it gets funny, the libs even use the Bible as the basis for what they say!

The very thing that fundis do to establish credibility is to refer to the Scripture as inerrant and therefore totally reliable in everything it touches on.

The libs deny inerrancy and yet appeal to it when it fits whatever way the wind is blowing. How bizarre and painful it must be to be so unsure about truth. Very sad.

Romans 1:16

 

[C.S. Murphy]

Originally posted by Baptist Believer:
Have you ever entertained a thought about what the book of Galatians teaches? Salvation is not about holding to certain doctrines -- it is about knowing Christ!
I beg to differ, while I won't go into a play on words I do want to point out that Christianity is more than knowing Christ it is about Believeing in Christ. And if a person doesn't believe in the Word of God it's get hard to accept their claims that that they believe in God.

Your habit of labeling those who disagree with you as not belonging to Christ is offensive to God.[/QB]

I think the problem is that when we disagree with liberals they claim we are upset because they don't agree with us, but my problem is that they don't agree with God. I don't want to be accused of being the supreme authority on God nor am I attacking Joshua but his list of major doctines that he denies speaks for themselves.
Murphy

 

[Rev. Joshua]

Originally posted by C.S. Murphy:
...nor am I attacking Joshua but his list of major doctines that he denies speaks for themselves.
Murphy

Murphy,

Could you list for me what those major doctrines are?