Is it possible that Christianity is true, yet the Bible contains errors?

[questfortruth]

I'm mainly concerned with Biblical authority and/or inerrancy.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I appriciate the honesty.


OK
But that's not just any question , and not just any answer
We are talking about the dating of the Gospels.
You can check with what you think is reliable as source regarding this.
But , i am skeptic that you will find any answer regarding the topic.
Not because they are not able to , but because they avoid it.


Just ask any historian that you think is reliable.
I don't think that anything that comes from me will be usefull to you regardless of how rational it seems.
I find it that to be true based on your answers.

What you stated is impossible , but check with your sources if you think is relevant to know.
If not , still peace.


There is just one possible reasonable answer.
They are written prior to their death.
What you see as evidence now is just a copy of a copy of a copy.


Well , that's just because you think that filled only the gap of existence.


Not True , The East is well aware of Scriptures for a long time,regardless of they are Hindu , Muslims , Christians , Jews ...
Just the West isn't!
The language barrier is the problem.
They refuse to understand it.


When you ask this question who are they written by , are you reffering to 'beliver' and 'non-beliver'?



Persecution in the Early Church: A Chapter in the History of Renunciation by Workman, Herbert B.

You can check yourself the rest if you are interested.


Bias


So if A is true , then B is also?


You generelized the point again.


They are different accounts.
The problem is that everybody thinks they need to be identical in narrative.
They don't.
I will adress this in my book with precise Greek.


Yes , i have seen this lately in the denomination i belong to.


So that means Jesus was against the Roman Empire and not against the Jews.
It's pretty odd to me that the Romans did not record it as such.
It's even more odd after the rise of Christianity since it reflects on Jesus.


That means it is religious , and not political issue.

Tacitus is the earliest and that makes him most relevant.

He mentions Jesus in his writings. In his account of Nero's persecution of Christians in 115 AD, he explicitly references Christus, who was crucified by Pontius Pilate and inspired an 'immense multitude' to adhere to his teachings.

Persecution of Christians: Roman Brutality & Martyrdom in the Early Church

Explore the roots of early Church persecution and the Roman brutality faced by Christians in this historical examination of the persecution of Christians in the ancient world.

www.bartehrman.com

5 Ways Christianity Spread Through Ancient Rome

Sure, there was that extensive road system. But it helped that Christianity didn't paint itself as an exclusive club.

www.history.com

This is getting too long and unwieldy. I will make two points. A skeptic follows the evidence and the best evidence comes from scholars. It never comes from apologists. The scholars are following the evidence and they are the ones with the later dates.

As to the torture of early Christians did you read your sources? Your Bart Ehrman source claims the same thing that I claimed.

 

[Spice]

This is getting too long and unwieldy. I will make two points. A skeptic follows the evidence and the best evidence comes from scholars. It never comes from apologists. The scholars are following the evidence and they are the ones with the later dates.

As to the torture of early Christians did you read your sources? Your Bart Ehrman source claims the same thing that I claimed.

You probably know about this source, but my linking it may be of interest to browsers:

Early Christian Writings: New Testament, Apocrypha, Gnostics, Church Fathers

 

[Dimi95]

This is getting too long and unwieldy. I will make two points. A skeptic follows the evidence and the best evidence comes from scholars.

Skeptic follows knowledge!
(also blind faith is not recommended)

It never comes from apologists.The scholars are following the evidence and they are the ones with the later dates.

You are doing the bias again.
And circular reasoning is just the effect of it.

We are talking about History and you are mixing things up with doctrine.
Everyone who attacks Theist because of Theism is doing 'ad hominem'.
I don't care about further explenations.
If one does that , he is not able to discuss it propertly.
It's just like it is , accept it or not,it's all the same.

Funny thing is how these 'schollars' rarely answer to e-mails.

I will tell you why i think it's more easy for me to procces all of that - language.
I skip Transliteration,they don't.
There are also levels in understanding language.

There are words that just can be explained in one way , and they oftenly abuse that and automatically they are doing misinterpretation.

'Do you not find their death to be suspiciously absent?'
This question takes the burden of proof itself about the dating of the Gospels.
The difference between Schollars and you answering this question is the 'wild guesses'.

The burden of the schollar is the knowledge that comes with studying Christianity and the NT.

As to the torture of early Christians did you read your sources? Your Bart Ehrman source claims the same thing that I claimed.

"Roman catacombs were the only place where Christians felt safe and they provided excellent hiding spots from the dangerous Roman government

Arguably the most captivating myth surrounding Christian persecution relates to the notion of Christians clandestinely sheltering and establishing hidden enclaves within the Roman catacombs. In reality, the majority of Christians didn't resort to hiding, nor did they establish covert encampments beneath the earth."

He says majority of Christians which is vague.
Majority of Christians were only crowds.
Minority were persecuted legally.
You can check with data in History.
However persecution does not apear only in legal form.You can also check that.

The most silly one in adressing the question is the last one.

"Nevertheless, these catacombs stand as remarkable archaeological sites as they unveil a treasury of early Christian art. A visit to these subterranean labyrinths is a highly recommended experience for anyone traveling to Rome."

So the burden of proof is on him to prove otherwise.

 

[jimb]

All translations from the source documents are as accurate as possible. However...

a) There is no single set of sources. They vary by time written, completeness, geographic origin, and (most important) have differences among them. Therefore, it is impossible to define the perfect source document.

b) There is no one-to-one correspondence between the source documents' ancient languages and English. Therefore, translators must make decisions about how to best translate those languages into English.

Because of the above, it is impossible to have an "error-free" translation.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Skeptic follows knowledge!
(also blind faith is not recommended)

Knowledge is also evidence based.

You are doing the bias again.
And circular reasoning is just the effect of it.

No, that is the voice of experience. The vast majority of Christian apologists are demonstrably just liars for Jesus. That you are ignorant of this does not make my statement biased or my reasoning circular. Instead of making false claims about others that you cannot justify, which is breaking the Ninth Commandment, you should be asking people how they know what they know.

We are talking about History and you are mixing things up with doctrine.
Everyone who attacks Theist because of Theism is doing 'ad hominem'.
I don't care about further explenations.
If one does that , he is not able to discuss it propertly.
It's just like it is , accept it or not,it's all the same.

Wrong again. And more false claims. You are also breaking up my post excessively and bloviating. You have no excuse for such nonsense since all you are supply is unsupported opinion. If you do not understand something, and if you cannot refute a claim with valid sources you do not understand it, then you should be asking questions. You should not be making claims about others.

Funny thing is how these 'schollars' rarely answer to e-mails.

What? Are you serious? Why should they? Scholars are too busy to deal with the countless deniers out there. Scholars communicate through professional journals. They do not make videos as a rule. They put their claims and evidence down on paper with enough information so that others can confirm or refute their work.

I will tell you why i think it's more easy for me to procces all of that - language.
I skip Transliteration,they don't.
There are also levels in understanding language.

There are words that just can be explained in one way , and they oftenly abuse that and automatically they are doing misinterpretation.

'Do you not find their death to be suspiciously absent?'
This question takes the burden of proof itself about the dating of the Gospels.
The difference between Schollars and you answering this question is the 'wild guesses'.

The burden of the schollar is the knowledge that comes with studying Christianity and the NT.


"Roman catacombs were the only place where Christians felt safe and they provided excellent hiding spots from the dangerous Roman government

Arguably the most captivating myth surrounding Christian persecution relates to the notion of Christians clandestinely sheltering and establishing hidden enclaves within the Roman catacombs. In reality, the majority of Christians didn't resort to hiding, nor did they establish covert encampments beneath the earth."

He says majority of Christians which is vague.
Majority of Christians were only crowds.
Minority were persecuted legally.
You can check with data in History.
However persecution does not apear only in legal form.You can also check that.

The most silly one in adressing the question is the last one.

"Nevertheless, these catacombs stand as remarkable archaeological sites as they unveil a treasury of early Christian art. A visit to these subterranean labyrinths is a highly recommended experience for anyone traveling to Rome."

So the burden of proof is on him to prove otherwise.

Instead of bloviating endlessly please make your claims short and to the point and then support them with evidence. The fact is that Ehrman has studied this very well. So have other scholars. You chose him, I didn't. That implied that you agreed with him, but now that you know that he refutes your claim you reject him. This shows that you are not interested in the facts. You are only interested in maintaining your flawed beliefs. This shows a lack of rational thought on your part.

Once again, you cannot seem to focus on one point. That is the best way to work out if one is right or wrong at times. Why do you resist doing that?

 

[Dimi95]

No, that is the voice of experience.

Irrelevant.

The vast majority of Christian apologists are demonstrably just liars for Jesus.

Irrelevant again.
If A is true , then B is also true.
But present those lies since you made that claim.

That you are ignorant of this does not make my statement biased or my reasoning circular.

You don't see what you are doing , do you?

Instead of making false claims about others that you cannot justify, which is breaking the Ninth Commandment

Here we go , the same tactic.

, you should be asking people how they know what they know.

I asked you , all you did was wild guesses.

Wrong again. And more false claims. You are also breaking up my post excessively and bloviating.

I will do that untill you reason yourself and stop doing personal attacks.

You have no excuse for such nonsense since all you are supply is unsupported opinion.If you do not understand something, and if you cannot refute a claim with valid sources you do not understand it, then you should be asking questions. You should not be making claims about others.

What is the unsupported opinion?
That the Synoptic Gospels are writen probably prior to Paul's and Peter's death since there is no account for their death?
Ofc that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
But then comes the question , OK why is their death absent ? What would be the reason?
The most logical is they were still alive when the original accounts were written.

Also most of the schollars date the Gospels after 70AD based on consensus.
These fragments that we have as evidence are consider to be copy of a copy of a copy,and they should be treated as such.You know that , do you?

They put their claims and evidence down on paper with enough information so that others can confirm or refute their work.

Yes , sure , i read their work also.

The difference is that i don't have a published paper... yet...
And when that stops being the difference , we will see how they answer.

Instead of bloviating endlessly please make your claims short and to the point and then support them with evidence.

Sure.
The original Synoptic Gospels are written prior to Paul's and Peter's death.It's the most logical conclusion since it is very suspicious how that is not in the NT.
That could have culminated their ministry and martyrdom.
The authors had no reason doing that since we have accounts of other martyrs.
The only logical one is that they were still alive and that is why their death is not mentioned.

The fact is that Ehrman has studied this very well. So have other scholars. You chose him, I didn't.

I chose him , correct

That implied that you agreed with him, but now that you know that he refutes your claim you reject him.

What claim ? Please explain it to me.

This shows that you are not interested in the facts.You are only interested in maintaining your flawed beliefs.

Again the personal attacks?

This shows a lack of rational thought on your part.

You were the one with wild guesses here , don't forget.

Only John 21 tells something about Peter's death , but the Gospel of John is considered to be written after their death

John 21
Jesus said, 'Feed my sheep. Very truly I tell you, when you were younger you dressed yourself and went where you wanted; but when you are old you will stretch out your hands, and someone else will dress you and lead you where you do not want to go.' Jesus said this to indicate the kind of death by which Peter would glorify God. Then he said to him, 'Follow me!'

You understand that the noted is from the writer , do you?

Once again, you cannot seem to focus on one point. That is the best way to work out if one is right or wrong at times. Why do you resist doing that?

Ok, sure no problem.

The absence of Paul's and Peter's death.
Opinions of schollars.
You said ask , so here i am asking for opinions of scholars regarding this topic.