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

[Doc Helpful]

Orthodox Bibles are larger, but who's counting.

I know Orthodox Bibles are larger. I actually own one. I don't count books like 3 Maccabees and 4 Maccabees et al to be canonical---not the "Words of God." It might be easier to understand if you were to substitute "Canonical Books of the Bible" above where I wrote "Words of God."

 

[Doc Helpful]

If it is not found in OT, it does not mean there could not have been such a prophesy.

So, are you telling there was no such generations? (Also, Bible doesn't seem to use the word only).

(Also, Bible doesn't seem to use the word only).

No, but either Matthew couldn't count or he omitted a generation where he said that the number of generations ". . . from the deportation to Babylon to the Messiah" numbered 14 generations.

Mt 1:12-16)
12 And after the deportation to Babylon: Jechoniah was the father of Salathiel, and Salathiel the father of Zerubbabel, 13 and Zerubbabel the father of Abiud, and Abiud the father of Eliakim, and Eliakim the father of Azor, 14 and Azor the father of Zadok, and Zadok the father of Achim, and Achim the father of Eliud, 15 and Eliud the father of Eleazar, and Eleazar the father of Matthan, and Matthan the father of Jacob, 16 and Jacob the father of Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born, who is called the Messiah.

Let me count the generations:
1. Jechoniah to Salathiel
2. Salathiel to Zerubbabel
3. Zerubbabel to Abiud
4. Abiud to Eliakim
5. Eliakim to Azor,
6. Azor to Zadok
7. Zadok to Achim
8. Achim to Eliud
9. Eliud to Eleazar
10. Eleazar to Matthan
11. Matthan toJacob
12. Jacob to Joseph
13. Joseph to Jesus the Messiah.

Yup. Sorry, Matthew. I count 13 generations, buddy.

 

[Left Coast]

I know Orthodox Bibles are larger. I actually own one. I don't count books like 3 Maccabees and 4 Maccabees et al to be canonical---not the "Words of God." It might be easier to understand if you were to substitute "Canonical Books of the Bible" above where I wrote "Words of God."

....but obviously, the Eastern Churches have their own canons. I understand just fine, that isn't the issue. My issue was with your reasoning of accepting the Latin Church's canon because it's bigger. By that logic you ought to accept the largest one, but apparently you don't.

 

[Whateverist]

Is Christianity true because the Bible says so?

Definitely no in my opinion. The Bible isn’t a book I put a lot of stock in.

But what does it mean to say “Christianity is true?” Many subsets of Christians proclaim differing doctrines; is that the measure of “true” or does truth refer to reliability as a guide to a good life? If the latter, more than one set of doctrines may serve as true irrespective of whether they are true for me.

 

[stvdv]

I don't think Christianity is true either.

But I don't like the logic of your argument.

People disagree over a multitude of things. And just because they disagree, that doesn't make them all wrong. People disagree over scientific and philosophical matters. And it can, at times, broach on a sort of "sectarianism." But that does not preclude any scientific theory or philosophical doctrine necessarily false, does it?

Nice reply, thanks.

I made a mistake. I meant "Christianity is the only truth" can't be true

 

[1213]

...Let me count the generations:
1. Jechoniah to Salathiel
2. Salathiel to Zerubbabel
3. Zerubbabel to Abiud
4. Abiud to Eliakim
5. Eliakim to Azor,
6. Azor to Zadok
7. Zadok to Achim
8. Achim to Eliud
9. Eliud to Eleazar
10. Eleazar to Matthan
11. Matthan toJacob
12. Jacob to Joseph
13. Joseph to Jesus the Messiah.

Yup. Sorry, Matthew. I count 13 generations, buddy.

I think you should count also:
14. the generation* of Jesus.

(*The people born and living about the same time, considered as a group).

 

[Dmartin2651]

I did not refute by myself most scholars saying 1Timothy, 2Timothy, and Titus were not written by Paul. I put myself with the quotes they refute most scholars with their words. I have no problem following them. It appears you haven’t heard their words let alone see they’re correct.


Polycarp isn’t my only best “source.” Polycarp knew John the Apostle-he was the last known connection with the Apostles so John knew Paul while he was alive as well the other Apostles. Then Irenaeus knew Polycarp. Thus, my best ‘sources” are Polycarp, John the Apostle, the rest of the Apostles, and Irenaeus. Polycarp and Irenaeus took the deep dive going back to John to-into the works of Paul. I see modern scholars haven’t taken that deep dive.

If you had read the quotes in the Wikipedia link you provided you would have read that argument. I.H. Marwell (I think it was him and I think I got the last name right-not going back to look I don’t want to risk losing this post) argued with two or three scholars saying to what you are that Paul didn’t write them. He said it is virtually certain Polycarp used 1Timothy and 2Timothy (in his preaching). He’s correct. Irenaeus learned from Polycarp and he used all thirteen letters Paul wrote to cite in many of his quotes of the NT.

Acts 15:41, “ And he (Paul) went through Syria and Cilia, strengthening the churches.” This defines Paul was organizing church hierarchy in his time. Why have you scholars been unable to find who the unknown student is who you say wrote 1Timothy, 2Timothy, and Titus? More important is why have you not found Paul is their author that is traced all the way back to the Apostle John who knew him in their time? Your unknown student of Paul’s doctrine can’t go back that far to his time or soon/any time after either. There was no one left who knew Paul in his time-John was the last one who did.

Once again, you did not refute anything.

It’s not me doing the refuting. I said, “they (the quotes) refute most scholars with their (the quotes own) words.” As I said, I have no problem following them. You still won’t hear their words let alone see their correct.

He probably did not know John, there is no evidence of that. Their lives would have barely intersected with each other:

That’s guessing and assuming. Yes, there is evidence Polycarp knew John it’s obvious too. I’ll show it in a minute so do not break up my words here. John died c.100AD, Polycarp died c.155AD he was 86 when he died. He would have known him around 10 years as a young adult. That’s not barely. He was born in 69AD so even growing up he would have known he is still alive or if there were any other apostle living then and died before John.. Irenaeus is right that Polycarp used Paul in preaching. In fact, he used Paul’s in his whole letter-see:

Polycarp’s quote, Chapter 9 Patience inculcated (my words in parenthesis to show context more):
“I exhort you all, therefore, to yield obedience to the word of righteousness, and to exercise all patience, such as (exercising all patience) you have seen set before your eyes, not only in the case of the blessed Ignatius, and Zosimus, and Rufus (Polycarp, presbyters, Ignatius, Zosimus, and Rufus were alive), but also in others (alive) among yourselves, and in Paul himself (no more alive), and the rest of the apostles (no more alive). This do (exercising all patience) in the assurance that all these (Paul, and the rest of the apostles) have not run Philippians 2:1; Galatians 2:2 in vain, but in faith and righteousness, and that they (have eternal life) are now in their due place in the presence of the Lord, with whom also they suffered. For they loved not this present world (see they were no longer in it) but Him who died for us, and for our sakes was raised again by God from the dead.”

John died c.100AD, Ignatius died c.108-140AD. So, Polycarp wrote this sometime between their deaths. He had to know/know of John in order to include him with the rest of the apostles. He didn’t write John’s name because he wasn’t using John in preaching, he used Paul in the whole letter-he wrote Paul’s name in it and he referred to/cited Paul’s (and other apostles also) words in the NT including 1Timothy, 2Timothy, and Titus too (it can only be Paul wrote these, Polycarp used them the same as he used other apostles they wrote). “1Corinthians 15:11; “Therefore, whether it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed.” Thus, “so we preach,” Polycarp obviously knew Paul’s and John’s preaching came together and the rest of the apostles too which he also used their words.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It’s not me doing the refuting. I said, “they (the quotes) refute most scholars with their (the quotes own) words.” As I said, I have no problem following them. You still won’t hear their words let alone see their correct.

That’s guessing and assuming. Yes, there is evidence Polycarp knew John it’s obvious too. I’ll show it in a minute so do not break up my words here. John died c.100AD, Polycarp died c.155AD he was 86 when he died. He would have known him around 10 years as a young adult. That’s not barely. He was born in 69AD so even growing up he would have known he is still alive or if there were any other apostle living then and died before John.. Irenaeus is right that Polycarp used Paul in preaching. In fact, he used Paul’s in his whole letter-see:

Polycarp’s quote, Chapter 9 Patience inculcated (my words in parenthesis to show context more):
“I exhort you all, therefore, to yield obedience to the word of righteousness, and to exercise all patience, such as (exercising all patience) you have seen set before your eyes, not only in the case of the blessed Ignatius, and Zosimus, and Rufus (Polycarp, presbyters, Ignatius, Zosimus, and Rufus were alive), but also in others (alive) among yourselves, and in Paul himself (no more alive), and the rest of the apostles (no more alive). This do (exercising all patience) in the assurance that all these (Paul, and the rest of the apostles) have not run Philippians 2:1; Galatians 2:2 in vain, but in faith and righteousness, and that they (have eternal life) are now in their due place in the presence of the Lord, with whom also they suffered. For they loved not this present world (see they were no longer in it) but Him who died for us, and for our sakes was raised again by God from the dead.”

John died c.100AD, Ignatius died c.108-140AD. So, Polycarp wrote this sometime between their deaths. He had to know/know of John in order to include him with the rest of the apostles. He didn’t write John’s name because he wasn’t using John in preaching, he used Paul in the whole letter-he wrote Paul’s name in it and he referred to/cited Paul’s (and other apostles also) words in the NT including 1Timothy, 2Timothy, and Titus too (it can only be Paul wrote these, Polycarp used them the same as he used other apostles they wrote). “1Corinthians 15:11; “Therefore, whether it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed.” Thus, “so we preach,” Polycarp obviously knew Paul’s and John’s preaching came together and the rest of the apostles too which he also used their words.

This entire argument can be refuted by a "so what"?

Polycarp never knew Paul. He was dead five years before he was born. And though he may have met John, and even that is highly dubious, John may have met Paul, but what makes you think that he would have know if anything attributed to Paul was actually written by him or not? He simply would not no. As a result Polycarp does not help you. You should also not accuse others of doing what you are doing. You are guessing and assuming. I am following the evidence. You might want to read the following article to see why Polycarp probably never knew John either. Number one would probably be the Polycarp himself never says that he met John. And at a time when knowing one of the original 12 would be a very big thing it is rather odd that he never mentioned it.

I am not denying that Polycarp would have known of Paul. But how would he know what was written by him and what was not? You can only refer to a person that at least a generation after Paul's death mentioned Paul and may have used works attributed to Paul but not written by Paul.

You have not even touched that argument for how we know that they are most likely not written by Paul but by one of his followers.

Did Polycarp Meet John the Apostle? • Richard Carrier Blogs

The claim comes up a lot that Polycarp met John—the original Apostle, Disciple of Jesus, Brother to James, the “Pillar” of Galatians 2, He of The Twelve. Enough to warrant a response you can bookmark. The short answer to the question, “Did he?” is no. It’s not likely at any rate. Later legends...

www.richardcarrier.info

 

[Ebionite]

@Dmartin2651

Link

Good observation! There’s no contradiction. The false witnesses were there in John… At the temple, Jesus drove out of it all those who sold oxen and sheep, and the money changers doing business. Clearly the false witnesses were the only ones left they are the ones who sold doves. They are the ones He said to, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” They changed His words (I already showed this) at the chief priests council giving them what they were seeking false testimony against Him to put Him to death. Cruel is an understatement!

The contradiction remains, there are no false witnesses in John 2:19.

Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.
John 2:19

"Clearly the false witnesses were the only ones left they are the ones who sold doves."

No, there's no reason to think that those who sold doves witnessed falsely against Yeshua (Jesus).

"They changed His words (I already showed this)"

Where did you show that those who sold doves changed the words of Yeshua?

 

[Ebionite]

While Psalm 109 condemns the "wicked" for which the false prophet Paul, as "foremost sinner", is the foremost among the wicked (Mt 13:49), who as "tares", will be "gathered" and thrown into the furnace of fire, at the "end of the age" (Mt 13:30) and according to Rev 20:10, thrown into the lake of fire as well in the end.

It's not just wickedness in general, the condemnation involves not showing mercy to those he persecuted:
Because that he remembered not to shew mercy, but persecuted the poor and needy man, that he might even slay the broken in heart.
Psalms 109:16

And I punished them oft in every synagogue, and compelled [them] to blaspheme; and being exceedingly mad against them, I persecuted [them] even unto strange cities.
Acts 26:11

The unknown author of 2 Peter 3 claims that Peter is a brother of Paul. "My servant David" is not to be their shepherd until Israel has been "gathered from the nations" and returned to the land of Jacob/Israel (Ez 36:24 & Ez 37:16-25

And account [that] the longsuffering of our Lord [is] salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
As also in all [his] epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as [they do] also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know [these things] before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness.
2 Peter 3:15-17

The error of the wicked relates to lawlessness.

Paul's slander of Moses gives some perspective on his regard for the law:

And not as Moses, [which] put a vail over his face, that the children of Israel could not stedfastly look to the end of that which is abolished:
2 Corinthians 3:13

As for you quoting Acts, written by some unknown author, supposedly maybe Luke, supposedly maybe an associate of Paul, the false prophet, well, that is not a firm foundation. (Mt 7:27).

Do you have any reason to think that the writer of Acts was dishonest?

According to Ez 34:23, the LORD (YHWH) will judge the "flock" (Ez 34:22) but the fat I will destroy (Ez 34:16), and then I will "set up over them one shepherd, My servant David". The "fat" have already been judged by the time "David" is set up as the "one shepherd" and as the "prince" (prince being the son of the king). (Ez 34:23-24).

Thus saith the Lord YHWH; Behold, I [am] against the shepherds; and I will require my flock at their hand, and cause them to cease from feeding the flock; neither shall the shepherds feed themselves any more; for I will deliver my flock from their mouth, that they may not be meat for them.
Ezekiel 34:10

Probably this relates to the betrayal:

Three shepherds also I cut off in one month; and my soul lothed them, and their soul also abhorred me.
Then said I, I will not feed you: that that dieth, let it die; and that that is to be cut off, let it be cut off; and let the rest eat every one the flesh of another.
And I took my staff, [even] Beauty, and cut it asunder, that I might break my covenant which I had made with all the people.
And it was broken in that day: and so the poor of the flock that waited upon me knew that it [was] the word of YHWH.
And I said unto them, If ye think good, give [me] my price; and if not, forbear. So they weighed for my price thirty [pieces] of silver.
Zechariah 11:8-12

 

[Ebionite]

I think there are several reasons why it may be so:
1) Didn't hear/know that.
2) The part has been lost from the writings.
3) Thought it was not necessary to mention it....

Anything can be explained away if you make enough assumptions about the text. According to Occam's razor the explanation that makes he minimum number of assumption is most likely to be correct.

I'd argue that the minimal set of assumptions is delivered by the explanation that the writer of Acts accepted a false story about the fate of Judas as being true. The story is false because it's implausible that someone would disembowel themselves as a result of falling headlong.

 

[Ebionite]

I believe I don't remember John saying there were no false witnesses but perhaps you can refresh my memory since you have the Matthew quote.

John doesn't say that explicitly, but it's implied because he puts the words in the mouth of Yeshua, not in the mouths of the false witnesses as the writers of the synoptic gospels do.

Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.
John 2:19

 

[vulcanlogician]

Definitely no in my opinion. The Bible isn’t a book I put a lot of stock in.

But what does it mean to say “Christianity is true?” Many subsets of Christians proclaim differing doctrines; is that the measure of “true” or does truth refer to reliability as a guide to a good life? If the latter, more than one set of doctrines may serve as true irrespective of whether they are true for me.

Agreed on all parts. But I figured I'd ask the question in simple terms and let my respondents add the nuance... as you have done.

The central tenets of Christianity (for some) might be that Jesus dies for our sins. There is a possible where THAT is true and yet the Bible is riddled with errors.

The central tenets of Christianity (for others) may be the moral and spiritual teachings of Jesus. It is ALSO possible that those are true and that the story of Jesus' life is a complete fabrication.

There's a ton of ways to approach the question.

Nice to see you, man.

 

[1213]

Anything can be explained away if you make enough assumptions about the text. According to Occam's razor the explanation that makes he minimum number of assumption is most likely to be correct.

I think it is a silly way to decide things and can easily lead one to wrong conclusions.

I'd argue that the minimal set of assumptions is delivered by the explanation that the writer of Acts accepted a false story about the fate of Judas as being true. The story is false because it's implausible that someone would disembowel themselves as a result of falling headlong.

I think the simplest assumption is to think he just didn't see it was necessary to mention.

 

[2ndpillar]

Do you have any reason to think that the writer of Acts was dishonest?

If the "writer of Acts" was Luke, then he simply recorded 3rd party statements (Luke 1:1), which according to Yeshua, does not meet the requirement to determine any matter. As Luke is supposedly a comrade of the false prophet Paul, then his objectivity and acuteness is doubtful. As Acts is not consistent in its reporting, it apparently lacked credible editing. As Acts supports the false prophet Paul, it would be classified as propagating the message of the "enemy"/"devil" (Mt 13:25), which goes along with the fact that the "tares" were to be left undisturbed per Mt 13:28-29).

 

[Audie]

I know Orthodox Bibles are larger. I actually own one. I don't count books like 3 Maccabees and 4 Maccabees et al to be canonical---not the "Words of God." It might be easier to understand if you were to substitute "Canonical Books of the Bible" above where I wrote "Words of God."

Bigger and longer
Makes bibles ronger.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Bigger and longer
Makes bibles ronger.

True, but much more useful for pressing leaves or even smaller flowers.

 

[2ndpillar]

It's not just wickedness in general, the condemnation involves not showing mercy to those he persecuted:
Because that he remembered not to shew mercy, but persecuted the poor and needy man, that he might even slay the broken in heart.
Psalms 109:16

What "mercy" was shown during the stoning of Stephen. As you do to others shall be done to you. As for the followers/sons of Paul (Mt 23:30), for which Paul (relative of Herod) apparently had a warrant from Roman leadership to kill civilians, the followers of such leaders/Paul ("scribes and Pharisees (Mt 23:25)), will bear the weight of the blood of the "righteous". (Mt 23:35)

 

[Ebionite]

I think it is a silly way to decide things and can easily lead one to wrong conclusions.

Why would anyone care what you think?

 

[Ebionite]

If the "writer of Acts" was Luke, then he simply recorded 3rd party statements (Luke 1:1), which according to Yeshua, does not meet the requirement to determine any matter.

Yeshua endorsed the law, the Psalms, and the prophets. The Pentateuch, which includes the law of Moses includes many third party statements.
If you want to ignore texts on that basis then all you're left with is the Gospel of Thomas for Christian theology.

As Luke is supposedly a comrade of the false prophet Paul, then his objectivity and acuteness is doubtful.

That's guilt by supposed association. Apparently Luke was a physician, so he would probably just take statements about religion on face value.

As Acts is not consistent in its reporting, it apparently lacked credible editing.

What inconsistencies do you thing should have been edited from the text?

As Acts supports the false prophet Paul, it would be classified as propagating the message of the "enemy"/"devil" (Mt 13:25), which goes along with the fact that the "tares" were to be left undisturbed per Mt 13:28-29).

Acts reports that Paul contradicted the first account of his experiences on the road to Damascus, which does not support Paul.

What "mercy" was shown during the stoning of Stephen. As you do to others shall be done to you. As for the followers/sons of Paul (Mt 23:30), for which Paul (relative of Herod) apparently had a warrant from Roman leadership to kill civilians, the followers of such leaders/Paul ("scribes and Pharisees (Mt 23:25)), will bear the weight of the blood of the "righteous". (Mt 23:35)

Paul's support for Rome is relevant to the Prophetic endorsement of Yeshua which is found in the Psalms:
False witnesses did rise up; they laid to my charge [things] that I knew not.
Psalms 35:11

For without cause have they hid for me their net [in] a pit, [which] without cause they have digged for my soul.
Psalms 35:7

Let not them that are mine enemies wrongfully rejoice over me: [neither] let them wink with the eye that hate me without a cause.
Psalms 35:19

But [this cometh to pass], that the word might be fulfilled that is written in their law, They hated me without a cause.
But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, [even] the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:
John 15:25-26

Then went the Pharisees, and took counsel how they might entangle him in [his] talk.
And they sent out unto him their disciples with the Herodians, saying, Master, we know that thou art true, and teachest the way of God in truth, neither carest thou for any [man]: for thou regardest not the person of men.
Tell us therefore, What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not?
But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt ye me, [ye] hypocrites?
Shew me the tribute money. And they brought unto him a penny.
And he saith unto them, Whose [is] this image and superscription?
They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.
Matthew 22:15-21