Re: NT inerrancy??

George Murphy wrote:

> wallyshoes wrote:
>
> > Hello all!
> >
> > Thanks to all of the response to my last post -- but I wish that some
> > on this list could focus on Jesus Christ (MOST OF THE TIME) ------
> > and not the same old OT themes.
> >
> > Please email personally if you so desire!
> >
> >
> >
> > There are (NT) problems also.
> >
> > For some reason this list seems to focus on the OT for questions of
> > interpretation of infallibility. It has always bothered me that this
> > list never seems to discuss the NT.
> >
> > Are we all Bible worshipers or Christ followers?
> >
> > In modern (and KJV) versions of the NT, I note several conflicts. One
> > may easily start with Matthew and Luke regarding the early history of
> > Mary, Joseph and Jesus.
> >
> >
> > 1. ) Where did they go soon after Jesus was born (say within 60
> > days) --- Egypt or Nazareth?
> >
> > 2.) Was Nazareth the original home town of Mary and Joseph -- or was
> > it not?
> >
> > Given the discrepancies -- how do we address the "infallibility" of
> > the Bible?
> >
> > I am sure that I could get these answers from the internet -- but how
> > this group handle such questions?
>
> I agree completely - this probably won't surprise you - that our attention ought
> 1st of all to be given to Christ, beginning with the NT. The OT should be interpreted
> in light of the new - which does not mean that we just ignore all the issues of
> development of the OT from various sources, the different literary genres that occur
> there, the existence of non-historical elements &c.
>
> & similar things have to be recognized for the NT. We have 4 gospels & they
> tell the story in different ways. Some of the differences are due simply to different
> selections of material, but others come from the differing theological approaches of the
> evangelists. & just as with the OT, some parts of the gospels are not accounts of
> events that actually happened but are accounts of events and sayings developed for
> theological purposes - which is NOT to say that there is no historical data there.
>
> Just to take 1 aspect of the infancy narratives: Mt's interest in the
> fulfillment of OT prophecy, which is especially obvious in Ch.2, and his desire to
> portray Jesus as the new & greater Moses, ought to make us wonder if the account of the
> flight into Egypt is a literary device to portray Jesus as the leader of a new Exodus.
> (Hosea 11:1, in context, refers to Israel as God's son & the original exodus.)

I really have difficulty believing that The authors of the NT would use a literary device
and insert it as though these were factual events. Most people would call that "a lie" and
would tend to agree. It is much easier for me to believe that it was believed to be
factually true by the author.

>
>
> But there is another point that is often missed. Liberal interpreters have
> often argued that the idea of Jesus' virginal conception, which we find only in Mt & Lk,
> is a theological statement about Jesus' relationship with God, perhaps inspired by OT
> stories like those of Sarah or Hannah, & not an accurate historical account of Mary's
> pregnancy. That possibility has to be reckoned with. But the fact that virginal
> conception is presented in quite different ways by Mt & Lk suggests that there were (at
> least) 2 independent traditions about Jesus' conception in the early Christian
> community. This does not prove historicity but it means that the claim that Jesus
> really was conceived of a virgin should get more respect than it sometimes receives.
>
> Briefly responding to Walt's question 1: The MT account makes it seem that
> the Holy Family was in Bethlehem for about a year before leaving for Egypt.

Yes, but that disagrees with Luke's account. How do we deal with that?

Also Matthew says:

     "So he got up, took the child and his mother and went to the land of Israel. But when
he heard that Archelaus was reigning in Judea in place of his father Herod, he was afraid to
go there. Having been warned in a dream, he withdrew to the district of Galilee, and he went
and lived in a town called Nazareth. So was fulfilled what was said through the prophets:
"He will be called a Nazarene." "

While Luke says:

     "When Joseph and Mary had done everything required by the Law of the Lord, they
returned to Galilee to their own town of Nazareth."

Either Luke or Matthew are wrong about Nazareth as their home town it seems.

How does infallibility fit in here?

In fact why are we Christians so adamant about infallibility when the Bible never comes
right out and makes such a claim?

Walt

--
===================================
Walt Hicks <wallyshoes@mindspring.com>
In any consistent theory, there must
exist true but not provable statements.
(Godel's Theorem)
You can only find the truth with logic
If you have already found the truth
without it. (G.K. Chesterton)
===================================