Quote:
Originally Posted by zeek
Many of Jesus' contemporaries thought that the messiah would vanquish the Romans and deliver the kingdom back to the nation of Israel. Jesus did not do that in a literal sense. So, if he was the messiah he was messiah in a different sense than they expected. Of course, the ones who later were called Christians were the one's who "got" the sense in which Jesus IS the messiah. The questions of those who did not accept Jesus as the messiah are part of the putatively inerrant New Testament historical record. According to the definition of inerrancy I quoted. "4. Being wholly and verbally God-given, Scripture is without error or fault in all its teaching, ... about the events of world history. "
|
Okay, I'm going to go ahead with my first instinct of what the point of this post was.
Basically you are saying that if any record claims to be inerrant and it records errors made by others then it is in fact errant.
Such an assertion is ridiculous, of course.
Example: A newspaper reports a story about a terrorist group which claimed it placed a bomb in a mall. The paper quotes some of the people in the mall as saying, "We don't believe there is bomb in the mall." The bomb explodes. Therefore the newspaper is in error because it reported the erroneous declaration of the disbelieving people.
This is zeek's point. I think. I wish it wasn't.