5th Commandment 'thread'

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

On Mon, Aug 25, 1997 at 10:34:11PM +0100, Matt Bell wrote:

> 

> 

> Hi all

> 

> Just a post to hopefully conclude this particular thread which I have

> renamed appropriately as a 'thread' because that is about all it hangs on

> as a rebuttal of Biblical errancy.


Divinely, you have been inspired to type "errancy" where you meant
"inerrancy".


> On reflection my initial response to this should have been to point

> out that whether Jesus had or had not breached the commandment is a

> matter impossible for us to reach a conclusion on as it is subjective

> in nature,


Are all the commandments so "subjective in nature" that it's impossible
to know that whether someone violates them or not?  Or is there
something particular about this instance or this commandment that makes
it so "subjective"?  Furthermore, surely an objective morality is
better than a subjective one, so if the issue of Jesus' violation of
the fifth (hm, I don't find a commandment about obeying parents in
Exodus 34 where the ten commandments are given .... ) commandment can
only be decided subjectively by each individual person, then there is
at least one shortcoming in the law given in the bible.  Thus, that law
isn't perfect.

Anyhow, if the issue is "subjective in nature" and I choose to conclude
that Jesus did in fact violate a commandment, then his nature was in
fact sinful, and the bible is in fact errant.  Thus, admitting that
this issue is subjective entails admitting that the issue of biblical
inerrancy is subjective, and that there can be no rational, objective
conclusion regarding it.  Webster calls subjective "3d. lacking in
reality and substance: ILLUSORY".  Is the final evidence of your god
merely ILLUSORY?

Or maybe you don't really want to admit that this matter is
subjective....


> though if one accepts the Biblcal and consistent theological teaching

> of the church on the sinless nature of Christ then it falls apart

> pretty quickly. Trust that it will be obvious to all that there

> is no real resolution to this thread and that we can conclude it

> swiftly. I will of course respond to any posts on this subject which

> have relevance to providing evidence that of the initial propoition

> that Jesus was in breach of this commandment.


"If the bible is inerrant, there is no error in the issue of X" is
merely the definition of inerrancy, we all know that.  But we want to
find out whether inerrancy is true or not.  I might as well say


| Though if one accepts the consistent atheological teaching of The

| Skeptical Review on the nature of Christ then any idea of his sinless

| nature falls apart pretty quickly.


In other words, if you accept one particular conclusion beforehand,
you'll arrive only at that conclusion.

Jeff
-- 
\/ jepler@inetnebr.com http://www.auburn.net/~errancy/ (0|1(01*0)*1)+
COBOL programs are an exercise in Artificial Inelegance.

• Previous message: 5th Commandment
• Next message: 5th Commandment 'thread'
• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]