Patristic boo-boos? Great legal minds who denyed the
Resurrection?
Ed Tyler etyler@truman.edu
Thu, 01 Apr 1999 10:43:50 -0600 (00923006630, 4.1.19990401103747.00b33990@pop.truman.edu)
At 09:17 PM 3/31/99 -0800, Christian Doscher wrote:
>I have heard that Church Fathers made lot's of errors regarding history,
>theology, and some even admitted supressing truth (Eusebuis?)
>
>
>I would like to locate any works which detail such Patristic errors,
>help!
>
>I figure once i can demonstrate a little dirt from each one, their
>reliability as a witness to the NT authorship/resurrection of Christ,
>will be called into question, and thus refute inerranntists who always
>remind us of how the NT testimony would stand in a court of law.
Ed
On a slightly different slant, Papias (who's on of the inerrantists' poster
boys) specifically said that Mark contained errors of chronology. I'll
have to look up the specific citation on that but maybe someone on the list
has it handy.
>
>Also, inerrantist love to quote past great legal minds who asserted the
>Gospel testimony would stand in court, can you direct me to great legal
>minds which DIDN'T?
>
>I'm sure they are out there...
Ed
The gospel testimony would not be allowed the opportunity stand in court
because it couldn't be admitted under the "best evidence" rule. The
inerrantists like to pass the gospels off as eyewitness testimony, which
would be admitted but it's not. It's a written account of purported
eyewitness testimony and would therefore be admitted only in the form of
deposition, which it isn't. Don't take my word for it; ask any lawyer.