Of course you do. As do I and any sane person. It’s not logically impossible to go by two names. But mere possibility is useless to me in a discussion. A million things are possible. Good history and exegesis is not concerned with what pious Christians think is logically possible. Without inerrancy forcing this position, I would guess these conservative Christians would just conclude the names were mixed up like they would anywhere else in life under similar circumstances. That is how I operate. There is nothing to suggest they shared names. Only an a priori belief in the doctrine of inerrancy.
Of course it comes “naturally” to those who believe in it. Just as it’s natural to defend young earth creationism for young earth creationists, misogyny for misogynists, atheism for atheists, moon landing hoaxes for conspiracy theorists or anti-vaccine propaganda for anti-vaccers. That does not mean it’s intellectually credible.
What do you mean by “word of God?” and what do you mean by “perfect?” Can anything written in language—a limited human construct—ever be absolutely perfect? If your definition of perfect includes, moral, scientific and internal errors I’m all for it.
Also, where is your evidence that the Bible, a collection of 73 individual books, put together written over thousands of years by many different authors, claims all 73 books are perfect?
Even if “the Bible” claimed to be inerrant, what does that matter? If it’s not inerrant no one is forced to accept that statement. The reasoning is circular.
What are you paraphrasing? It looks to me like you are bringing up a completely new issue that no one has discussed in here yet. And I don’t think I said Jesus was wrong here. The error is being attributed to Mark. Though I do maintain the incarnated Jesus was not omniscient and capable of intellectual mistakes, capable of stumbling, burning food, stubbing his toe, passing gas and banging his thumb with a hammer.
Early Christians experienced the transforming and risen Jesus. He wasn’t a thing of the past. The spirit was present and real. Jesus spoke to them and Christian prophets lived the Gospel and retold stories based on communal need. Oral tradition thrived well into the second d century. They didn’t alter the text to produce “a Christ”. They were written to glorify the Son of God and cast him in the strongest light possible given the stumbling block of his crucifixion. It’s as much worship as it is history and Gospel. All intertwined into one story written in a very specific time and place attempting to meet the needs of its community and provide them tools to preach to others.
It looks like there is a reason to suggest they shared names, to me. I haven’t studied it, but I will because it seems as though there are conflicting opinions. I want to explore it. Fascinating stuff.
Communal need? I think they preached to everyone/anyone who would listen based on everyone’s need for a relationship with Christ.
An argument is proffered by some higher critics that Christ was not God’s son based in part because of inconsistencies in what He said. I attempt to refute a couple of them here. I will try to address my comments to everyone in future.
I didn’t believe it. I reviewed some information that supported that position. It made sense. I’m learning. Love to learn.
Proverbs 30:5 - Every word of God is pure he is a shield unto them trust in him
Proverbs 30:5-6. King James Version … Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. … Psalm 12:6
The words of the Lord are pure words;
As silver tried in a furnace on the earth, refined seven times.
The precepts of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart;
The commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes.
Your word is very pure,
Therefore Your servant loves it.
The sum of Your word is truth,
And every one of Your righteous ordinances is everlasting.
2 Samuel 7:28
Now, O Lord God, You are God, and Your words are truth, and You have promised this good thing to Your servant.
John 17:17
Sanctify them in the truth; Your word is truth.
2 Corinthians 6:7
in the word of truth, in the power of God; by the weapons of righteousness for the right hand and the left
Psalm 119:142
Your righteousness is an everlasting righteousness,
And Your law is truth.
Matthew 22:16
And they *sent their disciples to Him, along with the Herodians, saying, “Teacher, we know that You are truthful and teach the way of God in truth, and defer to no one; for You are not partial to any.
You are already clean because of the word which I have spoken to you.
Judas (not Iscariot) asked Him, “Lord, why are You going to reveal Yourself to us and not to the world?” 23Jesusreplied,“IfanyonelovesMe,he will keepMyword.MyFatherwill lovehim,andWe will cometohimandmakeOur homewithhim. 24Whoever does not love Me does not keep My words. The word that you hear is not My own, but it is from the Father who sent Me.…
Just a handful. It is clear to me that that which we refer to as the bible is his “Word.”
You have made several statements about me that are not true. By itself, that diminishes the value of discussing these things with you. More than that, I sense that I am a source of aggravation to you. That has not been my purpose, but I think it would be best if we chilled out and discussed with others our thoughts and questions.
You have a terrific mind and vast knowledge of various topics pertaining to the bible. I admire you for that. At my age I will never learn one tenth of all you know. God Bless you Vinnie
The Bible nowhere says Abiathar had two names. It is disingenuous to suggest it does. What we have are small genealogical lists of names in several accounts where Abiathar and Ahimelech are reversed. That is what is in scripture. All I see is a stretching of scripture to circumvent an obvious mistake that is extremely trivial, means nothing and does nothing to hurt inspiration.
Quoting a dictionary, presumably one supporting inerrancy is again, an assumption, not an argument. The NJBC calls the confusion of the names “genealogical amnesia.”