How can we determine which parts of Scripture are true?

[Zelduck]

This is really a question for Christians, but since it doesn't assume the validity of the Bible, I think it belongs here rather than in the Theology, Doctrine, and Dogma section.

There have been multiple canons of Scripture. Books have been accepted and rejected for various reasons throughout Christian history. Books have lied about their authorship. Passages have been added and removed. Books were written in different times and different places by different authors and for different reasons.

So how can I have confidence in any particular verse, chapter, or book, that what I am reading is the inspired work of the Holy Spirit, and not the work of a man, no matter how pious?

What method ought I use to reliably determine what is and is not the Word of God? Has someone already done this for me, and if so, how can I tell if they didn't make a mistake?

[Korah]

You have finally understood my point (though still without any evidence that you have read my quotations), now that I have layed it out for you several times. But you argue that even if these are eyewitness reports right the day after, they are still false because messianic ideas were in the air. This is mere opinion from you, but this DC&R forum expects evidence or data. You provide none, so your only post ever on this thread should have been to say what I just summarized. You need to support your OPINION with facts, or refer us to where someone has refuted me.

....

I challenge you to name where you have heard this before? Was it on Theology Web or on FreethoughtandRationalismDiscussionBoard where I go under the name "Adam"? I don't know anywhere else you would have heard what you're hearing from me. However, as it seems still doubtful whether you have read ANY of my seven quotations in full, maybe you just lump my seven-eyewitness-source claim in the same basket with the orthodox claim that Matthew and John were eyewitness gospels. Please tell me where you have heard the like to what I have been saying here! Better yet, since it's "old stuff", tell me where it's already been refuted!

I'm saying that I've heard arguments from people attempting to claim that there exists evidence that the rumors contained within the Gospels started before they were written. I've actually heard these arguments from quite a few different people on forums just like this one. I don't recall who those people were.

My point is that this is certainly nothing new. It's already known that the rumors must have existed before the Gospels were written. That's a given. It's not NEW at all.

I'm still demanding that you NAME ONE! Nobody that I know of is saying anything like what I am saying. Are you hearing me in your dreams?

Paul wouldn't have been fighting against Christianity and eventually converted to Christianity before the gospels were written if these rumors of Christianity hadn't already existed. So the fact that the rumors of Christianity existed prior to the actual writing of the Gospels is absolutely guaranteed. If you think you are proposing something "new" then you are the one who is sadly mistaken.

Supposedly Paul was so hard-headed that he had be to blinded for three days before he would consider the claims of Jesus.

Besides, haven't you been quoting the words of other authors that have been suggesting the same sorts of things? How can you claim to have something "new" when you are citing the views of other people to support your conclusions?

Whom have I quoted? All my quotations are from the first seven posts I entered in 2012 in Christian Forums, with further links therein to four articles I published in 2006 in Noesis, the journal of the Mega Society.

And finally if you truly believe to some something "new" that's supposedly profound why are you wasting your time arguing about it here? Why don't you just write up your book and publish it so that the scholars can decide how much value it has?

Easier said than done. Who's going to publish me when I only have two Master's Degrees, neither of which are in Biblical Studies or anything closer than History? I have to find a patron first. I did attempt to publish in 1980 in Biblical Theology Bulletin, but their agreement to publish was rescinded when the Emeritus Editor wanted his piece on John published instead of mine. Of course, 1980 was a particularly bad time to try, as Form Criticism (always rejected by me) was at its height. I don't know why my views get no traction now even though Form Criticism is everywhere regarded as refuted.

[Zzyzx]

.

If for you NOT being anonymous is a great help, I expect you would acknowledge greater truth value to Scripture from Paul, James, John, Jude and Peter than from mere anonymous gospels.

Notice that I have not stated that "not being anonymous is a great help."

What I do state is that being anonymous does not help credibility. Notice the difference.

Even writers whose identity IS known have written fantasy and fiction -- and have sometimes presented it as truthful. That is known as fraud in modern times (though it may have been standard practice 2000 years ago), or as "pious fraud" in religious literature.

Although there are some means for detecting "less than literal truth", those means are far from perfect. Often acceptance or rejection is a matter of opinion.

Why do you think all that research is worthless?

I have taken no position regarding the worth of your mentioned research.

There are people far better qualified to evaluate its merit. Have bible scholars and theologians accepted, evaluated, referenced, published your work? What were their conclusions regarding its worth? Has it been cited by scholars as a reference / source in their writings? Has it received critical acclaim by academia?

The effort and time one puts into research is no indication that conclusions are valid or are respected by others. For instance, a lifetime of research into the literature regarding leprechauns or fairies or dragons does not verify their existence or any of their characteristics.

In my personal opinion if one does literary analysis of a given work, no matter how thorough, it cannot do more than confirm how the story is told -- NOT that the story is true and accurate. Internal consistency, even if it did / does exist is not verification of anything beyond internal consistency. Some writers are gifted in this regard, others are not.

[Divine Insight]

I'm still demanding that you NAME ONE! Nobody that I know of is saying anything like what I am saying. Are you hearing me in your dreams?

You can demand until you are blue in the face, it won't do you any good. I already told you that I heard similar arguments made by people on other forums like this, or possibly even on this forum. I don't bother keeping track of their screen names. Why should I?

As I have already pointed out repeatedly even if your arguments held water (which I'm not conceding that they do) they still wouldn't constitute any reason to believe that the rumors are true.

What part of that are you not understanding?

Who's going to publish me when I only have two Master's Degrees, neither of which are in Biblical Studies or anything closer than History?

Your inability to find a way to get your ideas published is not my problem.

However, if you can't get your ideas published and you want to try them out here why post in Christianity and Apologetics in a thread someone else had started asking how we can determine which parts of scriptures are true?

Your ideas do not address this question. Your ideas address the question of by whom and when the original rumors were started. That has nothing to do with whether or not they might be true.

So you would be better off posting in something like Theology, Doctrine, and Dogma and starting your own thread entitled something like, "When did the first ideas for the Gospels begin?"

And then debate with people on the topic that you seem to be interested in.

I wouldn't bother posting in that thread because the question doesn't interest me.

As far as I'm concerned it doesn't matter when these rumors were started, they are clearly false in any case.

[Korah]

....
I challenge you to name where you have heard this before? Was it on Theology Web or on FreethoughtandRationalismDiscussionBoard where I go under the name "Adam"? I don't know anywhere else you would have heard what you're hearing from me. However, as it seems still doubtful whether you have read ANY of my seven quotations in full, maybe you just lump my seven-eyewitness-source claim in the same basket with the orthodox claim that Matthew and John were eyewitness gospels. Please tell me where you have heard the like to what I have been saying here! Better yet, since it's "old stuff", tell me where it's already been refuted!

I'm saying that I've heard arguments from people attempting to claim that there exists evidence that the rumors contained within the Gospels started before they were written. I've actually heard these arguments from quite a few different people on forums just like this one. I don't recall who those people were.

Let me attempt to answer your claim more charitably. I'll grant that there are rumblings on the internet that could seem like what I've been presenting. Most notably there is the Signs Gospel portion of the Gospel of John, basically the seven miraculous signs starting with the Water into Wine at Cana of Galilee. Bultmann I think it was who started this thesis that this narrative portion of John was early and stylistically distinct from the rest of that gospel. Some scholars call it the Signs Source, whereas Robert Fortna calls it the Signs Gospel. Few of them speculate upon whom the author was, however, as most scholars of John date it late, too late to be written by one of the named disciples like Andrew or Phillip.

Perhaps you're talking about the Oral Gospel. This is kind of the opposite to what I am saying that literary style identifies various strata within the gospels. Loose-thinking kinds of scholars may well have talked about a Johannine School underlying the John we now have. This was popular among many Roman Catholic moderates. They might say that John started the ball rolling, and after several iterations (a term that a physics professor should appreciate) we got the Gospel of John we have today. You may think of this as similar to my idea that the Apostle John was the Editor of John, although it's more the opposite that they think later people did the editing.

Another similarity might be with the Passion Narrative, well recognized as underlying all four gospels. Conservatives might well reckon this one as Peter's, and Peter is one of the seven I say wrote written eyewitness records of Jesus. The entirety of Mark is often attributed to Peter.

Another similarity would be with Q, also known as the Logia, that moderates of a century ago liked to say traced back to sermons written down by Matthew. I recognize him as one of my seven who wrote a gospel source about Jesus, but I also attribute to him the narrative in the Synoptics sometimes known as the Twelve Source. Scholars now agree that the term "Logia" does not mean just sayings, but more something similar to our gospels. Perhaps this is something you heard that makes you think others are now writing down things like I write.

Then there's my Simon-thesis for the writing of (part of) the Gospel of Luke. Your readings may have included someone saying that Cleopas wrote down the Walk to Emmaus, or one of his sons. The name you heard may have been James, widely speculated to have written something to do with the gospels. Cleopas may have been the father of four sons named in the gospels, so take your pick--if you don't like my candidate Simon choose Jude or Joses.

As for the Discourses, most scholars date the Gospel of John late and think of the Discourses as from a late stratum. One scholar, Sydney Temple, did name Nicodemus as the writer of a Core Gospel of John, however, so you may have heard of him, even though his 1975 book is rarely mentioned anymore.
Edited to add:
Seeing now your further response in your Post #123, I see I have wasted my time trying to be considerate to your feelings and loose standards of research. You really should have taken my advice long ago to cease posting in this thread where you are continually off-topic. And I still see no evidence that you have read even my stuff posted here in DC&R, much less what extra is in Christian Forums or in Noesis.

[Korah]

....
Why do you think all that research is worthless?

I have taken no position regarding the worth of your mentioned research.
There are people far better qualified to evaluate its merit. Have bible scholars and theologians accepted, evaluated, referenced, published your work? What were their conclusions regarding its worth? Has it been cited by scholars as a reference / source in their writings? Has it received critical acclaim by academia?
The effort and time one puts into research is no indication that conclusions are valid or are respected by others. For instance, a lifetime of research into the literature regarding leprechauns or fairies or dragons does not verify their existence or any of their characteristics.
In my personal opinion if one does literary analysis of a given work, no matter how thorough, it cannot do more than confirm how the story is told -- NOT that the story is true and accurate. Internal consistency, even if it did / does exist is not verification of anything beyond internal consistency. Some writers are gifted in this regard, others are not.

Well said, but that's what Howard M. Teeple already did for me. His exquisite stylistic analysis unraveled layer upon layer of text. He himself was a Humanist who had no belief that any of John was true. No doubt he (like most scholars) preferred the Synoptic Jesus and pointedly diminished the Gospel of John by exposing its warts.

Nor was John a "literature regarding leprechauns", as the current fad for Mythicism was not evident in 1974. He believed something really happened, it just was a more complicated merger of Gnostic myth with miracle legend and some religious propaganda. No one in 1974 thought it was possible John was early. (John A. T. Robinson published Redating the New Testament in 1975 to howls of consternation.) I was already open to an early John (44 A. D. the earliest conceivable for me), so I could utilize Teeple's research to identify disciples and even apostles who wrote the strata Teeple had identified.

Neither you, Z, nor D.I. seem to appreciate the difficulty of cracking the scholarly Establishment. Even doctorates don't guarantee acceptance or even publication. You almost have to publish first before you're accepted as a professor. It's the old chicken-or-the-egg-first paradox. However, I have put my case out on Theology Web to such success that I dared to face outright exclusively atheists on FreethoughtandRationalismDiscussionBoard, both of which either crashed or closed down perhaps in consequence of no one refuting me at the latter either. My series is out there (uncommented) at Christian Forums, kindly copied over to EarlyChristianWritings.Com by Peter Kirby. Attempts to refute me have been variously puerile and profane (by Sh. at FRDB), simplistic (by sp. at FRDB), uselessly caustic (by Jeff Gibson there), or uselessly dismissive (Stephan H. at ECW). All they can appeal to is Consensus, no one can respond to my original case.

[Divine Insight]

Neither you, Z, nor D.I. seem to appreciate the difficulty of cracking the scholarly Establishment.

I can tell you one thing for certain. As long as you are acting like an attempt to try to pin down when ancient rumors might have been started and by whom equates to determining whether or not they are true, then nobody is going to be interested in anything you have to say, because those are two entirely different things.

Secondly, if by your own confession you're not even educated in the particular fields that you are claiming to have made such profound "discoveries" in, then why should anyone consider that you have anything more to offer than a layman opinion?

Especially considering that what you are attempting to support is a belief in a religion. It's well-known that religious zealots will go to great lengths to try to support their beliefs. Could it be that you might have a bit of bias regarding these issues?

I mean, think about. Let's imagine that the Bible truly was the inspired Word of God, written by eyewitness disciples of Jesus by God's desire to spread a message to humanity. Do you really expect anyone to believe that it took over 2000 years before someone like you could finally have figured out the truth?

There are so many things against it.

Why didn't Jesus just write up his own message? After all isn't he supposed to be "The Word Made Flesh"? Surely if Jesus was the word made flesh he would have had a clue how important it is to write down those words himself rather than leaving them to hearsay rumors that would take over 2000 years to finally be recognized by you, a complete unknown, who can't even get the truth published.

Why should anyone believe that this God would have chosen to get his message out like that?

It makes no sense. There are literally a gazillion things going against the Bible and very little if anything to support it.

As Sam Harris often asks, "What kind of a God would demand that humans believe in him on such flimsy and absurd evidence lest he'll cast them into an eternal hell fire"?

It makes no sense. Your arguments that you believe you can show that certain parts of these gospel rumors might have had a source right at the time when Jesus had lived simply isn't impressive. Even if you could make your case beyond a shadow of a doubt that still wouldn't be a reason to believe they were true rumors.

[Zzyzx]

.

Neither you, Z, nor D.I. seem to appreciate the difficulty of cracking the scholarly Establishment. Even doctorates don't guarantee acceptance or even publication. You almost have to publish first before you're accepted as a professor. It's the old chicken-or-the-egg-first paradox.

What things "seem" to you is no indication that they are true or accurate.

As a former tenured university professor I just might have some understanding of difficulties associated with publishing one's work

As a proponent of Plate Tectonics during the 1960s (a few years before it was generally accepted), I just might have some comprehension of difficulties in having one's ideas accepted by the "Scholarly Establishment". Fortunately others were far more qualified to have their ideas and work published and to advance the theory to acceptance.

Excuses for lack of success may sound convincing to the proponent.

However, I have put my case out on Theology Web to such success . . ."

"Success" on an Internet forum is a far cry from establishing validity of one's work.

[Korah]

[Replying to post 127 by Zzyzx]
Thank you, Z,
I have from the first found you in opposition to me, but I think between the lines here you understand what the odds are against me. I can toss in my views where they "don't count", but have no opportunity to pitch in the "big leagues".

And D. I., you seem to have a good handle on the big picture for me here, and I don't just generally dismiss you as I otherwise have. Sure, you're "off-topic" as usual, but you're on-point in analyzing me, so that's relevant. Maybe it's "reportable", but I'm not going to report you, it's no problem for me. I am what I am, and your analysis is not radically misrepresenting me. Except for your first paragraph that is totally out-to-lunch, showing once again that you have not read me, maybe not even my direct me-to-you comments. I have said again and again that proving the gospel sources early does not in itself prove Christianity is true, it just eliminates the usual banter that there were no eyewitnesses. As you yourself say, "romors!" Don't you even listen to yourself?

[Divine Insight]

I have said again and again that proving the gospel sources early does not in itself prove Christianity is true, it just eliminates the usual banter that there were no eyewitnesses.

But it doesn't even do that.

In fact, I had already pointed out that Paul's writings came before the gospels. So everyone is aware that the Christian myths of Jesus necessarily had to predate the writings of the Gospels.

So how can you even claim to be offering anything "new"? This is a given.

What you are attempting to claim is that this somehow proves that there must have been actual eyewitnesses. But that is totally incorrect.

Where have you proven that anything was actually an eyewitness account of anything?

You haven't. All you have done is suggest that you believe that you can place the source of some content of the gospel rumors to a period of time earlier than when the gospel rumors were actually written.

I would have given you that already. I have no doubt that the rumors existed verbally prior to having been written down in the gospels.

Although, some people may claim that the gospels themselves were entirely works of fiction made up entire from scratch at the time they were written. You could potentially have an argument against those claims. I would argue against those claims myself.

But none of that serves of "proof" than any of the rumors came directly from actual eyewitnesses who actually saw these event unfold.

In fact, I submit to you that this is impossible. It's impossible because these tales include claims of knowing every conversation that was had between the pharisees and Pilate. And between the Pharisees and the Jesus. And between Jesus and everyone he interacted with. Even to know what Jesus was praying to god about in private.

It's just unrealistic. An eyewitness reporter who could have obtained all of that information would have need to have been Super Fly. He would have need to buzz around spying on Jesus' every move, as well as following around the Pharisees, and Pilate too. Not to mention following around people like Judas etc.

These reports simply cannot have been eyewitness reports. They simply offer far too many details of every little thing that no eyewitness could have ever bee party to.

So to even think that these came from any actual eyewitnesses is already absurd.

At best they might have seen a few of these things. But to think that they could know everything they claim to know is simply absurd.

It's just not a reasonable claim.

[Korah]

I have said again and again that proving the gospel sources early does not in itself prove Christianity is true, it just eliminates the usual banter that there were no eyewitnesses.

But it doesn't even do that.
In fact, I had already pointed out that Paul's writings came before the gospels. So everyone is aware that the Christian myths of Jesus necessarily had to predate the writings of the Gospels.

Well, finally something on-topic! You suggest that Paul's writings are relevant to whether the gospels are worth considering to be true. Is that progress?
No, it's not. It is merely CONSENSUS that dates Paul's epistles (as originally written, anyway) before the gospals (as completed, anyway). Here again you HAVE NOT READ ME, I deny that with almost every one of my seven written eyewitness records to Jesus. Not explicitly, no, but dating three to Jesus's lifetime surely puts them before Paul who was killing Christians for years after that!
What's your logic at all? I say there were eyewitnesses, then you say there could not have been eyewitnesses because a particular agreed non-eyewitness did not start writing until ten or twenty years later?

So how can you even claim to be offering anything "new"? This is a given.

Given the untenability of what preceded, this is also absurd

What you are attempting to claim is that this somehow proves that there must have been actual eyewitnesses. But that is totally incorrect.
Where have you proven that anything was actually an eyewitness account of anything?
You haven't. All you have done is suggest that you believe that you can place the source of some content of the gospel rumors to a period of time earlier than when the gospel rumors were actually written.

More adding on to the original mistake.

I would have given you that already. I have no doubt that the rumors existed verbally prior to having been written down in the gospels.
Although, some people may claim that the gospels themselves were entirely works of fiction made up entire from scratch at the time they were written. You could potentially have an argument against those claims. I would argue against those claims myself.

I made no argument against such claims because any Philosophical Naturalist would simply be sure that my arguments for first-person wriitings could only mean that that first person was a liar or fiction writer. You yourself are not one of them, so I don't need to make that argument for you. You believe all was rumors, although you've got the order of events all mixed up.

But none of that serves of "proof" that any of the rumors came directly from actual eyewitnesses who actually saw these event unfold.

No, they may have written things they had not seen.

In fact, I submit to you that this is impossible. It's impossible because these tales include claims of knowing every conversation that was had between the pharisees and Pilate. And between the Pharisees and the Jesus. And between Jesus and everyone he interacted with. Even to know what Jesus was praying to god about in private.

I already explained this in a prior post. John Mark was too young to be noticed by people talking. Maybe he even went along with Jesus while Jesus prayed in the Garden of Gethsemane--as a youth (or as himself the writer) he did not count.
[skipped more yet of the same ilk]