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?

[Zzyzx]

.

[Replying to post 139 by Korah]
My Post #139 was too lengthy to get attention,

Good observation; however, length may not be the primary reason that the post is ignored (and talking to one's self doesn't change that).

but let me abbreviate it and stress its importance.

Abbreviation is appropriate. Others will evaluate its importance.

may serve as a platform for what I have been posting in this thread, that there are seven written eyewitness records as sources in our four gospels.

Has your "seven written eyewitness records" claim been accepted (and cited) by scholars and theologians, by debaters here, by yourself? If only the latter, it doesn't have much credibility in debate (in spite of decades of effort).

[Korah]

.

may serve as a platform for what I have been posting in this thread, that there are seven written eyewitness records as sources in our four gospels.

Has your "seven written eyewitness records" claim been accepted (and cited) by scholars and theologians, by debaters here, by yourself? If only the latter, it doesn't have much credibility in debate (in spite of decades of effort).

Good observations, Z, but the point of my Post #140 was to establish that the Consensus no longer cavalierly holds that the gospels do not go back to eyewitnesses. Bauckham has established the groundworks for what I was not constrained by academic reserve from saying. Now that Consensus does not automatically refute me, it's up to everyone now to deal with me one-on-one without appealing (like you just did) to authority. No one has yet made a serious case to refute me, just appeals to the Consensus, and this is my fifth major website.

[Zzyzx]

.

No one has yet made a serious case to refute me, just appeals to the Consensus, and this is my fifth major website.

If one has serious scholarly work and conclusions to present, websites are not a credible place to do so. Verification or refutation in debate forums does not substitute for presentation to professional, scholarly groups.

If one's work is not accepted professionally, they may still try to promote it in a non-scholarly venue.

[Divine Insight]

No one has yet made a serious case to refute me, just appeals to the Consensus, and this is my fifth major website.

I never had any need to refute you in this thread. I'm more than willing to grant your hypothesis. And I have made no appeal to consensus.

My point is that even given that your hypothesis is true, that still doesn't establish the truth of scriptures.

So I'm just curious if the people on the previous four "major websites" that you've posted to might have had the same objections I've had. Is so, then you just aren't acknowledging those objections. Just as you seem to have failed to acknowledge mine.

I agree with Zzyzx. The specific hypothesis that you are presenting needs to be made to people who care about those particular concerns.

Your hypothesis does not establish that the scriptures are "true". If you think it does, then it's no wonder no one is bothering to argue with you. It's not your hypothesis that they disagree with. It's your conclusion that they disagree with.

[Korah]

[Replying to post 144 by Divine Insight]
I'm still waiting, D. I.,
for you to show any evidence you have read anything I wrote specifically about the seven written eyewitness records of Jesus.

In contrast, "Student" right off the bat read not only what I submitted, but went to my cited websites such as at Noesis, the journal of the Mega Society where I presented my views in 2006. (I received no comment from anyone there, but then I did not expect any of them to be interested.) Student was willing to accept Consensus in refutation of me, but as I have stated that no longer serves, now that eyewitness "Jesus of testimony" is now accepted widely.

No, D. I., no one had the same objections as you. You are unique. I was quite surprised that anyone could have such views as you claim to believe. I would more have expected someone to be pulling my leg.

It is not necessary to be a believer to investigate my claims. Indeed, the believers already have their minds made up about a different group of eyewitnesses, so they have no interest in my scholarly improvements on their simplistic, refuted beliefs.

[Korah]

.

No one has yet made a serious case to refute me, just appeals to the Consensus, and this is my fifth major website.

If one's work is not accepted professionally, they may still try to promote it in a non-scholarly venue.

I don't know quite what you mean by this, whether you recommend this or disapprove. I did get my work accepted professionally, my "Significance of John" that was scheduled for publication in 1980 in Biblical Theology Bulletin (but bumped by the Editor Emeritus for his survey article on John). I then did get it published more casually in 1988 in a High-IQ journal. Similarly I published (and available online as I have cited numerous times) in 2006 four articles in Noesis, journal of the Mega Society. All of these would rate higher, I assume you mean, than my more recent seven years of "publication" on various internet forums (Theology Web, , FreethoughtandRationalismDiscussionBoard, (both of which crashed), Christian Forums, EarlyChristianWritings, and now DC&R).

I don't see that internet forums necessarily have to be meaningless. You or anyone is free to begin serious discussion with me here or the EarlyChristianWritings website.

[Korah]

[Replying to post 146 by Korah
That this thread was mistitled for discussing my Thesis that the four gospels contain seven written eyewitness accounts by people who knew Jesus, is one reason this thread has not been used for that purpose. In this sub-forum, however, and by most of those who post here, the Bible does not get a pass as basically divinely inspired. What if none of the Bible were regarded as inspired? Would we have to depend upon only what we can extract from the Bible as eyewitness sources? I have already presented my Thesis recently here in DC&R in this thread ("How can we determine which parts of Scripture are true?"), with particularly important posts of mine here featuring individual eyewitnesses at #43, 59 (with a link to a convenient location where all these eyewitnesses are listed together), 62, 82, 83, 97 and 101. I gave other important posts starting at #26 and continuing into the 140's.

So it's not necessary to start a new thread. Let's discuss (as goodwithoutgod claims he is willing to do) these enumerated posts. They are crucially important if we cannot automatically rely upon the Bible in general. (Personally I have recently come to doubts about Acts of the Apostles, so this is a significant issue for me. Does only my Thesis tell us which parts of Scripture tell us what we need to know?)

[0ne-answer]

[Replying to post 1 by Zelduck]

You can either refer to the original language or refer to the latest revelation to the final prophet of God, that is the Quraan that was revealed to the prohet Muhammad peace be upon him

[coffeem8]

I once questioned the same thing, so, I decided to live by the bible(kjv), to see if it is true. It is true. Men did write it, and it is true.

[Korah]

It seems to have been forgotten here in DC&R that I have already presented my Thesis that the four canonical gospels contain as sources seven written eyewitness accounts. I'll repeat what I already said in my Post #147. We can debate my posts even though my posts are not in themselves proof. The Thesis was designed to counter New Theist dogma that no one who knew Jesus ever wrote about him. I never let that falsehood stand when I see it.

I have already presented my Thesis recently here in DC&R in this thread ("How can we determine which parts of Scripture are true?"), with particularly important posts of mine here featuring individual eyewitnesses at #43, 59 (with a link to a convenient location where all these eyewitnesses are listed together), 62, 82, 83, 97 and 101. I gave other important posts starting at #26 and continuing into the 140's.

So it's not necessary to start a new thread. Let's discuss (as goodwithoutgod claims he is willing to do) these enumerated posts. They are crucially important if we cannot automatically rely upon the Bible in general.

This thread is a better place to discuss this than "the great Josephus interpolation" in which my eyewitness thesis has most recently been discussed. Is no one at DC&R yet willing to debate this? Ever since Richard Bauckham's Jesus and the Eyewitnesses in 2006, scholars no longer can take for granted that no eyewitnesses wrote about Jesus. Since argument from authority seems to be preferred in this sub-forum, perhaps someone can cite some recent (post-Bauckham) scholars who have reinstalled certainty that there were no eyewitnesses who wrote about Jesus. A number of top scholars (Maurice Casey, James Crossley, and Bart Ehrman) date Mark and Q very early, which makes eyewitness testimony quite possible.