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?

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 150:

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.
...

The problem I see is that you're so ready to call other' statements "falsehoods", while clearly denying these "eyewitnesses" may have been doing them some hoodfalsing of their own.

I don't care if the Pope himself says he saw Jesus rise from the dead, until Jesus shows up at the front door, I'll continue to consider this whole deal the tallest of tall tales I've ever heard tell of.

Beyond that, we've also got the issue of being unable to cross examine these "eyewitnesses", in order to ascertain their intelligence, psychology, and reliability regarding claims that beggar belief. So, if we even agreed you've shown there's some real, they were there to see it eyewitnesses, we still have little means of confirming the veracity of any claims they may present - nor do we have the ability to see if they would change their stories in light of the advances in science and knowledge since they were alive.


In light of so many sense-assaulting biblical claims, maybe your claims of actual "eyewitnesses" are not as remarkable, or as worthy of debate, as maybe you think they oughta be.

[Korah]

From Post 150:

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.
...

The problem I see is that you're so ready to call other' statements "falsehoods", while clearly denying these "eyewitnesses" may have been doing them some hoodfalsing of their own.

Thank you, Joey.
To clarify, I don't counter-attack when a poster simply states that he believes no eyewitnesses wrote about Jesus. That's a legitimate opinion for someone who believes like an Evangelical that the four gospels are unitary (no sources) and late (like after 80 A. D.). But as I stated, I hear time-and-again that we KNOW that there were no eyewitnesses. Yet these same New Atheists probably accept higher criticism that examines whether there were SOURCES underlying the gospels, and many scholars date some of these sources very early. That's my beef.

All my Thesis does is ask what these sources may be, how early they are, and who might be an identifiable eyewitness. Certainly these are open issues worthy of debate.

Incidentally, I don't presume that even eyewitnesses are infallible. My position is that Nicodemus wrote most of the Discourses in John as evidence AGAINST Jesus until he became a believer (this change of attitude thus being evidence that he wrote while Jesus was still alive). Though I present some eyewitnesses who wrote about miracles, I make a key argument for the Passion Narrative source in John being so simple and unadorned that it reads like a diary entry for Jesus's last week (probably by John Mark, a likely candidate for the disciple known to the high priest).

[Zzyzx]

.

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.

How could it be "forgotten" when it is touted over and over in threads that have nothing to do with its conjectures?

Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that the thesis has not been accepted here or elsewhere.

We can debate my posts even though my posts are not in themselves proof.

It does not seem as though anyone is interested in debating, discussing or perhaps even considering your thesis or your posts.

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.

Perhaps most realize that your thesis is the one most likely to be incorrect (or "falsehood").

So it's not necessary to start a new thread. Let's discuss (as goodwithoutgod claims he is willing to do) these enumerated posts.

There is a more appropriate thread to discuss the merits of your proposal:

Has the claim of "Seven eyewitness accounts" been convincingly substantiated?

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... c&start=10

The poll is unanimous with nine votes NO and with 14 comments, all of which have been negative except your own.

Although there is something to be said for persistence, the "Seven eyewitness" topic seems to have been worn out.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 152:

The problem I see is that you're so ready to call other' statements "falsehoods", while clearly denying these "eyewitnesses" may have been doing them some hoodfalsing of their own.

Thank you, Joey.

Thank you, yourself, for your ever polite attitude. I strive to do me some of it, but it is, well I can't do it near as much as I wanna.

That said, I'm curious to know why you wouldn't try to explain why your eyewitnesses mighta not been them some falsers of the hood.

...
Yet these same New Atheists probably accept higher criticism that examines whether there were SOURCES underlying the gospels, and many scholars date some of these sources very early. That's my beef.

I can dig it, and hope I'm willing and able to look at all the data in an unbiased fashion - sitting here in my declaridly atheist chair.

All my Thesis does is ask what these sources may be, how early they are, and who might be an identifiable eyewitness. Certainly these are open issues worthy of debate.

Sure. I'm trying to get at the idea that even if you can show these folks were "eyewitnesses", there's still the issue of the veracity of their testimony, and other issues my referenced post considers.

So, we grant - nay, we believe wholeheartedly - that you've got it right. Them folks you speak of was there for some event. Such a condition does not, and should not lead us to conclude that just cause them folks could utter, that their utterances are truth.

Take me. A paranoid schizophrenic (old terminology, but what I've come to claim myself to be). I got me the voices, and here and there, the images, to declare that there's some goofy goings on.

Should I be trusted, having just said it about my problematic psychology? I'd hope not. I'd hope folks'd think there I was, I was being honest as I could, only it is, that I suffer me the voices, and the sometime visuals. Beyond that, there's the rather simple idea that folks'd just do them some misunderstanding.

That ain't to say they suffer my problems, only that if you wish to convince me they have it right, well there's burden to be a-burdenated there.

Incidentally, I don't presume that even eyewitnesses are infallible.
...

I can dig it.

But struggle to understand why you think some folks are all about the "falsehood", but that your own 'eyewitnesses" ain't.

By what means can we confirm your 'eyewitnesses' speak truth regarding their claims? (pending specificals)
\

[Korah]

[Replying to post 154 by JoeyKnothead]
Apparently, Joey,
You're off on a tangent on a point I have already conceded. My thesis is that the gospels contain as sources seven written eyewitness accounts about Jesus. I don't claim to show that each of them is 100% true and accurate! (I personally believe in them as I do not presuppose that miracles cannot occur.) I even stated that in my opinion the Johannine Discourses were first gathered to use as testimony against Jesus. For those of you who are atheists, several of the seven accounts would have to be regarded as exaggerations because you deny the possibility of miracles. However, Q1 and the Passion Narrative source within John do not have miracles, so you can't automatically dismiss them as untrue.

Since the seven sources are very early (according to my Thesis, anyway), the best argument against them would be that they came from a conspiracy by the earliest Christians. Yet academic scholars unanimously reject such ideas.

I am still waiting for discussion of the relevant

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.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 155 by Korah]

Let's just assume your right what does that have to do with whether scripture is true or not?

[Korah]

[Replying to post 155 by Korah]
Let's just assume you're right what does that have to do with whether scripture is true or not?

I don't believe in plenary inspiration nor verbal inerrancy, so whether any parts of the Bible are true or not is an open question to me. I have made a lifetime focus on the gospels to see whether they at least are sound. Is at least this part of Scripture true? Almost everyone would accept that parts that were written by an eyewitness would more likely be true.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 155:

Apparently, Joey,
You're off on a tangent on a point I have already conceded. My thesis is that the gospels contain as sources seven written eyewitness accounts about Jesus. I don't claim to show that each of them is 100% true and accurate!
...

I respect that about the they might be wrong.

In such a case then, regarding this OP, I'd expect you to show these eyewitnesses support, somehow, the notion presented in the OP.

(I personally believe in them as I do not presuppose that miracles cannot occur.)

Nor do I.

I simply expect those who claim they have, at least here in our debates here, to show such claims are truth.

I even stated that in my opinion the Johannine Discourses were first gathered to use as testimony against Jesus.

I don't immediately reject opinion, but readily accept it's use in determining truth is problematic.

For those of you who are atheists, several of the seven accounts would have to be regarded as exaggerations because you deny the possibility of miracles.

You're doing some clod clumping.

I don't deny the possibility of some god intervening in this universe - my declarations of the god concept notwithstanding. I was married once, and have had multiple relationships with women of the female persuasion. I'm so conditioned to admit I'm wrong, I'll even do it when I think I ain't.

I merely challenge those who claim he did to show they speak truth.

However, Q1 and the Passion Narrative source within John do not have miracles, so you can't automatically dismiss them as untrue.

Meh.

Until we actually consider specifics, I'm lost as a cow at a square dance.

Since the seven sources are very early (according to my Thesis, anyway), the best argument against them would be that they came from a conspiracy by the earliest Christians. Yet academic scholars unanimously reject such ideas.

Lacking specifics, I really can't form conclusions here.

I am still waiting for discussion of the relevant
...

And as I said, whether or not there were folks who claim to have seen 'em something, that's no reason for me, and 'parently a bunch of others to think they did.

I mean, if I told you how smart I was, would you be willing to run over here and tell the ol' lady that, yes, indeed I am? You know it is, she's the one set to callin' me "Knothead", and I'm here to tell it, I think she believes it


If only to me, your problem is that your claim of there being witnesses is, well, rather unremarkable.

Throughout the Bible, it is that folks say they did 'em this or that, or they said 'em this or that, and that ain't such a notion that folks find so debatable. I mean, folks do 'em this or that, and say 'em this or that, on a fairly regular basis. Nobody really bothers with that.

What it seems, mostly, is that it bothers some folks when other folks claim some dead dude did 'em a fifty under par at Augusta. Now there, we don't near fret it was a dead dude that went to shootin' golfs, but that he did him a fifty under at Augusta. It's the nature of the claims, not the who's a-makin' 'em.


I'm trying to help you understand that just saying there was eyewitnesses - proving it even - is, to so many of us atheists, insufficient grounds to believe claims that demand scrutiny.


Having said all that, I do 'preciate the idea that if or when folks such as myself claim there are no eyewitnesses, or use that argument in some way, well then, you hop in, and you set to telling your tale about how there was. And how they saw 'em a zombie bowling ghost god, and how goofy it'd be not to believe 'em just 'cause they said they saw it.

I challenge you to present an OP that argues that there were indeed eyewitnesses to such claims as a risen Jesus, or any of the other miracle claims in the Bible, and how it is, we oughta trust 'em just for the having said it.

Pick your biblical claim. Pick your witnesses. Make you an OP.

[Korah]

I challenge you to present an OP that argues that there were indeed eyewitnesses to such claims as a risen Jesus, or any of the other miracle claims in the Bible, and how it is, we oughta trust 'em just for the having said it.

Can't do that, Joey, that's not my Thesis. Apparently you havn't read the seven posts I listed in my post #155, because those specific verses in large part exclude the miracles and only one eyewitness necessarily includes among its essence the Resurrection. That there were several eyewitnesses who wrote about Jesus without listing miracles, may increase willingness to consider eyewitnesses who do write about miracles, but you need to start small.

So look at those listed posts of mine. See which ones meet your criteria of believability by excluding miracles. See whether some of the others can be set apart from the miracles included. Maybe seven eyewitnesses won't seem reasonable to you, maybe just half that many. That's at least a start towards determining parts of Scripture that are true.

[Korah]

No “Gospel� from Jesus?
Recent research by Steve Mason has shown that the word “gospel� may never have been spoken by Jesus, just attributed to Him particularly in the Gospel of Mark. Excluding use of the verb form “to evangelize�, the noun in Greek with the definite article (our “the gospel� from�to euangelion�) is used primarily by Paul. In contrast the gospels of Luke and John never use the word as a noun, nor do the first 14 chapters of Acts. Consensus dating put these gospels after Mark, but my own research had come to the conclusion that Luke was first (and probably paralleling John in a different line). Since Paul wrote primarily in the ‘50’s, it would seem that texts excluding “gospel� are earlier than the gospels that picked up Pauline terminology. It would seem that sources underlying our extant gospels did not use the noun “the gospel�, but that Mark with its seven occurrences edited it in in place of “the cross�or similar term. Similarly Matthew includes “the gospel� four times by using a text (later than Luke’s source) that it shared with Mark. Similarly the source underlying Acts of the Apostles for the first 12 chapters never says “the gospel�, it only occurring in later chapters where the writer necessarily was influence by the Paul he wrote about (Acts 15:27, 20:24).

Perhaps Steve Mason (and almost everybody else) is wrong about his assumptions!

That in itself is perhaps not surprising, but now we come to the data that really upset the applecart. Within the NT collection, distribution of to euangelion is in no way proportionate. The genuine and disputed letters of Paul, although they occupy somewhat less than a quarter of the NT (about 32,445 of 138,000 words), account for 60 of the 76 occurrences of the neuter singular. Now, Paul’s letters are the earliest Christian writings to have survived, belonging to the first generation after Christ (roughly 30 to 65 CE). The Gospels belong to the next generation, from 35 to 100. Of the non-Pauline material in the NT, Mark is the heaviest user with 8 occurrences (including the long ending), all of these with the article. Thus, Paul (including pseudo-Paul) and Mark together account for fully 67 of 72 occurrences of to euangelion. By contrast Matthew, though most scholars think that its author used Mark as a source, taking over more than 90% of the earlier text and adding about 50%, has only 4 occurrences of this noun. Most surprisingly, although it also used Mark as a source, Luke omits the noun altogether and Acts has it only twice, though this “double work� accounts for nearly half (25) of the NT’s 54 occurrences of the cognate verb euangeliz�. John has no trace of the word group in any form, and the hypothetical sayings Gospel Q along with the structurally similar Thomas lack the noun. Hebrews also omits the noun, though it has the verb twice.

http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/mason3.shtml

Mason's insights also tie in with my Thesis, my radical rethinking that there are seven written eyewitnesses accounts as sources within the four gospels. (Mason himself, however, attributes the absence of "the gospel" in Luke to Luke's unwillingness to use Pauline terminology.) Since Paul wrote largely in the '50's, and the seven sources I have identified do not use the term "the gospel", this argues for a still earlier date for the sources. Four of the eyewitnesses I find in John, which never uses the term. Another (Simon) I find only in Luke. The other two, Peter and Matthew, are found in the Triple Tradition,but "the gospel" does not appear in the earliest Synoptic, Luke. Paul's terminology "the gospel" had only spread to the gospels during the editing towards Mark and Matthew. So though these two eyewitnesses do have the term "the gospel" in some editions, it would seem the earlier sources did not have them and do go back as I say to 44 A. D. when John Mark and Peter got together and wrote Proto-Mark.

That further supports “the gospel� being a late term as far as the gospels go.. Luke, if late, nevertheless had an earlier version of Mark without “the gospel�. Canonical Mark is late, as is the closely related Matthew (that contains the extra four chapters of Mark that are not in Luke). As Matthew is less Pauline in theology than is Mark, it contains just four instances of “the gospel�. Both Matthew and Mark would seem to draw on a shared Pauline Proto-Matthew, thus both from the ‘50’s or later. Even if Mark is so Pauline, that is evidence it is later than Luke, or its sources are later.

That date is more integral than Pauline typology is shown by the Acts of the Apostles. Its sources never contains “the gospel�, but where the writer (presumably Luke) does not have the source available, he uses “the gospel� at 15:7 and 20:24. So Luke does not on principle eliminate “the gospel�, at least where Paul himself is involved. I think I can reasonably stand on my contention that Mason’s discovery supports both my hypotheses, the seven written gospel accounts and the Evolving Proto-Gospel in which Luke got written before the other two Synoptics.

(Please refer to my Post #155 here for details on where in this thread to find my detailing of each of the seven written eyewitness accounts.)