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?

[Student]

[Replying to Korah]

"Proof" is a term introduced by you. I never contended that I "prove" any of my seven eyewitnesses. I acknowledge that other views are possible, just contend that mine is the most probable.

I agree with you, you have never “proved� any of your seven eyewitnesses. Your failure to provide any proof stands at the very heart of the problem. For example, while you appear to be moderating your position by accepting, somewhat condescendingly, that other views are possible, you still declare that your view is more probable without demonstrating why.

Consequently your claim to views that are more probable is just one more unsubstantiated opinion.

"If you're evaluating a "proof", maybe your categorical "nothing" is not too ridiculous, but I did provide much that warrants consideration.

How can there be “much that warrants consideration� if you provide nothing that might be considered as proof. Opinion devoid of substantiation is, of itself, not necessarily worthy of consideration.

Korah, you are entitled to your opinion, to your view. No-one is denying you that. However, you should not be surprised if your opinions fail to elicit any response much less recognition if you will not, or cannot substantiate your claims.

[Korah]

[Replying to Student]
You, at least, Student,
Are entitled to your opinion, as you (alone) have made a good-faith attempt to refute two of my seven eyewitnesses. So you believe what you believe and I believe what I believe, as I have rebuffed your two attempts. You ask for further substantiation, but you seem to equate this with "proof", so we may be at an impasse. I readily acknowledge that most scholars have radically different opinions from mine, so can you seriously suggest that I should be claiming that my Thesis is more than just "more probable"? That I have "proof", when everyone else thinks differently? There is no certainty in this field of study--you expect me to present certainty anyway?

Maybe you'll have better luck with the other five. Or perhaps you would like to present some more probable view than my own about the two you have already addressed?

[Korah]

.

MY point? You have made the unsubstantiated claim, so the burden is on you.

Kindly quote verbatim the "unsubstantiated claim" to which you refer.

Your use of the word "production" was quite misleading when you meant what everyone else would call "canonization".

"Canonization" is a religious term (meaning to sanction by ecclesiastical authority -- or confer sainthood) that is different from "production" (meaning something produced: a literary or artistic work: a work presented to the public -- or something exaggerated out of proportion to its importance)

An astute reader would understand that since I am known to have little ecclesiastical tendency the choice of "production" of the bible is appropriate.


Now, with that little sidetrack addressed, can you demonstrate "How can we determine which parts of scripture are true?" (the OP question).

All the confusion is about your misuse of the word "production". I take it that Ignostics can define words however they like and expect everyone else to bow to their will. I see once again how right I was to refuse to debate with you on your chosen threads.
Here we're on neutral ground. So how about STARTING to address the seven eyewitnesses I listed on Post #155. Are any of these from eyewitnesses and thus more likely to be parts of Scripture that are true? I don't care what you define "evidence" to be ("proof"?), deal with what I presented.

[Zzyzx]

.

"Canonization" is a religious term (meaning to sanction by ecclesiastical authority -- or confer sainthood) that is different from "production" (meaning something produced: a literary or artistic work: a work presented to the public -- or something exaggerated out of proportion to its importance)

An astute reader would understand that since I am known to have little ecclesiastical tendency the choice of "production" of the bible is appropriate.

Now, with that little sidetrack addressed, can you demonstrate "How can we determine which parts of scripture are true?" (the OP question).

All the confusion is about your misuse of the word "production".

It is unfortunate that you are confused even after I supplied definitions of the terms "canonization" and "production."

Now that definitions for common terms have been supplied, are you prepared to address the OP question – "How can we determine which parts of scripture are true?"

I take it that Ignostics can define words however they like and expect everyone else to bow to their will.

Do you consider Merriam Webster Dictionary to be an Ignostic?

I see once again how right I was to refuse to debate with you on your chosen threads.

Yes, you were right to decline my challenge to debate Head-to-Head – perhaps not for the reason you imagine.

Here we're on neutral ground.

All these debates are on neutral ground. No viewpoint is given preferential treatment – which includes that bible stories are considered authoritative.

So how about STARTING to address the seven eyewitnesses I listed on Post #155.

Your claimed eyewitnesses have nothing to do with the OP question "How can we determine which parts of scripture are true?" Even if you were able, with some wild stretch of the imagination, to convince someone somewhere that your claim was true, that is NOT assurance that anything in the accounts is true. Are you somehow unaware that witnesses can be untruthful or mistaken (or later have their accounts changed by others)? That liars CAN claim that they witnessed something that very different than what they actually observed? That people can claim there were witness accounts when there were not -- and claim that hearsay accounts are actual written, authentic witness accounts?

Are any of these from eyewitnesses

No one knows, you included (and Christian scholars and theologians included). You seem to have failed to convince scholars, theologians or website debaters that you have special knowledge of such matters.

and thus more likely to be parts of Scripture that are true?

Guessing isn't worth much in debate – nor are unverified claims of eyewitnesses.

I don't care what you define "evidence" to be ("proof"?), deal with what I presented.

It appears as though no one (regardless of their definition of evidence) takes your "evidence" seriously other than you (after forty years of trying) AND you are unwilling to attempt to defend your claim in closely monitored Head-to-Head debate.

[Korah]

[Replying to post 293 by Zzyzx]
I still see no need to play word-games with an Ignostic. Deal with the substance or admit you have lost by default. You passed by every one of the seven when I posted them, and you ignored the listing at Post #155 as well. My Eyewitness Default continues to prevail here (apparently unless Student resumes his attempts and succeeds).

[Zzyzx]

.

I still see no need to play word-games with an Ignostic.

The reasons for your refusal to debate might be viewed differently by others. An opponent's theological position should not frighten or dissuade one from honorable debate.

Deal with the substance or admit you have lost by default.

Present the "substance" right here and take your chances. You have defaulted on debating Head to Head. Readers can evaluate that however they deem appropriate.

You passed by every one of the seven when I posted them, and you ignored the listing at Post #155 as well.

Evidently everyone has been "passing by" (deeming unworthy) your claims for forty years. Does that tell you anything?

My Eyewitness Default continues to prevail here (apparently unless Student resumes his attempts and succeeds).

There is no such thing as "eyewitness default" in these debates – only in your imagination.

BTW: The topic of this thread is How can we determine which parts of Scripture are true? NOT your failed claims.

Can you provide a means to determine which parts of scripture are true? As explained to you repeatedly, even IF your claim of "written eyewitness accounts" happened to be accurate, that would NOT provide a means to determine truth in scripture (unless the accounts can ALSO be shown to be truthful and accurate).

[Korah]

[Replying to post 295 by Zzyzx]
As it happens, keeping up with the latest scholarly works (even as yet unpublished), I have come across strong support for my early date for the Gospel of John (with its four eyewitnesses). Scholars have been in the habit of viewing the term "aposynagogos" in John as a slip-up that pertains to the time John was written, not an event in Jesus's lifetime. This is based on a word "Birkat ha-minim" that is now known just to apply to removal of a reader from his liturgical duties--in Ephesus and Athens. It does not pertain to expulsion from attendance at a synagogue in Palestine. It's just not relevant. Or so argues Jonathan Bernier. Current consensus accepts that the Gospel of John is late because of the term “aposynagogos� in three places, thought to refer to a decree late in the First Century. The Christian community is thought to have read b back their situation into events in Jesus’s time. This two-level theory was championed by Louis Martyn and accepted by Raymond Brown. When facts on the ground on the ground countered this, John Kloppenborg nevertheless rationalized its continuing role in the consensus that John was late.
However,Berniers's 2012 dissertation has been published as a book: Jonathan Bernier, Aposynag�gos and the Historical Jesus in John: Rethinking the Historicity of the Johannine Expulsion Passages (Brill Biblical Interpretation Series 122; Leiden: Brill, 2013). Fortunately he has summarized it in a paper to be presented at the November 2014 Society of Biblical Literature Annual Meeting. He writes:

The central argument is that contrary to a virtual scholarly consensus on the matter, (3) John 9:22, 12:42, and 16:2, collectively designated as the aposynag�gos passages by their use of that term, are better understood by the historian as data relevant to the study of events surrounding Jesus’s life and the period shortly thereafter than as data relevant to the study of a putative Johannine community later in the first century. (4)

(3) The classic articulation of this consensus is to be found in J. Louis Martyn, History and Theology in the Fourth Gospel (3rd ed.; Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2003 [1968]), 35-68. For a fuller treatment of the history of scholarship cf. Bernier, Aposynag�gos, 1-18. Notable recent dissent from this consensus is to be found in Edward W. Klink III, “Expulsion from the Synagogue? Rethinking a Johannine Anachronism.� Tyndale Bulletin 59/1 (2008): 99-118.

(4) The viability of approaching John’s Gospel as the history of a Johannine community has come under sharp critique since the publication of Richard Bauckham, ed., The Gospels for All Christians: Rethinking the Gospel Audiences (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1998). For responses, positive and negative, to this critique, cf. Philip F. Esler, “A Response to Richard Bauckham’s Gospels for All Christians,� Scottish Journal of Theology 51 (1998): 235-248; Tobias Hägerland, “John’s Gospel: A Two-Level Drama?� Journal for the Study of the New Testament 25/3 (2003): 309-322; Thomas Kazen, “Sectarian Gospels for Some Christians? Intention and Mirror Reading in the Light of Extra-Canonical Texts,� New Testament Studies 51 (2005): 561-578; Edward W. Klink III, ed., The Audience of the Gospels: The Origin and Functions of the Gospels in Early Christianity (London: T&T Clark, 2010); Edward W. Klink III, The Sheep of the Fold: The Audience and Origin of the Gospel of John (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007); Margaret M. Mitchell, “Patristic Counter-Evidence to the Claim that the ‘Gospels Were Written for All Christians,’� New Testament Studies 51 (2005): 36-79; David C. Sim, “The Gospels for All Christians? A Response to Richard Bauckham,� Journal for the Study of the New Testament 84 (2001): 3-27.

That puts an end to the last supposedly good scholarly reason for dating John late. Of course, even Christian orthodoxy has made a habit of attributing to the Apostle John in his old age. The devout and the skeptics will likely continue their alliance for late dating of John, but that’s not even what external criticism says. The Muratorian Canon tells us that other apostles were still alive when John put out his gospel.
Edited to add:
While we're talking about latest current scholarship, I've noticed that you never replied to my #160 about Steve Mason's study of the term "the gospel" as evidence for my view that Luke was written before canonical Mark. Thus I added evidence that the Synoptics were very early (Luke originating before Paul's influence that shows up in the Gospel of Mark). With this current post I do the same for John. Do you have an aversion for new scholarship that explains why you won't deal with me?

[Zzyzx]

.

That puts an end to the last supposedly good scholarly reason for dating John late.

Even IF the gospel known as "John" was early, that does not assure that it is truthful or accurate. Remember that the OP question asks "How can we determine which parts of scripture are true?"

Whether something was early or late does not provide evidence that it is true. One can be mistaken or misleading (deliberately or otherwise) no matter when written.

Even if there were eyewitnesses (which has NOT been established), that does not assure that accounts attributed to them are truthful and accurate.

Can you demonstrate that the words attributed to "John" (whoever he may have been) or the supposed "witnesses" were not altered or inserted during the centuries that lapsed before surviving documents were copied / translated / edited / etc? If not, there is no assurance of truth.

Can you state honestly and Unequivocably (unmistakable, unambiguous, without question) that the accounts are true?

[Korah]

[Replying to post 297 by Zzyzx]
I won't say Truth is a relative term.
For us humans, however, in our search for Truth as in "determining which parts of Scripture are true", we're left with our own resources to evaluate Scripture. Anyone, I contend, would be more likely to acknowledge as true what was written sooner than later after the matters involved. Absent evidence of fakery or delusion, anyone would tend to favor written eyewitness testimony over second or third-hand information. Thus my Thesis of seven written eyewitness accounts about Jesus is highly relevant to the OP and it's time you start dealing with it. And let's add in Posts #160 and #296 to the posts listed at #155.

[Zzyzx]

.

I won't say Truth is a relative term.

If truth is not relative then "more likely to be true" does not apply because "more likely" specifically denotes "one relative to another."

For us humans, however, in our search for Truth as in "determining which parts of Scripture are true", we're left with our own resources to evaluate Scripture.

Therefore, I ask for a means of determining which parts are true. If anyone can "use their own resources" to make individual decisions that says "Your guess is as good as anyone's" – which, incidentally, describes the "authenticity" of bible stories quite well.

Anyone, I contend, would be more likely to acknowledge as true what was written sooner than later after the matters involved.

That one source is "more likely" to be true than another, is no assurance that either are true. Thus, even if you prove that a source is early (which you have not) that is a LONG way from proving, or even suggesting, that it is true.

Rather than determining which parts of scripture are true this reduces the question to "which parts of scripture are more likely to be true than other parts, even though none can be shown to be true." With that I might agree.

Absent evidence of fakery or delusion, anyone would tend to favor written eyewitness testimony over second or third-hand information.

Since it has not been demonstrated convincingly that written eyewitness testimony is available, that is a moot point. You have contended that you have evidence, but do not seem to have convinced anyone in the scholarly or theological communities or even debaters here (as indicated by a poll that was unanimous against your claim – http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 4&start=30).

Thus my Thesis of seven written eyewitness accounts about Jesus is highly relevant to the OP

In order for that to be true

1. The claim of written eyewitness accounts would have to be established as true
2. The truth and accuracy of the accounts would have to be established

Neither has been done.

and it's time you start dealing with it. And let's add in Posts #160 and #296 to the posts listed at #155.

Have you finally decided to debate the issue Head to Head?