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]

.

Where can one find Nicodemus' written eyewitness accounts? Note that John (whoever that may have been) saying that Nicodemus claimed something or said something or saw something is NOT an eyewitness account – but is hearsay (at best).

Getting to basics,

Okay, let's get to the basics. Can you answer openly and honestly my question "Where can one find Nicodemus' written eyewitness accounts?"

If the open and honest answer is "They do not exist or are not available", the next question is "What documents DO we have that allude to those eyewitness accounts, by whom were they written, when were they written, how can we evaluate their accurate representation of what Nicodemus is said to have witnessed?

If the best source was written decades, generations or centuries later by unidentified people and amounts to "someone said that Nicodemus claimed he saw something", that isn't very credible.

Inventing "plausible" scenarios may convince some in church or others predisposed to believe religious tales; however, they are far from convincing to non-worshipers, particularly in debate.

[Korah]

Well, I've got news for you. If you are attempting to sell me on the idea that Jesus was the demigod son of the God of the Old Testament then you most certainly do need to justify every jot and tittle of Old Testament.

Not if some gospel verses are not from eyewitnesses, but seven sources within the four gospels are written eyewitness records.
[skip]

On the other hand if you are merely trying to "defend" your own personal reasons for clinging to this religion then I'm not even interested in hearing your reasons. I couldn't care less how you justify your beliefs to yourself.

I guess I can't expect to hear from you then. If you do reply, please keep your posts shorter and/or more focused and relevant.

[Korah]

.

Where can one find Nicodemus' written eyewitness accounts? Note that John (whoever that may have been) saying that Nicodemus claimed something or said something or saw something is NOT an eyewitness account – but is hearsay (at best).

Getting to basics,

Okay, let's get to the basics. Can you answer openly and honestly my question "Where can one find Nicodemus' written eyewitness accounts?"

Howard M. Teeple in his 1974 Literary Origin of the Gospel of John follows Bultmann in seeing the main theological texts in John to be from a source. Many scholars see a Gnostic or semi-Gnostic strain in John, so Teeple labels this source “G�. But just as Bultmann’s delineation has been called into question, Teeple’s source separation here was criticized from the first. Robert Kysar did not see G and Teeple's later “E� Editor as distinct. I take a middle position, that the E material does contain much that is from an Editor, but much of it is best merged with G. I see the dividing line as between whatever can be regarded as Discourse, basically G plus the other teachings, and narrative that is contained wholly within E.

With that “clarified�, I next see some of the G text above found in S stories, particularly in John 4, 5, and 9. There are sayings in John 4 that are in S style. I interpret these facts as meaning that the Signs writer who brought in the Passion Narrative also had available to him the Discourses, did his own translation at the start, and thereafter made use of the translation from Aramaic to Greek that was later used for the rest of John. It’s also possible that the Signs in John 5 and John 9 were added in a later edition.

Focusing now on the Discourses, where did they come from? The Discourses contain the Johannine Theology that has typically been considered as written down by John (or someone later) in his old age. As shown above, this is not necessarily the case. If we look for clues within the text itself, we find (apart from the Prologue) that high theology begins in John 3, the night visit to Nicodemus. Did Nicodemus record this? Consider that we next hear of Nicodemus in John 7:50-52, in which Nicodemus argues that the Law does not condemn a man without first hearing from him. If he took it upon himself to do what he said, the words recorded in the next three chapters from Jesus seem well suited to be a record of what Jesus said that might be worthy of condemnation. Later chapters reveal more and more favor towards what Jesus had to say, concluding with John 17. In John 19:39 Nicodemus brought spices for Jesus’s burial. He had obviously become a Christian. The marked change in attitude toward Jesus shows that Nicodemus wrote all this (or at least notes) while Jesus was still alive.

Teeple displays the Nicodemus name consistently as what he labels “E� for Editor, which argues for the lumping together of his G and E strands, as I hold that G stems exclusively from Nicodemus. It does tend to argue that the Discourses were added in to John when the Editor was active, which I acknowledge as a possibility even though it goes against my belief that the Discourses were added in during the just-previous edition. On the other hand, recognizing at least some stylistic difference between G and E goes as well with my view that E added in G to the mix, but that in the process of doing so his own style got into it enough that Teeple could reasonably find that some parts of the Discourses should be categorized as E.

Even with the mentions of Nicodemus occurring in E sections, it’s still reasonable to assume that the prior edition added his writings in, but without naming him. E got more specific, and is characteristic of him, he encased it within some narration. That the Discourses only relatively later get around to mentioning actions of Nicodemus does show that the Discourses were not the building block around which John was built, even though my logic dictates that it was the first text (or notes) written.
The raw text from Nicodemus, my modification of Teeple’s G, runs as follows:
3 (in the main); 4:20-24; most of 5:17-47; 6:26-51, 58-65; most of 7:5-52; 8:12-57; most of 9 & 10, but not 9:1-2, 6-7, 13-17, 24-28; 11:1, 9-10, 16; 12:23-59; 13:16-17, 21-22; Ch. 14-17.

As the above is almost all sayings, sermons, or debates, eyewitness status is less applicable. Indeed, Nicodemus was charged with bringing a case against Jesus, so the general tone of this source should not be regarded as representative of Jesus. Nevertheless, Nicodemus probably did restrict himself to noting down things that Jesus really said—he just omitted all the qualifications and nuances. Nicodemus is the third identifiable eyewitness.
http://www.christianforums.com/t7594923/ at Post #3, to which I have linked at the Post #60 on Feb. 15 that I have several times cited here at DC&R, most recently on July 14th in the Post #37 in this thread that I just mentioned at my Post #38. The same material was likewise linked at Early Christian Writings.Com to where it was copied.

(Naturally a lot regarding Nicodemus as stated above as a third eyewitness in John would make better sense in the context of the two preceding eyewitnesses found in Posts #1 and #2 from the website cited. Feel free to read what I have already stated there.)

[Zzyzx]

.

Where can one find Nicodemus' written eyewitness accounts? Note that John (whoever that may have been) saying that Nicodemus claimed something or said something or saw something is NOT an eyewitness account – but is hearsay (at best).

Getting to basics,

Okay, let's get to the basics. Can you answer openly and honestly my question "Where can one find Nicodemus' written eyewitness accounts?"

Howard M. Teeple in his 1974 Literary Origin of the Gospel of John follows Bultmann in seeing the main theological texts in John to be from a source. . . . .

In straight forward language -- eyewitness reports from Nicodemus do not exist, AND the supposed "source" documents (such as "G") do not exist -- but are inferred -- and what is "known" is OPINION based upon bible stories.

Correct?

[Divine Insight]

On the other hand if you are merely trying to "defend" your own personal reasons for clinging to this religion then I'm not even interested in hearing your reasons. I couldn't care less how you justify your beliefs to yourself.

I guess I can't expect to hear from you then. If you do reply, please keep your posts shorter and/or more focused and relevant.

If the reason you are here is to defend your own personal beliefs and you aren't interested in trying to convince other people of your beliefs, then I'd say you're wasting your own time in a major way.

I for one couldn't care less what you personally believe. You have my permission to believe whatever you like, if that's what you are seeking.

But this is a DEBATE forum. If you are trying to convince me that your beliefs are worthy of my consideration, then I'll gladly point out precisely why your arguments don't hold water.

And I'll also point out that you are not in a position to tell me what you need to "defend" and what you don't need to "defend".

On the contrary, you need to make a convincing case for those arguments. And thus far you have not done so.

[Korah]

.

Howard M. Teeple in his 1974 Literary Origin of the Gospel of John follows Bultmann in seeing the main theological texts in John to be from a source. . . . .

In straight forward language -- eyewitness reports from Nicodemus do not exist, AND the supposed "source" documents (such as "G") do not exist -- but are inferred -- and what is "known" is OPINION based upon bible stories.

Correct?

Yes. So that means you'll ignore it? It is your OPINION that Teeple, Bultmann, Nicol, Freed, Fortna, and Temple were all wrong about sources in the Gospel of John? It is your opinion that there is no importance to finding out whether anything in John goes back to Jesus? It is your opinion that Nicodemus's several radical changes of attitude nevertheless does not mean that his notes were written early?

[Korah]

[Replying to post 45 by Divine Insight]
I see that you start out with several wrong assumptions and then proceed to say nothing much. If you care to post at all, at least have something to say more than your personal opinion. I am not trying to change your personal opinion, I have seen many others fail at that as well.

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 45 by Divine Insight]
I see that you start out with several wrong assumptions and then proceed to say nothing much. If you care to post at all, at least have something to say more than your personal opinion. I am not trying to change your personal opinion, I have seen many others fail at that as well.

I post for the same reasons as people like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris give their presentations. The idea is to raise awareness and help to bring important issues and concepts to light for others.

When I bounce off comments you make in your posts it not really intended to debate with you on a personal level, but rather to expose the fallacy of your reasoning and your demands.

You had made a statement about what you believe Christians need to "defend" or not "defend". Actually this was nothing more than a personal opinion on your behalf.

I am exposing the fallacy of your reasoning to others.

You are simply not in a position to dictate to others what must be demanded of Christians who are attempting to debate in favor of Christianity, or what cannot be demanded of them.

I'm free to demand anything I care to from you, or anyone else, in a debate on Christianity. It's up to you to answer that demand, and not to simply say that you don't need to address it.

I've already shown that for you to suggest that you don't need to meet the "demand" of justifying every jot and tittle of the Old Testament fails.

If you are going to hold that Jesus was the demigod son of the God of Old Testament as the New Testament claims, then you need to support that paradigm.

That paradigm also includes Jesus himself proclaiming that not one jot nor one tittle shall pass from law. The only jots and tittles that makes sense in this scenario are the jots and tittles of the Old Testament.

Therefore, any claim that Jesus is the demigod Son of the God of the Old Testament needs to justify every jot and tittle of the Old Testament.

That's my position. It's not a mere opinion. I've given the reasoning behind it and anyone reading my posts can decide for themselves whether my reasoning is valid or not.

In fact, if you challenge my claims then it's up to you do just that. Which you clearly have no addressed at all. You can't just wave me off as offering nothing more than personal opinions.

Clearly you are not up to the challenge. You have no rational defense for your position, otherwise you would attempt to present it.

How can you claim that you don't need to justify every jot and tittle of the Old Testament whilst proclaiming that Jesus was the resurrected son of the God of the Old Testament and he himself said that not one jot or one tittle shall pass from law.

You are the one who needs to come up with some explanations. Not me.

Waving me off as "merely voicing an opinion" doesn't cut it.

All that does is vividly show that you have no rational answer to offer.

You are playing a very common game that many Christians are desperate to pull off. You are pretending that you can separate Jesus from the Old Testament and free yourself from having to deal with the Old Testament that everyone knows is highly problematic.

But that can't be done.

Jesus has no feet of his own. Jesus sits on the shoulders of Yahweh as the demigod Son of Yahweh magically born of a virgin mortal woman.

Yahweh cannot be swept under the carpet as being unimportant. And neither can the Old Testament.

In fact, I have always said that Jesus was crucified twice. Once physically by the decree of the Jewish Pharisees when they had him nailed to a pole, and the second time he was crucified in character when the authors of the New Testament nailed Jesus to the Old Testament as the virgin born demigod Son of Yahweh.

That second nailing of Jesus to the God of the Old Testament as his virgin born demigod son cannot be taken lightly.

And like I say, for you to dismiss this lightly requires that you also dismiss the words attributed to Jesus by the New Testament itself when Jesus says that not one jot nor one tittle shall pass from law. Jesus never wrote anything down, and the New Testament hadn't yet been written. The only "jots and tittles" that Jesus could have possibly been referring to here were the jots and tittles of the Old Testament.

So I hold that your claim that you don't need to justify the Old Testament is basically dead wrong.

If you want to support that Jesus was the demigod son of the God of the Old Testament, then you have no choice but to carry the burden of the justifying every jot and tittle of the Old Testament. Especially the first 5 books of it that constitute the Jewish Torah.

Either that or come up with other excuses for what jots and tittles that Jesus was supposedly referring to. That's the common approach that most apologists use. But then as the topic of this very thread asks, "How can we determine which jots and tittles were true and which ones weren't?"

But then you're right back at square one.

[Korah]

[Replying to post 48 by Divine Insight]
For most people, that old Fundamentalist saying has been modified to, "If Jesus said it, I'll believe it." You bring up the good point that Jesus's sayings have to be scrutinized themselves. I emphasize wherever we get multiple attestations about what He said.

Which does not work even for the Nicodemus quotes that Z asked for. Anything in the Gospel of John is only once against mostly not said in the Synoptics. Not surprisingly, therefore, I suggested Nicodemus's early quotes attributed to Jesus must be considered suspiciously because they were compiled to use to prosecute Jesus. Jesus did not literally say this as harshly and grandiloquently as He is quoted.

But if you don't care what Jesus really meant, that's your choice. Post if you prefer on some other thread, you're not contributing anything productive here.

[Zzyzx]

.

In straight forward language -- eyewitness reports from Nicodemus do not exist, AND the supposed "source" documents (such as "G") do not exist -- but are inferred -- and what is "known" is OPINION based upon bible stories.

Correct?

Yes.

Thank you – finally,

The claimed eyewitness accounts written by Nicodemus do not exist, the supposed "source documents" do not exist, and what does exist are bible stories.

Attempting to use bible stories to verify themselves is not very convincing – and OPINIONS do not constitute knowledge.

So that means you'll ignore it?

When a supposed "account written by an eyewitness" turns out to be hearsay (that heard from another) I do not credit it with being an eyewitness account – and do not hold in high esteem anyone who claims otherwise.

What I will not ignore is a statement that claims knowledge of "verses written down by the eyewitness Nicodemus."

My particular source criticism of the gospels does include those verses as written down by the eyewitness Nicodemus. Bold added

Thus, you claim knowledge of eyewitness accounts written by Nicodemus – but can produce no such thing.

It is your OPINION that Teeple, Bultmann, Nicol, Freed, Fortna, and Temple were all wrong about sources in the Gospel of John?

Speculation is speculation no matter who is involved. If they are human they are fallible. They may be right, they may be wrong. Not everyone agrees regarding the information sources of the gospel named "John" (or even who "John" might have been, or who wrote what is given that name).

It is your opinion that there is no importance to finding out whether anything in John goes back to Jesus?

It might have importance if it could be demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt and theologians and scholars agreed. However, I neither promote nor deny the association – but simply ask for convincing evidence (not speculation) that it is true.

It is your opinion that Nicodemus's several radical changes of attitude nevertheless does not mean that his notes were written early?

I do not speculate about the "meaning" of proposed changes of attitude by someone writing thousands of years ago – but leave the speculation to those who attempt to defend the stories as truthful and accurate.