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?

[Divine Insight]

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.

Why do you insist on telling me what to do and making personal comments about whether you believe I am contributing anything productive here?

Who placed you in charge of making those determinations?

This thread is asking how we can determine which part of scriptures are true.

I don't see where you have offered any solutions to this question yourself.

You make the following personal insinuation toward me and proclaim that this unfounded delusion of yours is "my choice"

But if you don't care what Jesus really meant, that's your choice.

Why would you say that I don't care what Jesus really meant?

What is your reason for jumping to that conclusion?

Moreover, why should anyone need to guess at what a supposed demigod might have meant?

Contrary to your totally misguided views of me on a personal level I actually do try to figure out what Jesus might have actually been trying to say. I believe that there may have actually been a man named Jesus who inspired these New Testament rumors. (although I can't even be sure of that)

I am convinced that he was not the demigod son of the God of the Old Testament however. So I don't try to imagine that he was actually bringing us any message from any God.

Actually I believe that Jesus was most likely a mystic-minded Jew who was heavily influenced by either Mahayana Buddhism or Jainism or various other forms of Eastern mystical philosophies.

The rumors about Jesus in the New Testament give me very solid reasons to believe that he may very well have been a Buddhist in some sense.

Moreover, when I view Jesus in this way much of what he is claimed to have said actually makes a lot of sense, especially when it is realized that his own disciples didn't' even understand him. We can then weed out most of the absurd superstitions that surrounded him.

However, once we realize that Jesus was not a divine demigod sent by the God of the of the Old Testament via a magical virgin birth, we come to the realization that much of what he preached and taught was really nothing more than the beliefs of a mortal man who himself had religious and spiritual delusions, hopes, and dreams.

When we then ask, "Which parts of words attributed to Jesus are true?" a sane answer is to simply answer that by saying, "Well the parts where he sounds like a Buddhist monk probably truly reflects the wisdom of the Buddhism of his day (i.e. Mahayana Buddhism).

But it's highly unlikely that he actually had a clue what happens to anyone after they die.

Think about it, religious preachers have been claiming to know what happens to people after they die all through history (even long before the time of Jesus). Therefore why should we be so enthralled by Jesus doing the same type of thing.

Just because Jesus may have been a educated in Buddhism doesn't mean that he was infallible or perfect.

So yes, I actually look at a lot of what Jesus supposedly taught. What I see is a man who is trying hard to meld together two spiritual ideals, Buddhism, and ancient Judaism.

And when I look at it from that perspective that's precisely what I see without any inconsistencies. So from my perspective to simply conclude that Jesus was nothing other than a mere mortal man preaching his religious ideals makes absolute perfect sense.

There is nothing left to explain.

Now you may say, "But what about all the miracles, the resurrection, God speaking from a cloud, etc. How do you explain those?"

My explanation for those is quite simple. They are superstitions and rumors that were made up about Jesus by people who believed that Jesus was more than just a man. In other words, once I have realize that Jesus was just a mortal man, and that the New Testament is just superstitious rumors told about him that is a sufficient explanation for the whole shebang.

That is a complete explanation leaving nothing unexplained.

In fact, this explanation even explains why there is no external independent historical evidence for all the miraculous claims made within the New Testament. They never happened and that explains why there is no independent historical noise or record of them.

So my conclusions explain everything with nothing left unexplained.

It's a done deal. There's nothing left that needs to be explained.

It's a complete picture.

~~~~

But if we try to cling to the idea that Jesus was the demigod Son of the God of the Old Testament we have endless lists of unexplained contradictions and absurdities.

So my conclusion is complete and needs no further explanation.

I'm done.

If you want to argue for the demigod picture, then you are the one who is left with endless contradictions and absurdities to continually makes excuses for and try to explain away.

Good luck with that. I actually tried that many years ago as a Christian, and I have ever revisited that approach on quite many occasions since. I've finally come to the realization that it's impossible to support the idea that Jesus was the demigod Son of God.

And then finally ask yourself why bother to even try to support that picture? When I finally faced that question I realized that there really is no sane reason to even try to support the religion.

It's not only unsupportable, but there isn't even any good reason to want to try to support it if you truly stop and think about it.

[Korah]

Deleted by Korah Post #52 and replaced by Post #53.

[Korah]

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 ...

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 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.

I gave you a list of verses that my scholarship (particularly based on stylistic considerations by Teeple and Bultmann) that most of the sayings in John came from one or two collections of one nature or one source. I further stated that a bias is in them for certain portions that demonstrates they were an interim project to discredit Jesus. Interesting, but you propose to ignore it?

[Zzyzx]

.

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 ...

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 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.

I gave you a list of verses that my scholarship (particularly based on stylistic considerations by Teeple and Bultmann) that most of the sayings in John came from one or two collections of one nature or one source.

"Scholarship based on stylistic considerations" and "saying in John came from one or two collections" are a LONNNNG way from substantiating a claim that bible stories concerning Nicodemus represent his "written eyewitness accounts."

Those supposed accounts could be nothing more than folklore or legend converted into writing by unknown people.

What some refer to as scholarship may be considered by others as wishful thinking or confirmation bias.

I further stated that a bias is in them for certain portions that demonstrates they were an interim project to discredit Jesus. Interesting, but you propose to ignore it?

That is known as opinion. Not everyone agrees with your hypothesis.

[Korah]

[Replying to post 54 by Zzyzx]
Neither Bultmann nor Teeple were supernaturalists. Their analyses of John were strictly based on study of the Greek text.
My case that Nicodemus was the one who wrote down most of the sayings in John is my own analysis, but is strongly supported by the variations in perspective found within the stylistic strand. Thus the Consensus view seems erroneous in holding that the sayings and the Gospel of John itself were late.

[Zzyzx]

.

My case that Nicodemus was the one who wrote down most of the sayings in John is my own analysis, but is strongly supported by the variations in perspective found within the stylistic strand.

Thus, we do not have "written eyewitness accounts." This evidently holds true for bible stories and claims in general. What exists represents accounts written by unidentified people long after the storied events and conversations (as edited by others) -- without assurance they are truthful and accurate.

Why should such "evidence" (basically opinions of ancients that cannot be verified) be used as a basis for a religious belief system?

[Korah]

[Replying to post 56 by Zzyzx]

Someone wrote the Gospel of John. Some people even think that the Apostle John wrote it all. That would make it a first-hand eyewitness account.
In an case, someone wrote it.
The Gospel of John includes lots of sayings of Jesus, many in the form of discourses. Someone wrote this, probably one person or possibly two. Whoever it was, it was a written account that could have been by an eyewitness. That the attitude of the writer changes throughout indicates that it most likely was written "on the hoof", following Jesus around. That would make it an eyewitness account, even if it was not written by John. It does not matter if that account got included later in a gospel, it would still be an eyewitness account included within something larger. It would seem the editor did not rework the source such that it lost its eyewitness character. Indeed, the problem many people have (indeed I did when I was young) with John is the rough nature of what Jesus is quoted to have said. The editor did not see fit to soften what Jesus said but accepted it as written by (presumably) Nicodemus.

Maybe your problem is that sayings are not like "eyewitness" accounts. You want narrative from eyewitnesses? I can start serializing the other three eyewitness accounts in John.

[Divine Insight]

.

My case that Nicodemus was the one who wrote down most of the sayings in John is my own analysis, but is strongly supported by the variations in perspective found within the stylistic strand.

Thus, we do not have "written eyewitness accounts." This evidently holds true for bible stories and claims in general. What exists represents accounts written by unidentified people long after the storied events and conversations (as edited by others) -- without assurance they are truthful and accurate.

Why should such "evidence" (basically opinions of ancients that cannot be verified) be used as a basis for a religious belief system?

I don't see how your point could be made any clearer than this.

You have stated a fact here that is indisputable truth. There is absolutely no compelling reasons or convincing evidence that any of the biblical rumors should be accepted as "eyewitness accounts" from credible or verified sources.

This is why these religions cannot claim to be anything other than the faith-based religions that they are. They are not based upon any credible evidence.

[Korah]

[Replying to post 58 by Divine Insight]
As I stated in my Post #57, the time has come to add other eyewitnesses as written sources contained with little editing in the Gospel of John. For the segment on the foundational portion of the Passion Narrative (contained in the Synoptics, but also in Teeple's "S" Source within John), let me copy again from one of the websites where I earlier posted my Thesis. Note that I amended my initial theory that this Source was just in the Passion, but actually started in John 11. Its scope is so limited because this eyewitness (apparently John Mark) had only just met Jesus as the youth disciple known to the high priest. I now call this eyewitness written source in John the Passion Diary:

As for the Gospel of John, critics have readily singled out the Signs, the Passion Narrative, and (by some) the Discourses as due to sources. I will show that each of these has an eyewitness author and the main Editor was himself an eyewitness. My case is that the upshot of two centuries of Higher Criticism properly is to identify seven eyewitnesses to the four gospels.

Tracing sources of the gospels would seem to start with the earliest written documents, but the logic starts better with the foundation upon which the other sources and additions were built. This source is the Passion Narrative, the largest part of the material common to both John and the Synoptics. The source for the information in it is most likely John Mark, who was the most likely “disciple known to the high priest�. (See John 18:15-16, 20:2-9, in which in John 20:2 the English word “love� is phileo in the Greek, not “agape� as in John 13. In John 18-19 we get events and direct quotes that Peter would not have witnessed.)

John 18 launches right out with Jesus going to the Garden. Whereas Teeple believed the information here came from the Synoptics and was later enlarged upon, he more correctly called it a source. No one regards these chapters as from the Signs Source. This foundation source from John Mark is the following:

[My Post #1 OP should be amended to include in the shared source (from John Mark) also verses preceding the Passion Narrative in John 11:54, 12:2-8, 12-14a, 13:18 or 21, and 13:38. These provide additional evidence that the person providing this "earliest gospel" was indeed John Mark, as most of these additional verses apparently took place in his house when he was a teenager.]

John 18:1b, 1d,ii. 3,vi. 10b,v. 12,iv. 13b,i. 15-19,xiii. 22,ii 25b,ii. 27-31,vii. 33-35,vii. (36-40);x. 19:1-19,xl. 21-23,viii. 28-30,vii. 38b,iii. 40-42;vi. 20:1,iv. 3-5,viii. 8,ii. 11b-14a,iv. 19b,ii. 22-23,v. 26-27,viii. 30,ii. John Mark gives the story of this one week in his life, best called the Passion Diary.
{These Roman numerals affixed here represent my subjective assignment of the number of times the given passage contains eyewitness touches. Some of the later passages in John 20 are as likely to have been added as P-Strand, but as discussed later this may have come from the same author.}
A great many scholars have believed that a Passion Narrative was the first element of the gospels to be written. It seems similarly often believed that John Mark was very young at this time and lived near Jerusalem, so his personal testimony would not tend to include narrative preceding John 18. He is the first of seven identifiable eyewitnesses in the gospels.
http://www.christianforums.com/t7594923/ (from Post #1. My initial four paragraphs there are my general introduction to scholarship on Johannine source criticism, featuring my rejection of Form Criticism and the upgrading of eyewitnesses by Richard Bauckham in 2006, even though it does not analyze source within John.)

[Fracture]

This probably isn't the kind of answer your looking for, but could it be that there is no way to tell what came from where?

I've been reading up on modern physics lately and one concept that I found interesting is that we exist at a very good time in order to study the universe. If we had come around later in the life of the universe (I forget the estimated amount) then the aftermath of the big bang would be undetectable. If we were around a very long time ago then there would be too much interference to get accurate readings.

I don't pretend to understand the deeper science of this but what I took away from it is that some times answers are just lost to us.

In my opinion, too much time has passed since the holy books were written. They also come from a time with relatively weak historical records, let alone anything that couldn't be a story or a lie.

At this point you probably just need to think for yourself or let a church group think for you.