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]

He is the first of seven identifiable eyewitnesses in the gospels

You don't seem to understand.

I don't doubt that you can exam these ancient scriptures and "identify" what appears to be eyewitnesses to the claims being made in these doctrines. That's a given.

I don't deny or reject the idea that the Gospels claim to have eyewitness accounts of things. Yet this is all you are truly arguing for.

Just because you can "identify" which authors might have supposedly been eyewitnesses and which authors weren't does not in any way give their writings any credence.

Apparently you are approaching this whole thing from an entirely theological perspective.

The question of this thread is not which parts of the scriptures should we consider to be the most valid parts of scriptures. But the question of this thread is "How can we determine which parts of Scriptures are true?"

What you seem to be suggesting is that we can at least start by looking at which authors at least claim to have been eyewitnesses.

Fine, that's a good place to start I'll grant you that much.

But now you are still stuck with the question of the thread. How do you then determine which of these eyewitness claims, if any, are true?

All you have done thus far is simply suggest that perhaps much of the scriptures aren't even worthy of consideration at all (i.e. the parts that don't claim to be eyewitness accounts)

Fine, I have no problem with that. Let's toss out all non-eyewitness accounts and just focus on the ones that you have "identified" as being eyewitness accounts.

So now, "How do we determine if those claims are true?"

That's more to the point of this thread.

Just because they claim to be eyewitness accounts doesn't automatically make them true.

[Korah]

[Replying to post 61 by Divine Insight]
Ok, let's up the ante. Earlier I presented at Post #26 (here and in Theology, Doctrine and Dogma as well) what we could call the validated Scripture that is also included within Sunday readings at church. That did not technically involve itself with whether any such readings were historically true. Now here at the other extreme I have been selecting out gospel sources I claim are from eyewitnesses. "Ah, thus true", you (not you D. I.) might say. "What are other supposed eyewitness written sources that we can inspect for being true history or not?"
You might also have been saying, "What do mere sayings mean with regard to true history of events (the supposedly Nicodemus notes or writings) or what is spectacular about a diary about just a week, albeit Passion Week." Sorry I can't particularly help with my next presentation, the second eyewitness in John. No, I don't even claim it was written down during or immediately after Jesus's life, and its content precludes belief by atheists (or any non-Christian). However, I'm turning here to more solid academic scholarship that widely acclaims the Signs Gospel or Signs Source:

Continuing with the second eyewitness to write about Jesus:
I used to think that earlier parts of John were equally carried to the Synoptics from what I believed Peter had told. Now that I think of John Mark as the writer of the Passion Narrative, I have had to find some other explanation for the earlier Synoptic-type passages. The clearest of these is the Feeding of the Five Thousand. It’s regarded by many source-critics as from the Signs Source.

Yet little else is thought to come from Signs into the Synoptics, and I used to think that nothing at all did. What seems to have happened was that John Mark’s Passion Narrative later had Signs added in front of it. That’s why the Signs Source ends at John 12, because the story beyond that point had already been written. At this time the entirety of John Mark’s text plus some Signs were used as the base to which Peter added his recollections to form Petrine Ur-Marcus. (Perhaps the Signs were incomplete at this time.) In the process whatever was in Aramaic was translated into Greek. But this was used henceforth only in the Synoptic gospels, not in John.

Meanwhile (or perhaps beforehand) the Passion Narrative text in Aramaic (or a copy of it) was used for translation into Greek. Next in front of the Passion Narrative in Greek the complete Signs Source was translated into Greek by the person who (later or) had earlier translated Petrine Ur-Marcus. The latter at this point was a Signs gospel, consisting of the Signs plus the Passion Narrative, neither of which had any input from Peter. Both these portions had similar style (but not exact) either because the Signs translator made some stylistic changes in the Passion Narrative or because the two translators had similar Greek style.

The Signs Source according to W. Nicol is John 1:35-51;xx. 2:1-11;xx. 4:1-9,x. 16-19,v. 27-30,x. 40,ii. 43-54;x. 5:1-9;x. 6:16-25;xv. 9:1-2,iv. 6-7;vii. 11:1-6,vii. 11-17,vii. 33-44;xv. 12:1-8,xii. 12-15.v. [The Roman numerals indicate the number of times I see eyewitness touches in that set of verses.] I would agree with Howard M. Teeple in The Literary Origin of the Gospel of John in ascribing some individual verses within the above to the later Editor and in adding to the Signs Source John 6:1-15,xx. Teeple recognizes as his source “S� basically what I attribute above to the Signs Source in John 1 to 12 and the Passion Narrative in John 18 and 19. What I show above in the Passion Narrative in John 20 Teeple never labeled as “S�, but he did denote it as a special source “p-1� or even “p-2�. However, he shows as “S� a number of sections not accounted for above, most of which I will show later to be P-Strand.

Not necessarily disclosing the author, but largely related to this section of John is the name “Andrew� at John 1:40, 41, 44; 6:8; 12:22(2). The name “Philip� occurs even more frequently in about the same places and in John 14:8, 9, but I long ago settled on Andrew as a more probable author, particularly when I found out that the Muratorian Canon (usually dated to 170 AD) states that Andrew started out the process of writing John. As a further note I would add that the first occurrence of each name at John 12:22 is shown by Teeple as from the source, so should not be used to claim that the name “Andrew� is not associated exclusively with the Signs Source, even though it falls outside the sections more conclusively identified as Signs Source. Andrew is the second identifiable eyewitness.
http://www.christianforums.com/t7594923/ at Post #2 in its entirety.

(The above readings include seven or so miracles, so no atheist would believe this comes from an eyewitness unless it is lies or fiction. Even I regard it as written after 44 A. D. when gospel-writing turned from the original Aramaic as by Nicodemus and John Mark, to Greek. This source has the very distinctive Greek style that made it so feasible for numerous textual scholars to isolate out the Signs Source.)

Edited to add:
The Signs Gospel is usually said to consist of seven miraculous signs, generally counting seven such as these:
John 2:1-11 The wedding at Cana, with water turned into wine.
4:46-54 Healing of Official's Son
5:1-9 Healing of the Paralytic
6:5-14 Multiplication of the Loaves
6:16-25 Walking on the Waler
9:1-17 Healing of the Man born Blind
11:1-6, 11-17,23-44 Raising of Lazarus from the Dead

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 62 by Korah]

The arguments that you are putting fourth are entirely theological arguments that actually address concerns over what may have been the source of various writings.

How does any of that address the question of this thread?

How can we determine which parts of Scripture are true?

Speculations on the source of the Gospels speak nothing toward establishing the truth of the gospels.

Moreover, the thread asks about "Scriptures" in general, not necessarily limited to the Gospels, or the NT.

You seem to be honing in on the issues of attempting to establish the source of various gospels. But even those investigations into the possible sources are speculative in nature. Even if we could identify a specific source that we could point to as being the original author that still wouldn't even begin to address the question of whether or not this author wrote the truth about anything.

In other words, if the Gospels are nothing but the wild imagination of a single author and we can pin that author down as the absolute source, the truth would still remain that the author was writing nothing but wild imagination.

Pinning down a source doesn't do anything at all toward establishing the truth of the claims made by the author.

So how does your arguments for "Signs Gospel" or "Signs Source" have anything to do with determining the truth of the gospels?

Could you elaborate on that aspect of things please.

[Korah]

Speculations on the source of the Gospels speaks nothing towards establishing the truth of the gospels.

Ummm, really? Maybe if we were talking about plenary inspiration, which we are not. I thought the OP of the thread more indicated just what I have done, indicate which parts of Scripture are more likely to be true history or valid theology.

I would have stopped you several posts ago, but a one-liner by me would not have been allowed. You said in Post #51 " I'm done.". I was going to ask, "Is that a promise?" (You're very long-winded which inhibits any detailed answers to you. If you really want a response, be more focused on what you limit yourself to write. We're not your college students, we don't have to hang on every word you say.)

[Zzyzx]

.

Speculations on the source of the Gospels speaks nothing towards establishing the truth of the gospels.

Ummm, really? Maybe if we were talking about plenary inspiration, which we are not. I thought the OP of the thread more indicated just what I have done, indicate which parts of Scripture are more likely to be true history or valid theology.

Would you be so kind as to list which parts of scripture are likely true and which are not?

I would have stopped you several posts ago, but a one-liner by me would not have been allowed. You said in Post #51 " I'm done.". I was going to ask, "Is that a promise?"

Personal interactions do not contribute to the quality of debate – which is why they are discouraged.

You're very long-winded which inhibits any detailed answers to you.

Pot meet kettle.

If you really want a response, be more focused on what you limit yourself to write.

Do you understand that what you say here might apply to yourself? Have you complained about the lack of response to your posts?

We're not your college students, we don't have to hang on every word you say.)

Donning moderator hat: Personal comments do not add to debates. Kindly refrain from such tactics.

[Divine Insight]

We're not your college students, we don't have to hang on every word you say.)

Who constitutes the "we" that you are referring to?

For the bulk of our exchanges I've been addressing points that you alone have brought up. I don't see any one else taking your position.

You say:

I thought the OP of the thread more indicated just what I have done, indicate which parts of Scripture are more likely to be true history or valid theology.

Well, that's certainly open to subjective perception. I can't argue with that.

I thought the OP was asking how we can tell which parts "came from God".

From the OP:

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?

That was my understanding.

But if you took the OP to simply be asking "which parts of Scripture are more likely to be true history or valid theology", then clearly we are on different pages to be sure.

Although, I would argue that even within this context your arguments don't suggest that these supposed eyewitness accounts were "true history".

Your arguments that these stories might potentially be able to be nailed down to a particular individual source or author wouldn't establish the historical truth of what the authors wrote anyway. And that's my major point.

Obviously there were original authors of things claimed in Greek mythology too. Would nailing that down to a specific historical individual make those stories then historically true?

Obviously not. So if it wouldn't make Greek mythology true, then why would it make Christian mythology true?

I think that's a fair question.

And please note that it is indeed a question. I'm not asking you to "hang on every word I say". I'm simply asking you a question.

How does nailing down a specific author imply that what the author wrote is truth?

It's a simple question and deserves a simple answer.

[Korah]

[Replying to post 62 by Korah]

The arguments that you are putting fourth are entirely theological arguments that actually address concerns over what may have been the source of various writings.

You let yourself say such odd things! You have said as much before so I guess I need to set you straight here. Maybe you spoke to your college students for decades with some imprecisions of language that none of them dared to make you revise.
"Theological arguments" are about abstracts, concepts, and doctrine--quite at a far extreme from centering on facts and data. Source ANALYSIS of any text, gospel or whatever considers FACTS and not the preferred faith beliefs of the analyst. He is supposed to put his own prejudices aside and use linguistic or whatever tools he may have to get at the historical truth of what happened. My arguments are using the historical analysis required for source-criticism.

Pinning down a source doesn't do anything at all toward establishing the truth of the claims made by the author.
So how does your arguments for "Signs Gospel" or "Signs Source" have anything to do with determining the truth of the gospels?

If the study of sources shows the origin to be from a novel or legend, the source should not be relied upon to give us historical fact or truth. In contrast if the document contains undigested sources that show they must have been written by an eyewitness, then any such source can help get us the historical truth. The Signs Source is not a particularly good example because the eyewitness signs are present, but it includes seven miracles. Thus a Christian like me will accept the Signs Gospel are indicating that Jesus must be something more that just a lunatic, charlatan or even prophet, but a God-attested prophet, messiah, or maybe even the Son of God (or God the Son perhaps also). The non-Christian would be forced to change his beliefs or just dismiss this source as phony. (Not a legend, but a lie.) (There are other possibilities of theological subtlety not worth discussing here.)

Could you elaborate on that aspect of things please.

Done above.

[Korah]

[Replying to post 66 by Divine Insight]
I think your Post 66 was asking for a more detailed explanation than I gave in my #64. I hope my most recent #68 served well enough. (Not that I'll necessarily answer what I perceive as unwarranted persistence in a misconception.)

[Zzyzx]

.

You let yourself say such odd things! You have said as much before so I guess I need to set you straight here. Maybe you spoke to your college students for decades with some imprecisions of language that none of them dared to make you revise.

Moderator hat on: Do not demean other members or assume superior knowledge. One may think they have superior knowledge but be badly mistaken.

"Theological arguments" are about abstracts, concepts, and doctrine--quite at a far extreme from centering on facts and data.

Agreed. That may be more appropriate in

Source ANALYSIS of any text, gospel or whatever considers FACTS and not the preferred faith beliefs of the analyst. He is supposed to put his own prejudices aside and use linguistic or whatever tools he may have to get at the historical truth of what happened. My arguments are using the historical analysis required for source-criticism.

Are you bias-free?

Too weird for comment.

If something appears to you to be "too weird for comment", make no comment.

If the study of sources shows the origin to be from a novel or legend, the source should not be relied upon to give us historical fact or truth.

Agreed. Can you (generic term) identify a means by which anyone interested can identify what bible stories are legend, fable, myth, folklore, etc vs. which are literal truth?

In contrast if the document contains undigested sources that show they must have been written by an eyewitness, then any such source can help get us the historical truth.

Knowledge of the source CAN give some indication of the credibility of statements. While not absolute proof, a source known to be reliable is given more credibility than a known unreliable or a questionable source or an unidentified source.

"Must have been written by an eyewitness" is a matter of OPINION and SPECULATION.

The Signs Source is not a particularly good example because the eyewitness signs are present, but it includes seven miracles. Thus a Christian like me will accept the Signs Gospel are indicating that Jesus must be something more that just a lunatic, charlatan or even prophet, but a God-attested prophet, messiah, or maybe even the Son of God (or God the Son perhaps also).

Agreed. A fervent believer in Christianity MUST (evidently) believe bible tales that proclaim or indicate that Jesus was "divine."

The non-Christian would be forced to change his beliefs or just dismiss this source as phony. (Not a legend, but a lie.) (There are other possibilities of theological subtlety not worth discussing here.)

Correction: A Non-Christian may simply disbelieve the tales told in gospel stories about Jesus. Perhaps suspecting that they are legends, fables, exaggeration, or emotional outpourings of followers (or possibly pious fraud) – and having no reason to accept them as truthful or accurate.

[Divine Insight]

In contrast if the document contains undigested sources that show they must have been written by an eyewitness, then any such source can help get us the historical truth.

But we don't have that in any of the Christian gospels. There is no credible evidence that any of the Christians gospels must have been written by an eyewitness.

And therefore you haven't offered anything other than to state hypothetical imaginary situations of what it might take to discover truth. But since this, has not been determined, and cannot even be determined in principle, then you haven't shown why anyone should believe that any of the gospels are true.

We have absolutely no rational reasons to believe that any of the Christians Gospels were actual eyewitness accounts of anything.

In fact, we have far more reason to believe that they are more likely than not some sort of delusional superstitions or even potentially outright fraud.

That conclusion makes far more sense from a rational point of view.

I mean stop and think about it. Not only would you need to believe that these stories were written by actual eyewitnesses to the events they claim, but you would also need to believe that some God was behind the whole drama.

For me, the absurdity that any genuinely intelligent supreme being could be behind this kind of event far outweighs any consideration that the event could be true.

I think that needs to be taken into consideration as well. I would not only need to believe that these stories are eyewitness accounts, but I would also need to believe that we were created by an absolute idiot of a creator.

So for me, considering that the stories could be true does not even come into the realm of rationality at all.

The conclusion that they were either superstitious delusions, or outright religious fraud is far more likely.

After all, kinds of religious fables aren't unique. They have been told all through the Mediterranean region. Legends of demigods, etc, were commonplace.

Why would you think that the Christian legends should be any different from all the other folklore of the region?

How does that make any sense?