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]

.

[Replying to post 88 by Zzyzx]
I think it's a recognized fact that the IQ of Christians tends to be lower than the IQ of agnostics and atheists.

I do not disagree, though many Christians probably will / do disagree

Thus when they engage here they tend to be outclassed in debate.

Being "outclassed in debate" may be a combination of many factors, the largest of which in my opinion is representing the weak side and having little evidence to support contentions. Debate experience is another large contributing factor. IQ may be important at times but is seldom decisive by itself.

They don't organize their cases as well,

The "case" many attempt to present seems to be full of holes that they cannot patch no matter how evasive or creative the dance.

and they are saddled with adherence to preaching that does not smell good when presented out in public.

Many who attempt to debate here do not appear to understand the difference between preaching and debate " or to realize that what may be convincing to an audience of believers may well not be given any credibility by non-believers.

I don't know why Christians prefer to saddle themselves with unpopular beliefs like Calvinism or the exclusivism of Evangelicalism.

I do not understand why anyone would attempt to defend or promote belief that conflicts with what is known of the real world " and which is based on opinion and conjecture (ancient or modern; including the bible)

Is it a form of sadism?

Perhaps more akin to masochism?

I cringed last night when I was listening to a radio preacher telling how at the Second Coming the unbelievers were going to be consigned to Hell--and the worshippers there clapped loudly!

"Feels good" appeals over reasoning quite often and "We are 'saved' and they are 'condemned'" helps fill pews and coffers.

Meanwhile I have presented here an inclusivist, respectably intellectually derived source-criticism of the gospels, and even the members here who choose to reply don't engage the issues.

If there are members who you would like to debate but who do not engage you could send them a PM and inquire (and perhaps receive a forthright answer that would be inappropriate in public threads). Another approach might be to invite someone to debate Head to Head a question of mutual interest.

All the non-believers here make it like they know ever-so-much more than the believers,

How, exactly, do they "make it like they know ever-so-much more?"

but do even they know next-to-nothing about the origins of the Bible?

It should be that believers know far more about the basis of their beliefs and worship than non-believers; however, that does not seem to be the case in these debates. Perhaps knowledge of bible origins by lay people is disadvantageous to organized, commercial religion.

Are there no seminary graduates posting here?

There are or have been seminarians, former seminarians, seminary graduates and various ministers posting to these threads. However, professional religionists do not seem eager to identify themselves as such.

[Korah]

So I have no problem imagining a God who could have his own corrupt priests crucified his demigod Son and then raise him from the dead.
That is not a problem for me in the least. If a magical God exists there is no reason why a God could not do this.
I reject these stories because they are insane. Any magical God who would actually do these things would necessarily be either extremely mentally ill, or extremely inept and unable to do any better.

Well then, this thread is not totally meaningless to you after all. I had come to wonder whether any at all of the Bible might be believable to you, and had wondered why you posted here at all.

So, D. I., that's the HEART of the Christian message! God gave His Son to die for the sin of the world and raised Him from the dead to boot! Sounds like you're "almost persuaded" as they say, as King Herod Agrippa II in Acts 26:28 almost was. What exact part of the Bible can you thus accept? What portions of the four gospels can you not accept because they go "insanely" beyond the "corrupt priests crucifying...Son raised from the dead"? What LESS of what I have been listing as from eyewitnesses would stop the "insanity"? (For me for years it was the Gospel of John and all of Paul.)

[Divine Insight]

So I have no problem imagining a God who could have his own corrupt priests crucified his demigod Son and then raise him from the dead.
That is not a problem for me in the least. If a magical God exists there is no reason why a God could not do this.
I reject these stories because they are insane. Any magical God who would actually do these things would necessarily be either extremely mentally ill, or extremely inept and unable to do any better.

Well then, this thread is not totally meaningless to you after all. I had come to wonder whether any at all of the Bible might be believable to you, and had wondered why you posted here at all.

So, D. I., that's the HEART of the Christian message! God gave His Son to die for the sin of the world and raised Him from the dead to boot! Sounds like you're "almost persuaded" as they say, as King Herod Agrippa II in Acts 26:28 almost was. What exact part of the Bible can you thus accept? What portions of the four gospels can you not accept because they go "insanely" beyond the "corrupt priests crucifying...Son raised from the dead"? What LESS of what I have been listing as from eyewitnesses would stop the "insanity"? (For me for years it was the Gospel of John and all of Paul.)

I have problems with the entire Biblical picture of God from the very first chapter of Genesis to the very last book of the NT Revelations.

Let's stop and think about this.

Before the NT was the OT. Therefore a person should really read, understand, believe, and love the God of the OT before they even bother reading the NT.

But when I read the OT I can't believe in or love the God of the OT. I have tons of problems all the way through the entire OT. I don't believe that the OT can have anything to do with any God.

When we get to the NT things don't get any better. It is true that if we look at Jesus as a man it certainly appears that the things he taught in terms of morality and behavior are far more reasonable and sane than the things taught in the OT.

However, that already poses a problem. Why should Jesus be so dramatically different from the God of the OT?

The real irony of Christianity also is that Christians are so in LOVE with Jesus that even they would prefer to sweep the God of the OT under the carpet. In fact, many Christians would toss the religion out altogether if Jesus is removed from the religion.

In other words, I've heard many Christians proclaim that if they discovered that Jesus was untrue they then become atheists. In other words, they would rather become atheists than believe in Judaism (Christianity without Jesus), or Islam. So, in truth, they absolutely hate the God of the OT themselves.

It's Jesus they love.

I personally believe that if this Jesus fellow actually existed (i.e. some guy existed that gave inspiration for these rumors), he was most likely a mystic Jew who was well versed in Mahayana Buddhism which was actually at its peak in the days Jesus would have lived. I actually realized then when I took a course on the history of Buddhism and learned specifically of Mahayana Buddhism which not only fits with the moral and behavior philosophy that Jesus taught, but was also at it's peak just in the right time in history. A Mahayana Buddhist would have also said things like "I and the Father are one", or "I and God are one", Because Mahayana Buddhism is a pantheistic religion that believe we are all a manifestation of God. In a sense it's the epitome of monotheism.

Jesus also pointed to the OT where it says, "Have I not said, ye are gods" which also endorses this pantheistic view that we are all a part of God.

So viewing Jesus in this way makes sense, but this is not compatible with Jesus being a demigod who was sent by the God of the OT to become the sacrificial lamb to pay for the sins of mankind.

You see, in the New Testament it's not Jesus I have a problem with. It the Father God. The Father God (the God of the OT) would have been the one who orchestrated the whole crucifixion thing. Jesus wouldn't have had any say in the matter.

In fact, this is already absurd in Christianity because Jesus and God are supposed to be one in the same. The Christians have made Jesus into God Almighty himself evidently forgetting entirely that it's the God of the OT they are supposed to love with all their heart, mind and soul, not Jesus.

But no, they hate that God, Jesus is their new love affair. They love Jesus and worship him above all else. For them Jesus is GOD.

And that's not even compatible with the teachings attributed to Jesus himself.

~~~~~

You ask me why I post here. I'll tell you why:

I was born and raised into Christianity. I believed in Jesus and chose to become a preacher to help spread the word of God. It wasn't until I actually started to study the Bible that I realized how utterly absurd and insane it truly is from cover to cover.

I know now that that it is impossible for the Bible to be the word of any God. I am 100% certain of this, especially in terms of what the Bible has to say verbatim, and it's impossible to change that without going back and rewriting the Bible.

We can't rewrite the Bible by pretending to interpret things in ways that are dramatically opposed to what it literally says. That's absurd, even though this is what apologists do out of extreme desperation to try to keep the myths afloat.

It's ridiculous. No one can support what the Bible has to say verbatim, not even the best Christian apologists. They all have to pretend that it says things that it doesn't actually say.

The Bible is false mythology having no more merit than Greek mythology.

I post on these forums to help others realize this truth.

Trying to keep the biblical fables alive isn't doing anyone any good.

All of these Abrahamic religions ultimately cause social and political divisiveness and unrest. Look at the Middle East. A large part of that stems from the religion conflicts between the Abrahamic religions themsleves.

Hitler may have been an insane madman, but where do you think he got the idea to be prejudiced against Jews? That's a religious idea brought into being because of these Abrahamic myths.

Look at how many innocent women were burned alive on stakes because of a belief in these Abrahamic religions.

Look around today at how many people are being killed by suicide bombers who think they are doing Allah a favor.

We don't need these stupid Abrahamic religions. And that's why I post here.

Christianity is no different. It's just another Abrahamic cult proclaiming that if people don't believe in Jesus they are heathens who are rejecting God.

Humanity doesn't need this tripe.

The idea that some God had his only begotten son crucified by his own corrupt priest and that this somehow makes possible the salvation of men is a stupid idea, as well as being an immoral idea. It suggests that beating someone and nailing them to a pole is somehow justified by a divine creator as being a valid means of solving a problem.

That itself is a very dangerous thing to teach anyone.

It's a picture of a divine creator who has the mentality of someone like Hitler.

[Korah]

So I have no problem imagining a God who could have his own corrupt priests crucified his demigod Son and then raise him from the dead.

The idea that some God had his only begotten son crucified by his own corrupt priest and that this somehow makes possible the salvation of men is a stupid idea, as well as being an immoral idea.

You contradicted yourself, D.I., leading me to waste my time replying to you. With you it's the entire literal Bible or nothing, and you choose nothing, so once again I say, "You have no business posting on this thriead." I won't bother replying to you any longer on this thread. Post your atheist rants on threads designed for that, there's at least half a dozen started by atheists every day.

[Korah]

It should be that believers know far more about the basis of their beliefs and worship than non-believers; however, that does not seem to be the case in these debates. Perhaps knowledge of bible origins by lay people is disadvantageous to organized, commercial religion.

From what I have seen, the non-believers here don't know anything about Christian origins either. I might as well get back to posting more of my research.

[Divine Insight]

So I have no problem imagining a God who could have his own corrupt priests crucified his demigod Son and then raise him from the dead.

The idea that some God had his only begotten son crucified by his own corrupt priest and that this somehow makes possible the salvation of men is a stupid idea, as well as being an immoral idea.

You contradicted yourself, D.I., leading me to waste my time replying to you. With you it's the entire literal Bible or nothing, and you choose nothing, so once again I say, "You have no business posting on this thriead." I won't bother replying to you any longer on this thread. Post your atheist rants on threads designed for that, there's at least half a dozen started by atheists every day.

There is no contradiction in the two quotes you have posted above out of context.

The first quote was in response to rejecting the Bible on purely scientific grounds that supernatural event could never occur. I do not reject the Bible on those ground. I allow that a supernatural God could do supernatural things.

So that is the justification for my first remark that you had quoted out of context.

My second quote is perfectly compatible with my first quote. I'm simply saying in my second quote that any supernatural God who would do the things described in the Bible would necessarily be both stupid and immoral.

Since I see no reason to believe that our creator would be a stupid immoral God I see no reason to believe that our creator would have done the stupid immoral things described in the Bible.

So there is no contradiction here.

Here's another example from the Bible.

The Biblical God curses Eve with greatly multiplied pain and sorrow in childbirth as a punishment for her fall from grace.

Do I grant that an imagined supernatural being could do something this stupid and immoral?

Yes. I allow that if a magical God exists it could indeed do supernatural thing like curses.

But then the question arises: Do I agree that a truly all-wise supreme benevolent being would use such a stupid and immoral curse as this?

And my answer to that question is a resounding, "No. I don't believe a truly intelligent all-wise being would ever do anything that stupid".

And so my conclusion is that the myths are clearly false and that no science is even required to dismiss them.

It doesn't matter whether there can exist a supernatural God capable of magic or not. The Biblical fables violate the ideal that this God is even remotely wise or intelligent. So the Bible shoots itself in the foot even if I grant it a supernatural green light.

Hope this clears up my position.

[Korah]

[Replying to post 95 by Korah]
As I just said, no one here, believer or nonbeliever, seems to know much about Christian origins, so I'll just plow on ahead with my sixth post over at Christian Forums. Nobody at all even tried to comment over there:
Here is my sixth eyewitness to Jesus who left a written record, the Proto-Luke derived by B. H. Streeter in 1924. That Simon wrote it seems to be my original idea, so I'll make this post longer.
Proto-Luke
This Q-Twelve-Source text remained in Aramaic. Next came a further stage of additions in Aramaic. The traces of who did this can be discerned by looking for personal clues. We need active characters in Luke who appear nowhere else in the Synoptics. The key name is Simon. The personal experience introduced at this stage starts with a Simon and ends with a Simon. I call this stage of the document Proto-Luke, a modification of B. H. Streeters theory. Luke 7:36-50 tells of Jesus going to a dinner at the home of Simon the Pharisee. Luke 24:13-35 is about the resurrected Jesus on the road to Emmaus with two disciples. One is Cleopas. As to the other, The Lord has indeed risen and has appeared to Simon. Traditionally everyone assumes this refers to Simon Peter. However, scripture does not mention any prior appearance of the risen Jesus to Peter. No, the plain meaning is that Jesus had appeared to Cleopas and a different Simon. Just as the Q-Twelve-Source ended at this point, so did Proto-Luke. [Origen also recognized this connection between Cleopas and Simon as the two disciples on the road to Emmaus. The minority reading "legontes" at 24:34 implies this as well.]

This Simon may be a well-recognized figure in the early Christian Church. The so-called brothers (probably cousins) of Jesus were James, Joseph, Jude, and Simon. James was the first leader of the Church. When he was killed (c. 62 A.D.), Simon his brother became Bishop of Jerusalem.
http://megasociety.org/noesis/181.htm#Underlying
The eyewitness role of Simon Barsabbas would presumably be limited to passages in Luke between Luke 7:36 and 24:51. He might have been the source of the Infancy Narrative in Luke 1 and 2, but as eyewitness only if he were a step-brother older than Jesus who accompanied his father Joseph to Bethlehem. Nor would he have been the source of any passages already attributable to earlier eyewitnesses John Mark, Peter, and Matthew. He could quite reasonably have been one of the Seventy-Two. (Indeed, that is additional reason to suppose that some non-apostle was the source of the information we find only in Luke 10:1, 17.) He may also be the Simeon called Niger in Acts 13:1.

That I present my original idea that this Simon wrote Proto-Luke means that I should show what in Luke may be his eyewitness testimony. He was most likely younger than Jesus, so his eyewitness testimony could not in that case precede Luke 3:7-10, 16-17 about John the Baptist. Next we can establish that this eyewitness wrote verses that we now find only in Luke. The.whole passage in Luke 7:36-50 is so full of detail that it seems like eyewitness testimony. Every verse shows several instances of what looks like eyewitness detail. One stands out, however: verse 39: When the Pharisee who had invited him saw this, he said to himself, If this man were a prophet, he would know who this woman is and what sort of person it is who is touching him and what a bad name she has. This could have been told to someone else, but this does give first priority to this Simon as the author, telling us his own thoughts.

In the immediately following verses we encounter the first instance (in any of the gospels) in which we see other people as regular adherents of Jesus: certain women.Magdalene JoannaSusanna, and many others (Luke 8:2-3). The next purely Lucan passages skip over to Luke 9:51, where Jesus starts the final journey to Jerusalem. So he sent messengers ahead of him. These set out, and they went into a Samaritan village to make preparations for him, but the people would not receive him because he was making for Jerusalem. At this point James and John get rebuked, but anyone present would know who they were, so this is not good evidence that either of them was the author (and certainly not James who died too young).
In contrast we find Luke 9:57-60 listing sayings with such verbal exactitude that we can see it got copied over (from a stage of Q that was already in Greek) into Matthew 8:18-22. Luke 10: 13-15 got copied.to Mt. 11:21-24. Similarly Luke 10:21-24 parallels Matthew 11:25-27 and 13:16-17, and Luke 11:9-13 is very much like Mt. 7:7-11. The Sign of Jonah is at both Luke 11:29-32 and Mt. 12:38-42. There is a pattern here: wherever Proto-Luke introduced vibrant, piquant material, it went into Matthew in chronological context. Only the anti-Pharisaic broadsides from Jesus got shunted to their own special section in Matthew 23:23-24:51.

The stray verses about the Seventy-two (Luke 10:1, 17-20) got inserted among old Q material in which there are no verbal identities. We can also assign to Proto-Luke a great part of what follows in the Perean Ministry. Most notably they may include the stories of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:29-37) and the Prodigal Son (Luke 15:11-32). Stories that seem most like an eyewitness are found at Luke 10:38-42 (Martha and Mary), 11:1 (preceding the Lords Prayer that got copied to Mt. 6:9-13); 11:27-28; 11:37-38, 45, 53-54; 12:13-15; 12:41; 13:1; 13:10-17; 13:22; 13:31; 14:1, 7, 12, 15; 15:1; 17:1-21; 19:1-27 (including the story of Zacchaeus, with intense eyewitness touches); 22:31-38; 23:8-12, 27-32, 39-43, 47-49; and 24:13-53. More broadly, we should attribute to this source also 11:2-13, 29-32, 47-51; 12:35-48; 13:1-17; 13:22-14:14; 14:28-33; 15:8-10; 16:1-12, 19-31; 17:7-21; 18:1-13; and 19:38b-44.
How fitting that a close relative of Jesus, who wrote the main gospel existing in 62 AD, would be selected as the leader of the Church in Jerusalem!

Referring back to the source just previously listed, the Q-Twelve-Source in Mark drew from a different Aramaic copy, so the Greek translations in Mark never show verbal exactitude with Luke. That contrasts with the Petrine Ur-Marcus sections of Mark that were copied into Luke with such frequent exact word usage.

That traces all the eyewitnesses I can identify in the Synoptics. Each of them contains several other chapters that I cannot show come from eyewitnesses. Ill turn back to John to identify another eyewitness, though his role there is primarily as an editor. But first there is another editor, who may be the aforementioned first eyewitness, John Mark.
http://www.christianforums.com/t7594923/

[Zzyzx]

.

As I just said, no one here, believer or nonbeliever, seems to know much about Christian origins, so I'll just plow on ahead with my sixth post over at Christian Forums. Nobody at all even tried to comment over there:

Since no one is paying attention to what you say or posting comments perhaps there is good reason. Of course it may be "everybody else because they are ignorant" OR it may be something you are doing or not doing (perhaps worth considering).

Here is my sixth eyewitness to Jesus who left a written record, the Proto-Luke derived by B. H. Streeter in 1924. That Simon wrote it seems to be my original idea, so I'll make this post longer.

Perhaps your posts would be a lot shorter if CONJECTURE was eliminated.

Proto-Luke
This Q-Twelve-Source text remained in Aramaic. Next came a further stage of additions in Aramaic.

Pure conjecture. The documents to which you refer do not exist, cannot be examined, and it cannot be known if they ever existed (Christian scholars and theologians disagree on the matter). The language in which they were written, if they were written, is a matter of speculation.

[Korah]

Proto-Luke
This Q-Twelve-Source text remained in Aramaic. Next came a further stage of additions in Aramaic.

Pure conjecture. The documents to which you refer do not exist, cannot be examined, and it cannot be known if they ever existed (Christian scholars and theologians disagree on the matter). The language in which they were written, if they were written, is a matter of speculation.

True, it's very complicated. That's my point. Yet many so-called scholars will argue for something as patently ridiculous as that the four gospels somehow arose from an oral gospel, in spite of so much exact wording. Others will argue for all-Aramaic sources or all-Greek sources. A middle ground something like mine here (or in my even more complicated Horizontal Synoptic Solution I have presented in EarlyChristianWritings.com ) has to be the truth. I am still waiting for anyone to address any deficiencies in my Thesis.

[Divine Insight]

I am still waiting for anyone to address any deficiencies in my Thesis.

You would need to find other Christian apologists who would be interested in debating that with you.

No secular atheist would have any reason to even be remotely interested. The reason being that your presentation doesn't establish any reasons why anyone should believe the rumors are true, no matter what their source.

I'm not even a secular atheist actually since I'm totally open to mystical philosophies of "God" and of a potential mystical essence to reality. But I still have no reason to even remotely consider that Jesus was the virgin born son of the God of the Old Testament. As far as I'm concerned the Biblical picture in its entirety already demonstrates the absurdity of such claims.

I am 100% certain that Jesus could not have been the demigod Son of the God of the Old Testament. In fact, I'm 100% certain that there cannot even exist a God that is described verbatim as the Old Testament portrays God. Any God that might actually exist would necessarily need to be different from that portrait.

So I don't see where anyone would be interested in discussing your views unless they were specifically interested in entertaining various other premises and assumptions that your argument necessarily rely upon.

Moreover, if you truly want to discuss your hypotheses, you would do far better by starting your own thread specifically dedicated to the issue you are attempting to debate.

This thread is asking, "How can we determine which parts of Scripture are true?", and thus far you haven't addressed that question at all.

You are addressing an entirely different question. You are attempting to address the issue of who started the Gospel rumors. But that wouldn't contribute anything toward why anyone should believe those rumors are true.