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?

[connermt]

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?

If you find one contradiction, one part that isn't trustworthy or is doubtful, then the whole thing must at least be shelved if not rejected outright. How can the infallible Word of God have any errors?

If a perfect deity had anything to do with the bible, and had our best interest in mind, it logically wouldn't have any errors.
Why?
Because if said god wanted us to benefit from it in any way, it would be involved so that the bible wouldn't lead even one astray. That's not the case. So, unless one WANTS to believe in it and accept anything, they can't claim it from god honestly.

[Divine Insight]

It simply means that we, as readers, need to figure out the 'filters' they were using so that we can understand what they were saying.

How can you not see the absurdity of this Dianaiad?

Why would a God try to send you a message through idiots who are adding ignorant contaminations to his message?

Ironically this leaves YOU as being the ultimate authority on what you consider to be morally correct anyway.

In short, you are creating your own image of God by deciding what you personally think God ought to be like. What he should support, and what he would be likely to reject.

Your personal "religion" amounts to nothing more than you using ancient fables as a scaffolding upon which for you to build your own model of God whilst rejecting the parts of the Bible that you don't like as being the contamination of men.

This is not a convincing paradigm at all.

It might make you happy to do this, but in terms of being a convincing argument for the religion it doesn't even get off the ground.

Moreover, you could do the very same thing with any mythology. So why choose Hebrew mythology? The answer to that question is most likely because it's the mythology that was popular in the culture into which you were born. Had you been born in another culture you would most likely be arguing for that mythology.

[historia]

Is there any claim that the "christian community" were inspired to produce the canon of christianity? I have never seen that claim made.

Yeah, I don't know if the term "inspired" is often used to describe this process.

But if you read the works of the Early Church Fathers, for example, you'll see several authors claiming that the Christian Community and it's leadership is lead by the Holy Spirit. Irenaeus, for example, writes "For where the Church is, there is the Spirit of God; and where the Spirit of God is, there is the Church and every kind of grace" (Against Heresies 3.24.1).

Related to that, several Christian authors, both ancient and modern, talk about the authority that the Church has in making these decisions. That authority, they contend, was passed down from Jesus to the apostles, and from the apostles to their successors.

So there is definitely a notion in Christianity that the Spirit led the early Christian community in the formation of the New Testament canon.

[ThePainefulTruth]

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?

If you find one contradiction, one part that isn't trustworthy or is doubtful, then the whole thing must at least be shelved if not rejected outright. How can the infallible Word of God have any errors?

It can't. Of course you are begging the question here. Not EVERY bible believer considers the bible that they read to be the 'infallible Word of God.'

We consider it to be the Word of God as given us by fallible men who filtered it through their own experiences and knowledge, and is, therefore, quite fallible.

Even those who claim that the bible is absolutely the infallible Word of God, when you drill 'em down to it, have to add 'in the original' to that statement...and we don't any of us have that.

The Word of God transmitted by fallible men making it fallible--and who may have (certainly ) even lied when they claimed they had the word of God. IOW it's all 2000+ year old hearsay on which Christians want to base their faith. If God created us, certainly It gave us reason...for a reason.

There is no 'certainly' involved with their "may have lied" when they claimed to have the Word of God. Their fallibility...writing things down according to their own understanding, cultural expectations and knowledge...does not equate to 'they were lying.'

It simply means that we, as readers, need to figure out the 'filters' they were using so that we can understand what they were saying.

Unless, of course, you think that anybody who doesn't use your vernacular, or explain things precisely the way you would, or understand the world in the way you do is deliberately lying when they make a claim you don't agree with?

That everybody older than you, or who lives in a different culture, speaks a different language, or sees the world through a different set of ethics is deliberately lying when they say something you don't like?

The language of reason is universal. And yes, some my have been genuinely mistaken or misled, but it equates to a lie and does the same damage if believed. The filter you refer to is reason and so far none have passed that test and I don't see how they ever could. I say again, all the pro-revelation evidence is unsubstantiated, hearsay. It's the same as all the massive evidence being for and none against evolution or relativity. They're virtually proven.

[connermt]

[Replying to post 22 by Divine Insight]

How can you not see the absurdity of this...

People will justify whatever they want to suit their needs

Ironically this leaves YOU as being the ultimate authority on what you consider to be morally correct anyway.

Which is how many (most?) want it. They want to do whatever they want, call it moral and claim 'it's of god'. And they're happy

...you could do the very same thing with any mythology.

Many do - it just depends on which myth fits their wants.

Had you been born in another culture you would most likely be arguing for that mythology.

Interestingly enough, in Chris O'Brein's book STALKING THE HERD, he indicates that most cattle mutilations happen in christian countries/societies and not muslin/islamic countries. This seems to indicate people create what they want and avoid what they don't want. Same thing with christianity - or any belief system
Go figure, huh?

[Korah]

[Replying to post 23 by historia]
In a different sub-forum (doctrine) I received no reply to the following post that can serve here in Apologetics as well. I don't argue that the Bible verifies itself, but that the Holy Spirit has led the Church through 2000 years to select Scripture readings for the Sunday liturgy (that Christians are expected to attend and hear). I had found that the Old Testament is almost ignored (Is.60 & 61) an exception and that the NT readings avoid the harsh Evangelical and Calvinist trappings so beloved of conservative Protestants. Here what I posted there June 20 (no apologies for posting the same thing twice, because over here the bible itself may not be presented as definitive, but here the Holy Spirit and/or Church Tradition can be appealed to as evidence, same as there.

Korah wrote:

I marked in my Lutheran Church in Americas 1958 Service Book where the readings coincide with the readings in the Tridentine annual cycle of the Roman Catholic Church. The gospel readings overlap at
Matthew 2:1-12, 13-18; 4:1-11; 5:20-26 6:16-21, 24-34; 7:15-21; 8:1-13, 23-27; 9:1-8 18-26; 13:24-30; 15:21-28; 18:23-35; 20:1-16; 21:1-9; 22:1-14, 15-21, 34-46; 24:15-28; 25:31-46; 26:1-27,66; 28:18-20
Mark: 7:31-37; 8:1-9 16:1-7. 14-20
Luke 2:1-14, 21, 33-40, 41-52; 5:1-11;7:11-16 8:4-15; 10:23-37; 11:14-28; 14:11-11, 15-24; 15:1-10; 15:11-32; 16:1-9, 19-31; 17:11-19; 18:9-14, 31-43; 19:41-47a
John 1:1-14, 19-28; 2:1-11; 3:1-15, 16-21;4:46b-53; 6:1-15, 16-21; 8:46-59; 12:1-36; 14:23-31a; 15:26-16:4a; 16:5-5, 23b-30; 20:19-31
Significantly, there is no overlap for the Old Testament: the old missal for the Roman Catholic Church has only two readings for each Sunday, the non-gospel usually being an epistle from Paul. The chosen readings tend to be much less the Calvinistic version of Paul. In all, we have the Churchs Bible rather than one with a lot of extraneous materials no longer applicable.

MY APOLOGIES for the above final paragraph, it does turn out that a very few OT passages are read on Sundays as THE Epistle in the Roman Catholic tradition. These are from Trito-Isaiah (Is. 60:1-6 and 61:1-6 for Epiphany Day and the second Sunday after Epiphany). The Anglican tradition lacks any OT readings even for other days than Sunday, but the Lutheran tradition has a Lesson from the OT for all observed days, this in addition to the NT readings for the epistle and the gospel.

The traditional churches all have an epistle reading for every Sunday and many other days. Here are sections that rate in all traditions as Sunday epistles: Acts 1:1-11, 2:1-11; Romans 6:23-11, 19-23; 11:3-36; 12:1-7, 16-21; 13:8-14; 15:4-15; 16:16-21; I Corinthians 1:4-9; 4:1-5; 9:24-10:5; 10:6-13; 12:1-11; 13:1-13; 15:1-10; II Corin 1:7-12; 3:4-9; 11:19-31; 12:1-9; Gal. 3:16-22; 4:1-7, 21-31; 5: 16-26; 6:1-10; Eph 3:1-21; 4:1-6, 17-28; 5:1-8, 15-21; 6:10-17; Phil 1:6-11; 2:17-21; Col 1:9-13, 23-27; 5:12-17; I Thess4:1-7, 13-18; James 1:17-21; I Peter 2:7b-25, 5:6-11; I John 3:13-18, 4:5-9, 16b-21; 5:4-12.
Much else is also read on special days or for daily Mass, but for what the Christians through the ages have heard, the above is about what we could call the Churchs Bible.

[Korah]

[Replying to post 26 by Korah]

In my post #26 above I failed to include the key prompt and justification, that Jesus Christ promised the Spirit of Truth at John 14:16-18 and John 16:13-15.

[Zzyzx]

.

I don't argue that the Bible verifies itself, but that the Holy Spirit has led the Church through 2000 years to select Scripture readings for the Sunday liturgy (that Christians are expected to attend and hear).

The length of time that a religion / church has been selecting what its followers hear is no indication that its proclamations are truthful or accurate (or anything more than imagination / wishful thinking / self-aggrandizement / etc).

If seniority of teachings did indicate validity, religions which predate Christianity (including Judaism) have a superior claim.

Over here the bible itself may not be presented as definitive, but here the Holy Spirit and/or Church Tradition can be appealed to as evidence, same as there.

Over here one is expected and required to substantiate their claims. A claim that the holy spirit did ANYTHING has not been supported (with anything beyond scriptural quotations and/or testimonials).

[Korah]

[Replying to post 28 by Zzyzx]
Obviously nothing I say will prove that even I know what Jesus meant when He promised that the Spirit of Truth would come. As far as the connection to the later compendium of Bible texts in the Liturgy, this may have been direct, but likely as not a gathering of texts that God seemed to have led worshipers to repeat.
I can't even prove that Jesus said those words in John.

My particular source criticism of the gospels does include those verses as written down by the eyewitness Nicodemus. Can I prove it? Only to the extent that I can argue that Nicodemus must have written down the sayings in John during the lifetime of Jesus because his (the eyewitness') view of Jesus seems to change at least twice during the course of Jesus's sayings. But that would still be no proof that Jesus said exactly what He is quoted as nor that I know what He meant. Is what I am saying worth listening to even if not a mathematical proof? Only you can say.

[Cephus]

[Replying to post 28 by Zzyzx]
Obviously nothing I say will prove that even I know what Jesus meant when He promised that the Spirit of Truth would come. As far as the connection to the later compendium of Bible texts in the Liturgy, this may have been direct, but likely as not a gathering of texts that God seemed to have led worshipers to repeat.
I can't even prove that Jesus said those words in John.

My particular source criticism of the gospels does include those verses as written down by the eyewitness Nicodemus. Can I prove it? Only to the extent that I can argue that Nicodemus must have written down the sayings in John during the lifetime of Jesus because his (the eyewitness') view of Jesus seems to change at least twice during the course of Jesus's sayings. But that would still be no proof that Jesus said exactly what He is quoted as nor that I know what He meant. Is what I am saying worth listening to even if not a mathematical proof? Only you can say.

You can't demonstrate that Jesus ever existed or that there is any such thing as the Spirit of Truth. You are arguing opinions, not facts. You are making claims about your beliefs, based on faith, not on evidence.