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?

[Korah2]

[Replying to post 73 by Korah]
On further reflection I remember how highly I prize portions of Job. Though the book as a whole cannot be established historically, and the Elihu portion (Job 32-37) seems particularly textually questionable as perhaps later, nevertheless it is that very portion I recommend most highly. Job chapters 38 and 39 is even attributed to God directly. Not that that helps very much: "Where were you when I laid the earth's foundation?" God teases Job at 38:4, leaving him with no epistemological basis to stand on. God refuses to give any answers to the Problem of Evil.

Elihu is another matter. He seems to be speaking for God (in the person of the Holy Spirit?). I find Job 33:23-30 to be especially philosophically illuminating for both ontology, soteriology, and metaphysics:
"Then, if there is an Angel near him, a Mediator, one in a thousand to remind him where his duty lies, to take pity on him and to say,
'Spare him from going down to the abyss, I have found the ransom for his life,'
His flesh will recover its childhood freshness, he will return to the days of his youth.
He will pray to God who has restored him to favour, and will come into his presence with joy,
He will tell others how he has received saving justice and sing this hymn before his companions,
'I sinned and left the path of right, but God has not punished me as my sin deserved.
He has spared my soul from going down to the abyss and is making my life see the light.'
All this is what God keeps doing again and yet again for human beings, to snatch souls back from the abyss and to make the light of the living still shine." (New Jerusalem Bible.)
(I'll not say here what I take this to mean, but let me mention ttruscott as code. I take Isaiah 56:1-8 as having the same implication.)
[NOTE: I am just "Korah", but for two days have been unable to log in so have reregistered as Korah2. I have contacted Otseng about correcting this.]

[Korah2]

[Replying to post 81 by Korah2]
Back in his Post #65 Z asked me to come out and say what Parts of Scripture I emphasize, and I expected him to debate me on my selection. However, it's true I never finished presenting my Gospel Eyewitnesses Thesis beyond the three I had already presented. Here's the fourth that is already posted over on the two websites previously linked. Nothing so radically new here, it's always been thought among Christians that Peter had something to do with the Gospel of Mark, but it's more complicated than just that. He did contribute to Mark where it parallels Matthew and Luke, but he's not the only apostle who did. That'll be Matthew, my fifth eyewitness.
Here's the fourth eyewitness. (You're allowed to comment on any of these as we go along, in case you're wondering. Or wait for all seven to be presented.)

Continuing my focus on eyewitness testimony I will consider later the editions of John that brought the sources together and turn to where we left off in tracing the two narrative sources in John that got worked in to the Synoptics. I have already explained in that long second paragraph in Post #2 ("Yet little else...") how the Passion Narrative in John got expanded into the Ur-Marcus found still in many of the passages where Mark overlaps Luke. Aware that the early state of John had placed Signs Source in front of the Passion Narrative and incorporated Nicodemuss Discourses, all set primarily in Jerusalem, next John Mark sought to write a gospel set primarily in Galilee and adding events in the middle of Jesuss ministry instead of just the earliest and latest. To do this he got biographical information from Peter and used Matthews Q. The date of 44 AD for this seems early, and sets the 1st edition of John as even earlier. In that process the eyewitness testimony of Peter came in. Up to this point we already have four eyewitnesses, John Mark, Andrew, Nicodemus, and Peter. The verses attributable to Peter(including verses in Mark 14 and 15 already written by John Mark) are these [ur-Marcus]:
1:16-28,x. 2:18-3:5,xv. 5:1-43,lx. 8:27-9:13,xlv. 9:30-31,v. 9:38-42,v. 10:13-34,x. 10:46-52, v. 11:27-33,vi. 12:18-23,iii. 12:35-13:17,xv. 13:28-31,v. ,14: 28-42,xx. 14:48-52,v. 62-72;xv. 15:3-27,xxx., 33-40,xii. and continuing in Luke 24:1-3,iv.,11-12,v; and Acts 1:6-4:31, 5:17-42, 9:32-11:18, 12:1-17. (The Roman numerals represent the number of times I found details in that passage that could indicate eyewitness testimony.)
http://megasociety.org/noesis/181.htm#Underlying
In Addition I suggest that the rest of the verses in Acts 1:6-12:25 and perhaps up to 15:35 be considered additional testimony by John Mark. As the primary Petrine sections conclude at Acts 12:17, it is most likely that all this eyewitness testimony of Peter (as well as the earlier eyewitness testimony of John Mark in John 18-20 as initially stated) was written down in 44 A. D.
Note that these are the verses specified in my article, Underlying Sources of the Gospels, less the verses therein from John Mark or Andrew as seen initially above. However, I have added in Mark 14:62-72 as from Peter (or John Mark) even though in my article I followed my stylistic rules and listed it as from Q. (Ill make an exception now by pleading that the word-use in Mark and Luke is dissimilar only because John Mark and Peter were both involved here, but as eyewitnesses from slightly different vantage points.)
Note [by studying the verses above] that what I call Petrine Ur-Marcus excludes not only that Marcan material not found in Luke, but also anything that I say derives from Q [shown in Post #5 also called here the"Twelve Source"]. It is distinguished from the latter by its style in which frequent consecutive words are exact in both Mark and Luke. This came about because Luke copied Petrine Ur-Marcus in Greek into the already existing Proto-Luke. (Peter is the fourth identifiable eyewitness.)
Edited to add: For additional support read the first six short paragraph in the first of my four articles at that same website as above.
http://megasociety.org/noesis/181.htm#Common

http://www.christianforums.com/t7594923/ at Post #4 in its entirety.

[Korah2]

[Replying to post 82 by Korah2]

I had expected reactions to my Post #82 above (taken from my Post #4 in Christian Forums), because this DC&R Forum is not limited to input by Christians. I expect Christians not to be interested in Higher Criticism, as they like to stand pat on Matthew and John as from eyewitness apostles. My theory of sources from them does not please these conservatives. I had expected that anti-Christians here would be outraged that I propose that textual criticism itself supports the idea that eyewitnesses wrote the underpinnings of the four canonical gospels.

My next, fifth, eyewitness gets so complicated to specify that I will omit the more detailed rethinking (in brackets in the CF text) I have done about this Source Q. Nor do I include more detailed support from my cited articles from 2006 in Noesis that are available on the internet. I won't even include below the verses that are normally listed as in Q, as the portions in Matthew and Luke are generally agreed, but I would hold that only the portions originally written in Aramaic are from the Apostle Matthew. Scholars generally agree now that "Logia" in Greek does not imply sayings alone (as Schleiermacher mistook it to mean in 1834), but more like a gospel as we know it.

Q is well known (and too well known because erroneously conceived), but recent scholarship (as by Dennis Ronald MacDonald) has shown that Q underlies not just Matthew and Luke, but also Mark. This should have been obvious since 1946 when the Nag Hammadi discovery of the Gospel of Thomas showed Q-like sayings (particularly the Parable of the Sower) in Mark. Here follows part of my write-up of the 5th eyewitness Matthew from Post #5:

Now the fifth eyewitness, Matthew. Note how much the separation of Q here in Mark depends upon the preceeding paragraphs in Post #4.
Thus the next eyewitness source I recognize would as likely be as early or earlier. That it is early is also evidenced by it being found in Matthew as well as in Luke. Yes, I am talking about Q. In Mark [and when in Mark is usually called "Twelve Source"] these verses are:
Mark 1:9-15,x. 1:29-2:17,lii. 3:13-4:41,lv. 6:2-16,xii. 9:14-29,xxv. 9:33-37,iii. 10:41-45,v. 11:1-11,xv. 11:15-19,vi. 12:1-17,vi. 24-34,vii. 13:18-23,iii. 33-37,ii. {14:10-25,x. 14:43-45, 62-72, 15:29-32, 15:42-16:8.}[/font]
http://megasociety.org/noesis/181.htm#Underlying
In addition to which I should have added Matthew 28:16-20 that probably corresponds to the lost ending of Mark.

Beyond this, of course, add in [most of] the Double-Tradition verses commonly ascribed to Q. Why would we say these are from an eyewitness? Well, they begin only shortly before we read about the call of Levi at Mark 2:14, so we have internal evidence that all of this may stem from Matthew. External evidence states that the Apostle Matthew wrote the Logia of Jesus, identified by many scholars as Q. This does create an additional problem in extending the Double Tradition to include much Triple Tradition material found in Mark, but we know that much apparently Q material in Thomas is also in Mark. All the Q-Twelve Source material in Mark can be determined by the lack of exact word correspondence between Mark and Luke, as well as by the frequent use of the word Twelve to denote the Apostles. (This lack of verbal exactitude means that the Aramaic Q or copies thereof were used at least four different times on the way to the Greek versions in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and Thomas, with the copy used for Thomas apparently being the most different from the others.)

There may be reason to differentiate Q from Twelve-Source, in spite of what I have said here. The Q sayings could have been written down at the time Jesus said them, but it is rare that historical narrative is written while it is taking place. Nothing in Mark (or Matthew or Luke) looks like diary entries. Thus we can suppose that the narrative was added later, particularly if we suppose that Q itself (or at least notes for it) was written during Jesuss lifetime. But the narrative includes the call of Matthew, so it is eyewitness material as well, our fifth eyewitness in the gospels.
Consider also this argument from my first article at the same source for the expansion of Q into Marcan narratives: ( http://megasociety.org/noesis/181.htm#Common ):One commonly hears that there are no Q passages in the Gospel of Mark. This is incorrect. The discovery of the complete text of the Gospel of Thomas at Nag Hammadi in 1946 revealed sayings in it that are in Mark, and not just from Matthew and Luke. Although this could mean that the text of Thomas was based on the completed Synoptic Gospels, close study shows that it is more likely that the parts of Thomas that overlap the canonical Gospels are based on a source text they share in common, namely Q or some variant thereof. Unless the writer of Thomas also had access to Ur-Marcus, this shows that Thomas picked up some of the same parables from Q that Mark included. It thus seems that Ur-Marcus was almost completely narrative text with even fewer sayings than we commonly attribute to Mark.

The Q Source could have been written very early. It (the earliest [portion) was written in Aramaic, judging by the sections that Mark and Luke have in common that lack verbal exactitude. The word Twelve (meaning the 12 Apostles) appears so often in this that it is commonly called the Twelve-Source. The name Matthew (or Levi) occurs where this text begins (as at Luke 5:27), and early external tradition names the writer as this Matthew, so this material could have been from an eye-witness or could even have been first put in writing during the lifetime of Jesus. Continuing, but from the third article: ( http://megasociety.org/noesis/181.htm#Underlying )

Once the barrier is broken that Q material exists in Mark, the radical change is that even narrative in Mark may be from Q [as listed just above]. The portions of Mark not already listed [farther] above [in Post #4] could be largely from Q. The narrative material in question is called by scholars the Twelve-Source. We cannot tell whether Q and Twelve-Source are distinct.
That Q and Twelve-Source are not distinct is suggested by external criticism. Tradition says that Matthew wrote this gospel [of Matthew]. The Higher Critics have suggested that this may have been Q, limited to sayings that occur only in Matthew and Luke. Conservatives have continued to hold that Matthew wrote the gospel with his name. I say split the difference. Acknowledge that Matthew wrote most of the Q discourses, but also allow for the Twelve-Source narrative, which would seem most likely to have come from him. His name (=Levi) occurs first at Mark 2:14, and very little occurs before that.

There may be reason to differentiate Q from Twelve-Source, in spite of what I have said here. The Q sayings could have been written down at the time Jesus said them, but it is rare that historical narrative is written while it is taking place. Nothing in Mark (or Matthew or Luke) looks like diary entries. Thus we can suppose that the narrative was added later, particularly if we suppose that Q itself (or at least notes for it) was written during Jesuss lifetime. But the narrative includes the call of Matthew, so it is eyewitness material as well, our fifth eyewitness in the gospels.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7594923/ at Post #5, where bracketed material shows further detailed reflections (not included in above copy).
Dale Adams

[Divine Insight]

I had expected that anti-Christians here would be outraged that I propose that textual criticism itself supports the idea that eyewitnesses wrote the underpinnings of the four canonical gospels.

Perhaps you have misguided notions about what should outrage non-theists?

I might also add that non-theists are not "anti-Christians". They are simply people who recognize that theology has no merit. "Christians" themselves are nothing more than follows of theology. Sheep is the term they often use to describe their "flocks". This is their own terminology.

Most non-theists view these "Christian Sheep" as nothing other than people who have been duped by the theology.

In any case, why should a non-theist be outraged over your personal subjective speculations?

It has already been established in this very thread that you have no determined any "truth".

What you appear to be talking about are interpretations that single out specific characters in this mythology that were supposedly eyewitnesses. I don't think any non-theist is going to argue with you that the Christian mythologies do indeed claim that some of their characters were eyewitnesses.

However, the bottom line for the non-theist is that these claims cannot be established to be anything more than unsubstantiated rumors.

You have been asked to provide a means of establishing the truth of these claims and you have failed. Yet you continue to post to this thread like as if you still have something that anyone should care to bother with.

As a non-theist I'm not the least bit outraged by your personal subjective speculations concerning these Christian myths. They don't mean anything.

You haven't established any evidence for why anyone should believe that these claims contain any truth.

From the view of the non-theists, you simply aren't comprehending the problem. There's no reason for them to be outraged about that. On the contrary this is typically how theists often behave. So you aren't even an abnormal example of a theist. We are used to seeing theists behave precisely as you are behaving. There's nothing knew in that.

[Korah]

You haven't established any evidence for why anyone should believe that these claims contain any truth.

Well, you would do better to have read beyond the first paragraph, which was only orientation to the introduction in the second and third paragraphs that led in to the text I quoted to make my case. In addition the body of the quoted section gave further links to my articles in the Mega Society Journal. (No, I am not a member, but was invited as one one-in-a -thousand in IQ to contribute what I knew about the Synoptic Gospels to the one-in-a-million IQ society.)

I don't say the same things over and over again (unlike someone I could mention), so you really have to keep reading to find where I add more and more argument. I really expected to find someone somewhere willing to explore possible new truths, but it is looking more and more like I was right in February to doubt that DC&R was the place. The middle ground seems to be excluded here where the only remaining foolhardy Christians in the main have been thrown to the lions but have not yet been eaten.

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 85 by Korah]

But your arguments aren't determining that these claimed eyewitness accounts are true.

The question of the thread is, "How can we determine which parts of Scripture are true?"

The arguments you are making for why you think certain persons were actual eyewitnesses, and others were not, would still be perfectly applicable if these so-called "eyewitnesses" were nothing more than the originators of false rumors.

In other words, nothing you have offered shows why any of these rumors should be considered to be true events.

This would be like narrowing down rumors about Evil Presley to a potential source of just one or two people. That doesn't contribute anything to establishing the truth of the rumors. All it establishes is that the original rumors started with a single person or two.

So your approach to this problem does not constitute an answer of how we can determine which parts of scriptures are true.

All your arguments amount to is an attempt to establish who may have started the rumors originally.

So you haven't contributed anything toward establishing how these rumors can be determined to be true.

[Korah]

The arguments you are making for why you think certain persons were actual eyewitnesses, and others were not, would still be perfectly applicable if these so-called "eyewitnesses" were nothing more than the originators of false rumors.

Yes, you're right. I'm quite aware of that. We historians call it "The Conspiracy Theory of History". (Not that there's anything wrong with that.)
There are indeed some such conspiracy theories out there, but none that academic scholars care for. No one has come close to explaining how the underpinnings of the gospels could have been put together as they are now, working from a team of hoaxers. For those of us who consider miracles possible, it's much easier to believe that a bunch of eyewitness associates (the apostles) put together their recollections and stories. (For scholars in general at this point, it's easiest to ignore what I have to say.)

Naturally, anyone philosophically committed to Naturalism will not be disposed to consider purported eyewitness testimony to be true if the events related "could not possibly happen". Any Christian predisposed to believe in Jesus and miracles would be open to believing that eyewitnesses told about Jesus performing miracles. It's just that those Christians already believe something else about eyewitness books (of Matthew and John) about Jesus. They prefer to believe what they were taught rather than investigate the facts as I do.

[Zzyzx]

.

You haven't established any evidence for why anyone should believe that these claims contain any truth.

Well, you would do better to have read beyond the first paragraph, which was only orientation to the introduction in the second and third paragraphs that led in to the text I quoted to make my case.

Do you KNOW what someone else has read? Perhaps your "case" was found lacking, unconvincing, poorly presented, unrelated to the topic, etc, etc.

In addition the body of the quoted section gave further links to my articles in the Mega Society Journal. (No, I am not a member, but was invited as one one-in-a -thousand in IQ to contribute what I knew about the Synoptic Gospels to the one-in-a-million IQ society.)

Were your ideas concerning Synoptic Gospels deemed convincing by the high-IQ society? Were those ideas accepted as truthful and accurate (and repeatedly referenced and expanded upon) by theologians and scholars?

High IQ is no guarantee of success " but it does eliminate one excuse for failure.

More important is to present a compelling case for one's ideas. Of course, one cannot present a compelling case if 1) They don't have one, and 2) Others "tune them out" as verbose, self-aggrandizing, uninteresting or any number of other reasons.

I don't say the same things over and over again (unlike someone I could mention), so you really have to keep reading to find where I add more and more argument. I really expected to find someone somewhere willing to explore possible new truths, but it is looking more and more like I was right in February to doubt that DC&R was the place.

Five months without finding an audience for your ideas or finding people interested in debating them MUST be a reflection of the place and the members. OR could it be something else?

The middle ground seems to be excluded here

No one is excluded here provided they abide by Forum Rules and Guidelines.

"Middle ground" representatives are welcome; however, evidently choose to not participate often in debates " for their own reasons.

where the only remaining foolhardy Christians in the main have been thrown to the lions but have not yet been eaten.

No one aside from the site owner (Otseng, a Christian and accomplished debater) has the ability to "throw foolhardy Christian to the lions." Perhaps what devours or discourages some is lack of evidence that their claims and stories are anything more than what can be produced by human imagination " no gods required.

[Korah]

[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. Thus when they engage here they tend to be outclassed in debate. They don't organize their cases as well, and they are saddled with adherence to preaching that does not smell good when presented out in public.

I don't know why Christians prefer to saddle themselves with unpopular beliefs like Calvinism or the exclusivism of Evangelicalism. Is it a form of sadism? 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!

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. All the non-believers here make it like they know ever-so-much more than the believers, but do even they know next-to-nothing about the origins of the Bible? Are there no seminary graduates posting here?

[Divine Insight]

No one has come close to explaining how the underpinnings of the gospels could have been put together as they are now, working from a team of hoaxers.

There is no need to presume that there were ever any "Team of hoaxers" working toward a common goal. I don't believe for one minute that this was the case.

Rumors simply started, and other people added to them. They evolved. I do believe that many people who added to them did potentially have their own personal motivations and agendas. We see this type of thing today among humans all the time. It's perfectly natural for humans to tell whoppers and to add to them in their own way.

So your suggestion that there had to be a "Team of hoaxers" is actually an extreme strawman (an argument that you can very easily knock down). But I have no need to consider that there was ever any need for a "Team of hoaxers". that's simply not required to explain how rumors may have evolved on their own.

Naturally, anyone philosophically committed to Naturalism will not be disposed to consider purported eyewitness testimony to be true if the events related "could not possibly happen". Any Christian predisposed to believe in Jesus and miracles would be open to believing that eyewitnesses told about Jesus performing miracles. It's just that those Christians already believe something else about eyewitness books (of Matthew and John) about Jesus. They prefer to believe what they were taught rather than investigate the facts as I do.

Again you are arguing with imaginary debate partners.

I don't reject the stories of Jesus simply because I don't believe they could have happened. On the contrary, I'm willing to grant the possibility of a magical God existing who could do these things if he really wanted to. 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.

These are utterly absurd stories that, IMHO, do not reflect the type of behavior that I would expect to see in any actual supremely intelligent divine being.

So no, for me it's not that I don't believe that a God could exist and do miracles. It's just that there's no way I can believe that a God would be as stupid as these stories demand it would need to be.

It's really is that simple Korah.