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?

[Korah]

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.

Hopefully the seventh time is the charm--I have already presented six eyewitness accounts as elements in the Bible (NT anyway) that I say are true.
And now my seventh eyewitness, unnamed but most likely John the Apostle, not a new proposal but much more limited in scope (but first a further note about Proto-Luke: )
[First One further note about Luke. Even where he knew more from what he had heard, he as much as possible restricted himself to eyewitness testimony. If as I say Luke got the Walk to Emmaus (Luke 24:13-35) from Simon and it continued through to the end at Luke 24:53, Luke did not add other events between the Resurrection and the Ascension. By handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses (Luke 1:2) he means what they had written. Rather than expanding upon that, Luke 24:44-53 looks like a compressed version of what was in his source. His source was equally scrupulous, not listing any appearances of the resurrected Jesus that he had not personally witnessed (Luke 24:13-43, 50-53). The numerous eyewitness details in the Gospel of Luke were already there before Luke translated and edited Proto-Luke.]

Scholars who find a larger source in John than just the (usually) seven signs sometimes include the editor who is identified by his frequent use of the term Pharisee. A good name for these editorial additions is P-Strand, most often identified as John 1:19-31; 3:1a; 4:1a; 7:25-27, 31-32, 43-49; 8:13a; 9:1, 13-16, 24-28, 40a, 11:46-50, 55-57; 12:12, 17-22, 42-43. To this I would go beyond Urban von Wahldes advice (to not go beyond John 18:15) and suggest also John 20:1, 3-5, 8, 11b-14a, 22-23, 26-27, based on Teeples difficulty in assigning these verses simply to the usual source he recognized (S). These latter, however, I have already treated as John Marks Passion Narrative, so Im not sure where they should go. This difficulty could be due simply to the same author having written both the Passion Narrative and the P-Strand. But the author of the P-Strand cannot easily be identified. His antipathy to the Pharisees could be explained, however, if he was a Sadducee, as John Mark may have been. If John Mark wrote it, he was not likely an eyewitness for all of it.

The P-Strand seems to be a fairly small element with John, but useful in sectioning off what was earlier in the process from the main editing work that followed it. By this time the eyewitness testimonies were in from John Mark in the Passion Narrative (and possibly the P-Strand as well), Andrew in the Signs Source, and Nicodemus in the Discourses. As told by the Muratorian Canon (c. 170 AD) the various earlier testimonies (Andrew identified by Name) were gathered together and put out in the name of John the Apostle. His primary additions as eyewitness are found primarily in John 13, 20, and 21. His other additions can be identified in detail because his style was anarthrous, never to use the article before a persons name. These smaller segments could be as an eyewitness as well, as any apostle could have been there at those occasions:

John 1:17, 22-23, 40-41, 43a, 44b, 46, 48, 50; (2:23b-25; 4:10, 13-14, 44; 6:2-3, 8b, 15, 24ab, 42, 60, 65, 68a; 10:40- 41; 11:1, 8b-10, 16, 22, 33c -34, 51-53; 12:1b, 4b. 14b-16, 21a, 13:1b-9, 12-17, 21-22, 24, 30-36 ,38; 17:3; 18:1a, 2, 4-8, 10ac, 13a, 14, 25a, 26b, 30; 19:26-27; 20:2, 6a, 10-11a, 14b-15, 18, 24-25; 21:2a, 3-6, 7b, 11, 15b-17a, 17c, 25.
Which of the smaller segments show eyewitness traces? The traditional view is that John the Apostle was present from the first, but I believe that in John 1 we see Andrew (for sure) and Philip as the two disciples of John the Baptist. These small sections look like eyewitness testimony, but Teeples evidence that the information comes from the Editor may instead mean that the Editor inserted the anarthrous names. In any case, if John was the Editor, he could have obtained sufficient information from Andrew or Philip to give us the details we find there.

Turning in the above list to John 2:23B-25, this commentary would not likely be from an eyewitness. In John 4 the Woman at the Well narrative shows vibrant details from the Editor in the earlier two sections, not just the insertion of names. We can easily believe that the Apostle John could have been present there. As for John 6, the Synoptics tell us that the apostles were present at the Feeding of the Five Thousand, so we can see John providing the numerous details in most of the eight sections. I show the Editor as next involved in John 11, and presumably all the apostles were there at the raising of Lazarus, as this occurred just shortly before Jesus entered Jerusalem for the last time. There is detail here, and there is also the clearest evidence that the Editor wrote after the P-Edition, because Es 11:51-53 follows immediately upon the P-Strand John 11:46-50.

Intense eyewitness traces are found in John 13 in all the above cited verses. Teeple found none of his usual S (Source) verses in this chapter at all, making the Editor seem like a raw source himself here. In contrast, all the eleven insertions in John 17-19 look like additions. Nevertheless, the thirteen Resurrection, Editor sections in John 20 and 21 look like mostly eyewitness testimony. Teeple attributes only one verse to S.
The upshot is that even the eyewitness seeming less identifiable as an eyewitness nevertheless comes through as such. I have presented seven writers of eyewitness testimony for the gospels, to which numerous women (mostly) could be added as likely eyewitnesses that the major seven may have used, or who could have been the basis for the other material in the four gospels.
http://www.christianforums.com/t7594923/ at Post #7 there.

[Divine Insight]

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.

Hopefully the seventh time is the charm--I have already presented six eyewitness accounts as elements in the Bible (NT anyway) that I say are true.

In that case, for the seventh time, just because you say something is true does not make it so.

You haven't established the truth of any rumors. Just because the rumors claim to have been eyewitnesses to something doesn't make them true.

You haven't told us anything we don't already know. Ancient rumors of eyewitness claims from extremely undependable texts and sources do not constitute evidence of truth of those claims.

And this is especially true considering that rumors of demigods and miracles were commonplace in those days. The biblical fables are not even remotely unique for the time period in question. Apparently everyone in those days believed in outrageous superstitions.

In fact, if you stop and think about this clearly, you should be able to see that the biblical fables are obviously nothing other than myths.

Jesus himself was said to have cast evil demons out of people to cure them from their diseases. Jesus never once mentioned anything about real diseases, germs, viruses, bacteria, etc. Neither did he know about mental illnesses, or brain tumors, etc.

Clearly these fables were written by people who knew nothing of reality and about a demigod who knew nothing about reality.

Today we know that diseases and mental illness, etc, are not caused by possession of evil demons.

So any argument that tries to make a case that these stories might hold some sort of truth on the basis that they were supposedly told by eyewitnesses is an extremely weak argument.

Even if the authors of these stories actually believed to have seen miracles it was no doubt caused by nothing more than their own superstition imagination.

So even if these stories were written by actual "eyewitnesses" the integrity of the eyewitness from that superstitious era would be extremely questionable. Obviously people living in that era believed that everything was being caused by gods or demons.

So your arguments that eyewitness accounts of anything from that period in time aren't impressive in any case. Even if you could prove that the people who actually wrote these stories genuinely believed they had seen something miraculous that wouldn't be reason to believe that their views are true. In those days people thought that EVERYTHING was miraculous and supernatural! No one had a clue about the true nature of how the world actually works. They were still believing that diseases could be cured by exorcizing demons. And their demigod supposedly did just that. So we know that these fables are false without a doubt. There is no question about it.

Evil demons are not the cause of disease and mental illness.

[Korah]

[Replying to post 102 by Divine Insight]
So you're saying that the eyewitnesses were deluded, superstitious, or otherwise misinformed--you have already dismissed that they were simply liars (still a possibility). (With eyewitnesses like this, myth is out of the question, as mythmaking takes generations.)

You have previously admitted that you are not a Philosophical Naturalist, so you do admit that miracles could have been done by a God, but your only evidence that this is not the case is that you find Yahveh to be a monster.

Or maybe they told what they had seen and heard.

[Zzyzx]

.

[Replying to post 102 by Divine Insight]
So you're saying that the eyewitnesses were deluded, superstitious, or otherwise misinformed

It does not appear to me as though DI is saying anything like what you "interpret" for him.

Condensing what was actually said:

Just because the rumors claim to have been eyewitnesses to something doesn't make them true.

Ancient rumors of eyewitness claims from extremely undependable texts and sources do not constitute evidence of truth of those claims.

The biblical fables are not even remotely unique for the time period in question. Apparently everyone in those days believed in outrageous superstitions.

Jesus himself was said to have cast evil demons out of people to cure them from their diseases.

Clearly these fables were written by people who knew nothing of reality and about a demigod who knew nothing about reality.

So any argument that tries to make a case that these stories might hold some sort of truth on the basis that they were supposedly told by eyewitnesses is an extremely weak argument.

Even if the authors of these stories actually believed to have seen miracles it was no doubt caused by nothing more than their own superstition imagination.

Even if you could prove that the people who actually wrote these stories genuinely believed they had seen something miraculous that wouldn't be reason to believe that their views are true.

Can any of those points be rationally disputed / shown to be incorrect?

With eyewitnesses like this,

Perhaps it would be more accurate to say "With TALES (or claims) that there were witnesses . . " A story that claims someone witnessed something is decidedly NOT an eyewitness account.

myth is out of the question, as mythmaking takes generations.

I disagree that myth-making takes generations. A few retellings within a single generation cannot be ruled out.

There was ample opportunity for myths to develop between the time of the storied events and the time they were supposedly recorded by bible writers.

. . . you do admit that miracles could have been done by a God, but your only evidence that this is not the case is that you find Yahveh to be a monster.

I, for one, do not accept tales of "miracles" for lack of evidence that any such things occurred. Unverified / unverifiable tales are not convincing to me at all. Others may choose to believe them "on faith" but should not expect others to do likewise.

I do not disagree when the God of the bible is said to have exhibited reprehensible characteristics, emotions, attitudes, and actions. I do not "excuse" those things "because he is God who made everything."

[Korah]

.

[Replying to post 102 by Divine Insight]
So you're saying that the eyewitnesses were deluded, superstitious, or otherwise misinformed

It does not appear to me as though DI is saying anything like what you "interpret" for him.
Condensing what was actually said:
.....

I'm astounded, Z,
that you both agree with D.I. and deny that I got the gist of what he said. That being the case, I don't know how I can reply to you or further to him. I did not think that my inference from his usual stated and restated points was wrong or over-the-top. Maybe I'll think later of some way to respond, but your vaunted Ignosticism has gotten the best of me. You make me wonder whether I can productively communicate with an Ignostic at all. You just believe there is no truth to talk about? You're not only not able to talk about
"Truth" (Capital "T"), but (surprising me immensely) unable to critique what "truth" there is or isn't in some platitudes?
Edited to add:
I do acknowledge, Z,
That you have done a good job condensing what D.I. said--he does tend to ramble.

[Zzyzx]

.

Maybe I'll think later of some way to respond, but your vaunted Ignosticism has gotten the best of me. You make me wonder whether I can productively communicate with an Ignostic at all.

"Vaunted" Ignosticism? The term "vaunted" is defined as "praised boastfully or excessively." Where, exactly, has this been done?

It is often seems difficult for Theists to productively communicate with any branch of Non-Theism, including Ignosticism (perhaps depending how one defines productive) since Theism rests upon presupposing supernaturalism. Many or most who subscribe to that philosophy seem to have limited ability to converse with those who unwilling to make supernatural assumptions (and often seem baffled that someone would not BELIEVE).

Additionally, many or most Theists seem to think they possess special knowledge of a proposed supernatural realm and/or entity based upon reading ancient texts of opinions and stories by others who claimed special knowledge (and perhaps upon personal emotional episodes or testimonials from others).

When an Ignostic asks for a definition and description of the "god" to be discussed many or most Theists seem unable to answer beyond platitudes such as "God is love", "God created the universe", "God is infinite, omnipotent and omniscient", "God is everywhere", etc. NONE of which identify what the God actually IS. Failing that they often resort to "God is a spirit" (without being able to say exactly what a "spirit" is).

You just believe there is no truth to talk about?

No, I ASK for those who claim to know truth DEMONSTRATE that they actually do, not just make unsupported claims.

You're not only not able to talk about "Truth" (Capital "T"), but (surprising me immensely) unable to critique what "truth" there is or isn't in some platitudes?

Since you do not know me at all and I have taken no such position, how can you know what I am and am not able to talk about? More supposition?

That you have done a good job condensing what D.I. said--he does tend to ramble.

Is it proper to discuss characteristics of other members? Does it contribute to debate?

[Korah]

.

Maybe I'll think later of some way to respond, but your vaunted Ignosticism has gotten the best of me. You make me wonder whether I can productively communicate with an Ignostic at all.

"Vaunted" Ignosticism? The term "vaunted" is defined as "praised boastfully or excessively." Where, exactly, has this been done?

It gets the best of you where you brag about not being "agnostic" and where as here you argue about arguing instead of dealing with posts addressing the case at hand.


In this thread I presented my Post #26 suggesting the "Church's Bible" as a fact we can discuss as the Bible in use in the liturgy. No one has addressed whether this helps us "determine which parts of Scripture are true". I followed this up with seven selections from the gospels that I attribute to eyewitnesses. I even state that some (like Discourses from Nicodemus) don't necessarily have to be "true", but I even discuss how we can judge what is true among it, such as whether verses are multiply attested or appear just in one strand of the seven eyewitnesses.

Apparently your "vaunted" Ignosticism blocks you from discussing anything meaningful. Worse, your method may be blocking many people from expressing opinions here, leaving this sub-forum only for like-minded people. Perhaps your methods discourage people from posting anything on this thread (or any other) that sticks to the subject. All I'm getting here are replies that don't fit the thread title. I'm not sure I have seen an on-topic reply since Historia on July 12th.

[dianaiad]

.

Maybe I'll think later of some way to respond, but your vaunted Ignosticism has gotten the best of me. You make me wonder whether I can productively communicate with an Ignostic at all.

"Vaunted" Ignosticism? The term "vaunted" is defined as "praised boastfully or excessively." Where, exactly, has this been done?

It gets the best of you where you brag about not being "agnostic" and where as here you argue about arguing instead of dealing with posts addressing the case at hand.

Moderator Warning


Do not make comments about the character or the motives of the poster. Talk about the points of the post, only.


Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Zzyzx]

.

Maybe I'll think later of some way to respond, but your vaunted Ignosticism has gotten the best of me. You make me wonder whether I can productively communicate with an Ignostic at all.

"Vaunted" Ignosticism? The term "vaunted" is defined as "praised boastfully or excessively." Where, exactly, has this been done?

It gets the best of you where you brag about not being "agnostic"

Another monitor has handled the rule infractions but I will clarify some points.

It takes quite a stretch to imagine "bragging" when a statement in my signature identifying theistic position simply says "Non-Theist tending toward Ignosticism (not Agnosticism)." Perhaps you are unaware that many people do not know the meaning of the term Ignostic and confuse it with Agnostic, though the two are very different.

How, exactly, is that "bragging?"

It is not surprising that many Theists have difficulty communicating with Ignostics " who insist that the "god" to be discussed be identified, defined and described by proponents. When they discover, possibly for the first time, that they cannot do so beyond platitudes, they are often at a loss for something rational to say.

and where as here you argue about arguing instead of dealing with posts addressing the case at hand.

It often happens, as you demonstrate in this thread, that opponents focus upon my style of debate rather than discussing the topic. Perhaps they do so because they are unable to be convincing to readers regarding the topic and prefer to discuss opposition debaters instead?

In this thread I presented my Post #26 suggesting the "Church's Bible" as a fact we can discuss as the Bible in use in the liturgy. No one has addressed whether this helps us "determine which parts of Scripture are true".

Perhaps no one considers your suggestion as worthy of reply.

Those who value "convergence of evidence" from multiple sources in making decisions of significance are not likely to be impressed by convoluted dissection of in-house promotional literature as though it somehow demonstrated credibility.

I followed this up with seven selections from the gospels that I attribute to eyewitnesses. I even state that some (like Discourses from Nicodemus) don't necessarily have to be "true", but I even discuss how we can judge what is true among it, such as whether verses are multiply attested or appear just in one strand of the seven eyewitnesses.

That someone in a story or religion promotional literature CLAIMS that there were "seven eyewitnesses" is NO assurance that the tale is true. Are there eyewitness accounts available for inspection or are the claims of witnesses hearsay (that heard from others), fable, legend, fantasy, etc?

Apparently your "vaunted" Ignosticism blocks you from discussing anything meaningful.

Yes, after seven years and 11,000 posts you are free to think that I am "blocked from discussing anything meaningful" if that suits your purposes (whatever they may be).

Worse, your method may be blocking many people from expressing opinions here,

When people discover that arguments, claims, and stories that worked for them in church or in environments where Christianity is shown favoritism, they often become frustrated. Since their claims cannot be substantiated they often resort to commenting on or criticizing opposition debaters (as you may have noticed).

leaving this sub-forum only for like-minded people.

Remember what Harry Truman said about heat and kitchens?

Those who cannot support their claims and stories with something more substantial than the stories themselves (or derivatives) may be more comfortable in Holy Huddle, TD&D, or in church where they will not be inconvenienced by opposition challenges.

Here, in debate, we do not assume that any religion, its dogma, or its literature are true or are proof of truth.

Perhaps your methods discourage people from posting anything on this thread (or any other) that sticks to the subject.

My "method", challenging claims of knowledge about supernatural entities and events, may discourage those who cannot support their claims with anything more than "Take my word for it (or his)", "This book says so", "If I re-translate and 'interpret' it enough it may make sense" or "If you just read the book and believe you will understand."

All I'm getting here are replies that don't fit the thread title. I'm not sure I have seen an on-topic reply since Historia on July 12th.

If "everyone" is ignoring your points it must be their fault (or mine). Right? Could it possibly be related to what you present or how it is presented?

If you might benefit from a more detailed response, I am willing to provide that if requested by PM.

[Korah]

.

All I'm getting here are replies that don't fit the thread title. I'm not sure I have seen an on-topic reply since Historia on July 12th.

If "everyone" is ignoring your points it must be their fault (or mine). Right? Could it possibly be related to what you present or how it is presented?

I'm willing to be corrected by you or anyone else willing to comment (including PM) about whether I have overstated my case here. My method has been simplistic--I have traced back through just three posters here back three weeks to where I found anyone on topic (besides myself, of course). That's virtually entirely two posters that I mostly have assumed from memory were off topic. I'm willing (and will proceed) to look back post-by-post through those two to see if I was wrong about their lack of relevance to the topic. However, I would appreciate your own citation of on-topic posts, both to save me time and due to the likelihood that you would apply a different standard than I about what's relevant.