How can we determine which parts of Scripture are true?

[Zelduck]

This is really a question for Christians, but since it doesn't assume the validity of the Bible, I think it belongs here rather than in the Theology, Doctrine, and Dogma section.

There have been multiple canons of Scripture. Books have been accepted and rejected for various reasons throughout Christian history. Books have lied about their authorship. Passages have been added and removed. Books were written in different times and different places by different authors and for different reasons.

So how can I have confidence in any particular verse, chapter, or book, that what I am reading is the inspired work of the Holy Spirit, and not the work of a man, no matter how pious?

What method ought I use to reliably determine what is and is not the Word of God? Has someone already done this for me, and if so, how can I tell if they didn't make a mistake?

[Divine Insight]

[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).

I don't recall dismissing the idea that the Gospels could be intentional outright lies.
On the contrary, I believe they most certainly could be. I haven't ruled that out.

(With eyewitnesses like this, myth is out of the question, as mythmaking takes generations.)

But the authors of the Gospels have clearly referred back to generations of myths. Do you think they just came up with the idea of Jesus as the demigod Son of God out of the blue? Hardly. In fact, they try extremely hard to make a case that their stories match "prophesy" and they even point to the ancient myths that they believe have been fulfilled.

This is not impressive at all. Why not? Because they are clearly writing their claims with the Old Testament right in hand. I think it's very easy to pick up an ancient book of myths and then write up a new story based on what you believe the ancient myth to be prophesying. So these myths would have been built upon generations of myths that came before them

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.

But it is extremely strong evidence.

That's all the evidence I need to know that these myths can't be true. In fact, what you seem to be failing to realize is that the Old Testament myths had already shot themselves in the foot before the New Testament myths were even written. The God of the Old Testament is already impossible even before you get to the New Testament.

Not because I judge him to be a monster, but because the behavior attributed to this God is not in harmony with what this God is supposed to be like. This God is supposed to be infinitely wise, infinitely intelligent, infinitely righteous, and so on. Yet everything he is said to actually do is infinitely unwise, infinitely unintelligent, and infinitely immoral.

So the Bible shoots itself in its own foot. It needs no help from me.

The story of Jesus is just absurdity placed on top of absurdity. It's not like the religion had any merit before the New Testament and the Gospels ruined that great record.

I dismiss Judaism and Islam on the very same grounds that I dismiss Christianity. They are all absurd from square one.

The Gospels of Jesus certainly aren't going to make up for the insanity of the Old Testament. In fact, the whole idea that this God would approve of, or require, his son to be crucified by his own corrupt priests to pay for the sins of men, is just in keeping with the very same type of insanity of the OT. The NT isn't any improvement at all. It's just more of the sane.

The only "saving grace" (which is almost a pun) is that Jesus appears to have been preaching the higher moral values of something like Jainism or Mahayana Buddhism instead of the insanity of the Old Testament. But that fits in with my theory that the Jesus rumors were potentially sparked by someone teaching those higher moral values.

But those higher moral values already existed. Men like Buddha, Confucius, Lao Tzu and many others, had already taught these types of moral values long before the days of Jesus.

And when you think about it, how could those men have had the wisdom of knowing how God was going to change his mind centuries before Jesus was ever born?

Clearly Jesus did not bring any new message from any God. Far more likely he got his ideas from the Jains, or the Buddhists.

I have no problem believing that some guy actually lived that may have been the inspiration for these rumors. But that doesn't make the rumors true in every detail.

On the contrary, there are probably rumors about Evil Presley and Michael Jackson too that aren't true. Yet those people actually lived. Just because someone might have actually lived doesn't mean that every rumor told about them is true.

I mean gee whiz, I've heard rumors about me that I know aren't true, and I'm even still living.

We know that false rumors are easy to come by. So why are you so certain that the rumors about Jesus need to be true?

I still don't see where you have given any convincing reason to believe that they should be true.

[Korah]

[Replying to post 110 by Korah]
My review has generally found that posts relevant to the thread topic are only of the nature of, "Well, no parts of Scripture are true!" These relatively relevant posts include D.I. at #90, 85, and 77 (that acknowledged that we can explore whether portions are literal or not). He acknowledged in #77 July 18 that some purpose might be served in investigating whether certain portions looked like they may or may not be from eyewitnesses. Z in #69 said that believers might find help in believing what seems based on specific facts, and in #66 that specifics might help knowing what is true. D. I. in #51 thought identified sayings of Jesus might help, but mostly to the extent that they might be found to be like what Buddha would have said. ["What would Buddha do?", should we ask--though apparently not much like the NT God too enmeshed in the OT God.]

Z in many posts asked for what I say Nicodemus quoted from Jesus (#31 July 13th, #41, and expressed dismay that no free-standing text could be found that was purely from Jesus (#44, #50).

I find that many posts came tangentially spinning off from the OP title, but none came closer than blanket dismissals of Scripture. That D.I. conceded the potential usefulness of eyewitness text came to naught in his rejection of anything that Buddha wouldn't have said.

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 110 by Korah]
My review has generally found that posts relevant to the thread topic are only of the nature of, "Well, no parts of Scripture are true!" These relatively relevant posts include D.I. at #90, 85, and 77 (that acknowledged that we can explore whether portions are literal or not). He acknowledged in #77 July 18 that some purpose might be served in investigating whether certain portions looked like they may or may not be from eyewitnesses.

You are misunderstanding. I am NOT acknowledging that they look like they might by from actual eyewitnesses. What I am acknowledging is that it's obvious that the authors are attempting to make the claim that they are eyewitnesses. That's an entirely different thing.

I acknowledge these these authors are making these claims. That in no way suggests that I feel they have been successfully convincing.

D. I. in #51 thought identified sayings of Jesus might help, but mostly to the extent that they might be found to be like what Buddha would have said. ["What would Buddha do?", should we ask--though apparently not much like the NT God too enmeshed in the OT God.]

Again, you aren't understanding my position here. But I can't say I blame you for this because you don't know where I'm coming from.

My comments here come from a long history of studying both the Bible and the history of Buddhism.

As a Christian I studied the Bible, not as a skeptic, but as a devout Christian expecting to learn something profound and be able to help others understand what the Bible is truly saying. After all, from my perspective very few people seemed to have a clue, even Christians. So they could use some help sorting things out. However, when I finally studied the Bible I came to the vivid and undeniable realization that it can't possible be true. That is my conclusion. I firmly believe that there is no possible way to justify the Bible as having been the inspired word of any supreme all-wise, all-benevolent creator.

Long after I had come to this realization I studied the History of Buddhism. I was actually quite shocked to learn that Buddhism has as many different sects and ideas as Christianity does. But most interesting of all was Mahayana Buddhism. As I studied Mahayana Buddhism I realized that the teachings of Mahayana Buddhism were almost identical to the teachings and behavior of Jesus. Then a floodlight came on when I learned that Mahayana Buddhism was at it's peak right at the time when Jesus would have lived. I suddenly realized that if Jesus was a mystic Jew who embraced the philosophy or Mahayana Buddhism that would explain that teachings of Jesus perfectly.

And far more to the point, it is crystal clear that Jesus was not teaching the morality of the Old Testament. He was actually making a completely about face. The Old Testament had God commanding people to judge and stone sinners to death. Jesus was clearly rebuking both of these. Jesus taught not to judge others (in line with Mahayana Buddhism and not the OT), and Jesus also taught not to harm others and to instead turn the other cheek (again, in line with Mahayana Buddhism and not the OT).

There are far more similarities between the teachings and behaviors of Jesus and the teachings of Mahayana Buddhism to ignore. Including saying things like "I and the Father are one", and pointing to the OT to support the Buddhist philosophy, "Have I not said, ye are gods".

Everything came together. Jesus as a misunderstood Jewish Mahayana Buddhist makes perfect sense. And it explains why he was teaching things that are totally opposite of what the OT taught. It also explain why he would claim that he and the Father are one.

~~~~~~

Now what you seem to be complaining about is that I am willing to consider that some guy named Jesus might have actually existed and that this "truth" can be found in the New Testament. But that's not what I'm saying. I'm simply suggesting that some guy named Jesus may have actually lived and given rise to these New Testament rumors. He probably did teach many of the things he is said to have taught. He probably did argue with the Jewish Priests. He probably was unjustly crucified for his apparent blaspheme against the OT (the "Word of God") as the Jewish Priest of that time period believed it to be.

So yes, I'm accepting that a man may have lived, argued, and was crucified. He also no doubt impressed a lot of people especially his own disciples. And in the aftermath of his crucifixion rumors were started that he was the son of God. And those rumors culminated in to the writings that we today call the New Testament.

This explains everything without any need for any supernatural explanation at all. It also doesn't suggest that Mahayana Buddhist is right. All I'm saying is that Jesus was most likely getting his ideas from Mahayana Buddhism. Because that's what matches up best with the principles and beliefs that he supposedly taught.

So, I'm not in denial that some guy named Jesus ever lived. And I'm not in denial that there may be some truths contained within the rumors about this man. But what I do hold to be true is that we have no way of knowing which rumors about Jesus might be true and which rumors might be false.

But I would like to point out the following:


Believing that Jesus was influenced by the philosophy of Mahayana Buddhism and that the New Testament is just outrageous rumors about this man makes a whole lot of sense and explains everything without any need to appeal to anything supernatural. It specifically explains why Jesus was teachings things that are totally opposite to what was taught in the Old Testament.

Believing that Jesus was actually the virgin born demigod Son of the God of the OT requires believing a ton of supernatural events, all of which would have needed to be carried out by the God of the Old Testament. It also requires that the God of the Old Testament had planned this crucifixion from the very beginning of time. It also requires that this God of the Old Testament had radically changed in character. Because after all, in the Old Testament God so hated the world that he downed humans in a Great Flood, but now in the New Testament he so loves the world that he is offering to sacrifice his only begotten son to save it.

To believe that Jesus was the son of the God of the Old Testament simply doesn't add up.

Believing that Jesus was a mystic-minded Jew who was trying to bring the higher moral values of Buddhism into the religion of his home culture does make sense, and doesn't require any supernatural nonsense.

Also, something you need to understand about Mahayana Buddhism. The Mahayana Buddhists don't believe in an egotistical jealous Godhead. They really don't even care how you think of God. For them this is unimportant. You are free to think of God in any way you like. What they are concerned with is how to obtain spiritual enlightenment. For them "God" is a mystery. This is why Mahayana Buddhism is called "Mysticism".

I'm explaining this part of Mahayana Buddhism so you can understand that Jesus himself would not have seen any major conflict between between the teachings of Mahayana Buddhism and the teachings of Judaism. And this is especially true if Jesus was a mystic-minded Jews who himself did not take that Torah literally.

This is actually a position held by most modern day Jews today. Very few modern day Jews consider their scriptures to be the literal and infallible "Word of God". Even though the text clearly states within it that nothing shall be added or taken away and that the scriptures cannot be broken, etc. Clearly Jesus did not believe this.

Now there is one place in the New Testament where Jesus is quoted by Matthew 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

However, Matthew is the only place we see this. No one else had mentioned it. And it is believed by scholars that Matthew was actually preaching to the Jewish Fundamentalists (the Pharisee Jews) and he was attempting to assure them that Jesus did not change the laws of the Old Testament.

But clearly Jesus did. Jesus rebuked the judging of others, and the stoning to death of sinners. So Jesus was indeed attempting to change the laws of the OT.

So I hold that recognizing that Jesus was most likely a mystic-minded Jew who embraced the higher morality of Mahayana Buddhism makes far more sense than to believe that he was a miraculous virgin-born demigod son of the God of the Old Testament who came to reject that God's very teachings and then be crucified on a pole to pay for the sins of men. And then raised from the dead taking his physical body with him to a spiritual heaven.

I have to put the rolling eye icon after that because it's so utterly absurd.

The New Testament claims of Jesus make no sense.

I find that many posts came tangentially spinning off from the OP title, but none came closer than blanket dismissals of Scripture. That D.I. conceded the potential usefulness of eyewitness text came to naught in his rejection of anything that Buddha wouldn't have said.

I did NOT concede any potential usefulness for any claimed eyewitness texts.

Some of these people may have potentially known Jesus or have met him, or have even been his disciples. But that doesn't mean that everything they claim about should then be believed to be true.

On the contrary, there are many rational reasons why they might make such outrageous claims.

If you had a profound spiritual teacher whom you loved and you saw him arguing with Jewish priests and finally being crucified at their demand, you would no doubt be extremely distraught over this and want to get back at these priests.

These New Testament stories are known not to have been written for at least 40 to 70 years after Jesus had died. You yourself admit that myths don't happen overnight, they require time to evolve. Well 40 to 70 years is more than enough time for myths to evolve.

If Jesus really did say things like "I and the Father are One", and teach as though he has some knowledge of a genuine spiritual afterlife, then it would be totally understandable that rumors along those lines would evolve.

Also consider that these types of rumors were RIPE for the hatching supposedly when Jesus was alive. The rumors that a messiah was coming were all over the place. So over time rumors started up that Jesus rose from the dead, and then it was claimed that he was also born of a virgin. And every little thing he might have done that even seemed remotely miraculous was blown out of proportion until the rumors had him going all over the country side curing all manner of illness and raising people from the dead, etc.

As far as I can see, this explanation of the New Testament is perfectly rationale.

It explains everything with no need to invoke anything supernatural.

It explains why Jesus didn't even agree with the main directives of the Old Testament and actually taught the opposite.

Don't judge people and stone sinners to death.

Instead Judge not, and do not cast the first stone.

Just the opposite of what the God of the OT had commanded people to do.

Luke.6:37 Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven:

Words attributed to Jesus by Luke sound far more in line with Mahayana Buddhism than they do with the Old Testament.

How can you judge not, if God had commanded that you judge people to be sinners in order to condemn them by stoning them to death?

Clearly Jesus was not supporting the teachings and commandments attributed to the God of the Old Testament.

He was clearly at the opposite end of the rainbow.

Jesus could not have been the demigod Son of the God of the Old Testament. He didn't agree with the commandments of that God at all.

[Korah]

You are misunderstanding. I am NOT acknowledging that they look like they might by from actual eyewitnesses. What I am acknowledging is that it's obvious that the authors are attempting to make the claim that they are eyewitnesses. That's an entirely different thing.

I acknowledge these these authors are making these claims. That in no way suggests that I feel they have been successfully convincing.

No! I nowhere claim that any of my seven written eyewitness records include the author claiming to be an eyewitness. Rather, their first-person written records were incorporated into our four gospels.

Once again I don't find your post relevant to the topic--you don't acknowledge anywhere we can determine truth other than where Jesus happens to overlap with Mahayana Buddhism. You really don't belong posting on this thread, particularly at such repetitive length.

I find that many posts came tangentially spinning off from the OP title, but none came closer than blanket dismissals of Scripture. That D.I. conceded the potential usefulness of eyewitness text came to naught in his rejection of anything that Buddha wouldn't have said.

I did NOT concede any potential usefulness for any claimed eyewitness texts.

Yes you did, in Post #61. You write so much you sometimes disagree with yourself.

These New Testament stories are known not to have been written for at least 40 to 70 years after Jesus had died. You yourself admit that myths don't happen overnight, they require time to evolve. Well 40 to 70 years is more than enough time for myths to evolve.

You have missed the entire point of my postings here, D. I.! Doubt or deny if you will that the seven written eyewitness records of Jesus are true, write them off as rumors (your word) or lies, my case is that they are so early that they are NOT myth or legend. Do you lack reading comprehension or did you just in the main not read what I posted? I'll assume the latter, as my quotes in posts are densely packed and present a new thing, but that new thing is specifically that all seven were written down long before the 40 years you appeal to from Consensus. Everybody knows that that is just a compromise teaching. It is so insecure that a fellow Liberal, Bishop John A. T. Robinson wrote two books showing that the whole New Testament was completed within 40 years. If the books were COMPLETED within 40 years (a position I don't even hold myself), then how much surer we are that the sources within the NT were written very early. Did you read far enough into any of my seven written eyewitness records to find that I argued that some were even written while Jesus was alive on earth? I suggested that much from the fifth eyewitness, what the Apostle Matthew wrote in Q, came from notes written during Jesus's sermons. I showed that what Nicodemus wrote of Jesus's Discourses changed in attitude at least twice, showing evidence that these were thus left unaltered after being written during Jesus's preachings. My first eyewitness was John Mark writing down his Passion Diary probably describing his one week with Jesus.

So I would say again, if you're not going to be writing anything relevant to the stated topic, it ought to relate to what others are nevertheless posting. You fail on both counts. Why don't you just post on threads where your opinions and personal history are relevant?

[Korah]

in Post #61

He is the first of seven identifiable eyewitnesses in the gospels

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

I never said that. None of my seven written eyewitness records includes the writer's claim that he is an eyewitness. That is probably why this has been missed for 2000 years when the orthodoxy has been that the completed works of Matthew and John were by eyewitnesses. That's not true, but Luke 1:1-4 does state that there were earlier written eyewitness records. Perhaps Luke's Prologue is what is confusing you here.

Fine, I have no problem with that. Let's toss out all non-eyewitness accounts and just focus on the ones that you have "identified" as being eyewitness accounts.
So now, "How do we determine if those claims are true?"
That's more to the point of this thread.
Just because they claim to be eyewitness accounts doesn't automatically make them true.

The above is were I say that in this Post #61 you did acknowledge a higher status to whatever is not clearly NOT from a eyewitness. At other points you deny the value to any such accounts, but by saying so much you do eventually contradict yourself. Remember the long post you spent (unsuccessfully) trying to prove that you had not clearly contradicted yourself?

[Divine Insight]

Once again I don't find your post relevant to the topic--you don't acknowledge anywhere we can determine truth other than where Jesus happens to overlap with Mahayana Buddhism. You really don't belong posting on this thread, particularly at such repetitive length.

I am not suggesting that we can determine any "truths" regarding the gospels. I am not suggesting that we can determine that is true that Jesus may have been a Mystic Jew who embraced the philosophy of Mahayana Buddhism. I'm simply pointing out that this is certainly one plausible scenario that we can infer. A scenario that makes perfect sense and doesn't require absurdities.

You say that I don't belong in this thread. But why not? Simply because I reject your arguments that you can determine that eyewitness accounts were supposedly true?

I'm telling you that your arguments fail to convince me. And that's a valid debate.

I find that many posts came tangentially spinning off from the OP title, but none came closer than blanket dismissals of Scripture. That D.I. conceded the potential usefulness of eyewitness text came to naught in his rejection of anything that Buddha wouldn't have said.

I did NOT concede any potential usefulness for any claimed eyewitness texts.

Yes you did, in Post #61. You write so much you sometimes disagree with yourself.

You accuse me of not being able to read posts, but if you reread post #61 you will clearly see that I said:

You don't seem to understand.

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

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

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

I in no way suggested that this can be useful in determining any truth.

These New Testament stories are known not to have been written for at least 40 to 70 years after Jesus had died. You yourself admit that myths don't happen overnight, they require time to evolve. Well 40 to 70 years is more than enough time for myths to evolve.

You have missed the entire point of my postings here, D. I.! Doubt or deny if you will that the seven written eyewitness records of Jesus are true, write them off as rumors (your word) or lies, my case is that they are so early that they are NOT myth or legend. Do you lack reading comprehension or did you just in the main not read what I posted?

I understand what you are arguing for. I just don't agree that your arguments have any merit.

Your main argument appears to be that you believe you can establish that the stories of Jesus began immediately and therefore this suggests that they must be true and cannot have been rumors because rumors take time to evolve.

But I don't buy in that as being a valid argument. As I have already pointed out, the rumor of the coming of a Messiah was already ripe for the plucking. So even if these stories had been written the day after Jesus supposedly rose from the dead it still wouldn't give them any credence.

So your argument that this is reason to believe their are true fails anyway.

Besides no one person could have been an eyewitness to everything claimed in these rumors. These rumors claim to know what the pharisees had said to Pilate in private and a ton of other things. These supposed eyewitnesses would have had to be flies on the wall busily buzzing around back and forth witnesses every little thing that all these different people were doing, thinking, and plotting.

It's simply absurd Korah, there is no other way to put it.

I'll assume the latter, as my quotes in posts are densely packed and present a new thing, but that new thing is specifically that all seven were written down long before the 40 years you appeal to from Consensus.

Nothing you have proposed in this thread is new to me. I've heard arguments like the ones you are trying to make many times before. They simply don't hold any water.

Everybody knows that that is just a compromise teaching. It is so insecure that a fellow Liberal, Bishop John A. T. Robinson wrote two books showing that the whole New Testament was completed within 40 years. If the books were COMPLETED within 40 years (a position I don't even hold myself), then how much surer we are that the sources within the NT were written very early. Did you read far enough into any of my seven written eyewitness records to find that I argued that some were even written while Jesus was alive on earth?

I don't care if these rumors started while Jesus was alive. That doesn't give them any more credence at all. If that's the core of your argument then you have no argument.

I suggested that much from the fifth eyewitness, what the Apostle Matthew wrote in Q, came from notes written during Jesus's sermons. I showed that what Nicodemus wrote of Jesus's Discourses changed in attitude at least twice, showing evidence that these were thus left unaltered after being written during Jesus's preachings. My first eyewitness was John Mark writing down his Passion Diary probably describing his one week with Jesus.

But even if everything you say is true, that doesn't determine that what was actually written has any truth. It's possible that Jesus himself was mentally unstable. He might have started out preaching a higher morality and ended up being affected by rumors of a messiah himself. Jesus might have himself been mentally unstable and vulnerable to loan support to rumors that he was the promised messiah.

So I would say again, if you're not going to be writing anything relevant to the stated topic, it ought to relate to what others are nevertheless posting. You fail on both counts. Why don't you just post on threads where your opinions and personal history are relevant?

Just because you don't like my views doesn't mean that I need to do as you suggest.

Nothing that you have proposed can be determined to be true. Even if these rumors started with Jesus himself because he was going off the deep end wouldn't suggest that they are true.

So your argument that you believe you can place these rumors close to the potential source doesn't loan any credence to their truth at all.

And that's all I'm saying. And that is perfectly relevant to the topic of this thread.

In fact, I'm suggesting that alternative explanations (i.e. that Jesus may have been trying to preach the higher moral values of Buddhism) actually makes more sense.

[Korah]

.... Your main argument appears to be that you believe you can establish that the stories of Jesus began immediately and therefore this suggests that they must be true and cannot have been rumors because rumors take time to evolve.

But I don't buy in that as being a valid argument. As I have already pointed out, the rumor of the coming of a Messiah was already ripe for the plucking. So even if these stories had been written the day after Jesus supposedly rose from the dead it still wouldn't give them any credence.

So your argument that this is reason to believe their[sic] are true fails anyway.

You have finally understood my point (though still without any evidence that you have read my quotations), now that I have layed it out for you several times. But you argue that even if these are eyewitness reports right the day after, they are still false because messianic ideas were in the air. This is mere opinion from you, but this DC&R forum expects evidence or data. You provide none, so your only post ever on this thread should have been to say what I just summarized. You need to support your OPINION with facts, or refer us to where someone has refuted me.

Besides no one person could have been an eyewitness to everything claimed in these rumors. These rumors claim to know what the pharisees had said to Pilate in private and a ton of other things. These supposed eyewitnesses would have had to be flies on the wall busily buzzing around back and forth witnesses every little thing that all these different people were doing, thinking, and plotting.
It's simply absurd Korah, there is no other way to put it.

My claimed eyewitnesses include John Mark, who was the "disciple known to the high priest" (John18:15,16). He was then such a young man that his presence would have been invisible to such authorities as are quoted at John 11:45-53, 18:33-38, and elsewhere during the trial.

I'll assume the latter, as my quotes in posts are densely packed and present a new thing, but that new thing is specifically that all seven were written down long before the 40 years you appeal to from Consensus.

Nothing you have proposed in this thread is new to me. I've heard arguments like the ones you are trying to make many times before. They simply don't hold any water.

I challenge you to name where you have heard this before? Was it on Theology Web or on FreethoughtandRationalismDiscussionBoard where I go under the name "Adam"? I don't know anywhere else you would have heard what you're hearing from me. However, as it seems still doubtful whether you have read ANY of my seven quotations in full, maybe you just lump my seven-eyewitness-source claim in the same basket with the orthodox claim that Matthew and John were eyewitness gospels. Please tell me where you have heard the like to what I have been saying here! Better yet, since it's "old stuff", tell me where it's already been refuted!

Everybody knows that that is just a compromise teaching. It is so insecure that a fellow Liberal, Bishop John A. T. Robinson wrote two books showing that the whole New Testament was completed within 40 years. If the books were COMPLETED within 40 years (a position I don't even hold myself), then how much surer we are that the sources within the NT were written very early. Did you read far enough into any of my seven written eyewitness records to find that I argued that some were even written while Jesus was alive on earth?

I don't care if these rumors started while Jesus was alive. That doesn't give them any more credence at all. If that's the core of your argument then you have no argument.

That's a pretty universal statement of disbelief. It does not exactly contradict your earlier rejection of Philosophical Naturalism (a claim I now believe considering how much Mahayana (not Hinayana!) Buddhism you are injecting irrelevantly into this thread), but nevertheless does seem an extreme skepticism.

I suggested that much from the fifth eyewitness, what the Apostle Matthew wrote in Q, came from notes written during Jesus's sermons. I showed that what Nicodemus wrote of Jesus's Discourses changed in attitude at least twice, showing evidence that these were thus left unaltered after being written during Jesus's preachings. My first eyewitness was John Mark writing down his Passion Diary probably describing his one week with Jesus.

But even if everything you say is true, that doesn't determine that what was actually written has any truth. It's possible that Jesus himself was mentally unstable. He might have started out preaching a higher morality and ended up being affected by rumors of a messiah himself. Jesus might have himself been mentally unstable and vulnerable to loan support to rumors that he was the promised messiah.

So I would say again, if you're not going to be writing anything relevant to the stated topic, it ought to relate to what others are nevertheless posting. You fail on both counts. Why don't you just post on threads where your opinions and personal history are relevant?

Just because you don't like my views doesn't mean that I need to do as you suggest.
Nothing that you have proposed can be determined to be true. Even if these rumors started with Jesus himself because he was going off the deep end wouldn't suggest that they are true.

Here you have something new, which I guess does justify somewhat continuing on at such length with what otherwise is overdone. Yes, getting at quotations from Jesus won't prove that what He said was true, worthy, or even lucid. Indeed, I have myself included within my third eyewitness, Nicodemus (see Post #43) that he was specifically charged with obtaining evidence against Jesus, seemingly including distortions or exaggerations of what He said.

So your argument that you believe you can place these rumors close to the potential source doesn't loan [sic--s/b "lend"] any credence to their truth at all.

I find it really tiresome that you make such extreme universal statements of skepticism. It does of course matter if the sayings go back to Jesus and events are described by eyewitnesses. What could be more obvious? I agree that this still does not prove Jesus was God, that's not the issue. My case is that the writings are from early, good sources. Your opinion against this is just that unless you have evidence to support it. Any references that disprove me?

[Divine Insight]

You have finally understood my point (though still without any evidence that you have read my quotations), now that I have layed it out for you several times. But you argue that even if these are eyewitness reports right the day after, they are still false because messianic ideas were in the air. This is mere opinion from you, but this DC&R forum expects evidence or data. You provide none, so your only post ever on this thread should have been to say what I just summarized. You need to support your OPINION with facts, or refer us to where someone has refuted me.

I have been supporting my views with facts.

It's a fact that to believe that these stories are true requires extreme absurdities as well as contradictions concerning the overall biblical story itself. You now have a God who in the Old Testament hated the world so much that he drowned out sinful humans, but now in the New Testament he supposedly loves the world so much he's willing to sacrifice his only begotten son to save humans.

That is a FACT of contraction. It's not just my opinion, its a biblical fact.

In the meantime it's just your opinion that these stories might have actually started at the time of Jesus anyway. All your claims to that end are nothing more than speculation on your part. I merely point out that even if you could should those claims to be facts (which you haven't shown) that wouldn't show that these stories are true anyway.

So trying to pretend that you have some sort of "facts" whilst I merely have "opinions" is nonsense.

I challenge you to name where you have heard this before? Was it on Theology Web or on FreethoughtandRationalismDiscussionBoard where I go under the name "Adam"? I don't know anywhere else you would have heard what you're hearing from me. However, as it seems still doubtful whether you have read ANY of my seven quotations in full, maybe you just lump my seven-eyewitness-source claim in the same basket with the orthodox claim that Matthew and John were eyewitness gospels. Please tell me where you have heard the like to what I have been saying here! Better yet, since it's "old stuff", tell me where it's already been refuted!

I'm saying that I've heard arguments from people attempting to claim that there exists evidence that the rumors contained within the Gospels started before they were written. I've actually heard these arguments from quite a few different people on forums just like this one. I don't recall who those people were.

My point is that this is certainly nothing new. It's already known that the rumors must have existed before the Gospels were written. That's a given. It's not NEW at all.

Paul wouldn't have been fighting against Christianity and eventually converted to Christianity before the gospels were written if these rumors of Christianity hadn't already existed. So the fact that the rumors of Christianity existed prior to the actual writing of the Gospels is absolutely guaranteed. If you think you are proposing something "new" then you are the one who is sadly mistaken.

Besides, haven't you been quoting the words of other authors that have been suggesting the same sorts of things? How can you claim to have something "new" when you are citing the views of other people to support your conclusions?

And finally if you truly believe to some something "new" that's supposedly profound why are you wasting your time arguing about it here? Why don't you just write up your book and publish it so that the scholars can decide how much value it has?

~~~~~~

You keep suggesting to me that I'm posting in the "wrong thread". But I submit to you that you are the one who is posting in the wrong thread. Nothing you have offered has determined that anything claimed within the gospels is true.

At best you have an argument that you believe you can place the source of supposed eyewitness accounts close to the time they were actually supposed to have occurred. That doesn't do anything at all to establish the truth of those accounts.

And you seem to be missing that point entirely.

If you want to start a thread to debate when the rumors of Jesus' resurrection or divinity started, then this is what you should do. But even if you could establish precisely when the rumors started that still doesn't do anything toward establishing why anyone should believe that they are true.

So as far as I can see, you are the one who is posting in the wrong thread.

You are OFF TOPIC. You are arguing a case for when rumors might have been started. This thread is asking how we can determine if those rumors are true.

I have given ample reasons for how we can know they necessarily have to be false. And this is true no matter when they were made up.

[Zzyzx]

.

None of my seven written eyewitness records includes the writer's claim that he is an eyewitness.

Agreed. Bible writers (whose identity is unknown to Christian scholars and theologians) don't claim to be eyewitnesses (and also cannot be shown to have actually witnessed what they write about). Anyone is free to speculate about who saw what 2000 years ago, but supporting speculations is tenuous at best.

Thus, bible proponents believe and ask others to accept as truthful and accurate tales of "miracles" and thereby "divinity" of Jesus that were written by anonymous religion promoters decades or generations after the claimed events and conversations, from sources of information that are unknown.

Would you (generic term) consider that strong evidence upon which to make a sound, reasoned, intelligent decision on matters of importance?

Would you (generic term) accept that level of "evidence" offered in support of competing gods?

[Korah]

[Replying to post 119 by Zzyzx]
Well, Z,
If for you NOT being anonymous is a great help, I expect you would acknowledge greater truth value to Scripture from Paul, James, John, Jude and Peter than from mere anonymous gospels. Would you rate above the canonical gospels such pseudonymous works as the Gospel of Thomas (maybe you really would there), Judas, Peter, etc. (There's even a Gospel of Nicodemus, no connection whatever with my eyewitness proposal at Post #43.) Maybe you're one of those who touts Enoch?
Most scholars think highly of the Gospel of Mark even though it lacks a Prologue like Luke or the afterword of John 21:18-24 connected to 19:25-27.

I have worked a liketime to establish stronger footing for my Christianity than just fideism or sermon lessons. Already in 1964 I discovered Andrew's part in writing the (Signs Gospel portion of the) Gospel of John. By 1980 I saw Simon the son of Cleopas as the writer of most of Luke (or at least the Walk to Emmaus). I wrote up at that same time that Nicodemus wrote the Discourses in John, and that the Apostle John did contribute to John, but only as Editor. Only in 2012 did I discover that John Mark wrote the initial Passion Narrative that I had always attributed to Peter. My agreement that Peter and Matthew wrote sources is nothing new.

Why do you think all that research is worthless?