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]

[Replying to post 163 by JoeyKnothead]
You aren't interested in the mundane.
You aren't interested in the miraculous.
Does that leave anything you might be interested to discuss?
Yet you asked me to start a new OP just for you?

No reply, Joey?
Anyone else who might want to return to something not completely unrelated to the OP?
As I explained at my Post #155, I explain in various posts in this thread where in the four gsopels we can find what seems to be eyewitness testimony (or is the Synoptic Default position for lack of any refutation after over three years) that would command some relevance to whether for at least these portions of Scripture we might determine are true. Maybe that will end the derailing this thread has suffered for over a week.

[Zzyzx]

.

. . . . that would command some relevance to whether for at least these portions of Scripture we might determine are true.

As mentioned previously even IF eyewitness accounts actually existed, which has NOT been established beyond opinion and conjecture, that is NOT evidence that the scriptures are true -- UNLESS the (supposed) witness accounts could be verified as TRUTHFUL and ACCURATE.

Thus, the supposed eyewitness accounts cannot be used to determine what parts of scripture are true

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to post 163 by JoeyKnothead]
You aren't interested in the mundane.
You aren't interested in the miraculous.
Does that leave anything you might be interested to discuss?
Yet you asked me to start a new OP just for you?

No reply, Joey?
Anyone else who might want to return to something not completely unrelated to the OP?
As I explained at my Post #155, I explain in various posts in this thread where in the four gsopels we can find what seems to be eyewitness testimony (or is the Synoptic Default position for lack of any refutation after over three years) that would command some relevance to whether for at least these portions of Scripture we might determine are true. Maybe that will end the derailing this thread has suffered for over a week.

I originally posted this in another thread, but it seems relevant here as well,

With the understanding that often times people do have agenda's, many dozens or hundreds of consistent eyewitness testimonies to a claimed event which served to contradict all observation, experience, and the very laws of nature, would reasonably, at the very least, constitute a mystery. The first step in getting to the bottom of such a mystery would be to search for some hard, physical evidence to support the claim. The second step would be to interview and investigate the witnesses to ascertain if there were some unifying reason which would cause them to conspire and collude in the spreading of such an apparently preposterous story. If such a unifying reason COULD be discovered, in combination with a complete lack of sustaining physical evidence to the truth of the otherwise preposterous claim, then we would have every right to conclude that the story was a pure fabrication and a lie.

In the case of the story of the "risen" Jesus, we are confronted with a story of a corpse which comes back to life and then ultimately flies off up into the clouds. An utterly preposterous claim, on the face of it. Rather then many dozens or hundreds of consistent eyewitness testimonies to such an occurrence, we are provided with some few STORIES, written many years after the event was supposed to have taken place, which CLAIM that there were many dozens or hundreds of eyewitnesses to the otherwise preposterous claim. No actual accounts or references to to such an otherwise preposterous event exist which are derived from the time the event was supposed to have occurred. The supposed event provoked not the slightest ripple of historical notice or comment at the time it was supposed to have occurred. Acts of the Apostles, written decades after the fact by a clear non witness, indicates that approximately 120 loyal followers of Jesus congregated together some six weeks after his execution for the expressed purpose of spreading the story that Jesus had risen from the dead. The loyal followers of Jesus represented the the ONLY witnesses to the "risen" Jesus, an otherwise preposterous claim. The risen Jesus flew off, up into the clouds, a thoroughly preposterous claim, again "witnessed" only by the loyal followers of Jesus. And so from the very beginning, no physical evidence to the claim was provided. The story of the risen Jesus, a corpse which returns to life and then flies away, is thoroughly preposterous in that it clearly contradicts all observation, experience, and the very laws of nature, and it's origin and conception are completely consistent with a tall tale concocted and perpetuated by individuals with a clear and obvious personal agenda. There is no real reason to believe, and every real reason to doubt, such a story.

[64] Command therefore that the sepulchre be made sure until the third day, lest his disciples come by night, and steal him away, and say unto the people, He is risen from the dead: so the last error shall be worse than the first. (Matt. 27)

The entire explanation for the origins of the story of the risen Jesus can be resolved in this verse. The followers of Jesus, following their own agenda, spread a false story. Something which SHOULD be completely obvious to modern people.

So, "How can we determine which parts of Scripture are true?" By using the same standards of reason, logic and evidence that we would use on any other question. Those portions of the story which reasonably COULD be true, MIGHT

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to post 163 by JoeyKnothead]
You aren't interested in the mundane.
You aren't interested in the miraculous.
Does that leave anything you might be interested to discuss?
Yet you asked me to start a new OP just for you?

No reply, Joey?
Anyone else who might want to return to something not completely unrelated to the OP?
As I explained at my Post #155, I explain in various posts in this thread where in the four gsopels we can find what seems to be eyewitness testimony (or is the Synoptic Default position for lack of any refutation after over three years) that would command some relevance to whether for at least these portions of Scripture we might determine are true. Maybe that will end the derailing this thread has suffered for over a week.

I originally posted this in another thread, but it seems relevant here as well,

With the understanding that often times people do have agenda's, many dozens or hundreds of consistent eyewitness testimonies to a claimed event which served to contradict all observation, experience, and the very laws of nature, would reasonably, at the very least, constitute a mystery. The first step in getting to the bottom of such a mystery would be to search for some hard, physical evidence to support the claim. The second step would be to interview and investigate the witnesses to ascertain if there were some unifying reason which would cause them to conspire and collude in the spreading of such an apparently preposterous story. If such a unifying reason COULD be discovered, in combination with a complete lack of sustaining physical evidence to the truth of the otherwise preposterous claim, then we would have every right to conclude that the story was a pure fabrication and a lie.

In the case of the story of the "risen" Jesus, we are confronted with a story of a corpse which comes back to life and then ultimately flies off up into the clouds. An utterly preposterous claim, on the face of it. Rather then many dozens or hundreds of consistent eyewitness testimonies to such an occurrence, we are provided with some few STORIES, written many years after the event was supposed to have taken place, which CLAIM that there were many dozens or hundreds of eyewitnesses to the otherwise preposterous claim. No actual accounts or references to to such an otherwise preposterous event exist which are derived from the time the event was supposed to have occurred. The supposed event provoked not the slightest ripple of historical notice or comment at the time it was supposed to have occurred. Acts of the Apostles, written decades after the fact by a clear non witness, indicates that approximately 120 loyal followers of Jesus congregated together some six weeks after his execution for the expressed purpose of spreading the story that Jesus had risen from the dead. The loyal followers of Jesus represented the the ONLY witnesses to the "risen" Jesus, an otherwise preposterous claim. The risen Jesus flew off, up into the clouds, a thoroughly preposterous claim, again "witnessed" only by the loyal followers of Jesus. And so from the very beginning, no physical evidence to the claim was provided. The story of the risen Jesus, a corpse which returns to life and then flies away, is thoroughly preposterous in that it clearly contradicts all observation, experience, and the very laws of nature, and it's origin and conception are completely consistent with a tall tale concocted and perpetuated by individuals with a clear and obvious personal agenda. There is no real reason to believe, and every real reason to doubt, such a story.

[64] Command therefore that the sepulchre be made sure until the third day, lest his disciples come by night, and steal him away, and say unto the people, He is risen from the dead: so the last error shall be worse than the first. (Matt. 27)

The entire explanation for the origins of the story of the risen Jesus can be resolved in this verse. The followers of Jesus, following their own agenda, spread a false story. Something which SHOULD be completely obvious to a modern audience.

So, "How can we determine which parts of Scripture are true?" By using the same standards of reason, logic and evidence that we would use on any other question. Those portions of the story which reasonably COULD be true, MIGHT have some resemblance to the actual historical events. And those portions which violate all known laws of nature, reason and logic we have every right to dismiss as tall tales and fabrications. The story of the flying reanimated corpse of Jesus certainly qualifies in this respect. Even based on the story at hand it is clear that the followers of Jesus are the obvious culprits in manufacturing and spreading the false rumor of the risen Christ. They easily had the means, motive and opportunity to have pulled this hoax off. Balanced against this obvious conclusion is the story of a corpse that came back to life and flew away, which is of course the LEAST OBVIOUS CONCLUSION. If it were not for the emotional investment of those who prefer to believe the risen Jesus story, this would really be an open and shut case.

[valiya]

[Replying to post 2 by Divine Insight]

Hi... can you give me the objective reasons for why you came to the conclusion that the bible is not the word of god?

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to valiya]

Hi... can you give me the objective reasons for why you came to the conclusion that the bible is not the word of god?

Hi valiya, and welcome to the forum. Can you give any objective reason why you might conclude that the Qu'ran is not the Word of God? It is after all held in the highest esteem by billions of devout Muslims. Could so many people simply be wrong, do you suppose? What of The Bhagavad Gita, one of the revered sacred texts of the Hindu's and held in the utmost devotion by billions of Hindu's over the centuries. Hinduism is five thousand years old. Do you really suppose that all of those people could simply have been completely wrong all this time? And if THEY are potentially just completely misled in their most devout beliefs without realizing it, what does that say for your own beliefs and assumptions?

Here are three excellent objective reasons to conclude that the Bible contains more than a fair share of utter nonsense and does not, therefore represent an inerrant work derived from a Supreme Being.

1. "The Day the Earth Stood Still" story in which the Bible claims that the sun and the moon stood still in the sky for about a 24 hour period (Josh.10:12-13).

2. "The Night of the Living Dead" story, in which hordes of the dead came up out of their graves and wandered the streets of Jerusalem (Matt.27:52-53).

3. And last but certainly not least, the story in which the corpse of Jesus returns to life and ultimately flies away.

These are stories that rank right up there with the most fantastic of ancient myths and make believe.

The Bible represents the unique perspective of a particular group of ancient people, and provides details on how their particular perspective on the world changed and evolved over time. Ancient peoples were steeped in superstition. The Bible is an excellent study in cultural anthropology. But it's clearly a book written by men, and not not derived from any Supreme Being.

[Korah]

.

. . . . that would command some relevance to whether for at least these portions of Scripture we might determine are true.

As mentioned previously even IF eyewitness accounts actually existed, which has NOT been established beyond opinion and conjecture, that is NOT evidence that the scriptures are true -- UNLESS the (supposed) witness accounts could be verified as TRUTHFUL and ACCURATE.
Thus, the supposed eyewitness accounts cannot be used to determine what parts of scripture are true

Once again, you have failed to address ANY of the seven posts I listed at my Post #155. Nor has anyone else seriously attempted to refute my Thesis over these three years. Thus I'm now calling it the Synoptic Default hypothesis, that there are seven written eyewitness accounts as sources underlying the four gospels.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

.

. . . . that would command some relevance to whether for at least these portions of Scripture we might determine are true.

As mentioned previously even IF eyewitness accounts actually existed, which has NOT been established beyond opinion and conjecture, that is NOT evidence that the scriptures are true -- UNLESS the (supposed) witness accounts could be verified as TRUTHFUL and ACCURATE.
Thus, the supposed eyewitness accounts cannot be used to determine what parts of scripture are true

Once again, you have failed to address ANY of the seven posts I listed at my Post #155. Nor has anyone else seriously attempted to refute my Thesis over these three years. Thus I'm now calling it the Synoptic Default hypothesis, that there are seven written eyewitness accounts as sources underlying the four gospels.

Korah wrote:
[My Post #1 OP should be amended to include in the shared source (from John Mark) also verses preceding the Passion Narrative in John 11:54, 12:2-8, 12-14a, 13:18 or 21, and 13:38. These provide additional evidence that the person providing this "earliest gospel" was indeed John Mark, as most of these additional verses apparently took place in his house when he was a teenager.]

John 18:1b, 1d,ii. 3,vi. 10b,v. 12,iv. 13b,i. 15-19,xiii. 22,ii 25b,ii. 27-31,vii. 33-35,vii. (36-40);x. 19:1-19,xl. 21-23,viii. 28-30,vii. 38b,iii. 40-42;vi. 20:1,iv. 3-5,viii. 8,ii. 11b-14a,iv. 19b,ii. 22-23,v. 26-27,viii. 30,ii. John Mark gives the story of this one week in his life, best called the Passion Diary.
*****

These are not eyewitness accounts. Actual eyewitness accounts could be examined for consistency and general believably. What you are referring to are STORIES of eyewitness accounts provided later. Stories of accounts are known as HEARSAY! We can see from the account at the beginning of Acts that the followers of Jesus were claiming to be eyewitnesses to his resurrection within a few weeks of his execution. None of them left any accounts at the time for us to examine however, and neither did anyone else. The identities of the authors of the later stories are themselves very much open to doubt.

No where does scripture identify the John Mark mentioned in Acts as the Mark who authored the Gospel According to Mark, by the way. This is simply, like so much of Christian mythology and lore, an assumption made by Christians out of convenience. Both the names Mark and John were in common usage then, as they are today. Papias, writing in the second century, indicated the the author of Gospel Mark was a disciple of and interpreter for Peter, and wrote down those things that Peter told him. But Papias specifically indicated that Mark did not know Jesus himself. This is pretty much all we know about the author of Gospel Mark.

[Korah]

[Replying to post 207 by Tired of the Nonsense]
I commend you, TOTN,
For actually going back to my recommended posts where I present the seven eyewitnesses. The quote therein from my Post #59 you seem to take out of the context in which I attribute only the Passion Diary in the Gospel of John (not Mark) to John Mark, and I next list the verses in John that can be identified as from the source that Howard M. Teeple extracted. This source-analysis was not Christian apologetics (Teeple was a Humanist). You need to deal with that, not whether John Mark was an eyewitness to the whole life of Jesus in the gospel attributed to him.

As for the Gospel of Mark, conservative scholars continue to accept tradition that John Mark wrote down what Peter told him. My own source-analysis (see the 4th and 5th of my posts listed in my #155) accepts that much of it came from Peter, but that tradition is also correct that Matthew wrote a gospel in Aramaic that shows up in the looser parallels between the gospels of Mark and Matthew (more technically, Q1 and the Twelve-Source). As previously stated, John Mark was an eyewitness to the Passion. so Mark 14 to 16:8 includes his personal witness in addition to Peter's and Matthew'

I don't derive the gospel authors from "Christian mythology" nor even the external testimony of Papias, but from internal criticism of the gospels. Matthew (or "Levi") identifies himself at Mk. 2:14-15 and Mt. 9:9 and Peter at various places such as Lk 12:41 (indicating we can attribute Q2 to him, in addition to half of Mark).

Atheists often brag that we have no eyewitnesses to Jesus. Are we supposed to deny the existence of anyone who died before 1920? Some even claim that no one who knew Jesus wrote about him. I have refuted this by showing we can identify seven written sources by eyewitnesses. They have been transmitted to us by others, so this makes them hearsay? Then all that we know of anything before 1920 is hearsay?

[Zzyzx]

.

I don't derive the gospel authors from "Christian mythology" nor even the external testimony of Papias, but from internal criticism of the gospels.

Using a source to prove itself true is questionable at best. Even if a writer claims to have been a witness there is no assurance that the claim is true. That applies particularly when the writer cannot be identified and cannot be shown to have witnessed the events (or even to have lived when and where they occurred).

Atheists often brag that we have no eyewitnesses to Jesus.

Correction: Many Christian scholars and theologians acknowledge the absence of eyewitness ACCOUNTS regarding Jesus. You have attempted to dispute them but your attempt has failed. It has NOT been accepted by scholars, scholarly publications, or even website debaters who are Christian.

Continuing to present a failed attempt to "prove eyewitness accounts" and continually referring to your own writings (unverified, rejected opinions) does not constitute debate.

Are we supposed to deny the existence of anyone who died before 1920?

Is that intended as a serious questiont?

It is rational to doubt the existence or actions of a proposed person whose existence is claimed by only a select group that has apparent vested interest in claiming knowledge of the subject and whose veracity cannot be determined.

Assuming that bible writers were truthful and accurate may be common in church or in Christendom; however, it is not acceptable in debate (or in scholarly work).

Some even claim that no one who knew Jesus wrote about him.

That "some" includes many recognized and respected Christian scholars and theologians (as you are well aware).

I have refuted this by showing we can identify seven written sources by eyewitnesses.

Correction: You have ATTEMPTED to refute those scholars – unsuccessfully. It is telling that there seems to be no support for your claims even among members here (refer to the recent poll)

They have been transmitted to us by others, so this makes them hearsay? Then all that we know of anything before 1920 is hearsay?

Legitimate historians / scholars consult multiple sources of information to confirm the existence and the actions of historical characters and their actions. They do not rely on hearsay tales that cannot be verified.

Gospels do NOT constitute "multiple verifiable sources" because they were written by people who cannot be identified, who had a commonality of promoting a specific religion, who wrote long after the supposed events and conversations they describe, who CANNOT and have not been shown to have direct personal knowledge of their subjects, whose writings do not exist in original form but are copies of copies of copies that cannot be assumed to have remained unchanged in transcription, translation, editing, revising (or even pious fraud).

There is NO support for bible tales about Jesus from sources OTHER than the bible. No contemporary writer or historian mentions the "miracles" or even the character Jesus.

By comparison, there is considerable supporting evidence for other historical characters (such as various emperors and kings for example) in multiple reference by disconnected sources and physical evidence (actual tombs, artifacts, coins, statues, etc).

There are NO disconnected references to Jesus or his works, no physical evidence, no tomb, no artifacts, no statues (from the era).