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 Korah]

Korah, in a previous post you graciously acknowledged that I had read all of the posts that constitute your proposition. However, less charitably, you falsely attributed my rejection of your claims to my adherence to academic consensus. This is entirely untrue.

Best as I can remember I attributed your rejection to a firm anti-supernaturalist bias, whether I said so or not.

I rejected your proposition simply because your posts, although numerous and lengthy, perhaps excessively so, fail to include any evidence in support of your claims. All I discovered was argument by assertion.

To demonstrate my point, let’s dissect part of the post in which you reveal your first "eye-witness�, John-Mark: http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 419#669419

Tracing sources of the gospels would seem to start with the earliest written documents, but the logic starts better with the foundation upon which the other sources and additions were built. This source is the Passion Narrative, the largest part of the material common to both John and the Synoptics.

Assertion 1: “the logic starts better with …… the Passion Narrative�.

In the absence of any evidence to support this claim it stands as no more than an expression of your opinion. It may suit your chosen hypothesis but it is not a proven statement of fact, and to suggest that it is, is pure arrogance.
The hypothesis of a Passion Narrative pre-dating the gospels is simply conjecture. It may be learned conjecture but in the final analysis that is all that it is, conjecture, not a proven fact.

If the existence of a Passion Narrative is unproven, then a logic predicated upon the premise of the certainty of its pre-existence is conjecture underpinned by speculation i.e. wishful thinking.

That the Passion Narrative was the foundation stone is commonly held. Peter Kirby is not a Christian, but at his EarlyChristianWritings.com website he dates it to 30 to 60 AD. Ever so many scholars have presented their analysis of the verses contained in it. Speculation, sure, but excellent scholarship. Where I diverge is accepting the Source within Teeple's source-analysis as the starting point. It's a simple tale, devoid of the supernatural. I base my views on solid scholarship.

The source for the information in it is most likely John Mark, who was the most likely “disciple known to the high priest�. (See John 18:15-16, 20:2-9, in which in John 20:2 the English word “love� is phileo in the Greek, not “agape� as in John 13. In John 18-19 we get events and direct quotes that Peter would not have witnessed.)

Assertion 2: “The source for the information in it is most likely John Mark�

Why is it most likely John Mark? You present no evidence that even hints that John Mark might be anything more than a literary invention let alone a source for an eye-witness account. It is simply a guess, a wild shot in the dark.

John Mark is mentioned several times in Acts of the Apostles and a "Mark" is mentioned among the epistles. He is portrayed as young, so would have been at about the right age when the Last Supper was held at his mother Mary's house (as seems likely).

Assertion 3: “[John Mark] was most likely the disciple know to the high priest�
Again, not the slightest attempt to provide evidence supporting this claim. (As for what the verb φιλέω [phile� ~ have affection for, like, consider someone a friend] rather than the noun ἀγάπη [agapē ~ esteem, affection, regard, love], has to do with establishing the identity of a supposed eyewitness, you fail to explain)

Sorry, my implication was that John 20:2 related to a different "beloved disciple" than the one in John 13 and 19:26. I acknowledge that this was a different person, probably a later editor of John making these inserts. (Yes, I do think that this was John the Apostle, but that's not critical to whether he was an eyewitness. It is critical to dismissing the main argument against John as author, that a Galilean fisherman would not been the one to write the Johannine theology.) That person in John 20:2-10 was faster than Peter, best fitting a younger man, John Mark. Early Church tradition portrays John Mark as from a priestly family who cut off a finger to make himself ineligible for the priesthood.

This is no more than unsubstantiated speculation, which, without further elaboration you subsequently treat as established fact underpinning ever more outlandish claims e.g.:

This foundation source from John Mark is the following ………………
…………………………………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.

I had earlier attributed the eyewitness nature of the Passion Narrative to Peter's story, so it's only a further refinement that three years ago I realized that the best candidate for a Passion Diary was John Mark. Better seven eyewitnesses than six, but take your pick for which of the seven you can believe.

I could go on, but that would be to labour the point, namely, you consistently and systematically fail to provide any evidence supporting speculation which you subsequently assert to be fact.

I do not wish to be unkind, but your output lacks the necessary structure or clarity to qualify as a “thesis�. You fail to set out a methodology by which you test your proposition, but rather you meander between presupposition and conclusion with no intervening analysis or discussion of your supposed findings.

When challenged you simply ignore the demand for evidence whilst regurgitating the same incoherent and largely incomprehensible material over and over again, i.e. argumentum ad nauseam, the classic stratagem of filibuster.

In short, you fail to provide any evidence what-so-ever. Consequently your outpourings, both here and elsewhere are either ignored, or treated less charitably.

When people say something like "fail to provide any evidence what-so-ever", I realize that we are talking about contrasting views of the definition for "evidence",and I come to suspect that no amount of "evidence" would convince that person. Strange how you could complain both that my posts were too lengthy and too short on "evidence". We have an epistemological problem.
However I do thank you for finally dealing with the "evidence" or whatever you call it. Here (and elsewhere) people are willing to talk about it if they don't have to get into the "evidence".

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to post 219 by Korah]

Some of your positions are so extreme that I don't know quite how to respond to them.

A position of unbelief is by definition extreme to a committed believer.

At other points you say things I'm not sure I understand. You seem to be saying that(as) anything written in the third person cannot be eyewitness testimony and (b0 anything written by the early Christians necessarily has to be false (false testimony even though by an eyewitness).

Both Gospels Matthew and John contain instances in which the author of the gospel refers in the third person to the very individuals to whom Christian tradition has assigned authorship of that gospel. This is hardly evidence of the truth of Christian tradition. In fact it lends credibility to the opposite view.

You seem to be saying that(as) anything written in the third person cannot be eyewitness testimony and (b0 anything written by the early Christians necessarily has to be false (false testimony even though by an eyewitness). Any eyewitnesses of Jesus would not count as eyewitnesses. Looks like you're the one waving things away and just making assertions. And as the writer of the Signs Source (Andrew in my opinion) is not the final author of John, the final version would have to be in the third person.

Those portions of the Gospels which do not violate all reason, logic and the observable laws of nature, MAY have some possible relationship to actual historical events. It's those portions of the Gospels which DO violate all reason, logic and the observable laws of nature that we have every valid reason to question and reject with cause. The final portion of the story of Jesus, which ends with his corpse coming back to life and flying away, is unbelievable in the extreme. Realistically, an empty grave and a missing corpse are OVERWHELMINGLY more likely to be the result of actions taken by living agents, rather than the results of actions taken by the corpse. The details of the story at hand tell us very clearly that the disciples of Jesus had the means, motive and opportunity to have moved the body of Jesus to another location, and to then spread the false rumor that he had risen from the dead, and then subsequently fly away. And this rumor spread by the early disciples of Jesus IS the source of what you are calling "eyewitness touches." The story contains all of the aspects of a fictional fabrication, within, perhaps, a foundation of actual events that serve to make the story appear more believable. It contains the obvious suspects who represent the source of the fabrications. Unless you can clearly show that the obvious solution for the origin of the story, the living agents represented by the disciples, could NOT POSSIBLY have been responsible, the THE VERY LEAST OBVIOUS SOLUTION, the claim that the corpse came back to life and subsequently flew away, can not began to take on any obvious standing at all.

[Korah]

[Replying to post 219 by Korah]

Some of your positions are so extreme that I don't know quite how to respond to them.

A position of unbelief is by definition extreme to a committed believer.

I was referring to your first two flippant replies in your Post #218. Do you totally reject rational talk about scholarship?

At other points you say things I'm not sure I understand. You seem to be saying that(a) anything written in the third person cannot be eyewitness testimony and (b) anything written by the early Christians necessarily has to be false (false testimony even though by an eyewitness).

Both Gospels Matthew and John contain instances in which the author of the gospel refers in the third person to the very individuals to whom Christian tradition has assigned authorship of that gospel. This is hardly evidence of the truth of Christian tradition. In fact it lends credibility to the opposite view.

My Thesis is that the sources underlying the gospels were written by eyewitnesses, which would be changed to third person by subsequent writers.

You seem to be saying that(as) anything written in the third person cannot be eyewitness testimony and (b0 anything written by the early Christians necessarily has to be false (false testimony even though by an eyewitness). Any eyewitnesses of Jesus would not count as eyewitnesses. Looks like you're the one waving things away and just making assertions. And as the writer of the Signs Source (Andrew in my opinion) is not the final author of John, the final version would have to be in the third person.

Those portions of the Gospels which do not violate all reason, logic and the observable laws of nature, MAY have some possible relationship to actual historical events. It's those portions of the Gospels which DO violate all reason, logic and the observable laws of nature that we have every valid reason to question and reject with cause. The final portion of the story of Jesus, which ends with his corpse coming back to life and flying away, is unbelievable in the extreme. Realistically, an empty grave and a missing corpse are OVERWHELMINGLY more likely to be the result of actions taken by living agents, rather than the results of actions taken by the corpse. The details of the story at hand tell us very clearly that the disciples of Jesus had the means, motive and opportunity to have moved the body of Jesus to another location, and to then spread the false rumor that he had risen from the dead, and then subsequently fly away. And this rumor spread by the early disciples of Jesus IS the source of what you are calling "eyewitness touches." The story contains all of the aspects of a fictional fabrication, within, perhaps, a foundation of actual events that serve to make the story appear more believable. It contains the obvious suspects who represent the source of the fabrications. Unless you can clearly show that the obvious solution for the origin of the story, the living agents represented by the disciples, could NOT POSSIBLY have been responsible, the THE VERY LEAST OBVIOUS SOLUTION, the claim that the corpse came back to life and subsequently flew away, can not began to take on any obvious standing at all.

Presupposing that there is no God, no power greater than humankind, perhaps so. As it happens, only two of my seven eyewitness sources necessarily extend into the Resurrection. My analysis shows two others as well, but I have to go a bit beyond the scholarly base laid for me by Howard M. Teeple. For your purposes you can pick and choose what you want to believe. That's what people do.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to Korah]

Presupposing that there is no God, no power greater than humankind, perhaps so. As it happens, only two of my seven eyewitness sources necessarily extend into the Resurrection. My analysis shows two others as well, but I have to go a bit beyond the scholarly base laid for me by Howard M. Teeple. For your purposes you can pick and choose what you want to believe. That's what people do.

The possibility that Jesus was not resurrected from the dead does not, in and of itself, negate the possibility of God. I have other arguments for that. Everyone has the inalienable right to pick and choose to believe whatever they wish. I tend to prioritize my belief system based on most plausible to least plausible, according to observable fact, reason and common sense. Some people tend to base their beliefs on what satisfies them emotionally, and on their early childhood programming.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 222:

...
For your purposes you can pick and choose what you want to believe. That's what people do.

I can no more choose to believe in tales that assault my senses than I can pass up the bass pro shop down there in outlanta. All y'all that've seen a dead dude stroll through town, speak now, or let it be known, there are no eyewitnesses for us to ask about what they saw. No direct challenge to their credibility, locations, and such as might be needed, if we set out to do us some concluding.

We're asked to believe translations of tales, and how that we, little ol' we, we'll don't it beat all, here's what it is and now y'all gotta do it. Well on that'n it may be it's you gotta don't. We got alot of those, and recommend y'all study op on 'em. But don't Do it.

Ancients. They got us beat on like stones and carts, but if you asked the first one of 'em about science, there it'll be, you're the next Jesus. Or Paul Bunyon.


Addendum:
The referenced statement strikes me, in my isolated incidence, that it is possible one would seek to imply another ain't done 'em enough thinking. Only a man who's finished all his thinking could ever think another man ain't done all his.


About addendum. There it is, "I wrote it all out, but I'm dum and forgot this part".

To which, another addendum is added:

I spelt dum wrong lol. C'mon, who missed it

[OnceConvinced]

From Post 222:

...
For your purposes you can pick and choose what you want to believe. That's what people do.

I can no more choose to believe in tales that assault my senses than I can pass up the bass pro shop down there in outlanta.

Neither can I. For me to believe something I have to be convinced of it somehow. It may be that if I argue with myself long enough I might be able to convince my self to believe something, but that's unlikely because reality will always trump fantasies every time, at least for me. I would have to have very good reason to try to twist my own arm behind my back to try to believe something though. Threats of Hell won't do it because I don't believe in Hell and no amount of trying to convince myself it's real will do any good.

I actually did try to twist my own arm behind my back several years ago when I started to lose my Christian faith. I tried to convince myself it was real and that I was just having a crisis of faith. Didn't work. Reality won through in the end. It wasn't a matter of choice.

[Zzyzx]

.

Neither can I. For me to believe something I have to be convinced of it somehow. It may be that if I argue with myself long enough I might be able to convince my self to believe something, but that's unlikely because reality will always trump fantasies every time, at least for me. I would have to have very good reason to try to twist my own arm behind my back to try to believe something though. Threats of Hell won't do it because I don't believe in Hell and no amount of trying to convince myself it's real will do any good.

I actually did try to twist my own arm behind my back several years ago when I started to lose my Christian faith. I tried to convince myself it was real and that I was just having a crisis of faith. Didn't work. Reality won through in the end. It wasn't a matter of choice.

I have often asked "How do I start believing something that I do not believe?" Religionists have not provided a rational answer.

If I encounter compelling evidence that something is true, that may be convincing, but religion has no compelling evidence -- only emotion.

[Korah]

[Replying to post 226 by Zzyzx]
My apologies for adding one irrelevant line that has generated (so far) four off-topic responses avoiding dealing with the evidence. My thanks to TOTN and Student for at least some attempt to come to terms with what I wrote.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to post 226 by Zzyzx]
My apologies for adding one irrelevant line that has generated (so far) four off-topic responses avoiding dealing with the evidence. My thanks to TOTN and Student for at least some attempt to come to terms with what I wrote.

Many devoted Christians, especially those who have never actually had an opportunity to interact with actual atheists, assume that atheists are bitter individuals who hold a grudge against God for some reason. You have had plenty of opportunity to interact with atheists during your time on the forum. I hope at the very least you have begun to understand that atheists reject Christian claims for CAUSE, intellectually rather then emotionally, and that the case we make against the reasonableness of Christian beliefs is actually surprisingly strong. I do not expect you to overturn your lifetime of Christian programming lightly. But I would like to know, if you can find it in you to answer the question truthfully, whether you would personally like to know what is true, WHATEVER that may be, for truth's sake alone? Or would it be valid to say that you would prefer to be cocooned in a comforting fairy tale EVEN if that fairy tale should be utterly false?

[Student]

Korah, in a previous post you graciously acknowledged that I had read all of the posts that constitute your proposition. However, less charitably, you falsely attributed my rejection of your claims to my adherence to academic consensus. This is entirely untrue.

Best as I can remember I attributed your rejection to a firm anti-supernaturalist bias, whether I said so or not.

Evidently selective memory loss. You may have thought it, but you said no such thing. Let me to refresh your memory regarding what you actually posted. From your post #145 http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 347#673347

Student was willing to accept Consensus in refutation of me,

Academic consensus and anti-supernaturalist bias had nothing to do with my rejection of your proposition. It was the lack of grist for the mill, i.e. a lack of evidence.

I rejected your proposition simply because your posts, although numerous and lengthy, perhaps excessively so, fail to include any evidence in support of your claims. All I discovered was argument by assertion.

To demonstrate my point, let’s dissect part of the post in which you reveal your first "eye-witness�, John-Mark: http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 419#669419

Tracing sources of the gospels would seem to start with the earliest written documents, but the logic starts better with the foundation upon which the other sources and additions were built. This source is the Passion Narrative, the largest part of the material common to both John and the Synoptics.

Assertion 1: “the logic starts better with …… the Passion Narrative�.

In the absence of any evidence to support this claim it stands as no more than an expression of your opinion. It may suit your chosen hypothesis but it is not a proven statement of fact, and to suggest that it is, is pure arrogance.
The hypothesis of a Passion Narrative pre-dating the gospels is simply conjecture. It may be learned conjecture but in the final analysis that is all that it is, conjecture, not a proven fact.

If the existence of a Passion Narrative is unproven, then a logic predicated upon the premise of the certainty of its pre-existence is conjecture underpinned by speculation i.e. wishful thinking.

That the Passion Narrative was the foundation stone is commonly held.

So what. This is simply an example of the logical fallacy of an appeal to the majority. Just because something is “commonly held� does not make it fact. At one time it was “commonly held� that the world was flat, something that can now be demonstrated to be factually inaccurate.

Peter Kirby is not a Christian, but at his EarlyChristianWritings.com website he dates it to 30 to 60 AD.

To cite Kirby’s website in such a manner, implying that the entry somehow endorses the hypothesis, is disingenuous to say the least. Kirby attempts an even handed approach and includes comments both for and against the hypothesis. For example, the opening lines from the article:

The existence of a pre-Markan passion narrative has been challenged. The assumption of a pre-Markan passion narrative has been undermined by studies that aim to show that the final three chapters of Mark contain themes developed throughout the Gospel.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/passion.html
Evidently the existence of the Passion Narrative is not an established fact. It is conjecture, a matter of opinion, but not established fact. I wonder how Peter Kirby might react to discover his material is being abused by you in such a manner.

Ever so many scholars have presented their analysis of the verses contained in it. Speculation, sure, but excellent scholarship.

Another appeal to the majority. Unsurprisingly we are expected to accept your assessment that scholarship that supports your position as “excellent�. Another assertion expressed as fact.

Where I diverge is accepting the Source within Teeple's source-analysis as the starting point. It's a simple tale, devoid of the supernatural. I base my views on solid scholarship.

Whether or not your views are based upon "solid" scholarship, it might be prudent to let others judge, rather than to blow your own trumpet. For my part I consider that you abuse Teeple’s work, “The Literary Origin of the Gospel of John�. Recently, Sheffield University kindly lent me its copy of Teeple’s book. Having read it I can categorically state that Teeple does not advance the opinion that any of the four major literary strands he identifies within the gospel of John, are derived from “eye-witnesses�. Teeple identifies strand “S� [or Source] as the work of a Hellenistic Christian influenced by the Gospel of Mark and familiar with Jewish Christianity. According to Teeple “S� has a strong interest in the miracle stories and also includes passion materials. Therefore, applying Teeple’s analysis to your proposition, namely that John-Mark was responsible for the Passion material, we must conclude that John-Mark would also be responsible for the miracle stories within John, and was influenced by the gospel of Mark. Why would an eye-witness be influenced by the gospel of Mark when they had allegedly witnessed the events first hand?

Consequently, based upon Teeple, the person responsible for the Passion material in John was not an eye-witness.

The source for the information in it is most likely John Mark, who was the most likely “disciple known to the high priest�. (See John 18:15-16, 20:2-9, in which in John 20:2 the English word “love� is phileo in the Greek, not “agape� as in John 13. In John 18-19 we get events and direct quotes that Peter would not have witnessed.)

Assertion 2: “The source for the information in it is most likely John Mark�

Why is it most likely John Mark? You present no evidence that even hints that John Mark might be anything more than a literary invention let alone a source for an eye-witness account. It is simply a guess, a wild shot in the dark.

John Mark is mentioned several times in Acts of the Apostles and a "Mark" is mentioned among the epistles. He is portrayed as young, so would have been at about the right age when the Last Supper was held at his mother Mary's house (as seems likely).

Mark was the most common name in the Roman Empire. Are you suggesting that every time a “Mark� is mentioned it is the same person? There is no evidence that the last supper [if it actually occurred] was held at Johh-Mark’s [if he existed] mother [if she existed] mary’s [if that was her name] house. It’s all speculation based upon second century Christian folk tales.

Assertion 3: “[John Mark] was most likely the disciple know to the high priest�
Again, not the slightest attempt to provide evidence supporting this claim. (As for what the verb φιλέω [phile� ~ have affection for, like, consider someone a friend] rather than the noun ἀγάπη [agapē ~ esteem, affection, regard, love], has to do with establishing the identity of a supposed eyewitness, you fail to explain)

Sorry, my implication was that John 20:2 related to a different "beloved disciple" than the one in John 13 and 19:26. I acknowledge that this was a different person, probably a later editor of John making these inserts. (Yes, I do think that this was John the Apostle, but that's not critical to whether he was an eyewitness. It is critical to dismissing the main argument against John as author, that a Galilean fisherman would not been the one to write the Johannine theology.) That person in John 20:2-10 was faster than Peter, best fitting a younger man, John Mark. Early Church tradition portrays John Mark as from a priestly family who cut off a finger to make himself ineligible for the priesthood.

Rubbish. Why, everyone knows that John-Mark was cross eyed and had a speech impediment thereby rendering self mutilation an un-necessary measure for automatic disqualification from the priesthood!

This is no more than unsubstantiated speculation, which, without further elaboration you subsequently treat as established fact underpinning ever more outlandish claims e.g.:

This foundation source from John Mark is the following ………………
…………………………………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.

I had earlier attributed the eyewitness nature of the Passion Narrative to Peter's story, so it's only a further refinement that three years ago I realized that the best candidate for a Passion Diary was John Mark. Better seven eyewitnesses than six, but take your pick for which of the seven you can believe.

Why is seven better than six? Are you appealing to numerology? And why is John-Mark the “best candidate�? Simply because you think so does not cut it.

I could go on, but that would be to labour the point, namely, you consistently and systematically fail to provide any evidence supporting speculation which you subsequently assert to be fact.

I do not wish to be unkind, but your output lacks the necessary structure or clarity to qualify as a “thesis�. You fail to set out a methodology by which you test your proposition, but rather you meander between presupposition and conclusion with no intervening analysis or discussion of your supposed findings.

When challenged you simply ignore the demand for evidence whilst regurgitating the same incoherent and largely incomprehensible material over and over again, i.e. argumentum ad nauseam, the classic stratagem of filibuster.

In short, you fail to provide any evidence what-so-ever. Consequently your outpourings, both here and elsewhere are either ignored, or treated less charitably.

When people say something like "fail to provide any evidence what-so-ever", I realize that we are talking about contrasting views of the definition for "evidence",and I come to suspect that no amount of "evidence" would convince that person. Strange how you could complain both that my posts were too lengthy and too short on "evidence".

Quantity does not equate to quality; your posts are long on rhetoric, short on substance.

We have an epistemological problem.
However I do thank you for finally dealing with the "evidence" or whatever you call it. Here (and elsewhere) people are willing to talk about it if they don't have to get into the "evidence".

Korah, I can assure you that we do not have an epistemological problem. We have a problem with your comprehension [lack of] of the meaning of the word “evidence�. Just so as we are clear, when I use the term “evidence� I use the term as defined in the OED:

Evidence:
The available facts, circumstances, etc. supporting or otherwise a belief, proposition etc., or indicating whether or not a thing is true or valid.

How do you define, and use the expression is for anyone to guess. All that I can surmise is that it appears that you cannot grasp the difference between opinion and fact, and fact from fiction.