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 239 by Tired of the Nonsense]
This is by far your best reply, TOTN.
You engage with my Thesis that written eyewitness accounts about Jesus may be very early. You just deny that they are truthful. Would you admit that the three that violate laws of science might be true, however?

The Eyewitness Default still holds, as you haven't dealt even yet with any of them specifically. Only one serious attempt so far against one eyewitness, but maybe he ran out of gas and ran out of bounds.

I don't understand how Q (not one of my seven as such) is wish-fulfillment with its rigorous demands upon the disciples.

[Korah]

.

Once again you fail to address whatsoever my Thesis that the four gospels contain seven written eyewitness accounts of Jesus.

....
Since you have not established the credibility of your "thesis" it might be prudent to present credible evidence regarding determination of which parts of scripture are true (the OP question) if you can do so.

You have refused to deal with the evidence (in my seven posts listed at #155) about what parts of the gospels might be from eyewitnesses and thus more likely true parts of Scripture, as just redefining "evidence" is no argument at all. (At least you have been more polite about it than some others.) I can present more after we get started.

[Zzyzx]

.

Once again you fail to address whatsoever my Thesis that the four gospels contain seven written eyewitness accounts of Jesus.

....
Since you have not established the credibility of your "thesis" it might be prudent to present credible evidence regarding determination of which parts of scripture are true (the OP question) if you can do so.

You have refused to deal with the evidence (in my seven posts listed at #155) about what parts of the gospels might be from eyewitnesses

Bold and red added

Have you just admitted that you DO NOT KNOW that the claimed eyewitness accounts are ACTUAL eyewitness accounts – but that the accounts just might be from eyewitnesses?

Sure they MIGHT BE or they might NOT BE or they might be fabrications, fantasy, fiction, fraud, etc. We, you included, scholars and theologians included, do not know that any of the accounts were actual eyewitness accounts.

It seems as though made a claim to have solid evidence. Have you begun to realize that you do not?

and thus more likely true parts of Scripture,

Sure some parts of bible tales may be "more likely" to be true than others. The objective is to determine, if possible, which parts are literally true and which are not.

Speculation and opinion are not evidence of truth or accuracy.

as just redefining "evidence" is no argument at all.

Evidence is defined in common use dictionaries as: that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof: (or words to that effect).

(At least you have been more polite about it than some others.)

Politeness is not an indication of softness.

I can present more after we get started.

You have had weeks and many opportunities to "get started." What is keeping you from proving your assertions?

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to Korah]

This is by far your best reply, TOTN.
You engage with my Thesis that written eyewitness accounts about Jesus may be very early. You just deny that they are truthful. Would you admit that the three that violate laws of science might be true, however?

The Eyewitness Default still holds, as you haven't dealt even yet with any of them specifically. Only one serious attempt so far against one eyewitness, but maybe he ran out of gas and ran out of bounds.

In the second century Papias indicated that the author of Gospel Mark served as an interpreter for the apostle Peter, and that he wrote down things that Peter told him. So unless one denies that Christ ever existed as an authentic historical individual, as some have begun to do, then the information at hand indicates that some of the text of the Gospels may have been derived from individuals who were genuine eyewitnesses to the ministry of the living Jesus. This does not in itself verify the accuracy of everything contained in the Gospels however. Those things which COULD reasonably be true, MAY have some relationship to actual events. We have no way of knowing. It's also perfectly clear that the Gospels contain much which is pure storytelling. A prime example of this is the story of Jesus at Gethsemane contained in all four Gospels. It's made very clear that Jesus went off by himself to have a private moment while speaking to God. And yet yet we are provided with a full transcript of his dialogue with God while he was alone. This is clearly not an eyewitness account; it has more of the aspects of a soliloquy from a play. It is STORYTELLING, pure and simple. The various stories of various individuals who encountered the risen Jesus after the crucifixion are clear examples of storytelling as well. These are NOT eyewitness accounts. They are pure inventions which serve the purposes of the storytellers. So when you make claims for "eyewitness" accounts that you believe you have detected in the Gospels, you should be careful to differentiate between those portions which COULD reasonably be eyewitness accounts of actual events, and those portions which are purely story telling, and therefore nothing more then make believe.

I don't understand how Q (not one of my seven as such) is wish-fulfillment with its rigorous demands upon the disciples.

The current recognition that Gospel Mark was the first of the Gospels to have been written, rather then the old traditional view of Matthew as the first Gospel, presents a problem for Christian theologians. First of all is how to defend the church's adamant position that Gospel Matthew was actually written by the apostle Matthew himself. The Gospel According to Matthew which is contained in the NT itself contains almost the entire totality of the Gospel According to Mark in it's text, with some new portions woven in. Why would the apostle Matthew need to incorporate so much into his own Gospel which was derived from material written by someone who was not a direct eyewitness to the events being portrayed? Also there is the problem of the years of distance between the time frame in which the story was supposed to have taken place and the time when the Gospels were finally written. How much confidence is there to be placed in the long passages which reputedly represent the actual words of Jesus, if the documents which contain these passages were not written until four or five decades after they were supposed to have been spoken? And so Christian theologians came up with a solution; a hypothetical document, or perhaps several documents, which were written down very early. Some, perhaps, according to the hypothesis, written while Jesus was still alive. The fact that there is absolutely NO EVIDENCE to support this hypothesis is considered less important to theologians, then the useful assumption that they COULD have existed, and they they would therefore have represented early source material for the Gospels which were written decades later. All very neat and tidy. And a clear example of pure wish fulfillment at work. And this is how Christian mythology itself works, and always has worked from the earliest time. Just this sort of make believe, baseless assumptions, and wish fulfillment represent the foundational structure of Christian claims and Christian belief. This occurs in the foundational structure of other religions as well of course. Ultimately all religions are an exercise in wish fulfillment.

[Korah]

... So when you make claims for "eyewitness" accounts that you believe you have detected in the Gospels, you should be careful to differentiate between those portions which COULD reasonably be eyewitness accounts of actual events, and those portions which are purely story telling, and therefore nothing more then make believe...

Have you yet read ANYTHING I listed in my Post #155? The whole point has been to identify the PORTIONS I say were originally written eyewitness accounts of Jesus. However, I'm not saying that everything else is necessarily false, just less well attested by methodological naturalism.

[Korah]

.

You have refused to deal with the evidence (in my seven posts listed at #155) about what parts of the gospels might be from eyewitnesses

Bold and red added
Have you just admitted that you DO NOT KNOW that the claimed eyewitness accounts are ACTUAL eyewitness accounts – but that the accounts just might be from eyewitnesses?
....

I directed the "parts of the gospels might be from eyewitnesses" to you and to anyone else interested in the truth of the matter. For myself I say once again that I have identified seven written eyewitness accounts of Jesus within the four gospels. I realize that not everyone will agree with me, so I phrase myself to avoid seeming too arrogant in claiming that I know things no one else knows. My ideas have already been subject to insults here. I am misrepresented either way.
Edited to add:
Since you're so insistent on "evidence", I don't recall that you have provided any evidence that you read ANY of my stuff before you started condemning it. In contrast Student not only read it, but he checked out my links and citations.

[Zzyzx]

.

You have refused to deal with the evidence (in my seven posts listed at #155) about what parts of the gospels might be from eyewitnesses

Bold and red added
Have you just admitted that you DO NOT KNOW that the claimed eyewitness accounts are ACTUAL eyewitness accounts – but that the accounts just might be from eyewitnesses?
....

I directed the "parts of the gospels might be from eyewitnesses" to you and to anyone else interested in the truth of the matter.

As long as you say might be and do not claim are I have no objection. However, you have claimed that there were "seven written eyewitness accounts" when it should have read "seven accounts that MIGHT be from eyewitnesses." Of course, they MIGHT not from eyewitnesses, or MIGHT be from rumor, or from legend or fable, or complete fabrications.

Those who claim to KNOW which of the above are expected (and required in honorable debate) to substantiate their claims. Unsubstantiated claims are worthless in debate.

For myself I say once again that I have identified seven written eyewitness accounts of Jesus within the four gospels.

Perhaps you have convinced yourself that you have identified seven written eyewitness accounts. Unfortunately, however, when you attempt to convince others that your findings are credible they are likely to disagree with your "findings"

I realize that not everyone will agree with me,

Have you found general agreement with your "thesis" in the scholarly or theological communities, in professional publications, or even in website debate?

so I phrase myself to avoid seeming too arrogant in claiming that I know things no one else knows.

Until this post you seem to have been doing exactly that.

My ideas have already been subject to insults here.

What you perceive as "insults" may well be lack of acceptance (which seems unanimous) or demands for substantiation (which you have not provided).

I am misrepresented either way.

Yes, you may claim to be misunderstood and misrepresented and disrespected here and elsewhere. Maybe you could come up with a new "thesis" that is better accepted?

Since you're so insistent on "evidence", I don't recall that you have provided any evidence that you read ANY of my stuff before you started condemning it.

I typically take your posts apart line-by-line (as I have done here). Others probably understand that is indication of having read them.

I have challenged you to debate Head-to-Head the "Seven written eyewitness accounts" claim (where "evidence" of reading would be readily apparent) but you have (perhaps wisely) declined.

[Korah]

Since you're so insistent on "evidence", I don't recall that you have provided any evidence that you read ANY of my stuff before you started condemning it.

I typically take your posts apart line-by-line (as I have done here). Others probably understand that is indication of having read them. [/quote]
Strange. I don't recall you responded to any of the seven posts I listed at #155 (or if you did you avoided dealing with any of my claims). Perhaps you responded to one that I somehow did not notice? Not likely, as I don't recall anyone else doing so here except one attempt by Student. So particularly for you, my term "Eyewitness Default" applies. (By "stuff" I mean my contentions in my Thesis detailed in the posts listed at #155.)

I have challenged you to debate Head-to-Head the "Seven written eyewitness accounts" claim (where "evidence" of reading would be readily apparent) but you have (perhaps wisely) declined.

Here again, whenever I respond to you I see futility in dealing with whatever an Ignostic "believes". We seem too different for productive debate to occur, since you don't regard anything I have ever written as something you could even consider. I have never found it worthwhile talking with someone who regards the word "evidence" as dismissing without discussion whatever his opponent says.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to Korah]

Have you yet read ANYTHING I listed in my Post #155? The whole point has been to identify the PORTIONS I say were originally written eyewitness accounts of Jesus. However, I'm not saying that everything else is necessarily false, just less well attested by methodological naturalism.

I have read through some of the references you listed in your Post #43. They contain large portions of Gospel John. I have previously read Gospel John in it's entirety more then once, so rereading all of the material you insist I read is pointless. I am familiar with this material, okay?. "The whole point has been to identify the PORTIONS I say were originally written eyewitness accounts of Jesus." Yes, portions that YOU SAY were originally written by eyewitnesses. And as I have already pointed out, the portions that COULD plausibly be true, COULD plausibly have been derived from actual eyewitness accounts and incorporated into the Gospels. There simply is no way of knowing for sure. What CAN be determined to the highest level of confidence however is that there is ZERO plausibility to be found in the assertion that a corpse came back to life and flew away, some few ancient claims notwithstanding. And what you refer to as "methodological naturalism," most of the rest of us simply refer to as "reality."

[Zzyzx]

.
[Replying to post 247 by Korah]

I have opened yet another thread to explore your claim of written eyewitness accounts. This time I ask for just ONE. http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 670#684670

After we deal with that one we can move on to the second claimed eyewitness.