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?

[historia]

The "Q" IS generally regarded by Christian theologians as necessarily very early, this is true. It's also a product of make believe, since no such document can be established to have ever existed, except through assumption and speculation. The "Q" is an example of Christian mythology striving to produce it's own wish fulfillment, and nothing more.

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.

Surely this is an exaggeration.

The two-source hypothesis (positing the existence of Q) exists to explain the double tradition in Matthew and Luke. The fact that we have nearly identical text between Matthew and Luke, and more specifically the features of those similarities, is clearly evidence for a text like Q. Even if you want to posit an alternate theory, such as the Farrer hypothesis, dismissing Q as mere "assumption," "speculation" and "wish fulfillment" seem irresponsible.

Further, we know from Luke that, at the time he wrote his gospel, "many [had] undertaken to draw up an account" of Jesus' life (Luke 1:1). Yet the only extant gospels today that could possibly pre-date Luke are Mark and Matthew -- and two hardly counts as "many." So there must have been several other (no longer extant) texts in circulation at that time.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to historia]


Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
The "Q" IS generally regarded by Christian theologians as necessarily very early, this is true. It's also a product of make believe, since no such document can be established to have ever existed, except through assumption and speculation. The "Q" is an example of Christian mythology striving to produce it's own wish fulfillment, and nothing more.


Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
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.

Surely this is an exaggeration.

The two-source hypothesis (positing the existence of Q) exists to explain the double tradition in Matthew and Luke. The fact that we have nearly identical text between Matthew and Luke, and more specifically the features of those similarities, is clearly evidence for a text like Q. Even if you want to posit an alternate theory, such as the Farrer hypothesis, dismissing Q as mere "assumption," "speculation" and "wish fulfillment" seem irresponsible.

Further, we know from Luke that, at the time he wrote his gospel, "many [had] undertaken to draw up an account" of Jesus' life (Luke 1:1). Yet the only extant gospels today that could possibly pre-date Luke are Mark and Matthew -- and two hardly counts as "many." So there must have been several other (no longer extant) texts in circulation at that time.

And so, many other accounts indicated in Gospel Luke should be in evidence, should they not? And, low and behold, there many other accounts are right there in front of us. They are generally known as the Apocrypha, and even the most ardent Christian scholars recognizes these accounts of Jesus for what they surely are. And that would be PURE FLIGHTS OF FANCY. Apparently ancient peoples were actually capable of lies and make believe, as unbelievable as it may seem to some. But surely these works must have been based on even earlier written accounts? Is that not a fair supposition? It only makes sense, after all. And what actual physical evidence do we have for all of these various and varied early written accounts? Well, we DO have a fair amount of supposition by Christian scholars that very early accounts MUST have been written of course, not to mention your personal assertion that "there must have been several other (no longer extant) texts in circulation at that time." And of course we do have copies of the Apocrypha, those works of pure ancient fulla bulla to examine. But then, declaring something to be an assumption simply because we have no examples of it, and no real evidence that it ever existed to begin with, would apparently be "irresponsible," and "an exaggeration" on my part.

[Korah]

[Replying to post 251 by Tired of the Nonsense]
Strange how you insist there were earlier written accounts of the NT Apocrypha, for which there is no scholarly support I know of. Yet you refuse to deal with the generally acknowledged sources of the canonical gospels which I find to be the seven written eyewitness accounts of Jesus!

[Korah]

[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."

You conclude with a point largely irrelevant to my Thesis that there were seven written eyewitness accounts of Jesus. For the rest, I re-emphasize "PORTIONS". I don't "insist" that you read anything, but I would expect you to refer when you reply to either what I have written or to the some of the "portions", particularly since you have read them before, anyway. Only Student has yet made a (one) relevant reply.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to historia]

The two-source hypothesis (positing the existence of Q) exists to explain the double tradition in Matthew and Luke. The fact that we have nearly identical text between Matthew and Luke, and more specifically the features of those similarities, is clearly evidence for a text like Q.

I should have pointed out that Gospel Luke contains a good deal of material also found in Gospel Mark, as well as material found in Gospel Matthew but not Mark. And then material original only to Gospel Luke. Gospel Matthew itself largely IS the Gospel Mark, with new material original to itself woven in. It is this borrowing of material that lend the first three Gospels the title of "Synoptic" Gospels. The obvious solution to the question of borrowing of material is that Mark, being independent of influence from the other Gospels, was the first to have been written rather than the old tradition which placed Gospel Matthew first. This is now the overwhelmingly prevalent opinion. Gospel Matthew, which relies so heavily on material taken from Gospel Mark, was written second. Gospel Luke, which relies on information taken from both Gospels Mark And Matthew, was clearly written third. No wishful thinking is required to reach this obvious conclusion.

[Korah]

.
[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.

That thread is poisoned at the outset by its OP, and all replies so far have been off-track or pointless. I have never maintained that the Apostle John wrote the entirety of John on his own as an eyewitness, nor do I go against the academic consensus that Revelation was not written by the author of John. No one well-informed is posting there. I suppose I might enter a post if someone egregiously misrepresents my views, but why otherwise would I bother?

Meanwhile I refer you again to my Post #155. If you can't (as you haven't) be bothered to analyze even one of my seven posts I list there, why re-post even one of them there in the new, misguided thread?

I have now researched what an "Ignostic" believes, and I see that it looks like Logical Positivism in a new guise. It would seem to disallow any talk of Christianity except on its own terms that the non-Ignostic has to accept. I'll pass.

[Korah]

[Replying to post 254 by Tired of the Nonsense]
TOTN continues to refuse to deal with sources, with PORTIONS, so its reasoning and conclusions are fallacious. Perhaps historia will refute him in detail--I'm tired of replying to yet someone else who won't read what I wrote.

[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.

That thread is poisoned in the outset by its OP

Yes, that thread is "poisoned" by asking for substantiation of even ONE of the claims – and it asks that the issue be debated in that thread rather than elsewhere.

and all replies so far have been off-track or pointless.

Well then, you can become a hero by bringing the thread back on track by presenting your evidence.

I have never maintained that the Apostle John wrote the entirety of John on his own as an eyewitness, nor do I go against the academic consensus that Revelation was not written by the author of John.

You are challenged to defend ANY of your claimed seven eyewitness claims – and are not restricted to John.

The world awaits

No one well-informed is posting there.

Opinion noted. By your own reckoning then, you can be the first well-informed person posting and your knowledge should overwhelm the opposition.

I suppose I might enter a post if someone egregiously misrepresents my views, but why otherwise would I bother?

It might seem as a person of integrity you would be eager to answer a challenge to your "thesis" but maybe not.

Meanwhile I refer you again to my Post #155. If you can't (as you haven't) be bothered to analyze even one of my seven posts I list there, why re-post even one of them there in the new, misguided thread

Has it not occurred to you that I and others have reviewed your post 155 and regarded it as unworthy of reply?

I have now researched what an "Ignostic" believes, and I see that it looks like Logical Positivism in a new guise.

Your "research" into Ignosticism is late, short and defective.

It would seem to disallow any talk of Christianity except on its own terms

Correction: Ignosticism offers to discuss the "gods" promoted by religionists PROVIDED that they can define, describe and identify the "god" of which they speak.

that the non-Ignostic has to accept.

No one is asked to accept anything. Of course those who cannot define, describe and identify their favorite "god" are at a disadvantage.

I'll pass.

Default accepted.

However, no defense of a "god" is required to substantiate your claims of written eyewitness accounts is required in the thread http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 670#684670 – so you need not fear Ignostics (IF you have credible, verifiable evidence to present – rather than excuses).

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to Korah]

Strange how you insist there were earlier written accounts of the NT Apocrypha, for which there is no scholarly support I know of. Yet you refuse to deal with the generally acknowledged sources of the canonical gospels which I find to be the seven written eyewitness accounts of Jesus!

You are quite correct. NO ONE supposes that the Apocrypha must surely have been derived from original earlier sources. Coincidentally, NO ONE is attempting to assert or establish that the Apocrypha are true and accurate versions of the story of Jesus, complete with accurate verbatim quotations from Jesus himself. That was my point!The quelle argument is self serving wish fulfillment in that this unfounded assumption only extends to the documents Christians have declared to be genuine. Historia pointed out that Gospel Luke indicated that "many [had] undertaken to draw up an account" of Jesus' life (Luke 1:1)." And I pointed out that "many" other accounts exist. They are generally referred to as the Apocrypha (Apocrypha are statements or claims that are of dubious authenticity. The word's origin is the Medieval Latin adjective apocryphus, "secret, or non-canonical", from the Greek adjective ἀπόκ�υφος [apokryphos], "obscure", from the verb ἀποκ��πτειν [apokryptein], "to hide away."-- Wikipedia). Virtually everyone acknowledges that these works are pure fiction. The Gospel of Thomas for example, which some scholars believe predate the four canonical Gospels (Scholars have proposed a date as early as 40 AD or as late as 140 AD; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Thomas ). Is the Gospel of Thomas a candidate for an example of a Quelle document? Here are a few of the more pithy "sayings of Jesus," taken from Gospel Thomas:

***
Jesus said, "The person old in days won't hesitate to ask a little child seven days old about the place of life, and that person will live."
***

Jesus said, "Lucky is the lion that the human will eat, so that the lion becomes human. And foul is the human that the lion will eat, and the lion still will become human."

***
Jesus said, "You see the sliver in your friend's eye, but you don't see the timber in your own eye. When you take the timber out of your own eye, then you will see well enough to remove the sliver from your friend's eye."

***
Jesus said, "If a blind person leads a blind person, both of them will fall into a hole."

***
Jesus said, "There are many standing at the door, but those who are alone will enter the bridal suite."

***
Jesus said, "Whoever does not hate father and mother cannot be my disciple, and whoever does not hate brothers and sisters, and carry the cross as I do, will not be worthy of me."

***
Jesus said, "Whoever knows the father and the mother will be called the child of a whore."

***
Jesus said, "One can't enter a strong person's house and take it by force without tying his hands. Then one can loot his house."


http://gnosis.org/naghamm/gosthom.html

[Student]

By way of demonstrating that I have neither “run out of gas�, nor “run out of bounds�, I thought it might be illuminating to examine and dissect the “evidence� for Korah’s second eye-witness, “Andrew�.

Here’s how Korah identifies his second eye-witness:

Not necessarily disclosing the author, but largely related to this section of John is the name “Andrew� at John 1:40, 41, 44; 6:8; 12:22(2). The name “Philip� occurs even more frequently in about the same places and in John 14:8, 9, but I long ago settled on Andrew as a more probable author, particularly when I found out that the Muratorian Canon (usually dated to 170 AD) states that Andrew started out the process of writing John. As a further note I would add that the first occurrence of each name at John 12:22 is shown by Teeple as from the source, so should not be used to claim that the name “Andrew� is not associated exclusively with the Signs Source, even though it falls outside the sections more conclusively identified as Signs Source. Andrew is the second identifiable eyewitness.

Proof 1: the name “Andrew� is found at John 1:40, 41, 44; 6:8; 12:22(2)

Rebuttal: Simply because a name is found in a text does not prove that the individual mentioned is an eye-witness to the events depicted. Furthermore, there is nothing contained in the specific verses listed that might indicate that they depict events that could only be derived from an eye-witness.
Secondly, even if it were proven that the frequency with which a name occurs is a possible means of identifying a likely eye-witness, then (as Korah admits), as “Philip� is mentioned far more frequently (on 12 occasions) than Andrew, he (Philip) is the more likely candidate.

Proof 2: “but I long ago settled on Andrew as a more probable author, particularly when I found out that the Muratorian Canon states that Andrew started out the process of writing John�

Rebuttal: Simply settling on Andrew as being “more probable� can, in no way be construed as a reasoned argument or proof. As for the Muratorian Canon, while it states that Andrew was the individual responsible for prompted John to start writing, the actual author was John, with all the apostles acting as an editorial committee. There is nothing to indicate that John specifically wrote down Andrew’s eye-witness recollections or that Andrew was a more active editor than the other apostles.

“(13) In the same night it was revealed (14) to Andrew, [one] of the apostles (15 -16) that John should write all things down in his own name while all of them should review it.�*

*Extract from the Muratorian Canon; translational expansions are contained in square brackets []; line numbers are enclosed in brackets ().

Proof 3: “the first occurrence of each name at John 12:22 is shown by Teeple as from the source, so should not be used to claim that the name “Andrew� is not associated exclusively with the Signs Source, even though it falls outside the sections more conclusively identified as Signs Source.�

Rebuttal: One of the means Teeple employed to identify “S� [source] was by the use of the article with personal names. In the case of Jn 12:22 the first occurrence of Andrew has the article (arthrous), the second does not (anarthrous). According to Teeple, this would indicate that the first part of the verse was from “S�, and the second from the Editor “E�. (anarthrous personal names being seen as a characteristic of the Editor). However the first occurrence of Philip in Jn 12:22 is also arthrous; the second occurrence of Philip is also anarthrous. So there is no reason, on this basis, to differentiate between Andrew and Philip, much less to point to either as an eye-witness.
The concluding part of this proof I find to be incomprehensible. I have no idea what Korah is trying to say.

In conclusion, having evaluated Korah’s proofs, I find nothing that substantiates the claim that Andrew was an eye-witness responsible for writing part of the gospel(s).