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?

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 339:

My italicals...

No, I denied that there ever was a Q that was simply the conventional overlap between Matthew and Luke. The discovery of the Gospel of Thomas in 1946 made that obsolete, and just recently Dennis R. MacDonald has conclusively shown that GMark included Q text, including some narrative. For my purposes I expand Q to include almost everything in GMark's overlap with GLuke, then divide that...

Any number multiplied by zero is zero. I can't help it, that number's a good boy, he means well, he just couldn't help it.

You're still seeking to introduce an unevidenced, hypothetical document into your argument.

As I said before, all I need now to dismiss your argument is to declare the Joey Document says "Nah-ah".


Unless, of course, you can submit this Q text for analysis.

[Korah]

[Replying to post 340 by JoeyKnothead]
Don't expect me to be the defender of Q. It never existed as an independent document. Mark is not independent of it. GMark was never seen by the other gospel writers. My own Evolving Proto-Gospel Hypotheses holds that an Aramaic Q1 and Twelve-Source (both probably by the apostle Matthew) and a Greek Q2 and Greek parts of GMark (both probably by Peter and Mark) were a Proto-Gospel (in 19th Century terms an Ur-Marcus) used in making the three Synoptic gospels.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 341:

Don't expect me to be the defender of Q.

Then quit trying to refer to it. (said as a non-mod, in the "it's kinda goofy to refer to a document you won't defend" way)

My own Evolving Proto-Gospel Hypotheses holds that an Aramaic Q1 and Twelve-Source (both probably by the apostle Matthew) and a Greek Q2 and Greek parts of GMark (both probably by Peter and Mark) were a Proto-Gospel (in 19th Century terms an Ur-Marcus) used in making the three Synoptic gospels.

Please provide the Aramaic Q1, the Greek Q2, and other such writings you consider to be part of these various gospels for analysis.

[Korah]

[Replying to post 342 by JoeyKnothead]
The earlier, Aramaic Q1 can be identified as the less verbally exact verses Luke 4:1-12, 6:20-23, 27-35, 39-40, 43-49, 10: 4-11, 16; 11:33-35, 39-44, 46-52; 12:8-12, 22-24, 33-34, 49-59; 13:18-21, 24-30; 14:16-24, 26-27, 34-35; 15:4-10; 16:16-18; 17:3-6, 23-25, 28-37; and 22:28-30. References as by Papias to the Logia by Matthew may be to this (though I would add on the Twelve Source to match to the meaning of the word "Logia").

In Greek in collaboration with Mark, Q2, presumably from Peter (who is named at Luke 12:41): Lk. 3:7-9, 16-17; 6:36-38, 41-42; 7:18-23, 9:57-62; 10:2, 12-15, 19-26, 29-32; 11:1-4, 23-26; 12:2-7, 26-31, 39-46; 13:34-35; 16:13. This may have been written in 44 AD when Mark and Peter were together (Acts 12:12).
(above from my thread Gospel Eyewitnesses at)
http://www.christianforums.com/t7594923/
Posts 4 & 5

[Zzyzx]

.
[Replying to post 343 by Korah]

Joey asked specifically for the documents to be provided for analysis: "Please provide the Aramaic Q1, the Greek Q2, and other such writings you consider to be part of these various gospels for analysis."

He did NOT ask for speculation about non-existent or non-available documents that cannot be shown to be anything other than imaginary or hypothetical.

A truthful response to his request would include acknowledgment that the documents do not exist and that they are suggested or assumed by some scholars and theologians – and not accepted by other scholars and theologians.

Your personal speculation is of absolutely no merit in debate.

I ask directly: Do the Q documents exist or do they not?

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 343:

The earlier, Aramaic Q1 can be identified as the less verbally exact verses Luke...

..,

In Greek in collaboration with Mark, Q2, presumably from Peter...

We still ain't no closer to the creek than when we stepped off the porch.

I'm set to presume you have no means of confirming the validity of your argument, beyond how proud ya are to make it. I respect that one can infer things, however, I contend that without the referenced Q material, we're still stuck with speculation.

Referring to one's own swearing up and down in support of one's own swearing up and down is like me declaring I'm real smart, 'cause I just there said it. It's a circular sort of argument.

C'mon man, present these Q documents for analysis.

Heck, you got a comic book laying around? Present that. Just please, present something we can compare to, beyond your own declarations.

[DefenderofTruth]

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?

Because where a belief came from is not evidence of the validity of that belief... Thats actually a bit of a genetic fallacy, or also known as "fallacy of origins"... The way you would determine if it is true is the same way you would determine anything to be true or not, by evaluating what it actually claims and not by what kind of person wrote it.

[kamingwong]

Could you tell us why our church becomes so desolate?

Do you think so?

http://www.findshepherd.com/church-beco ... olate.html

[FarWanderer]

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?

Because where a belief came from is not evidence of the validity of that belief... Thats actually a bit of a genetic fallacy, or also known as "fallacy of origins"... The way you would determine if it is true is the same way you would determine anything to be true or not, by evaluating what it actually claims and not by what kind of person wrote it.

If I insisted the population of the US is exactly 325,683,572 at the time of posting, would you believe me?

How would you evaluate such a claim? Can you effectively dismiss it? Is it implausible?

I know how I'd dismiss it.

[Zzyzx]

.

Could you tell us why our church becomes so desolate?

Moderator Comment


This is considered spam and is not related to the OP.


Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.