How reliable is the scriptures we have?

[polonius]

Before we examine any religious belief system, lets consider it's writings.

Lets start with the Gospel of Matthew.

From Introduction to Matthew in the New American Bible (Catholic) US Catholic Conference of Bishops.

"The ancient tradition that the author was the disciple and apostle of Jesus named Matthew (see Mt 10:3) is untenable because the gospel is based, in large part, on the Gospel according to Mark (almost all the verses of that gospel have been utilized in this), and it is hardly likely that a companion of Jesus would have followed so extensively an account that came from one who admittedly never had such an association rather than rely on his own memories."

What we call the Gospel of Matthew is unsigned and didn't have a name until the second century when if that named by Papius, not the brightest Church Father.

Eusebius of Caesarea - On Papias - original Greek Text with English translation
From Historia Ecclesiastica, 3. 39.
13. For he (Papius) appears to have been of very limited understanding, as one can see from his discourses. But it was due to him that so many of the Church Fathers after him adopted a like opinion, urging in their own support the antiquity of the man; as for instance Irenus and any one else that may have proclaimed similar views.

[polonius]

Onewithhim claims:

Where does Eusebius point out that Papias wasn't operating on all cylinders?

RESPONSE:

Eusebius of Caesera From Historia Ecclesiastica, 3. 39.


13. For he (Papius)appears to have been of very limited understanding, as one can see from his discourses. But it was due to him that so many of the Church Fathers after him adopted a like opinion, urging in their own support the antiquity of the man; as for instance Irenus and any one else that may have proclaimed similar views.

O.K. Fair enough. But there are OTHERS that stated that Matthew was the author of that Gospel, as I noted in my post, and I think it is unfair to say that Eusebius or anyone could know what the church fathers were thinking and accuse them of blindly following Papius' opinions about Matthew.

Do you know exactly what it was about Papius' teaching that Eusebius felt was not showing proper understanding?

RESPONSE:

That the Apostle Matthew was the author of what came to be called (based on Papias' writing) the Gospel of Matthew. The Apostle Matthew was not the author. See also "Introduction to Matthew in the New American Bible (Catholic)

[brianbbs67]

Onewithhim claims:


And he apparently didnt grasp that the word almah referring to Mary is translated as young woman not virgin.

, I grant you that. woman but could also mean virgin.

But, I don't believe the Messiah would have to be born of a virgin.[/quote]

RESPONSE:

"Almah" certainly does not mean virgin. It means a young woman of marriageable age.

."[/quote]

Which would imply...................virgin.

[Red Wolf]

There are many documents from ancient history.
It really doesn't matter if the stories are true or not.
Did George Washington cut down the Cherry Tree? I don't think anyone knows for sure if he did or not. It doesn't matter. It's a story.

When we evaluate the truth of stories from ancient history we can immediately know that supernatural events are not true. The founder of Rome was not raised by wild wolves. Caesar Augustus was not a God. Archilles was not imperious to being stabbed except on his heel etc. We know all this Supernatural crap that the ancients wrote is not true.
But the Bible is different. When you read the Bible you don't toss out the Supernatural stuff like we do with secular literature. People are expected to believe that animals can talk, axe heads can float, people can walk on water, and people can rise from the dead.

Do you see the any difference between ancient secular literature and the Bible?
The Bible makes extraordinary claims of supernatural events without any evidence that it is any more than just a fictional story.
If we can find truth in the Bible we have to evaluate everything based on the evidence.
ECREE= Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence.
This is Christianitys HUGE problemThe Bible makes Extraordinary claims but only provides very weak evidence.

[brianbbs67]

There are many documents from ancient history.
It really doesn't matter if the stories are true or not.
Did George Washington cut down the Cherry Tree? I don't think anyone knows for sure if he did or not. It doesn't matter. It's a story.

When we evaluate the truth of stories from ancient history we can immediately know that supernatural events are not true. The founder of Rome was not raised by wild wolves. Caesar Augustus was not a God. Archilles was not imperious to being stabbed except on his heel etc. We know all this Supernatural crap that the ancients wrote is not true.
But the Bible is different. When you read the Bible you don't toss out the Supernatural stuff like we do with secular literature. People are expected to believe that animals can talk, axe heads can float, people can walk on water, and people can rise from the dead.

Do you see the any difference between ancient secular literature and the Bible?
The Bible makes extraordinary claims of supernatural events without any evidence that it is any more than just a fictional story.
If we can find truth in the Bible we have to evaluate everything based on the evidence.
ECREE= Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence.
This is Christianitys HUGE problemThe Bible makes Extraordinary claims but only provides very weak evidence.

This brings up another great discussion. Have we made a god of the bible?

[PinSeeker]

ECREE= Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence.

That's fair.

But I say (along with plenty of others) that there is plenty of evidence -- an abundance of it. The question then becomes:

• *What is meant by 'extraordinary' evidence?"

Or:

• "What is 'extraordinary' enough?"

And even more basic than that:

• "What good is evidence, extraordinary or otherwise, if one is blind?"

[Red Wolf]

ECREE= Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence.

That's fair.

But I say (along with plenty of others) that there is plenty of evidence -- an abundance of it. The question then becomes:

• *What is meant by 'extraordinary' evidence?"

Or:

• "What is 'extraordinary' enough?"

And even more basic than that:

• "What good is evidence, extraordinary or otherwise, if one is blind?"

You assert that there is "plenty of evidence -- an abundance of it."
What evidence?

[PinSeeker]

You assert that there is "plenty of evidence -- an abundance of it."
What evidence?

Well, from Scripture itself:

"...since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made." [Romans 1:20]

Beyond that, here's good book on the subject:

• https://www.amazon.com/Evidence-That-De ... 0840743785

And here's another:

• https://www.amazon.com/Case-Christ-Jour ... oks&sr=1-2

Grace and peace to you, Red Wolf.

[brunumb]

You assert that there is "plenty of evidence -- an abundance of it."
What evidence?

Well, from Scripture itself:

"...since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made." [Romans 1:20]

Beyond that, here's good book on the subject:

• https://www.amazon.com/Evidence-That-De ... 0840743785

And here's another:

• https://www.amazon.com/Case-Christ-Jour ... oks&sr=1-2

Grace and peace to you, Red Wolf.

Scripture consists of claims. It is not evidence. You need to provide evidence that the claims made in scripture are actually true.

[Red Wolf]

You assert that there is "plenty of evidence -- an abundance of it."
What evidence?

Well, from Scripture itself:

"...since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made." [Romans 1:20]

Beyond that, here's good book on the subject:

• https://www.amazon.com/Evidence-That-De ... 0840743785

And here's another:

• https://www.amazon.com/Case-Christ-Jour ... oks&sr=1-2

Grace and peace to you, Red Wolf.

Paul on the Trinity

Paul makes an interesting statement at Romans 1:19,20
because that which is known about God is evident among them; for since the creation of the world his invisible attributes, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made.
If what Paul writes here is true this creates a problem for those who believe in the trinity..
How come there is no mention of the trinity in any writings until the 5th century if Gods nature was known since the creation of the world?
If Gods nature was known since the creation of the world, how come Gods chosen people, the Jews didnt seem to know anything about a trinity?
How come none of the prophets in the Hebrew scriptures ever warns Israel about the trinity in any of the prophetic writings? The prophets seem to cover every other topic but they never say . Stop believing in just ONE GOD and believe in the trinity.

[Red Wolf]

Evaluating the Truth of the New Testament.

The New Testament writers learned an important lesson from the Hebrew Scriptures. They learned about truth and lies.
How does the OT define Truth and Lies?

Here are some examples.

Abraham lied to Pharaoh when he said Sarah was his sister.
Genesis 12:18 (New American Standard Bible)
Then Pharaoh called Abram and said, "What is this you have done to me? Why did you not tell me that she was your wife?

Later Abraham used the same lie on Abimelech.
Genesis 20:2 (New American Standard Bible)
Abraham said of Sarah his wife, "She is my sister " So Abimelech king of Gerar sent and took Sarah.

Isaac also used the same lie.
Genesis 26:7 (New American Standard Bible)
When the men of the place asked about his wife, he said, "She is my sister," for he was afraid to say, "my wife," thinking, "the men of the place might kill me on account of Rebekah, for she is beautiful."

Jacob lied to Isaac when he tricks his father into giving him the blessing for Esau.
Genesis 27:20 (New American Standard Bible)
Isaac said to his son, "How is it that you have it so quickly, my son?" And he said, "Because the LORD your God caused it to happen to me."
It was really a lamb that he was eating rather than wild game.
Genesis 27:24 (New American Standard Bible)
And he said, "Are you really my son Esau?" And he said, "I am."
But it was really Jacob lying and disguising his skin with the lambs hide.

There are numerous lies. If you are well read in the OT you know them.
The Hebrew Midwives lied.
Rahab the Harlot lied.
David lied numerous times.
Jehu lied
Moses lied.

The point is that all these lies were never punished, they were usually rewarded, and God never complained about these liars and their lies. The lies were always justified because they fit into Gods plan. God was not offended.
The lesson that the NT writers learned, IMO, is that a lie is justified if it promotes their theology. God will not be offended by their lies.
God doesn't mind a lie as long as it's for a good cause.

Take that into consideration when you evaluate the truthfulness of the New Testament.