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 154 by JoeyKnothead]
Apparently, Joey,
You're off on a tangent on a point I have already conceded. My thesis is that the gospels contain as sources seven written eyewitness accounts about Jesus. I don't claim to show that each of them is 100% true and accurate! (I personally believe in them as I do not presuppose that miracles cannot occur.) I even stated that in my opinion the Johannine Discourses were first gathered to use as testimony against Jesus. For those of you who are atheists, several of the seven accounts would have to be regarded as exaggerations because you deny the possibility of miracles. However, Q1 and the Passion Narrative source within John do not have miracles, so you can't automatically dismiss them as untrue.

Since the seven sources are very early (according to my Thesis, anyway), the best argument against them would be that they came from a conspiracy by the earliest Christians. Yet academic scholars unanimously reject such ideas.

I am still waiting for discussion of the relevant

posts of mine here featuring individual eyewitnesses at #43, 59 (with a link to a convenient location where all these eyewitnesses are listed together), 62, 82, 83, 97 and 101.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 155 by Korah]

Let's just assume your right what does that have to do with whether scripture is true or not?

[Korah]

[Replying to post 155 by Korah]
Let's just assume you're right what does that have to do with whether scripture is true or not?

I don't believe in plenary inspiration nor verbal inerrancy, so whether any parts of the Bible are true or not is an open question to me. I have made a lifetime focus on the gospels to see whether they at least are sound. Is at least this part of Scripture true? Almost everyone would accept that parts that were written by an eyewitness would more likely be true.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 155:

Apparently, Joey,
You're off on a tangent on a point I have already conceded. My thesis is that the gospels contain as sources seven written eyewitness accounts about Jesus. I don't claim to show that each of them is 100% true and accurate!
...

I respect that about the they might be wrong.

In such a case then, regarding this OP, I'd expect you to show these eyewitnesses support, somehow, the notion presented in the OP.

(I personally believe in them as I do not presuppose that miracles cannot occur.)

Nor do I.

I simply expect those who claim they have, at least here in our debates here, to show such claims are truth.

I even stated that in my opinion the Johannine Discourses were first gathered to use as testimony against Jesus.

I don't immediately reject opinion, but readily accept it's use in determining truth is problematic.

For those of you who are atheists, several of the seven accounts would have to be regarded as exaggerations because you deny the possibility of miracles.

You're doing some clod clumping.

I don't deny the possibility of some god intervening in this universe - my declarations of the god concept notwithstanding. I was married once, and have had multiple relationships with women of the female persuasion. I'm so conditioned to admit I'm wrong, I'll even do it when I think I ain't.

I merely challenge those who claim he did to show they speak truth.

However, Q1 and the Passion Narrative source within John do not have miracles, so you can't automatically dismiss them as untrue.

Meh.

Until we actually consider specifics, I'm lost as a cow at a square dance.

Since the seven sources are very early (according to my Thesis, anyway), the best argument against them would be that they came from a conspiracy by the earliest Christians. Yet academic scholars unanimously reject such ideas.

Lacking specifics, I really can't form conclusions here.

I am still waiting for discussion of the relevant
...

And as I said, whether or not there were folks who claim to have seen 'em something, that's no reason for me, and 'parently a bunch of others to think they did.

I mean, if I told you how smart I was, would you be willing to run over here and tell the ol' lady that, yes, indeed I am? You know it is, she's the one set to callin' me "Knothead", and I'm here to tell it, I think she believes it


If only to me, your problem is that your claim of there being witnesses is, well, rather unremarkable.

Throughout the Bible, it is that folks say they did 'em this or that, or they said 'em this or that, and that ain't such a notion that folks find so debatable. I mean, folks do 'em this or that, and say 'em this or that, on a fairly regular basis. Nobody really bothers with that.

What it seems, mostly, is that it bothers some folks when other folks claim some dead dude did 'em a fifty under par at Augusta. Now there, we don't near fret it was a dead dude that went to shootin' golfs, but that he did him a fifty under at Augusta. It's the nature of the claims, not the who's a-makin' 'em.


I'm trying to help you understand that just saying there was eyewitnesses - proving it even - is, to so many of us atheists, insufficient grounds to believe claims that demand scrutiny.


Having said all that, I do 'preciate the idea that if or when folks such as myself claim there are no eyewitnesses, or use that argument in some way, well then, you hop in, and you set to telling your tale about how there was. And how they saw 'em a zombie bowling ghost god, and how goofy it'd be not to believe 'em just 'cause they said they saw it.

I challenge you to present an OP that argues that there were indeed eyewitnesses to such claims as a risen Jesus, or any of the other miracle claims in the Bible, and how it is, we oughta trust 'em just for the having said it.

Pick your biblical claim. Pick your witnesses. Make you an OP.

[Korah]

I challenge you to present an OP that argues that there were indeed eyewitnesses to such claims as a risen Jesus, or any of the other miracle claims in the Bible, and how it is, we oughta trust 'em just for the having said it.

Can't do that, Joey, that's not my Thesis. Apparently you havn't read the seven posts I listed in my post #155, because those specific verses in large part exclude the miracles and only one eyewitness necessarily includes among its essence the Resurrection. That there were several eyewitnesses who wrote about Jesus without listing miracles, may increase willingness to consider eyewitnesses who do write about miracles, but you need to start small.

So look at those listed posts of mine. See which ones meet your criteria of believability by excluding miracles. See whether some of the others can be set apart from the miracles included. Maybe seven eyewitnesses won't seem reasonable to you, maybe just half that many. That's at least a start towards determining parts of Scripture that are true.

[Korah]

No “Gospel� from Jesus?
Recent research by Steve Mason has shown that the word “gospel� may never have been spoken by Jesus, just attributed to Him particularly in the Gospel of Mark. Excluding use of the verb form “to evangelize�, the noun in Greek with the definite article (our “the gospel� from�to euangelion�) is used primarily by Paul. In contrast the gospels of Luke and John never use the word as a noun, nor do the first 14 chapters of Acts. Consensus dating put these gospels after Mark, but my own research had come to the conclusion that Luke was first (and probably paralleling John in a different line). Since Paul wrote primarily in the ‘50’s, it would seem that texts excluding “gospel� are earlier than the gospels that picked up Pauline terminology. It would seem that sources underlying our extant gospels did not use the noun “the gospel�, but that Mark with its seven occurrences edited it in in place of “the cross�or similar term. Similarly Matthew includes “the gospel� four times by using a text (later than Luke’s source) that it shared with Mark. Similarly the source underlying Acts of the Apostles for the first 12 chapters never says “the gospel�, it only occurring in later chapters where the writer necessarily was influence by the Paul he wrote about (Acts 15:27, 20:24).

Perhaps Steve Mason (and almost everybody else) is wrong about his assumptions!

That in itself is perhaps not surprising, but now we come to the data that really upset the applecart. Within the NT collection, distribution of to euangelion is in no way proportionate. The genuine and disputed letters of Paul, although they occupy somewhat less than a quarter of the NT (about 32,445 of 138,000 words), account for 60 of the 76 occurrences of the neuter singular. Now, Paul’s letters are the earliest Christian writings to have survived, belonging to the first generation after Christ (roughly 30 to 65 CE). The Gospels belong to the next generation, from 35 to 100. Of the non-Pauline material in the NT, Mark is the heaviest user with 8 occurrences (including the long ending), all of these with the article. Thus, Paul (including pseudo-Paul) and Mark together account for fully 67 of 72 occurrences of to euangelion. By contrast Matthew, though most scholars think that its author used Mark as a source, taking over more than 90% of the earlier text and adding about 50%, has only 4 occurrences of this noun. Most surprisingly, although it also used Mark as a source, Luke omits the noun altogether and Acts has it only twice, though this “double work� accounts for nearly half (25) of the NT’s 54 occurrences of the cognate verb euangeliz�. John has no trace of the word group in any form, and the hypothetical sayings Gospel Q along with the structurally similar Thomas lack the noun. Hebrews also omits the noun, though it has the verb twice.

http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/mason3.shtml

Mason's insights also tie in with my Thesis, my radical rethinking that there are seven written eyewitnesses accounts as sources within the four gospels. (Mason himself, however, attributes the absence of "the gospel" in Luke to Luke's unwillingness to use Pauline terminology.) Since Paul wrote largely in the '50's, and the seven sources I have identified do not use the term "the gospel", this argues for a still earlier date for the sources. Four of the eyewitnesses I find in John, which never uses the term. Another (Simon) I find only in Luke. The other two, Peter and Matthew, are found in the Triple Tradition,but "the gospel" does not appear in the earliest Synoptic, Luke. Paul's terminology "the gospel" had only spread to the gospels during the editing towards Mark and Matthew. So though these two eyewitnesses do have the term "the gospel" in some editions, it would seem the earlier sources did not have them and do go back as I say to 44 A. D. when John Mark and Peter got together and wrote Proto-Mark.

That further supports “the gospel� being a late term as far as the gospels go.. Luke, if late, nevertheless had an earlier version of Mark without “the gospel�. Canonical Mark is late, as is the closely related Matthew (that contains the extra four chapters of Mark that are not in Luke). As Matthew is less Pauline in theology than is Mark, it contains just four instances of “the gospel�. Both Matthew and Mark would seem to draw on a shared Pauline Proto-Matthew, thus both from the ‘50’s or later. Even if Mark is so Pauline, that is evidence it is later than Luke, or its sources are later.

That date is more integral than Pauline typology is shown by the Acts of the Apostles. Its sources never contains “the gospel�, but where the writer (presumably Luke) does not have the source available, he uses “the gospel� at 15:7 and 20:24. So Luke does not on principle eliminate “the gospel�, at least where Paul himself is involved. I think I can reasonably stand on my contention that Mason’s discovery supports both my hypotheses, the seven written gospel accounts and the Evolving Proto-Gospel in which Luke got written before the other two Synoptics.

(Please refer to my Post #155 here for details on where in this thread to find my detailing of each of the seven written eyewitness accounts.)

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 159:

I challenge you to present an OP that argues that there were indeed eyewitnesses to such claims as a risen Jesus, or any of the other miracle claims in the Bible, and how it is, we oughta trust 'em just for the having said it.

Can't do that, Joey, that's not my Thesis. Apparently you havn't read the seven posts I listed in my post #155, because those specific verses in large part exclude the miracles and only one eyewitness necessarily includes among its essence the Resurrection. That there were several eyewitnesses who wrote about Jesus without listing miracles, may increase willingness to consider eyewitnesses who do write about miracles, but you need to start small.

So then, please present arguments, per the OP, that support the notion of the resurrection.

Or, fess up and tell it, that you have little to be considered, beyond the mundane.

So look at those listed posts of mine. See which ones meet your criteria of believability by excluding miracles. See whether some of the others can be set apart from the miracles included. Maybe seven eyewitnesses won't seem reasonable to you, maybe just half that many. That's at least a start towards determining parts of Scripture that are true.

Meh.

"Jesus was a carpenter" is not near an issue for me as, "And him and him, who is himself God himself, well neither the one, two, or the three of the one of 'em there, like how you carry on".

Conclusions?

"Sure there were eyewitnesses to the resurrection, OP!"

"Well then, hop on it!"

"Naw, I'm just here to swear up and down there was eyewitnesses to it, not that it actually happened."

[Korah]

[Replying to post 161 by JoeyKnothead]
We appreciate your humor, Joey,
But don't your think your Post #161 shows a lot of ill will?
What OP are you talking about, and why do you demand I start a new thread to your specifications?

My Thesis of seven written gospel eyewitnesses (by the list I provided in my #155) does include several that stray into the Resurrection chapters. Only one is simple:
#97 has Simon (not Peter) writing about his Walk to Emmaus and more Resurrection appearances: Luke 24:13-53.
I list two for the Gospel of John. The gospels were built around the Passion Narrative which I say in #59 was originally written by John Mark, the disciple known to the high priest. This includes some disjointed verses in John 20 that are partly what he himself saw and partly what Mary Magdalene saw.
Most of the verses in-between I identify in my Post #101 by word styling as by the Apostle John (or his scribe). John was of course an eyewitness, but in his role as editor here some verses were not based on his own eyes on. I show him as writing much of John 21 also, where he was a direct eyewitness.

So if you are so determined to focus on the Resurrection (as much of the rest you dismiss as too mundane), let's start with the above-mentioned three posts on this thread.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 162:

We appreciate your humor, Joey

I 'preciate your knowing I carry on. I can be insulting when I do, but hope y'all know it's about the argument, and not my fellow human being.

But don't your think your Post #161 shows a lot of ill will?

,
I respect my comments may be "ill will-ish", being all me and all. I swear I've got me a point, even if it upsets folks I do.

What OP are you talking about, and why do you demand I start a new thread to your specifications?

I'm tryin' to get at the idea that you declare there's some eyewitnesses to stuff, and just what it is, they eywitnessed. So, in relation to the OP, well there we go.

My Thesis of seven written gospel eyewitnesses (by the list I provided in my #155) does include several that stray into the Resurrection chapters. Only one is simple:

I can dig it. But am flummoxed as to why you wouldn't present this particular argument all its own.

97 has Simon (not Peter) writing about his Walk to Emmaus and more Resurrection appearances: Luke 24:13-53.

I was in the Army. I ain't ever fretted me the idea that some dude walked him somewhere.

I list two for the Gospel of John. The gospels were built around the Passion Narrative which I say in #59 was originally written by John Mark, the disciple known to the high priest. This includes some disjointed verses in John 20 that are partly what he himself saw and partly what Mary Magdalene saw.
Most of the verses in-between I identify in my Post #101 by word styling as by the Apostle John (or his scribe). John was of course an eyewitness, but in his role as editor here some verses were not based on his own eyes on. I show him as writing much of John 21 also, where he was a direct eyewitness.

Frankly, I tire of your argument... "These things here, they indicate that'n there was him an "eyewitness", but don't ask me to confirm the veracity of their reports.

"They was eyewtnesses!"

"To what?"

"Naw, it's just they was."


I declare faulty claims to knowledge that if one asks if you have it, all you can do is declare there were eyewitnesses to events you are utterly incapable of showning to have occurred.


New term?

The "slippery sloppy"

Where declarations of the mundane and unchallenged become claims of the unproven and unprovable.

Example:

"And here it is, these folks witnessed God, who (insert supernatural claim in support of referenced God)."

"But I'm just here to tell what it is they witnessed, not so much they did."

So if you are so determined to focus on the Resurrection (as much of the rest you dismiss as too mundane), let's start with the above-mentioned three posts on this thread.

Meh.

"That'n there, well he really did tell it, what it did he tell!"

"Cool, show he speaks truth."

"Naw, I'm all about him saying what it is, it is he said!"

"And not so much about showing he spoke truth when he did."

[Korah]

[Replying to post 163 by JoeyKnothead]
You aren't interested in the mundane.
You aren't interested in the miraculous.
Does that leave anything you might be interested to discuss?
Yet you asked me to start a new OP just for you?